Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:40:48.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploring generational intelligence as a model for examining the process of intergenerational relationships

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 November 2010

SIMON BIGGS ,
IRJA HAAPALA  and
ARIELA LOWENSTEIN
SIMON BIGGS*
Affiliation:
School of Social and Political Science, University of Melbourne, Australia.
IRJA HAAPALA
Affiliation:
School of Applied Educational Science and Teacher Education, University of Eastern Finland, Finland.
ARIELA LOWENSTEIN
Affiliation:
Center for Research and Study of Aging, Haifa University, Israel.
*
Address for correspondence: Simon Biggs, School of Social and Political Science, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia. E-mail: biggss@unimelb.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to examine an emerging model of intergenerational relationships that takes as its starting point the degree to which it is possible to place oneself in the position of a person of another age, the ‘age-other’. The paper explores an experiential approach that draws on both sociological thinking on ‘generational consciousness’ and a debate in family gerontology on the relationships between conflict, solidarity and ambivalence. The main emphasis is on the processes of generational experience, and a working distinction is made between the informational ‘intelligence’ that is culturally available to social actors and the degree to which it is possible ‘to act intelligently’. The latter itemises the steps that would need to be taken to become critically self-aware of age as a factor in social relations, including the relative ability to recognise one's personal generational distinctiveness, acquiring understanding of the relationship between generations, critical awareness of the value stance being taken toward generational positions, and finally, acting in a manner that is generationally aware. The paper concludes with a consideration of how sustainable generational relations can be encouraged and the implications for future research into intergenerational relationships.

Keywords

identityambivalencesolidaritygenerationageingcritical theorysustainability
Type
Articles
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 31 , Issue 7: Rethinking Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Intergenerational Family Relations Research , October 2011 , pp. 1107 - 1124
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AARP 2009. Statement to the 42nd Session of the United Nations Commission on Population and Development. AARP, Washington DC, 3.Google Scholar
Aboderin, I. 2004. Modernisation and ageing theory revisited: current explanations of recent developing world and historical Western shifts in material family support for older people. Ageing & Society, 24, 1, 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antonucci, T. C., Jackson, J. S. and Biggs, S. 2007. Intergenerational relations: theory, research and policy. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 4, 679–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arber, S. and Attias-Donfut, C. 2000. The Myth of Generational Conflict. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Bauman, Z. 1995. Life in Fragments: Essays in Postmodern Morality. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Bengtson, V. L. and Lowenstein, A. 2003. Global Aging and Challenges to Families. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.Google Scholar
Bengtson, V. L. and Putney, N. M. 2006. Future ‘conflicts’ across generations and cohorts? In Vincent, J., Phillipson, C. and Downs, M. (eds), The Future of Old Age. Sage, London, 20–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bengtson, V. L., Giarrusso, R., Mabry, J. and Silverstein, M. 2002. Solidarity, conflict and ambivalence: complementary or competing perspectives on intergenerational relationships? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 64, 3, 568–76.Google Scholar
Biggs, S. 1999. The Mature Imagination. Open University Press, Buckingham, UK.Google Scholar
Biggs, S. 2005. Beyond appearances: perspectives on identity in later life and some implications for method. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 69B, 3, S118–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biggs, S. 2007. Thinking about generations: conceptual positions and policy implications. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 4, 695–712.Google Scholar
Biggs, S. and Lowenstein, A. Toward generational intelligence: linking cohorts, families and experience. In Silverstein, M. and Giarrusso, R. (eds), From Generation to Generation: Continuity and Change in Aging Families. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, in press.Google Scholar
Biggs, S., Phillipson, C., Money, A.-M. and Leach, R. 2007. The mature imagination and consumption strategies; age and generation in the development of baby boomer identity. International Journal of Ageing and Later Life, 2, 2, 31–59.Google Scholar
Bollas, C. 1992. Being a Character: Psychoanalysis and Self-experience. Free Association Press, London.Google Scholar
Bytheway, B. 2005. Ageism. In Johnson, M. L. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Age and Ageing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 338–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauvel, L. 2007. Social generations, life chances and welfare regime sustainability. In Pepper, D. (ed.), Changing France: The Politics that Markets Make. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 162–79.Google Scholar
Clarke, E. J., Preston, M., Raskin, J. and Bengtson, V. L. 1999. Types of conflicts and tensions between older parents and adult children. The Gerontologist, 39, 3, 261–70.Google Scholar
Connidis, I. A. and McMullin, J. A. 2002. Sociological ambivalence and family ties: a critical perspective. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 64, 3, 558–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dittman-Kohli, F. 2005. Self and identity. In Johnson, M. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Age and Ageing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 275–91.Google Scholar
Dowd, J. J. 1975. Aging as exchange: a preface to theory. Journal of Gerontology, 30, 5, 584–94.Google Scholar
Edmunds, J. and Turner, B. S. 2005. Global generations: social change in the twentieth century. British Journal of Sociology, 56, 4, 559–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Estes, C. L., Biggs, S. and Phillipson, C. 2003. Social Theory, Social Policy and Ageing. Open University Press, Buckingham, UK.Google Scholar
Finch, J. 1995. Responsibilities, obligations and commitments. In Allen, I. and Perkins, E. (eds), The Future of Family Care for Older People. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Giarrusso, R., Silverstein, M., Gans, D. and Bengtson, V. L. 2005. Ageing parents and ageing children: new perspectives on intergenerational relationships. In Johnson, M. L. (ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Age and Ageing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 413–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilleard, C. and Higgs, P. 2005. Contexts of Ageing: Class Cohort and Community. Polity Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Irwin, S. 1998. Age, generation and inequality. British Journal of Sociology, 49, 2, 305–10.Google Scholar
Katz, S. 2000. Busy bodies: activity aging and the management of everyday life. Journal of Aging Studies, 14, 2, 135–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, R., Lowenstein, A., Phillips, J. and Daatland, S. O. 2005. Theorizing intergenerational family relations: solidarity, conflict and ambivalence in cross-national contexts. In Bengtson, V. L., Acock, A. C., Allen, K. R., Dilworth-Anderson, P. and Klein, D. (eds), Sourcebook of Family Theory and Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, 393–402.Google Scholar
Kingston, P. and Penhale, B. 1995. Family Violence and the Caring Professions. Macmillan, London, 51–64.Google Scholar
Kohli, M. 2005. Generational changes and generational equity. In Johnson, M. L. (ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Age and Ageing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 518–26.Google Scholar
Johansson, B., Karlsson, C., Backman, M. and Juusola, P. 2007. The Lisbon Agenda from 2000 to 2010. Paper 106, CESIS Electronic Working Paper Series, Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies, Jönköping University, Sweden. Available online at http://www.infra.kth.se/cesis/documents/WP106.pdf [Accessed 12 April 2010].Google Scholar
Lorenz-Meyer, D. 2001. The Politics of Ambivalence: Towards a Conceptualisation of Structural Ambivalence in Intergenerational Relations. Working Paper New Series 2, Gender Institute, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, 1–24.Google Scholar
Lowenstein, A. 2007. Solidarity-conflict and ambivalence: testing two conceptual frameworks and their impact on quality of life for older family members. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 62B, 2, S100–7.Google Scholar
Lowenstein, A. and Daatland, S. O. 2006. Filial norms and family support in a comparative cross-national context (the OASIS study). Ageing & Society, 26, 1, 1–21.Google Scholar
Lowenstein, A., Katz, R. and Gur-Yaish, N. 2007. Reciprocity in parent–child exchange and life satisfaction among the elderly: a cross-national perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 4, 865–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lüscher, K. 2002. Intergenerational ambivalence; further steps in theory and research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 64, 3, 585–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lüscher, K. and Pillemer, K. 1997. Intergenerational Ambivalence: A New Approach to the Study of Parent–Child Relations in Later Life. Arbeitspapier 28, Sozialwissenschaftliche Fakultat, University of Constance, Switzerland, 1–16.Google Scholar
Mannheim, K. 1952. The problem of generations. In Mannheim, K. (ed.), Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge. Routledge, London, 378–403.Google Scholar
Marshall, V. W., Matthews, S. H. and Rosenthal, C. J. 1993. Elusiveness of family life. Annual Review of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 13, 39–72.Google Scholar
McDaniel, S. A. 2008. The ‘growing legs’ of generation as a policy construct: reviving its family meaning. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 40, 2, 243–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moody, H. R. 2008. Aging America and the boomer wars. The Gerontologist, 48, 6, 839–44.Google Scholar
Morrow-Howell, N., Hinterlong, J. and Sherraden, M. 2001. Productive Aging: Concepts and Challenges. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.Google Scholar
Olazabal, I. 2005. Interview with Francois Ricard: the lyric generation. Vital Aging, 11, 2, 3.Google Scholar
Phillips, L. R. 1986. Theoretical explanations of elder abuse: competing hypotheses and unresolved issues. In Pillemer, K. A. and Wolf, R. S. (eds), Elder Abuse: Conflict in the Family. Auburn House, Dover, Massachusetts, 197–217.Google Scholar
Pilcher, J. 1994. Manheim's sociology of generations: an undervalued legacy. British Journal of Sociology, 45, 3, 481–95.Google Scholar
Pillemer, K. and Suitor, J. J. 2008. Collective ambivalence: considering new approaches to the complexity of intergenerational relations. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 63B, 6, 394–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M. and Bengtson, V. L. 1997. Intergenerational solidarity and the structure of adult–parent relationships. American Journal of Sociology, 103, 2, 429–60.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. 1989. Sources of the Self. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Tornstam, L. 2005. Gerotranscendence. Springer Publishing Company, New York.Google Scholar
Turner, B. S. 1998. Ageing and generational conflicts. British Journal of Sociology, 49, 2, 299–304.Google Scholar
United Nations (UN) 2002. Report of the Second World Assembly on Ageing: Madrid Political Declaration and International Plan of Action 2002. UN, New York.Google Scholar