Communication

 

This is written in response to V.K. Srivastava’s article titled ‘Ageism’ published in Seminar (488), April 2000. It is difficult to believe that this is a piece by a trained social anthropologist. Not only does it ignore social facts, it attempts to pass off uncritical ideology as social fact. Whether in explaining the reasons for fertility decline or the fate of the old in the future, the article lacks objectivity and sensitivity to detail, both of which one would expect in a sociologically informed piece, even one addressed to a more general audience.

Take Srivastava’s reasons for the decline in birth rates. Among other reasons such as the emergence of alternatives to ‘traditional family and marriage bonds’, the author argues that ‘it is observed that many married professional women prefer to remain childless; pregnancy and childrearing is often interpreted by them as an onerous burden that thwarts upward career and professional mobility.’ This is meant to be a universal, ‘observed’ statement, but clearly is too generalised to be useful. One would think that for many countries, and certainly for India, Srivastava would have something to say about the lack of support systems available for women, which often prevents them from thinking about the birth of children – the absence of domestic help, familial or institutional (including workplace) structures of support, increased work pressures, increased social and geographical mobility and the slow pace of change in inter-spouse sharing of domestic responsibilities. All or some of these may combine to deter a woman from thinking about having children. We have only Srivastava’s ‘observation’ (who are these people he observed) and no critical analysis.

Again, Srivastava’s recurring statement about the family being the most important institution for initiating a revolution to combat ageism seems to be more of an ideological statement, given that it flies in the face of the fact that it is families which are at the root of the problem of the neglect and abuse of the aged. This is not, however, the only or perhaps even the main problem. Demographic realities (fewer children or none), the realities of national and international migration for employment, the lack of available systems of support – day care or home care for the sick and aged, domestic assistance and the like – all militate against leaving the care of the aged entirely to the ‘family’. The family structure has changed: it is often very difficult for children (and what if there are none) to offer sustained, daily care to their aged parents, particularly when they are sick or immobile. In a family with one migrant son or daughter, who will be the person to offer such care? It is not always possible. We have to understand the ways in which our families are changing and take this into account in thinking about imaginative solutions to the problem of the care of the aged. Simply reiterating that the ‘family’ is the solution will not do. The particular familial structures being talked of have to be specified and these are not the same as they were

even a few decades back at almost every level of society.

Given this, we cannot outright reject the idea of homes or institutions for the aged mediating between the family and the state. It is not necessary that such homes should be cut-off from the family or that the aged should be neglected within them. Certainly, we cannot base our understanding of a humane solution entirely and unthinkingly on what our respondents say. Srivastava concludes his piece by saying that a move to homes for the aged announces to the world that ‘an inmate has produced unfilial children. No older person would like to make his children a butt of ridicule. I learnt this from my conversations with the old people in south Delhi and rural Rajasthan.’ Homes might ensure the aged, particularly the sick, care that a working son or daughter simply cannot give them. Our respondents can say anything: that it is good for a woman to be under the patriarchal control of the joint family; that female children are a drain on family resources; that the remarriage of widows is a stain on family honour. We can understand the reasons and contexts for their responses. We cannot uncritically offer them as a base for neglecting to consider alternative possibilities.

Rowena Robinson

Assistant Professor, Sociology

IIT Powai, Mumbai

 

Vinay K. Srivastava replies:

 

My critic’s communication bristles with belligerence, casting doubt on my training and credibility as a social anthropologist. That my article on ageism lacks ‘objectivity’ and ‘sensitivity’ (which is quintessentially subjective) is illustrated with two ideas, picked up rather randomly, viz., my explanation of declining birth rate, and the role of the family (and household) in extending care to the aged.

Let me take up the first cavil, on declining natality rates among urban middle and upper classes. As my article was not on the demography of old people, or population structure in general, I did not delve into the sociology of birth and death statistics. The point I endeavoured to make was that professional women in the West, as also in our metropolises, nurture an attitude towards pregnancy, accouchement and childrearing that is contrapuntal to patriarchal ideology, according to which the completeness of a woman is incumbent upon her becoming a mother, that too of a male child. Many female professionals consciously choose to remain childless, or have just one child notwithstanding its sex. One-child families are gradually becoming popular.

At no place did I imply that this observation was universal. Perhaps we do not look for universality, we look for differential trends, those which tend to accelerate over time, and why. Yes, this observation – which surely can be converted into a hypothesis and then operationalized – has an empirical basis. My caviller is curious to know the people whom I ‘observed’, from whom I collected this information. Well, they were professional women and men, my friends and acquaintances, in India and abroad, with whom I have often broached the subject and confronted the male with the female point of view. Let me add that trained anthropologists know full well that they are perennially ‘fieldworking’; they are always ‘observing’ (without any observation schedule) and ‘interviewing’ (without any structured guide or inventory) their friends and relatives, who in fact become their regular ‘respondents’.

My critic, later, concurs with my observation (or hypothesis), but expects me to examine a myriad of interrelated factors accounting for why professional women prefer to have fewer or no children. Was I expected to undertake this venture in an article on ageing?

Let me now turn to a more serious comment on the value of family in the care of the aged. My critic writes (let me quote a segment of her sentence): ‘...it is families which are at the root of the problem of the neglect and abuse of the aged.’ I had written something to this effect at the beginning of my article, but had also argued that it would be preposterous to think of dispensing with the primary institution of the family. Even if we think of certain ‘imaginative solutions’, to which my critic refers but fails to spell out, we perhaps will not be able to transcend the family system. Without enfeebling the significance of homes for the aged, I had submitted that the family remains (and will remain) the only group (or institution) where the care for the aged is a natural outcome of kinship affinity. Shouldn’t then the family be strengthened?

I do not propose to compare and contrast here the institutions of old age homes and the family from the perspective of providing care to the elderly, for this will be the subject of a separate article. However, certain questions need a thorough treatment when we debate ‘alternative possibilities’. For instance: How many homes for the aged are there in India, or any other country? Are they enough for accommodating the burgeoning grey population? Are these homes socially acceptable? Are the facilities available in them adequate? Do the aged live with dignity in these homes? Do the grizzled people want to shift to these homes? How will their status be affected if such a mobility were to occur?

When I wrote that for certain people shifting to old age homes amounts to announcing to their community that their children were ‘unfilial’, I was simply representing the insider’s view; I was certainly not supporting their viewpoint. Hopefully, we all know that cultural relativism is not ethical relativism. Delineating people’s ideology does not mean its acceptability to its interpreter. Let’s remember, ideology is a social fact; I was not ‘passing it off’ as a social fact!