As the ‘aging and society’ paradigm examines structure in its own
right, it should have an immediate appeal to sociologists. On the one
hand it can be seen as a schematic for gerontology or research on
human development and, on the other, as a theory or paradigm in its
own right. I see the various parts and phases of the paradigm as a
learning process, where stopping somewhere half-way is risky: one has
to go the whole hog before really prospering from its logic.
To focus on individuals and social change together requires analyses
that, in the words of Hardy and Waite (1997), can assess the nature
and temporal patterns of individual behaviour, while simultaneously
attending to the manner in which this behaviour is enclosed in different
organisational structures that are themselves changing, whether
synchronically or asynchronically.
The Rileys have always reminded us of the dangers of neglecting
structure, or of treating it as a mere contextual characteristic in
people's lives, particularly in the form of life course reductionism. In
addition, however, the temporal aspects of structures are important.
There is a risk in using solely the various social situations of different
cohorts as the basis of analysis. Mere comparison with an older cohort
causes the ‘surrounding structure’ to appear too static. The explanation
or understanding of a phenomenon consequently stops half-way. We
must also remember that the cohort concept, as well as chronological
age, serves as a proxy measure for attitudes and behaviours that
actually carry the effect and provide theoretically meaningful
interpretation.