What’s New Is Old: Building Pathways Between the Humanities and Gerontology

The idea for this special issue began with a conversation among the editors about our shared interests in key questions regarding the meaning and diversity of age, the care and inclusion of older people, and the limits and opportunities for aging well in our current culture. Such questions call for innovative approaches that cross boundaries, especially those that continue to divide theoretically the sciences from nonsciences, fiction from nonfiction, and the subjective from the objective, and methodologically separate quantitative from qualitative analyses, factual from interpretive accounts, and disciplinary from marginal fields. In aging research such divisions have, for the most part, settled into a tension between gerontology and the humanities, even within hybridized areas such as literary gerontology, health humanities, or gerontological humanities. Our purpose in this special issue of The Gerontologist, therefore, is to pause and reflect on this tension and consider how, in fact, the humanities and gerontology do cross pathways both in scholarly and creative ways that shape each other’s horizons of understanding. We are interested in the concepts that travel across these horizons, the vocabularies that express them, the genres that characterize them, and the visions that manifest them. Thus, we have invited researchers to contribute work that, in addition to the high quality of their studies, advances the ongoing interdisciplinary dialogue and critical traffic passing between gerontology and the humanities, and animates the vital spaces that fold together the inside and outside of the aging experience itself. Humanities–gerontology pathways are configured by several features, beginning with a historical one. Although the work presented here is in some ways new, because of the attention it brings to the orientation of this special issue, it also harkens back to gerontology’s deep historical roots. As historians of aging have shown, aging has been a central concern of philosophical, spiritual, artistic, medical, and political debates and doctrines for centuries. These, in turn, also made their way into the early foundations of gerontology (and geriatrics) in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Achenbaum, 1995, 1996; Cole, 1992; Cole et al., 2000; Katz, 1996; Thane, 2005; Troyansky, 2015). Although scholars of aging in the humanities adapt gerontological insights, ideas, data, and anti-ageist critiques in their work, gerontological researchers borrow from the humanities its theories, methods, futuristic speculations, and imaginative poetics. Early examples of intersecting literary and scientific textuality include Elie Metchnikoff’s optimistic discussion of Goethe and William Osler’s famous “Fixed Period” (Trollope) speech (Katz, 2014, 18; see Charise, 2020). Thus, the humanities created a rich historical resource and archive of ideas, authors, poetics, metaphors, narratives, and images around aging that lent gerontology some of its constitutive literary tools and textual development. Newly heightened interest in interdisciplinary humanities–gerontology research is a second feature that configures humanities–gerontology pathways. This development becomes evident in a range of new and emerging vibrant scholarly networks and respected publication venues, often under the banner of age/ing studies. Several of the authors in this special issue, including the editors, are members of recently formed collaborative groups, such as the North American Network in Aging Studies, The European Network in Aging Studies, the Critical Dementia Network, and the Socio-Gerontechnology Network. Many of us have also contributed to a growing scholarship that encompasses the Handbook of Humanities and Aging (second edition) and A Guide to Humanistic Studies in Aging: What Does It Mean to Grow Old?, both edited by Cole et al. (2000, 2010), as well as the essay collection Critical Humanities and Ageing: Forging Interdisciplinary Dialogues, edited by Goldman et al. (2022), the journal Age, Culture, Humanities, and the International Journal of Ageing and Later Life. Emerging scholars and graduate students, especially, are finding and creating new age studies panels, special issues, and other fora, where their research on meaning, care, ageism, activism, narration, spirituality, media, and aesthetics are welcomed, along with significant critiques of age-based intersectional disadvantage, inequality, disability, colonialism, and exclusion. In these collaborative movements, it becomes possible that the texts, stories, arts, places, and lives around aging that have been routinely unacknowledged or abandoned can be restored and celebrated for their illumination of what the aging field can and should be. There is a wealth of possibility and accomplishment from those following these pathways and who migrate across the humanities–gerontology interdisciplinary horizon to enhance their work. However, they also come up against the institutional issue of gerontology as a siloed, scientific, and medical enterprise, bounded by disciplinary constraints related to funding agencies, educational programs, professional authorities, care organizations, strategic research priorities, corporate sponsorships, and the capitalization of health in a neoliberal era. Here the humanities become reduced either to archaic or “elite” scholarly habits or as an auxiliary to the sciences, to be borrowed from, adapted, and even distorted as needed. The reality that the humanities is an equally powerful and rigorous theoretical, methodological, and practical sphere with a complex history of its own seems difficult to accept within this gerontological likening of it to a nonrigorous, nonscience. This tense relationship also means that academic rituals of acceptance and rejection, and inclusion and exclusion, associated with gerontological research, graduate programs, conferences, and professional careers can pose barriers to humanities scholars who study aging from within the humanities. At the same time, there are also advocates of humanities traditions who, while borrowing from gerontology its key ideas, such as successful aging and antiageist advocacy, also tend to create a buffer zone between themselves and gerontology, in fear of losing their identity to the gerontological enterprise, stereotyping it as predatory. Gatekeeping goes both ways. Therefore, with this special issue, we engage in rethinking the productive partnership between the humanities and gerontology. The articles collected here focus on how and why we do what we do as gerontologists and humanities scholars and raise questions such as: how do we use the arts? What do we do with literature on aging? Is it meaningful to understand age? How do we use discourse as an idea? And, more generally, the articles sketch out the elements of this evolving partnership that continually builds and rebuilds pathways between gerontology and the humanities. To introduce the issue’s articles, we find critical strength in using the groupings that follow, which also highlight where the contributors are forging their own humanities–gerontology pathways. When thinking about the relationship between the humanities and gerontology, it is important to consider how methodologies are bridge-building practices. Renowned historian W. Andrew Achenbaum (2023) urges us to “move ahead by connecting backwards” as we look at how earlier researchers and writers informed and drew upon interdisciplinary dialogue. The contributions of historical figures like Elie Metchnikoff, G. Stanley Hall, Robert N. Butler, and Gene D. Cohen, Achenbaum argues, advance gerontology by adding humanistic perspectives. By following their example, collaboration between scholars, practitioners in humanities and arts, bio-medico-psycho-social scientists, and clinicians has the potential to reveal insights about aging and shape the future of the Gerontological Society of America. Merging the sciences and arts to understand aging more comprehensively, Neves et al. (2023) propose a bridge-building approach to humanities and gerontology that expands both of their horizons. They outline four methodological propositions for an exciting “live gerontology” that can help frame this cross-fertilization. Collaborations with a writer and illustrator demonstrate this approach, conveying experiences of loneliness in Australian care facilities and leading to new and empowering questions and creative ways of producing knowledge. Breheny et al. (2023) employ critical discourse analysis on New Zealand news articles (2018–2021) concerning sleep and aging, revealing contradictory media portrayals of aging-related sleep decline as both inevitable and manageable. The findings reflect two prevailing health identities for older individuals: those striving to defy aging’s impact on sleep and those embracing its natural decline, revealing complex societal expectations. The authors argue that nuanced messaging is essential to recognize the intricate connection between sleep, aging, and health. How literature can create a vision of what is possible about aging is the theme of six of the contributions. Watkins et al. (2023) present an interdisciplinary intervention within cultural gerontological theories of adaptation. Challenging conventional gerontological views of adaptation as an adjustment to age-induced losses, this study reimagines aging as transformational, providing a creative perspective on collaborative adaptation, women, and intergenerational feminism. Interviews with the producer and scriptwriter of the Representage theater group’s play My Turn Now, adapted from a 1993 book written by older women, inform the analysis. In their article, Carney et al. (2023) report on their empirical reader response study on dementia fiction using methods from critical gerontology and literary linguistics. Engaging with various groups, such as social workers, caregivers, and people with dementia, the authors discover how caregivers questioned the realism of the fictional dementia stories, whereas readers with dementia found the characters relatable to their own challenges. The significance of this research is both to highlight variations in dementia experiences between caregivers and persons living with dementia, and to indicate how using dementia fiction promotes a disability-based rights perspective. Findings from reading groups that engaged with fictional texts are also central to the article by French et al. (2023), who advocate for a more nuanced understanding of “intergenerational relationships.” Using Jan Baars’ concept of “lived ambivalence,” the authors explore how fiction enriches discussions on interactions across generations. By analyzing novels about older age and intergenerational ties, they point to fiction’s multifaceted perspective, reflecting complexities and contradictions in relationships across age groups. Suzanne Bailey’s (2023) article uses a literary lens to uncover an overlooked moment in medical history that foreshadows modern health investigations. The article reveals a new perspective on the relationship between historical ideas about aging and old age and the emergence of gerontology and the modern humanities. Through a Foucauldian analysis of the Life History Album (1884) and its connection to G. M. Humphry’s Old Age (1889), the study uncovers early concepts of geriatrics and patient involvement. Dr. Frederick Akbar Mahomed’s pioneering hypertension research is highlighted, showcasing the text’s historical significance. The Life History Album prefigures today’s active patient role in health management, whereas Humphry’s work emphasizes humanistic aspects and contentment in aging. Anita Wohlmann’s (2023) article uses narrative medicine in medical education to tackle health care ageism and stereotypes. Wohlmann conducted a survey to illustrate heightened ageism awareness in medical students at the University of Southern Denmark. Her intervention integrates gerontological research and literary texts through close reading and reflective writing. In the context of a growing focus on healthy aging and the persistent silences around dementia and disabilities, Holland-Batt and Miller (2023) explore the transformative power of two forms of poetry—research poetry and lyric poetry—to address these silences. These poetic approaches can represent a wide range of aging experiences, both positive and distressing, while challenging negative stereotypes of aging. Uncommon in gerontological research, research poetry employs the direct words of older individuals, whereas lyric poetry employs literary techniques to evoke sensory experiences of aging and care. The article presents two poems that highlight the distinctiveness of these approaches. A key strength of methodological bridges and literary visions is their exploration of voices and subjective experiences that have been socially and intellectually marginalized. Campbell et al. (2023) examine the reciprocal learning between gerontology and humanities, focusing on age-based intersectional disadvantage, inequality, colonialism, and exclusion. The Uncertain Futures Project in Manchester, UK, addresses intersectional inequalities faced by women over 50 in the workforce, challenging power structures by bringing marginalized voices to the fore. This approach integrates performance art, community activism, and participatory gerontological research, raising questions about the sustainability of the project’s impact. The study outlines the project’s development, interdisciplinary challenges, and potential long-term influence beyond its current scope, with the authors reflecting on its lasting legacy. Klostermann’s (2023) article explores care politics in an aging society by investigating the decision-making process of nursing home residents in responding to continuous care needs. Drawing on her ethnographic research in Canadian long-term care homes, the article underscores residents’ critical and creative understanding of care beyond the immediate nursing home context, emphasizing the need for expanded cultural narratives that encompass diverse care needs and shared responsibilities amidst resource constraints and prevailing care narratives. Most importantly, Klostermann employs approaches from the arts, humanities, and interpretive sociology and widens her scholarly vision to broader sociocultural and political contexts. Whitfield et al. (2023) employ visual ethnography to investigate experiences of memory loss in older adults, who undergo a cognitive well-being intervention. Participants shared photos depicting daily life, memory concerns, and the intervention event itself. Photo-elicitation interviews and artist collaborations were used to create an exhibition. The article is based on an analysis that highlights the participants’ artistic themes related to nature’s significance, family relationships, self-identity amid aging and memory issues, and their connections to broader discourses. The study underscores the power of visual research in discovering meaningful insights from older adults experiencing cognitive changes, bridging the arts and social sciences within aging studies, and promoting a comprehensive understanding of memory loss. Taken together, the articles point to interdisciplinary paths that have led and continue to lead to new ways and genres of understanding, representing, expressing, analyzing, challenging, and imagining the meanings of aging and old age. The scholarship, taken together, represented in this special issue suggests that for both the humanities and gerontology to focus on the common issues and questions salient to aging research today, siloed approaches and traditions need to be set aside. We hope it is evident that the articles in this collection address our initial purposes to explore the meaning and diversity of age, the care and inclusion of older people, and the limits and opportunities for aging well in our current culture. To do so, we are inspired to pursue an openness to new and experimental ways of thinking and understanding forged along pathways between the humanities and gerontology. Our central critical shift here is to emphasize an awareness of what the humanities can mean to gerontology and the difference it has made and continues to make to gerontological inquiry. For the future, we see a great promise of overlapping humanities–gerontology pathways that invite their various subfields and networks to collide and intersect with each other: the humanities inside gerontology and gerontology inside the humanities. We also pose some final questions to our colleagues who work with us along these pathways: what would it be like if humanities scholars had more confidence in their place within gerontology and feared less their marginalization and exclusion? What would it be like if gerontological scholarship included humanities education and training, as part of its disciplinary legacy? And what kinds of pathways might we look forward to that continue to merge and celebrate true collaboration between the sciences, social sciences, and humanities that enhance, rather than disregard, their special contributions and historical depth? We are grateful to The Gerontologist for allowing us the opportunity to gather together leading researchers to build the pathways between the humanities and gerontology we seek. We think this special collection itself is a good example of what can be accomplished when gerontologists and humanities scholars engage and dialogue together. For these reasons and more, we thank our contributing authors, and those whose work they build on, for advancing our goals. The authors are funded by the Social Science and Research Council of Canada, grant number P. G. 895-2021-1020, Principal Investigator Kim Sawchuk. For more information, see www.agingindata.ca None.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.