Introduction

‘Several decades of researching on ageing in rural environments have resulted in limited progress towards developing a distinctive rural gerontology’ (Rowles 1988, p.115)

Rowles commented on the limited progress we have made in understanding rural ageing. In the same year, the study of ageing was described as ‘data rich and theory poor’ (Birren and Bengston, 1988). These disciplines have over the proceeding decades come a long way in developing conceptual approaches within their own academic boundaries. However, it can be argued that there has been limited cross-disciplinary theoretical development to understand ageing within rural communities in the UK. This argument is even stronger if we consider social disadvantage within this population.

Against this background, this paper focuses upon two arguments. First that there is a need to bridge critical gerontology and social and cultural geographies in defining a critical rural gerontology and, secondly, that there is a clear rationale for a methodological approach to ground an empirical investigation into a life course perspective of disadvantage amongst older rural residents.

The arguments put forward for a critical rural gerontology are situated within the context of a study entitled ‘Pathways to disadvantage: a study of older rural residents’. This study has the following aims:

• To examine different dimensions of disadvantage faced by older people in rural areas.

• To explore individuals’ life course trajectories, identifying the pathways that lead to different forms of disadvantage in later life.

• To investigate individuals’ attitudes and behaviours in relation to the experience of disadvantage, highlighting impacts of disadvantage on well-being.

• To develop policy recommendations relating to the needs of disadvantaged rural older people.

Background

The issue facing rural ageing populations have long been discussed, especially within the context of population dynamics, service provision and health policy. However, work focusing upon the interaction of ageing, disadvantage and rurality is limited. The following sections discuss two areas that have been highlighted within the literature as requiring further conceptualisation.

• Defining scales of interaction: In 1988, Rowles offered us three alternative concepts to understand the interaction of ageing and rurality;

(i). ‘ageing in rural environments', in which rural is viewed as an ecological context;

(ii). ‘the environment of rural ageing’, in which rural is viewed as a socio-cultural context;

(iii) ‘the rural environment of ageing’, in which rural is viewed from a socio-cultural or phenomenological perspective of those who are growing old.’ (Rowles, 1988, p115)

Rowles (1988, p117) argues ‘that rural as a context for a distinct individual ageing experience becomes a meaningful concept primarily when applied on a micro-ecological scale’ and viewed from a socio-cultural or phenomenological perspective. This contrasts with the dominant approach in academic and policy documents of using rurality as a macro-ecological term. Philo et al (2003), when focusing on rural mental illness and the provision of resources stated that ‘…it is perhaps ironic that the more assertively ‘scientific’ an article or text, the more objectively rigorous it strives to be in terms of applying diagnostic criteria, the less examined, the more commonsensical, is its underlying take on what is rural’ (p266). These authors comment on the continual use by academic and policy writers of standard definitions of rural spaces. Even acclaimed works which address ageing and disadvantage in rural areas (Scharf and Bartlam 2006) struggle to cross this divide, with their definition of rural being the purely positivist definition employed by the UK Government (CRC 2005). These definitions often add little to our understanding of the complexity and variety of rural landscapes. This failure has been recognised in recent publications (Keating, 2008; Keating and Phillips, 2008; Phillipson and Scharf, 2005). There are also many macro processes that influence the lives of older rural residents.

• Individuality and difference: Since Philo (1992) suggested that current academic engagement with the British countryside tended to portray the rural as male, middle-aged, white, heterosexual and Christian, there has been a drive to explore groups that are often seen as outside of these realms. The so-called ‘cultural turn’ within rural geography (see Cloke and Little 2000) attempted to address many of these issues. Although Pain et al (2000) point out that in mainstream human geography these issues are often engaged with but in isolation from the issues of ageing. In fact it has been recognised that within human geography apart from a few exceptions (see for example Harper 1997) there has been scant reference to, ‘not only the social construction of old age, but the relationship between ageing and other social identifiers such as gender, ‘race’, sexuality, ability and class’ (Pain et al, 2000: 377). Similarly, Phillipson and Scharf (2005) suggest that current issues in urban gerontology, including gender, identity and socio-economic differences, which are being addressed through critical gerontology, are not represented in rural gerontology. They call for a re-conceptualisation of rural ageing by drawing upon recent developments in critical gerontology and social geography.

Why a critical approach to rural aging?

A critical rural gerontology that encompasses cross-disciplinary perspectives from both critical gerontology and social and cultural geography offers a number of advantages as follows.

• It challenges myths and stereotypes associated with ageing and rural environments:  

An underlying concept of critical gerontology is to challenge the myths and stereotypes associated with ageing, and challenge power imbalances and marginalisation that can often come out of such misinformed beliefs and understandings (Wenger 2001). Similarly, the myths and stereotypes associated with rural people and rural environments need to be challenged, for example, Fabes, Worsley and Howard (1983) suggested that poorer rural residents often unwittingly conspire in confounding the myth of the rural idyll.

‘the rural idyll conceals poverty. … the poor unwittingly conspire with the more affluent to hide their poverty by denying its existence. Those values which are at the heart of the rural idyll result in the poor tolerating their material deprivation because of the priority given to those symbols of the rural idyll: the family, the work ethic and good health. And when that material deprivation becomes so chronic by the standard of the area that it has to be recognized by the poor themselves, shame forces secrecy and the management of that poverty within the smallest possible framework' (Fabes, Worsley, and Howard, 1983: 11)

They suggest that family and community members are almost ‘educated’ into believing that they are privileged to be part of this community and any hardship that they suffer is probably the own fault. These stereotypes can be challenged by a critical approach.

• It will challenge the construction of the social, political, economic and environmental landscapes: Rowles (1988) suggests that to progress rural gerontology we should investigate the rural environment of the ageing. He suggests this, ‘will allow us to explore the way in which contemporary and future generations of ageing individuals impose a particular vision of rural upon the landscape and in the process create the very rural that is the context of both their own ageing and the ageing experience of those who will follow them’ (Rowles 1988).

Many human geographers see landscapes as representing power controls within society and as instruments of cultural power where people see themselves and their positions within their world through their real and imaginary relationship with place. Peet (1996) suggests that ‘by recreating landscapes,… …images are formed of past and future ‘realities’, patterns of meaning created and changed, and, thereby, control exerted over the everyday behaviour of the people who call these manufactured places their natural historic homes’ (Peet 1996:23). Although these landscapes can be read in many ways, only a few are actively encouraged. These dominant meanings and ideology legitimise and (re)produce the social structures and practises that are favoured by the historically more powerful groups and are reinforced and contested in everyday discourse and practise. It should also be recognised that the meanings associated with landscape are temporal and may result in a shift in the power dynamics over time. However, these power relations and messages will determine how older people are seen and how they can perform within rural areas. It is the construction and perpetuation of these landscapes and power relations that a critical approach can challenge.

• It gives voice to those who are ageing, disenfranchised and difficult to locate: Critical gerontology approaches give voices to those who are ageing, disenfranchised and difficult to locate, and fits easily within post-modern and cultural turns within rural geography, where there is a growing wealth of academic publications in which individuality and difference within rural locations are conceptualised (Cloke and Little 1997). Individuality is also proposed within critical gerontology through life course trajectories.

• Challenges policy and practice: Critical perspectives challenge current policy and practice and the evidence base used in its development. Critical approaches especially those drawing on political economy perspectives can also examine how policy and practice has influenced the process of ageing throughout the life course.

Implications for researching rural ageing

A methodological framework is proposed for researching ‘Pathways to disadvantage: a study of older rural residents’, and is firmly grounded in a critical rural gerontology approach. This framework encompasses four main strands.

• Semi-structured interviews with stakeholders - a gateway to accessing disadvantaged rural older people; imparting valuable knowledge into the way support is structured, formulated and implemented.
• Biographical narrative - enabling the voice of the older person to be heard, highlighting individuality and difference.
• Analysis of archived materials - ground the participants narratives; examine the changing social and economic landscapes.
• Visual ethnography and socio-photographic analysis - ground participants narratives; examine the changing social and environmental landscapes.

Conclusion

This paper argues for the development of a critical rural gerontology and proposes a methodological approach that is firmly situated within the axiological principles of critical gerontology whilst drawing on social and cultural geography perspective. It is suggested that by drawing on these approaches we as researchers may be able to ‘get to know’ ‘the environment of rural ageing’, and ‘the rural environment of ageing’.  

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the support and guidance of my PhD supervisors, Prof. T. Scharf and Dr. B. Bartlam. Also to the ERSC and Defra for their financial support under the Joint Collaborative Award Scheme. I would also like to thank those who gave valuable feedback when a version of this paper was presented at the British Society of Gerontology Emerging Researchers in Ageing Annual Conference, Brunel University 7 th - 8 th May 2008.

References

Birren and Bengston (Ed.) (1988) Emergent Theories of Ageing Springer: New York, NY.

Cloke, P. and Little, J. (eds.) (1997) Contested Countryside Cultures; otherness, marginality and rurality. Routledge, London, pp180-196.

Commission for Rural Communities (2005) The State of the Countryside 2005, Commission for Rural Communities, Cheltenham.

Fabes, R., Worsley, L. and Howard, M. (1983) The Myth of the Rural Idyll, Child Poverty Action Group, Leicester.

Harper, S. (1997). Contesting later life, in Cloke, P. and Little, J. (eds.) Contested Countryside Cultures; otherness, marginality and rurality. Routledge, London, pp180-196.

Keating, N. (2008) Revisiting rural ageing, in N. Keating (Ed.) Rural Ageing: A good place to grow old? Policy Press, Bristol, pp121-130

Keating, N. and Phillips, J. (2008) A critical ecological perspective on rural ageing, in Keating, N. (ed) (2008) Rural Ageing. A good place to grow old? Policy Press, Bristol UK

Pain, R., Mowl, G. and Talbot, C. (2000) Difference and the negotiation of ‘old age’. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. 18, pp377-393.

Peet, R., (1996) A sign taken for history: Daniel Shays’ memorial in Petersham Massachusetts. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 86, 1, pp. 21-41.

Phillipson, C. and Scharf, T. (2005) Rural and urban perspectives on growing older: developing a new research agenda. European Journal of Ageing, 2, 67-75.

Philo, C. (1992) Neglected rural geographies: a review. Journal of Rural Studies, 10, pp. 193-207.

Philo, C., Parr, H. and Burns, N. (2003). Rural Madness: a geographical reading and critique of the rural mental health literature. Journal of Rural Studie,s 19, pp. 259-281.

Rowles, G. (1988) What’s Rural About Rural Ageing? An Appalachian Perspective. Journal of Rural Studies, 4, 2, pp. 115-124.

Scharf, T. and Bartlam, B. (2006)Rural Disadvantage; quality of life and disadvantage amongst older people – a pilot study. Commission for Rural Communities, London.

Wenger, G. C. (2001) Myths and realities of ageing in rural Britain. Ageing and Society, 21, 117-130.