Healthy aging: “The process of developing and maintaining the functional ability that enables wellbeing in older age” (World Health Organization, 2020).

Coexisting with negative perceptions of the biomedical model of aging as frailty and dependency are perspectives that provide alternative and often more positive models of aging which emphasize individual agency over the aging process. ‘Healthy aging’ as defined above, is the current version of these positive models of aging. Other earlier but similar models include: “productive aging” (Butler, 1969, 1985), which initially developed out of Butler’s response to the prejudice (which he described as age-ism) that he saw directed at older adults over a proposed 1969 public housing complex for low-income seniors in Washington, DC; “successful aging” (Havighurst, 1961; Butler, 1974; Rowe & Kahn, 1987); “active aging” (WHO, 2002); and healthy aging (McPherson, 1995), which is now the model used by the World Health Organization [defined above] (WHO, 2020). Rowe and Kahn’s model of “successful aging” has the three main principles: “low probability of disease and disease-related disability, high cognitive and physical functional capacity, and active engagement with life” (Rowe & Kahn, 1997: 433). Additionally, Laslett (1989) and Young & Schuller (1991) proposed that life following retirement is a unique, cohort driven approach to older age, which they defined as the third age.

“The third age” is a concept popularized by Peter Laslett’s (1989) book, A Fresh Map of Life. Laslett hypothesized that due to a combination of demographic and socioeconomic factors a new and positive stage of life was emerging for older adults after retirement (specifically when the majority of a birth cohort became 70 years of age). Laslett argued that in place of “old age,” the retirement years provided older adults with greater agency, enabling them to make individual choices that would translate into personally fulfilling lives outside the confines of work providing them with a new identity – “a new third age.” Although Laslett built on the model of successful aging, in order to create a concept that provided another positive model of aging it was also embedded in the neoliberal ideology of personal responsibility and choice, which includes the concept of agelessness and anti-aging.

In the 1980s, a variation of the concept of the third age arose – ‘Freedom 55’ – a model that originated as a Canadian ad campaign by London Life Company to encourage people to invest and save money in order to be able to retire at age 55, rather than 65, and to retire well (Swystun, 2018). In Canada, for a time prior to 2008, the Freedom 55 image represented the endless possibilities of a financially secure life of leisure in early retirement, living a carefree life of perfect health and happiness, with the freedom to travel the world and enjoy life, with no worries or responsibilities to hinder that ideal life (Krashinsky, 2012). However, in Canada even before the financial crisis of 2008, in the1990s and early 2000s these dreams of a stress-free and financially secure third age were only available to a select group of people. After the financial crisis of 2008, followed by the 2020 coronavirus pandemic, boomers in contemporary Canadian society (and in much of the Western world) found that they had even fewer options available to them in their third age. Freedom 55 had been reduced to a fantasy for all but a very select few individuals (Krashinsky, 2012). However, with the financial and societal insecurity of the past decade, ‘Freedom 85’ has been making headway as a replacement phrase. The options of early retirement or financial security that existed for some people prior to 2008 in Canada (and the US) are now distant memories for many other individuals, while in the US, a 2011 poll conducted in the US by the Associated Press and LifeGoesStrong.com revealed that:

“Baby Boomers fear retirement and are actively worried about their financial future. 44% of Boomer-aged Americans (born between 1946 and 1965) are not confident they’ll have enough money to live comfortably in retirement, [while] 57% say they lost money during the recession; and 42% of those affected say that’s why they’re delaying their retirement” (ThirdAge.com, 2011).

Based on the concept of “successful aging,” these models of older age attempt to dispel the myth that aging inevitably means decline and lack of function and ability and propose instead that a healthy and active life can be the norm for older adults. It should be noted that Butler’s early definition of productive aging as “avoidance of disease or disease susceptibility, high cognitive capacity, and active engagement with life,” (Butler & Gleason, 1985) is remarkably similar to the three main tenets of Rowe and Kahn’s successful aging model described above. Like Butler, Rowe and Kahn included the importance of activity in the lives of older adults and active engagement with a primary focus on “interpersonal relations and productive activity” (p. 433). They also made a distinction between two groups of “non-diseased” older adults: “usual (non-pathologic but high risk)” and “successful (low risk and high function),” with a goal of stimulating research that would identify the determinants of successful aging and develop interventions that would have the potential to reduce the number of adults in the usual category (p. 433). However, Rowe and Kahn (1998) emphasize that the primary components of successful aging are nevertheless hierarchically arranged with the biomedical aspects taking precedence over social engagement and active participation in life (p. 39). Over time as critiques arose over the definition, Rowe and Kahn came to enhance the model of successful aging and placed more of an emphasis on “active engagement with life” (Holstein & Minkler, 2003). With the biomedicalperspective forming the foundation, the focus of successful aging is on enhancing mental and physical health functioning which results in increasing longevity, while reducing disability and the frailty caused by mental and physical decline (Rowe & Kahn, 1997; Seeman, et al. 1994; Kahana, et al., 2003).

While the concept of successful aging may be grounded in an intention to promote healthy and positive aging, certain problems are embedded in this concept, which have generated debates within the academic community over the last 15-20 years (Angus & Reeve, 2006; Dillway & Byrnes, 2009). First of all, it is important to note that academics such as Bytheway (1995) have argued that even having a category called “old age” generates a situation of ‘otherness’ that ignores the actual continuities that take place over time throughout life.

Debates around the concept of successful aging revolve around: the concept and definition of successful aging; the socioeconomic bias that is embedded in the model of successful aging; and the sociopolitical context in which the concept was developed, which includes American political and biomedical interests and networks. As a result, other scholars argue that the influence of the successful aging model in fact supports a perspective that views aging in a negative light, consequently creating even more fear and anxiety around the normal aging process (Kaufman, et al, 2004). In this way, the model of successful aging has not eliminated the stigma or negative associations of old age, it has merely changed the definition of “old” to an older age category where frailty resides—the fourth age (Higgs & Gilleard, 2014, 2019; Laslett, 1996). As old age categories have been developed and shifted, Chappell (2008) suggests that: “Indeed, one day old might come to be equated with frail” (p. 229).

The fact that academic debates still continue over ‘successful aging’ reflect the continuing influence and persistence of this concept. In addition, the debates around successful aging (and anti-aging) that have taken place in academia have also been reproduced in the dominant media, specifically in text-based sources (e.g. newspaper and magazine articles), television info-news programs, and the Internet (such as the Ted Talks of de Grey’s research on YouTube) (de Grey, 2014b

Scholars have also asked the question: What exactly does it mean to age successfully? What happens if you don’t age successfully, and instead become frail either physically or mentally in old age? Have you then become a “failure” at aging? Or are you a successful ager only up until the time when any kind of physical or mental decline sets in? Bowling (2007) points out in a systematic review of the literature examining the concept of successful aging that definitions vary considerably and with much inconsistency. Her research reveals that although successful aging is in fact made up of a number of components, many models are one-dimensional, focusing only on aspects of the biomedical or psychosocial models. At the same time, Bowling points out that definitions were also vague and often stated implicitly. In addition, “criteria of successful aging [e.g. satisfaction with life, having close social contacts], in some studies have been labelled as predictors of the same concept in others” (Larson, 2002 in Bowling, 2007: 273). She concludes by suggesting that successful aging as a concept needs to expand and become more multidimensional, with greater sensitivity to individual and cultural differences, taking into account the political economy of aging.

As a result, some scholars argue that the influence of the successful aging model in fact supports a perspective that views aging itself in a negative light, consequently creating even more fear and anxiety around the normal aging process (Kaufman, et al, 2004). Where previously ‘old age’ may have been conceptualized as age 60+ or 65+, the model of successful aging and the third age have not eliminated the stigma or negative associations of ‘old age,’ they are merely shifting the old age category into age 80-90+, where physical and mental decline occur more often – the fourth age. Nevertheless, because old age has become even more defined by physical and mental decline, individuals could be considered ‘old’ at 60, if frailty and dependence were present. However, even living to age 90+ does not prevent the pressure to age “successfully” to cease. Other scholars have also raised concerns with the concept of successful aging itself, concerned that successful aging gives the impression that through a careful lifetime regime that encompasses proper diet and exercise, living into the fourth age without serious physical or mental deterioration is an achievable goal in old age (Masoro, 2001; Bowling, 2007; Holstein & Minkler, 2003).

There are also a few writers within the popular press who avoid casting older adults in a stereotypical and homogenous mold and instead take a critical look at old age and the anti-aging industry. In an October 2014 Maclean’s article, Age-old problems: Despite a demographic boom, the elderly are rendered invisible by a society in denial, Anne Kingston, suggests that our society is in denial about the realities of old age. Instead, she argues that we have become obsessed with the belief in anti-aging, fostered by an anti-aging industry that reaps huge profits out of our fear and denial. She points out that those who discuss growing old as increased frailty and decline – the first model of aging – are few and unpopular in the academic community. One such alternative voice is Canadian sociologist, Stephen Katz, who suggests that with a focus on rejecting and resisting old age, we are left unprepared for old age. Interviewed for a Maclean’s article in 2014, Katz pointed out that: “We talk about the ‘Rs’— revitalizing, rejuvenation, rementia. We don’t talk about the ‘Ds’ – decrepitude, dependency, death. Not everybody is healthy or independent or prosperous” (Katz, as cited in Kingston, 2014).