The age old question
[We] contain multitudes…Walt Whitman
And just what is that “age-old question?” I’ve tried to avoid acknowledging it, but the blither surrounding the current president’s upcoming presidential run is begging it: What is the meaning/import/significance of “old age?”
In spite of increasing evidence that many people who are reaching serious “old age” (80+) seem to be doing so with much of their physical, and possibly all of their mental, abilities intact — handling tough jobs like running companies, countries and careers of all kinds with aplomb — there is this whine emanating from many quarters that disparages age on principle, in spite of the enviable track records of all manner of senior citizens.
This hemorrhage of national ageism begs another question: Why are science and medicine being encouraged to increase “life expectancy” when, according to some of the pundits and palaverers, nothing can be expected from those achieving it? Unless, as is so often the case, there are those in certain areas of society which see big profits from having a glut of useless, really old, codgers and crones hanging around and otherwise taking up space, time and money, not to mention, oxygen, because there’s no cash cow like an old, cash cow.
Perhaps they need our deepest gratitude. I suspect that if it weren’t for the fact that we Boomers still represent — however temporarily — a huge and profitable demographic, they’d have probably started stacking us like cord wood outside the back door. Sound harsh? Well, happily some corporations are all heart.
For instance, the canny cupids at ABC, equally in love with both love and profits, premiered their newest show in the Bachelor franchise, The Golden Bachelor, to a record-busting viewing audience on Sept. 28. It’s a show wherein, according to the usatoday.com website, “a 72-year-old widower, Gerry Turner…seeks another chance at love from among a group of age-appropriate women. Like the rest of the Bachelor franchise, the show comes from Warner Bros.” Unscripted Television in association with Warner Horizon. Romance meets ratings.
Aside from being fodder for profits, however, the idea that “we” might actually be useful, valuable, talented contributing individuals in our own right, doesn’t seem to have occurred to “them.”
“Old” is the new four-letter word, often followed, however tacitly, by “in-words” like ”infirm” and “incompetent” — based more on assumptions about age than by the evidence to the contrary being provided by increasing numbers of aging individuals.
In its Sept. 10, 2023 editorial opinion entitled, An Aging America Needs An Honest Conversation About Growing Old, the New York Times writes, “There are many pieces to this puzzle, including who will care for older people, where they will live, how our cities are designed and how businesses will adapt. Many older people in the United States say they feel invisible in a country that has long been obsessed with youth, avoiding the inevitability — and possibilities — of old age. Americans of every generation owe it to themselves and their families to begin asking the question: Is this a challenge we want to handle on our own? Or is it something that we as a society should confront together?”
And those are good, relevant questions to ask. But if we’re to have meaningful conversations about “old age,” whether privately or publicly, we need to start where we always should start but rarely do when it comes to any issue in American society — being willing to see the individuals involved.
Our society is addicted to “labeling”— lumping people together in large, anonymous groups that may serve statistics but not the species. It’s our duty as that species to survive, which means to live, which means to grow — physically, mentally, emotionally and/or spiritually. At what age does that growth end? And could such a designation ever be anything but arbitrary? Like Whitman, each one of us “contains multitudes”— with potential for growth that exists on countless levels, realized or not, until our last breath.
And speaking of “multitudes” and a man who contained many of them, if you’re looking for an “everything old is new again,” “back-to-the-future” experience, you can find it at the Southampton Arts Center October 21-22 by being part of the “radio audience” for Michael Benton Disher’s recreation of Orson Welles’s iconic radio broadcast, War of the Worlds*, that sent half of America into a panic and managed to presage the tyranny of technology we face today by more than eight decades.
Martian invasions are scary, but nothing compared to our apparently chronic human penchant for gullibility. As Welles is quoted as saying, “…in our way, our broadcast was an assault on the credibility of [any] machine; we wanted people to understand that they shouldn’t take any opinion pre-digested…shouldn’t swallow everything that came through the tap, radio or TV.” For tickets and information, call 631-283-0967.
*Note: Islanders Jenifer Maxson and Susan Cincotta are featured in the cast.
