Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-dk7s8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T12:59:57.627Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who Theorises Age?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2008

Jaber F. Gubrium  and
J. Brandon Wallace
Jaber F. Gubrium
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, USA.
J. Brandon Wallace
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The question ‘Who theorises age?’ is meant to draw attention to the everyday theorising about age and ageing engaged by ordinary men and women, which, it is argued, has striking parallels with the theoretical products of professional peers. Following a discussion of some phenomenological features of conventional theorising in the field of ageing, the process of ordinary theorising is illustrated from observational and narrative data gathered in a variety of human service institutions, home settings and small groups. Implications of the parallels for understanding the relation between ‘theory’ and ‘data’ are addressed and a programme suggested for linking ageing, gerontology, and the humanities.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , June 1990 , pp. 131 - 149
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Atchley, R. 1971. Social Forces in Later Life. Wadsworth Publishing Co., Belmont, CA.Google Scholar
Buckholdt, D. R. and Gubrium, J. F. 1979. Caretakers. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.Google Scholar
Cowgill, D. O. & Holmes, L. D. (eds) 1972. Ageing and Modernization. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.Google Scholar
Cumming, E. and Henry, W. E. 1961. Growing Old. Basic, New York.Google Scholar
Cumming, E. 1963. Further thoughts on the theory of disengagement. International Social Science Journal, 15, 377–393.Google Scholar
Dowd, J. J. 1975. Aging as exchange: a preface to theory. Journal of Gerontology, 30, 584–594.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Durkheim, E. 1938. The Rules of Sociological Method. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
Gubrium, J. F. 1973. The Myth of the Golden Years. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.Google Scholar
Gubrium, J. F. 1975. Living and Dying at Murray Manor. St Martin's, New York.Google Scholar
Gubrium, J. F. 1980a. Patient exclusion in geriatric staffings. Sociological Quarterly, 21, 335–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gubrium, J. F. 1980b. Doing care plans in patient conferences. Social Science and Medicine, 14 A, 659–667.Google Scholar
Gubrium, J. F. 1986a. Oldtimers and Alzheimer's: The Descriptive Organization of Senility. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.Google Scholar
Gubrium, J. F. 1986b. The social preservation of mind: the Alzheimer's disease experience. Symbolic Interaction, 6, 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gubrium, J. F. 1987. Structuring and destructuring the course of illness: the Alzheimer's disease experience. Sociology of Health and Illness, 3, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gubrium, J. F. 1988. Incommunicables and poetic documentation in the Alzheimer's disease experience. Semiotica, 72, 235–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gubrium, J. F. 1990. The Mosaic of Care: Frail Elderly and their Families in the Real World. Harper & Row, New York.Google Scholar
Gubrium, J. F. and Lynott, R. J. 1987. Measurement and the interpretation of burden in the Alzheimer's disease experience. Journal of Aging Studies, 1, 265–285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gubrium, J. F. and Silverman, D. (eds) 1989. The Politics of Field Research: Sociology Beyond Enlightenment. Sage, London.Google Scholar
Kübier-Ross, E. 1969. On Death and Dying. Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
Maddox, G. L. 1964. Disengagement theory: a critical evaluation. The Gerontologist, 4, 80–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maddox, G. L. 1965. Fact and artefact: evidence bearing on disengagement theory from the Duke Geriatric Project. Human Development, 8, 117–130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marshall, V. W. 1980. No exit: a symbolic interactionist perspective on aging. In Hendricks, J. (ed), Being and Becoming Old, Baywood Publishing Co., Farmingdale, NY.Google Scholar
Olson, L. K. 1982. The Political Economy of Aging. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Pollner, M. 1987. Mundane Reason. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Riley, M. W. 1971. Social gerontology and the age stratification of society. The Gerontologist, 11, 79–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riley, M. W., Johnson, M. and Foner, A. 1972. Aging and Society: A Sociology of Age Stratification, vol. 3. Russell Sage Foundation, New York.Google Scholar
Rose, A. M. 1964. A current theoretical issue in social gerontology. The Gerontologist, 4, 46–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schutz, A. 1970. On Phenomenology and Social Relations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Silverman, D. 1985. Qualitative Methodology and Sociology. Gower, Aldershot, England.Google Scholar