I was watching a news program recently, listening to a discussion about a prominent older person* in Washington, DC, and it shocked me, but not for the usual reasons.
I grabbed the remote, hit the pause button, and backed it up.
The statements by the journalists were shocking because they were so clearly ageist, and worse, they were said with such nonchalance and certainty.
*BTW, I wrote this post before Charlottesville happened. As a result, I’ve deleted the name of the older person in question.
Peter Baker, 50
Peter Baker, NYTimes, said, “At 71, Mr. (prominent defender of Nazis) seems unlikely to discard a lifetime of operating habits and learn to stick to a plan and temper his self-destructive instincts.”
Katy Tur, 33
Katy Tur, broadcast journalist for NBC news, said, “Getting Mr. (prominent defender of Nazis), a 71-year-old man, to stop doing what he does every day is going to be difficult.”
Eugene Robinson, 63
Eugene Robinson, Pulitzer prize winning journalist and associate editor of the Washington Post: “I’m of the school that Mr. (prominent defender of Nazis), 71 years old, used to working this way all his professional life, is probably not going to change a lot.”
I know, you’re thinking: consider the person. But these people aren’t saying he won’t change because so far he hasn’t. They’re saying he won’t change because he’s 71.
Why is everybody so sure that 71-year-olds don’t change?
While being frozen in intellectual amber may be true of one 71-year-old man, that doesn’t make it true about anybody else his age. To judge people based on age is ageist, yet these bright, committed, caring people blather on about age-based intellectual limitations as if it’s a known fact.
Here’s what I’d like to ask Peter, Katy, and Eugene: Don’t you realize you’re being ageist?
People change all throughout their lives. Sure, we develop routines and stick with them, but the blunt certainty with which we openly and freely stamp 71-year-olds as UNABLE TO CHANGE isn’t only insulting, it’s damaging.
This dangerous belief is one reason employers don’t hire older people.
How can we decry age discrimination in the workplace if we say things like this? Or consider the ethics of such pronouncements. We wouldn’t say “women don’t change,” or “gay people don’t change,” or “(ethnic) people don’t change.”
From what I’ve seen, Mr. (prominent defender of Nazis) is one 71-year-old who will never change, but that doesn’t mean the rest of us are burdened with the same moral and intellectual lethargy.
David Brooks
I stole the title for this post from an article of the same name, by journalist and ethicist David Brooks. He says in middle age, people go through a sort of moral puberty, where they start all over again in a new form of their adult selves.
I love that. It speaks to the possibility of change in older age, doesn’t it?
The last sentence of his article says, “people change all along the way.” I’d sure like to think I’ll be capable of change until my last breath!
This idea of change and growth, moving past your own stumbling blocks and becoming a more adept adult, is a force that propels humans all through their lives. It doesn’t stop at – BING! – the chime of the midlife bell. Neither does curiosity, ambition, greed, lust, altruism, the quest for self-improvement, love, creativity, and dozens of other human motivations. Motivation is what jump-starts change.
We’re human unto death. It’s dumb to say we lose our human characteristics — our humanity — as we age. Next time you hear somebody proclaim that, set them straight. We’ll all benefit from leaving such ignorance behind.
You can read David Brooks’ essay here.
Please do keep squawking, Lynne! We need your voice! As for us older folks being incapable of change…I think it can be just the opposite, that younger folks often tend to hold on to entrenched beliefs, convinced of their “rightness” out of naiveté and/or lack of experience. We older folks (if we’re lucky) learn about shades of gray, seeing things from someone else’s perspective, and aren’t as invested so much in who’s right but in what’s right. At least I like to think so!
Hi, Lynne. Thank you for mentioning my blog in your notification about this post. I’m delighted that you’ve enjoyed my photos, maps, and narrative.
Walking and hiking with the group from the Auburn Senior Activity Center has definitely changed me. The friends I’ve made are interesting and active, they come from varied backgrounds, and they all bring different viewpoints and personalities to the group. We have lively discussions on the bus that takes us to the trails, and the talking doesn’t stop while we’re walking. I’ve received countless book recommendations, heard about travels that I’d enjoy, listened to stories about children and grandchildren, and shared a lot of laughs and sorrows. I’ve gained a greater appreciation for our country’s wild places too. The hikers range in age from mid-60s to mid-80s, and all of them are open to new adventures and change. We change our “operating habits” every time we get together!
Well that is the cherry on top, Sandy! I live vicariously through your experiences in Washington. This just adds to it. Who among us doesn’t dream of having a bunch of friends we can walk around in beauty with!
Absolutely right, Lynne. No one is too old to learn or change their beliefs. I’m not disagreeing with you, but I’d like to add this: One of the benefits of hiring older people is that they should already be past the narcissism, narrow-mindedness, and bigoted beliefs perpetrated by Mr. 71-year-old. If they’re not, don’t hire them, and don’t elect them to the highest office in the land. The shame here is that some significant portion of the country voted for this 71-year-old, even though he had displayed and expressed misogyny, racism, bigotry, xenophobia, and all other manner of poor character. He was never qualified for this position, and shame on the party that nominated him.
Hey, I just thought of a possible silver lining! Remember how people who voted for him (and some who didn’t) said, well, maybe now that he’s president, he’ll become more presidential. They were hopeful, not ageist. Of course, that didn’t happen–could be argued it went the other direction–but at least a sizable slice of America thought he maybe COULD change.
Grasping at rainbows and moonbeams here.
I wouldn’t go so far as to excuse the reporters for their ageist comments. Comments like theirs occur so frequently in the media that we can’t possibly respond to them all. They begin to wash over us, and develop a life of their own. Therein lies the danger! So I’m so glad you spoke up, Lynne!
Thanks, Diane. Sometimes I feel like I’m being redundant, but as long as it keeps happening, I’ll keep squawking.
Regarding change in mid- to later-life. I feel that one can change if they have the intent to change, embrace change, and actively pursue change. It doesn’t matter the age. Growth and change only occur because you want to, likewise learning new things keeps your mind active. I am 64 years young, and just earned my ham radio license after learning all about electronics and antennas!
Ginger, congrats! Although you’re not 64 years young, you’re 64 years awesome!
Hi Lynne! Oh I like this post because I think it points out one of the most important things we can do as we age in a well and positive way. And that is to stay flexible, adaptable and keep learning as we go. I believe this is so very important. The minute anyone stops growing, learning and trying new things they become stagnant …and ANYTHING that is stagnant too long just fades away (know what I mean!) And as to the response and comments by the newscasters, I’m guessing that they just spout out common thoughts without really considering their implications–and as you, and I and more and more other people point that out as being problematic, the change will happen. Keep up the good work. ~Kathy
“they just spout out common thoughts.” Exactly, Kathy. We need to keep herding them in a different direction so they don’t spout so mindlessly anymore. You know, I think the reason people of any age stop being adaptable and flexible is because it’s a little more scary to be that way. A little more secure to be rigid and inflexible. But that security is false…like refusing to learn the internet because you’re afraid of it, but look what you miss out on. So change is frightening, but the minute we run from it, hide from it, and give in to our fears, we lose out!
…”frozen in intellectual amber”…I love it!
I work as a Tour Director with people in their 60’s, 70’s, 80’s and 90’s. They are curious, interested (and interesting), social, either self-educated (readers) or formally educated AND well traveled.
Very few are “frozen.”
One of my favorite quotes is attributed to Charlie “Tremendous” Jones:
“You will be the same person in five years as you are today except for the people you meet and the books you read.”
Sue, you would be in a perfect position to validate that as people get older and have health and leisure time, they feel free to pursue their interests, and to satisfy their curiosity. It’s too bad younger people don’t have more time. I don’t think those reporters meant it the way it sounded, but my goal is to get people to become aware of what they are reinforcing without even thinking about it! Thanks for visiting.