Is there a need for a fourth statement? An examination of the critical and humanist statements of educational gerontology principles

ABSTRACT

The guiding principles of the education of older adults have been stated in three landmark publications. In their statements of principles, the authors of those publications affiliated themselves with one of two older-adult learning philosophies: a humanist or a critical one. Thirty years since the first statement, the field of educational gerontology is now weighted with theoretical ambiguities that are sustained by the polarised learning philosophies that govern the three statements of principles. In this paper, by adopting a middle-ground approach, I analyse these statements in order to answer three questions: (1) What do the three statements of educational gerontology principles have in common? (2) How do they conflict? (3) What tensions exist within and across the three statements? I conclude that the current dominant learning philosophies are sometimes hegemonic, exclusive and reductive. I suggest a fourth restatement that matches the contemporary advances in the field of educational gerontology.

KEYWORDS:

• Educational gerontology principles
• older adults
• lifelong learning
• critical educational gerontology

In the first statement of principles of educational gerontology, Glendenning and Battersby (1990) presented their vision of a critical educational gerontology. In the same year, Percy (1990) replied with a second statement, a humanist one, which signalled the start of an ongoing debate between a critical and a humanist philosophy of learning in older age. Two decades later, Formosa (2011a) released a third statement in an attempt to renew the first critical one.

Older-adult learning philosophies vary in their perception of the relationship between the individual and the society. Manninen et al.’s (2019) map of adult learning theories indicates that Percy’s (1990) individualist and humanist philosophy of learning promotes peaceful development and adaptation, and attributes reactive and sustaining goals to education. Meanwhile, the critical philosophy of learning (Formosa, 2011a; Glendenning & Battersby, 1990) is grounded in Freire’s call for collective efforts towards social change. This philosophy is categorised as radical-functionalist since it promotes transformative and change-oriented education.

The paradigm affiliations of these learning philosophies imply a certain focus on either structures/society or agency/individuals, and can therefore be seen as competing strands for explaining social reality (Nesbit, 1998). This agency/structure dualism is well treated in Giddens (1984) structuration theory, according to which people produce and reproduce society through activities drawn upon structures that are both the media and outcomes of social activities. Additionally, agency is the individual’s capacity to act, influence events and be aware of actions and consequences, as it is interconnected with structures. However resolved in Giddens work, the agency/structure dualism remains prevalent in the debate on the principles of educational gerontology between a humanist tradition and a transformational one.

Impressive theoretical and empirical advances have marked the 30 years of debate about the principles of educational gerontology. Nevertheless, some theoretical ambiguities remain unsettled. First, concepts in educational gerontology such as self-fulfilment, emancipation and empowerment remain unclearly defined (Hachem et al., 2017). Second, the latest statement of educational gerontology principles (Formosa, 2011a) does not solve the ambiguities that characterised the earlier statements. Similarly, Formosa’s statement has its own uncertainties concerning the role of Freirean ideals in critical educational gerontology – a role that, having been previously contested (Formosa, 2011b), has again had its importance underlined (Formosa & Galea, 2020). Additionally, there is enough evidence to question the validity of claims relating to the goals of educational gerontology. Research has reported occasions where older adults attending liberal art education courses showed signs of social empowerment (Hachem & Vuopala, 2016). In other cases, older adults attending critical educational activities did not become critically conscious, at least by engaging in a behavioural fight against oppression (Formosa, 2012; Formosa & Galea, 2020; Nye, 1998).

In the absence of a common language, the debate in educational gerontology risks revolving around what can be seen as a fair share of misunderstandings. Kern (2018) asserted that ‘it is indispensable that we talk about something in common’ (p. 351), in reference to the need for a shared paradigm. The construction of common ground should start by critically analysing the existing statements. Therefore, I aim to participate in this 30-year-old debate on educational gerontology principles. In so doing, I answer Formosa’s (2011a) call to complement and critique his third statement of critical educational gerontology principles, as well as the two previous statements.

In light of the challenges presented above, I examine the theoretical debate in educational gerontology as it figures in three key publications, presented in the following section. I raise three research questions: (1) What do the three statements of educational gerontology principles have in common? (2) How do they conflict? (3) What tensions exist within and across the three statements?

To answer these questions, I analyse the statements of principles of educational gerontology using the Framework approach (Bryman, 2012), summarised in Table 1. This approach is a form of thematic analysis that guarantees systematic identification and interpretation of the themes. Such interpretation is essential since I intend to mirror the exact positions of agreements and disagreements, as they figure in each statement, in relation to the different themes. As a first step, I read each of the statements many times to deepen my understanding of the embedded claims. I then extracted quotes from the statements, and placed them in a matrix, highlighting the keywords in these quotes, and then generated categories. I went back and forth in the process to refine the categories until themes were eventually defined and solid. This process allowed me to identify the agreements and disagreements across simple categories at first, then at the thematic level. Ultimately, I was left with five overarching themes, which form the main content of the statements of educational gerontology principles. They are the statements’ rationales, philosophical questions about learning, goals of learning, profile of older adults, and teachers’ role.

Table 1. A summary of the framework approach

Direct Quotes	In-vivo codes	Preliminary Description	Initial Category	Theme	Final Theme Definition
The information society may be inhospitable to old age (Glendenning & Battersby, 1990).	The information society may be inhospitable to old age.	Building up the case (critical 1).	Reasons to write the statement (critical 1).	Statements’ rationale.	This includes the reasons and motives for the imminent statement/restatement of educational gerontology principles.
Education is not a neutral enterprise and it involves moral and ethical dimensions (Glendenning & Battersby, 1990).	Education is not a neutral enterprise and it involves moral and ethical dimensions.	Statement on the nature of education (critical 1).	How education should be (critical 1).	Philosophical questions about learning.	These include assumptions, ideas, and questions about learning for older people.
The aims and goals of education for older people should be no different from those of people of any age group (Percy, 1990).	The aims and goals of education for older people should be no different from those of people of any age group.	Goals of education (humanist).	Goals of education for older people (humanist).	Goals of learning in older age.	These consist of the aims of older adult education.
All older adults experience ageism and discrimination at some level (Formosa, 2011a).	All older adults experience ageism and discrimination at some level.	Who are older people (critical 2)?	Profile of older adults (critical 2).	Profile of older adults.	This reflects the perception of older adults in the three publications.
The role of educators is to facilitate the process of learning for the learner, not necessarily to persuade him/her to social action or to be dissatisfied if a certain political awareness is not achieved (Percy, 1990).	The role of educators is to facilitate the process of learning for the learner, not necessarily to persuade him/her to social action or to be dissatisfied if a certain political awareness is not achieved.	The role of teachers (humanist).	Teachers’ role (humanist).	Teachers’ role.	This includes the expected geragogical strategies enacted by teachers in their classrooms.

Three statements of principles

Glendenning and Battersby (1990) formulated the first statement of principles of educational gerontology. Their co-authored chapter entitled ‘Why we need educational gerontology and education for older adults: a statement of first principles’ was published in Ageing, Education and Society: Readings in Educational Gerontology, edited by Glendenning and Percy, in 1990. Two years later, a journal article by Battersby and Glendenning (1992) elaborated the four newly stated principles of educational gerontology.

The first statement comprises four guiding principles for educational gerontology. The first principle promotes a socio-political approach to governing educational gerontology, through an examination of society’s treatment of older adults. It is a call to disentangle the complex sociological elements that contribute to the marginalisation of older people by societies (Battersby & Glendenning, 1992). The second principle defines educational gerontology as an ideological and moral approach to the theory and practice of education for older adults. Such an approach is deeply rooted in the tradition of the critical theory and challenges the dominant ‘instrumental rationality’. The third principle refers to the evident relationship between critical educational gerontology and concepts such as empowerment, emancipation, transformation, social and hegemonic control, and conscientisation. Accordingly, the works of Paolo Freire and Antonio Gramsci are of the utmost relevance to the education of older people. The fourth principle explains the dialectal relationships between theory and practice in educational gerontology. This practice refers to critical gerogogy, which is defined as the praxis of education for older people.

Percy (1990) formulated the second statement in a chapter entitled ‘The future of educational gerontology: a second statement of first principles’, published in the same book as the first statement. There, he discussed and responded to the ideas of the previous critical statement. He did not approve of critical educational gerontology, instead championing the humanist view. According to Percy (1990), the aims of educational gerontology ‘are not a transmogrification into critical educational gerontology but falling back into line with the humanistic, liberal intrinsic purposes of all educational processes’ (p. 38). He argued that education for older people should be no different to that for any age group, and did not attribute any distinctive role for teachers in empowering and emancipating their students.

Two decades later, Formosa (2011a) issued the third statement of the educational gerontology principles. This took the form of an article entitled ‘Critical educational gerontology: a third statement of first principles’ published in the International Journal of Education and Ageing, edited by Keith Percy.

Pushing for an ever-relevant critical agenda, Formosa (2011a) posited that critical educational gerontology provides a transformative rationale by which social inequalities are uncovered with the help of educators, not facilitators. Believing that educational gerontology should promote listening, love and tolerance, Formosa highlighted the importance of increasing solidarity and fruitful dialogue in education.

When examining the philosophical foundations of educational gerontology, these three publications provide a firm basis for discussion. They are landmark publications that provide clearly formulated and plainspoken declarations of educational gerontology principles. This trio of statements provides an exception to what Kern (2018) called a lack of systematic referral by educational gerontologist to each other’s works. This is true, given that Glendenning and Battersby (1990) own definition of educational gerontology, and therefore the subsequent definitions, follow from Peterson’s (1976), which is foundational to the field (Huang, 2010). According to Peterson’s definition, educational gerontology combines adult education and social gerontology; it is a field of study and practice of educational activities for and about age and ageing people. Additionally, the authors of the statements refer to each other’s work in the context of the debate around the principles, as they collaborate despite their theoretical standing. Accordingly, the present paper is a continuation of decades of developments in the conceptualisation of educational gerontology, from Petterson to Formosa (2011a).

Based on the analysis of the three statements of educational gerontology principles, I generated five themes: (1) statements’ rationales, (2) philosophical questions about learning, (3) goals of learning, (4) profile of older adults, and (5) teachers’ role. These themes are similar to those proposed by Tisdell and Taylor (2000) in their examination of adult learning philosophies. Even though the themes may appear independent of each other, they are clearly interrelated. In the following sections, I discuss theme-related similarities and differences across the critical and humanist philosophies of learning. The discussion is based on arguments found within the three texts, as well as on evidence from literature in the field.

Statements’ rationales for educational gerontology

The three statements have differences and similarities in terms of their rationale; that is, the reasons or motivations for formulating the statements. As a rationale for their first critical statement, Glendenning and Battersby (1990) wanted to challenge what they called the ‘conventional wisdom’ (p. 223). They did this by insisting that the marginalisation of older people in society is a reality. They considered heterogeneity in older age as paramount, resisting the idea that the demographic and socio-economic differences of older people disappear when they participate in educational activities.

Glendenning and Battersby (1990) argued that current educational activities for older people are built on a psychological deficit model, which assumes that older age brings below-average cognitive, behavioural or emotional performance. Glendenning and Battersby also opposed the reduction of education to an ‘effective physiological and psychological intervention strategy for reversing declines in the well-being of older people’ (p. 223). Their rationale focuses on the ‘shallowness of the debate about the aims and purposes of education in later life’ (p. 224); they considered this debate to be philosophically flawed since, as of that time, educational gerontology had not set yet clear goals. Finally, the authors claim that educational gerontology is alienating the working class as it is essentially driven by middle-class notions of education.

Formosa’s (2011a) philosophical concerns are just as strong in the third critical statement, especially since social conditions for people in general have not improved and a significant section of older people still experience poverty and social exclusion. Formosa’s rationale starts with a warning that educational gerontology is experiencing a conceptual crisis, and the ‘zero sum power equation is no longer valid’ (p. 324). This conclusion is explained by discrimination against both older men and women in late-life education (Formosa, 2010), which means the traditional view of power as a class struggle does not hold. Nevertheless, Formosa (2011a) argued that a critical stance in educational gerontology remains well founded and that the values of justice, freedom, autonomy and democracy should be addressed through the/his restatement of critical educational gerontology principles.

The rationale of the second humanist statement differs slightly from those of the others. Percy (1990) was in accord with his critical colleagues on many issues. He acknowledged that education’s raison d’être was demography and that philosophical ambiguities and the ideological confusion in the field need to be addressed. He also argued that the medical metaphor cannot fully justify the existence of educational gerontology, and that empirical conclusions relative to the medical metaphor are not necessarily generalisable. Furthermore, Percy and Formosa (2011a) entertained the possibility that some older people could be responsible for the status quo, but Formosa added that the majority of older people cannot induce change in their lives. In the midst of condemning the hegemonisation in the field of educational gerontology, Percy’s refusal to ideologies the field and his call for a dialogue are, to some extent, consonant with the critical challenge of conventional wisdom.

While there are both similarities and differences among the rationales of the three statements, they all appear to have hegemonic tendencies, despite being anti-hegemonic. In the second humanist statement, Percy (1990) perceptively admitted the need for different perspectives on educational gerontology. He also cautioned that ‘in a nascent field of study, it is dangerous and fatal if one dominant paradigm hegemonises all others’ (p. 233). Despite his diplomacy, Percy rejected the rationale of critical demystification and geragogic conscientisation. Similarly but less diplomatically, the critical rationale strives to reject the hegemonic conventional wisdom and replace it with what appears to be a critical hegemony. The old hegemony of instrumental education is rejected in favour of a hegemony of social change. Glendenning and Battersby (1990) declared that education should, above all else, be a mechanism for individual and social empowerment. Moreover, in his rejection of the humanist rationale, Formosa (2011a) claimed that humanist assertions are located in a social vacuum and ‘entrenched’ in therapeutic and individualist approaches to self-development.

These three fundamental statements in educational gerontology have performed important functions in the formation of the field of educational gerontology. Clear-cut arguments have enabled these authors to formulate a firm philosophical basis for an expanding field. In the current context, however, I argue that these claims have fallen out of touch with the increasing complexity of the research field. In terms of languages and cultures, educational gerontology is no longer a predominantly Anglo-Saxon field. Formosa’s (2019) latest book shows that this field is receiving contributions from all over the globe. Today’s educational gerontology is established in a wide range of adult education and gerontology programmes and journals (Schmidt-Hertha et al., 2019). In total, the field enjoys nine models of education in older age (Kern, 2018).

As part of this development, the research field has dealt with an ever-increasing number of topics, from a growing range of theoretical perspectives. Among other things, educational gerontologists are interested in the motivations, emancipatory policies and societal benefits of older adult education. Nowadays, researchers are more wary about generalisations concerning the health outcomes of learning in older age; for example, Mestheneos and Withnall (2016). This goes hand in hand with empirical evidence that third-age learning could contribute to the maintenance of health (Escolar Chua & De Guzman, 2014). Therefore, a medical function to education could be more valid than before. Likewise, the psychological deficit model is no longer a major threat, as the literature on educational gerontology programmes/interventions – whether mainstream (Chahine & Sibai, 2019) or critical (Creech & Hallam, 2015; Formosa & Galea, 2020) – promotes an active role for learners that is based on what can be done in older age rather than on what cannot be done. Consequently, I argue in this article that revised statements of principles are required to accommodate the developments of the research field.

Philosophical questions about learning in older age

Another issue I address in this article is the philosophical questions about learning. This comprises formulations around the meaning of learning and the need for it.

The debate about the principles of educational gerontology emphasises the importance of the philosophical foundation of the statements. In the first statement, Glendenning and Battersby (1990) argue that the absence of philosophical reflection in the field of educational gerontology is dangerous, since it means that educational gerontologists do not have a clear idea of why older adults should be educated. The authors ask, ‘why are we concerned about education for older adults? What is, or where is, the philosophy that underpins the practice?’ (p. 221). Consequently, Formosa (2011a) encouraged educational gerontologists to analyse how and why gender, race, class and other inequalities result in the exclusion of some segments of the ageing population. He also invited educational gerontologists to push for ‘ … a critical awareness which guides learners towards more ethical personal choices and consequently, participation in social movements … ’ (p. 325) since education is a collective endeavour of liberation, according to critical ideals.

In his second humanist statement, Percy (1990) did not object to a coherent mission and policy statements related to educational opportunities for older people. He found answers to the questions posed by his critical colleagues within the humanist philosophy of learning, contending that learning is an inner drive and that humans are naturally active in seeking to learn about their environment. However, Percy disagreed with the critical view by envisioning learning as a personal quest embedded in ‘valuing of each individual, of her/his potential and experience’ (p. 237).

After noting the similarities and difference in the philosophical reasoning, I argue that some vital positions in the statements’ philosophical backing require clarifications. The first such position is the dilemma of the psychological deficit model in learning. In the first critical statement, the authors categorically rejected the deficit model of learning in older age. However, in their argument to justify the retraining of older people, Glendenning and Battersby (1990) appeared to base their arguments on such a model. They argued that ‘the speed of electronic technology sometimes conflicts with the slower learning style of later life and there can be danger that the technological change being imposed so rapidly may result in a new ageism which further marginalises older people’ (p. 222, italicised for emphasis). This argument is used to support a critical claim that the retraining of older people should be based on experience rather than on acquiring new skills. The assumption of the slower nature of learning in later life clearly clashes with the critical claim that many age-graded social policies and programmes are postulated on the idea that older adults’ are less able than younger adults to perform tasks that are not equally relevant to both cohorts (Thornton, 1986, as cited in Glendenning & Battersby, 1990).

The second dilemma concerns the application of ideas from the social critical theory in educational gerontology. The practical translation of these ideas includes some condescending undertones. In the third critical statement, Formosa (2011a) reiterated the stance of his critical colleagues that late-life education should steer away from patronising teaching/learning practices. However, his referral to the following quote implied otherwise: ‘As Fromm (1941) asserts, most inner drives of humans in capitalism are nothing more than subtle and culturally deeply embedded forms of domination that serve the interests of the status quo’ (Formosa 2011a, p. 322). Moreover, the fourth principle in the first statement of educational gerontology principles aims to unsettle the complacency that older people feel (Glendenning & Battersby, 1990). The critical standpoint considers older learners to be naïvely self-satisfied under the domination of a status quo. This contradicts the critical rejection of patronising educational practices. While these formulations are fitting in the context of social and psychological theories of our modern capitalist society, they dismiss older adults’ learning drives as inauthentic and false – a problematic situation in an educational setting.

Thirdly, to unsettle the complacency, the critical philosophy of learning promotes the idea of dialogue (Freire, 1972). However, the agenda of this dialogue is defined well in advance. Unsettling the complacency starts by assuming that popular consciousness is grounded in a hegemonic neo-liberal ideology, which means this consciousness must become critical and ethical. Obviously, the teachers are perceived as critically conscious, while learners who partake in this dialogue are expected to have a false consciousness. On the other hand, Formosa (2011a) asserted that a dialogue between teacher and learners is certainly not a dialogue of equals because the teacher knows more and hence derives authority from knowledge. The latter seems to be at odds with Freire’s claim that those who pretend to own truths and knowledge cannot enter a dialogue (p. 63). I argue that it is reasonable to doubt the authenticity of a dialogue when its result is predefined, when learners are assumed to be complacent, and when teachers derive authority from knowledge. Percy (1990) wondered whether older learners could remain complacent. This question remains unanswered, in the critical stance.

The fourth issue is a humanist disregard of weaker segments of the older adult population, despite a call to value each individual. In the second humanist statement, Percy (1990) argued that ‘it would be theoretically possible to be fully aware of one’s lack of social power but quite able to pursue self-actualisation as a goal’ (p. 236). Although this should comfort powerless older learners, Percy reminded his readers that many older adults cannot move beyond the lower needs of Maslow’s hierarchy, which means they rarely qualify for self-actualisation. Nevertheless, torn between an ideal and a bitter reality, Percy insisted that the self-actualisation rationale in developing educational activities for older people remains valid. By disregarding the fact that many older adults cannot qualify for self-actualisation, Percy excluded the less privileged ones.

The goals of educational gerontology

The third theme, and possibly the most important one, is the one concerning the goals of educational gerontology. The two philosophies of learning formulate different goals regarding education in older age. Glendenning and Battersby (1990) and Formosa (2011a) attributed the same goals to educational gerontology, in the first and third statements. The critical view states that education for older people should imply that they gain power over their lives. This type of education is centred on politics and power, and is supposed to empower older people to confront social systems with a political view that enables them to change their society. Starting from humanist ideals, Percy (1990) associated different aims with education, claiming ‘the aims and goals of education for older people should be no different from those of any age group’ (p. 236). Instead of empowerment, Percy argued that older adults, like individuals in other age groups, should follow their interests and innate curiosities to learn and reach self-fulfilment, in what he called the most valid goal to learning in later life.

While maintaining strong stances in stating their own version of educational gerontology’s goals, humanists and their critical counterparts have attempted to make what appears to be a compromise on the goals. For instance, although Glendenning and Battersby (1990) rejected the expressive (that is, self-actualisation) goal of education in later life, they then claimed that education can indeed lead to self-actualisation but should, above all, lead to individual and group empowerment. In this sense, the critical strand could also entertain self-fulfilment as a goal to education, as long as the ultimate goal of education in older age is empowerment. Percy’s (1990) compromise consists of his claim that it is not farfetched to associate self-fulfilment with empowerment and emancipation. Nevertheless, he put self-fulfilment first and argued that while education could be empowering, it should not be to ‘arouse dissatisfaction with social marginalisation and to engender the transformation of society’ (p. 236).

While empowerment and self-fulfilment are both legitimate goals of educational gerontology, the way in which these goals are attributed poses important challenges. First, the goals of educational gerontology are stated in a rigid fashion. It is generally problematic to portray certain goals of educational gerontology as absolute and of higher order, especially given that education can help achieve more than one goal at a time. Based on the conceptual and genealogical map of non-formal non-vocational adult education (Manninen, 2017), the goals of educational gerontology promoted in the first and third statements are structural transformation (social change), and those in the second statement are maintenance and conservation (personal development). While acknowledging that additional goals could exist, the authors of those statements make sure to elevate their proclaimed goals in comparison to other goals.

The favouring of certain goals over others raises concerns, since empowerment, emancipation and self-fulfilment could be complementary and interrelated. The psychological empowerment theory (Zimmerman, 1990, 1995) defines the scope of empowerment on the individual level of analysis and includes constructs such as perception of control, a proactive approach to life, and a critical understanding of the socio-political environment. Moreover, the concepts of socio-political empowerment and critical consciousness are closely related (Watts et al., 2011). Paolo Freire (1972) defined critical consciousness as the perception of social, political and economic contradictions, in addition to a behavioural stance against oppressive realities. A close look into the profile of a self-actualiser reveals that such a person is, to some extent, both empowered and liberated. Heylighen (1992) described self-actualisers as empathic with their surroundings, autonomous, decisive, resilient, able to free themselves from cultural and social norms, rational, creative, and problem solvers of issues outside of themselves. Finally, Giddens' (1991) life politics is an example of how self-actualisation and emancipation could relate to each other. According to Giddens, life politics is ‘a politics of self-actualisation in a reflexively ordered environment, where that reflexivity links self and body to systems of global scope’ (p. 214). As such, Giddens adds the politics of choice (that is, life politics) to the politics of chance (that is, emancipation).

In addition to favouring certain goals over others, the authors of the statements conceptualise these goals vaguely, which raises empirical and theoretical doubts. Glendenning and Battersby (1990) defined empowerment as ‘people gaining control over their lives’ (p. 222). In the second humanist statement, Percy (1990) understood empowerment in the same way. Formosa (2011a) seemed to accept this definition but added that empowerment leads ‘older persons to confront the social system with a view to changing it’ (p. 317). This gain of control is understood in the critical statements as a fight against oppression, while the humanist statement considers it a quest for self-actualisation. Although emancipation remains undefined, it is used interchangeably with empowerment in the three statements of educational gerontology principles. The third goal of educational gerontology is self-actualisation, which Percy (1990) endorsed in the second humanist statement. While Percy did not define self-actualisation per se, he referred to the concept through the work of Maslow.

The interchangeable use of emancipation and empowerment is problematic. Inglis (1997) made a clear distinction between empowerment and emancipation and warned that not all empowering interventions are of a liberatory nature. On an empirical level, studies in educational gerontology define empowerment quite differently. For instance, Laes (2015) and Narushima (2004) conceived empowerment as a transformative emancipatory endeavour, while others (e.g., Bjursell, 2019; DeCoster & George, 2005; Filinson, 1999) related the benefits of learning to empowerment in terms of self-fulfilment and survival.

While it is not certain that the ambiguity in conceptualising the goals of educational gerontology affects the empirical soundness of the goals, it is possible to cast empirical doubt on some positions regarding the goals. In the first and second statements, the authors deliberately discredit the empirical soundness of the evidence presented in the context of promoting the goals of educational gerontology, especially in terms of reversing the psycho-cognitive declines of older age. Glendenning and Battersby (1990) claimed that ‘there is little public or professional pressure on educational gerontologists to respond or to justify their vision, other than by way of anecdote and slogan’ (p. 221). The allegation that mainstream educational gerontologists base their work on anecdotes is reciprocated. Percy’s (1990) response reproaches the critical stance of being highly optimistic and empirically dubious. This relates to what Percy perceived as intrinsic and extrinsic statements about education, and older people’s feeling and convictions found in the first critical statement.

The profile of older adults

Further issues may be discussed regarding how the three statements of educational gerontology principles perceive older adults. Naturally, both the humanist and the critical learning philosophies maintain that they serve the interests of older adults. In the first and third statements, the authors describe older adults as marginalised (Glendenning & Battersby, 1990), and as a subordinate and oppressed population (Formosa, 2011a). Formosa (2011a, p. 323) cited Calasanti to project a critical position that all older adults experience ageism and discrimination at some level. Similarly, in the second humanist statement, Percy (1990) made assumptions about ‘older people […] who have had the experience of living through several decades of adult life and have more leisure time … ’ (p. 235). While Percy admitted that older people are often among the most disadvantaged in societies, he did not feel that this was enough to deny a humanist rationale for education in later life. According to Percy, the disadvantages of older people are only a reminder to their teachers of the limitations to their role.

The humanist and critical philosophies of learning claim that they serve the interests of older adults. Both keenly defend the heterogeneity in older age but their perspective on the identity of older adults, despite being equally reductionist, is not the same. The critical logic considers all older adults as marginalised and oppressed and the humanist agenda presumes that older adults have fewer responsibilities and more leisure time. Naturally, philosophies of learning dictate the goal and the beneficiaries of learning activities. As such, in this case, they seem to be serving either the oppressed or the privileged older adults, and by doing so, their educational agendas exclude unconcerned older adults. Accordingly, for the marginalised, self-fulfilment is a far-fetched dream, while, it is hard to imagine that social change is the number-one priority on the agenda of privileged older adults.

The heterogeneity in older age is as evident today as it has ever been. Unfortunately, inequalities strive on some aspects of this heterogeneity. For instance, poverty, educational level, geographical locations (Boulton-Lewis, et al., 2016), in addition to other agential and structural barriers, prevent some older adults from participating in learning activities. Therefore, in presuming that older adults have a certain overarching identity, learning philosophies make learning attractive and readily accessible to certain older adults who fit their presumed profile. In the spirit of giving older students what they want, Formosa (2019) called for social inclusion as a university for the Third Age practice. He envisioned the inclusion of the working class, men, ethnic minorities, and older adults with cognitive and mobility challenges. He suggested offering classes such as ‘restoring furniture, woodworking, and mechanics’ to attract men to join Universities for the Third Age. This genuine attempt to listen to the needs of older adults echoes Withnall’s (2012) call that learning should allow a personal exploration with an individual starting point, in times where the diversity of older adults is expected to increase.

Teachers’ role

As far as the teacher’s role is concerned, Percy (1990) and Glendenning and Battersby (1990) are not in total disagreement. The first point of agreement concerns the responsibility of teachers to examine their perspectives and methods in teaching older adults. They need to question their own practices (Glendenning & Battersby, 1990) and become aware of the models of old age upon which they base their teaching (Percy, 1990). Second, Percy was sceptical about teachers empowering their students, stating ‘it is debatable how afar the influence of an educator runs in helping older adults to gain power over their own lives’ (p. 234). While this is a moral duty for the critical authors, for Percy it is an exaggerated role that better suits social workers or police officers.

Formosa (2011a) rejected Percy’s (1990) call for teachers to be mere facilitators of learning and refrain from persuasion to social action, considering it ‘a non-directive laissez-faire approach’ (p. 323). Formosa argued that teachers know more and should therefore not be on equal footing with their students, whom they should lead towards the fight against oppression. Otherwise, teachers risk ‘pedagogical treachery’ (Formosa, 2011a, p. 323).

In conjunction with the agreement in the three statements, I posit that it is paramount for teachers to examine their geragogical strategies. However, it is problematic when teachers are unconcerned with structural problems challenging the welfare of their learners, as well as when they intend to lead all older adults on a quest for social change, as suggested by the humanist and critical agendas, respectively. The current situation implies a choice between a teacher/facilitator, who is preoccupied with the limitations of his/her own role, and another teacher/educator, who is charged with the mission of persuading all older adults to social change. Evidence from the literature suggests that critical geragogy’s emancipatory aims do not materialise easily, especially in terms of critical consciousness (Formosa, 2012; Formosa & Galea, 2020; Nye, 1998). These aims also run the risk of teachers constructing for themselves positions of knowing what can be known and what should be done (Ellsworth, 1989). The latter resonates with Freire’s (1972) assertion that naming the world is not the task of the elite. Additionally, Formosa & Galea (2020) concluded that imminence and internal ageism are possible barriers to leading older learners towards critical consciousness. This suggests that Percy’s (1990) reluctance to attribute an empowering/emancipating role to teachers remains relevant.

An inclusive educational gerontology requires inclusive teaching practices. As such, teachers could navigate their geragogical methods between an autobiographical – reminiscence (Battersby & Glendenning, 1992) – approach to individual experience and needs, and the interdependence of individual experiences with social systems and inherent structures.

Conclusion

The education of older adults is one of the fastest growing branches of adult education (Formosa, 2000). Fundamental steps have been taken to provide this field with philosophical foundations, especially in the three statements of principles (Formosa, 2011a; Glendenning & Battersby, 1990; Percy, 1990). The authors of the statements made it possible to raise vital questions, at times when the field was dominated by uncritical practices. It is because of these statements that educational gerontology serves older people through informed geragogical strategies and that empirically dubious assumptions are no longer accepted in an inclusive field. The humanist belief in valuing individuals is as crucial in the education of older people as the critical emphasis on structural barriers to pursuing learning in older age. In this article, I have shown that the critical and the humanist philosophies of learning in older age are not very different, despite their seemingly polarised positions in the statements. While these works should still be celebrated, some ambiguities in the learning philosophies guiding the field remain unresolved.

I have argued that the humanist and the critical learning philosophies embed some hegemonic tendencies, despite their rejection of the hegemonisation of the field. Although the previous rationales of the principles of educational gerontology were highly relevant in their time, the field has changed. While some inelastic statements about learning have redressed the field in the past, these statements now require clarification, which could materialise in the combination of meanings/functions to older adult education rather than keeping them separate. Such clarification could also include a more precise conceptualisation of the goals of educational gerontology coupled with valid empirical support. It could entertain a perception of the profile of older adults that accepts a multiplicity of identities. Finally, this clarification could attribute a role to teachers that is as wide as the educational needs exhibited by older adults, whether on an individual or a societal level.

While the present paper does not solve the conceptual ambiguities presented above, highlighting such ambiguities helps to address them. The implications of this paper and Percy’s (1990) claim that ‘it is not desirable to require that educational gerontology have a single set of purposes and principles’ (p. 233) only mean that a new outlook on educational gerontology is needed. This paper is not the first to promote a new outlook on educational gerontology; Withnall (2002, 2012) called for a new paradigm that focuses less on researchers’ and practitioners’ perspectives and takes the perceived experiences of older adults into account. However, her call was not warmly welcomed (Formosa, 2011a). Arguing alongside Withnall’s (2012) ‘longlife learning’, a new outlook in the form of a new statement will hopefully be more sensitive to the complexity of learning in older age and respond to the psychological needs of older adult learners and cater for their social conditions. I echo Formosa & Galea’s (2020) call ‘ … to embed older adult learning in an agenda that is critical and sensitive to late modern sensibilities, whilst remaining responsive to the autonomous aspirations of individual learners’ (p. 11). This call is important since it makes it possible for educational gerontologists to see beyond idealistic humanist statements and deterministic critical ones. It also readies the field for possible changes in the expectations about and experiences of education by new generations of older adults (Withnall, 2006).

Perhaps this new outlook could promote self-actualisation and empowerment, both individual and social, whenever and wherever needed, possibly in the form of what Giddens (1991) termed life politics. Giddens (1984) aimed to ‘put an end to each of the empire-building endeavours’ (p. 2) in reference to the structuralist imperialism of the social object and the hermeneutical imperialism of the subject. While putting an end to empires is not the goal of this paper, it is useful to remember that neither the experience of individual actors nor the existence of societal totality forms the basic domain of the study of social sciences (Giddens, 1984) or, subsequently, educational gerontology.

Far from ending the discussion on educational gerontology principles, this paper represents yet another call to invigorate the debate. It is an invitation to restate the principles to match contemporary advances in the field of educational gerontology and address its ongoing ambiguities. In this respect, the purpose of this article aligns with that of Battersby and Glendenning (1992), who concluded: ‘If we have done nothing more than to raise doubts, to cause discomfort, and to suggest alternatives to current thinking, then we have achieved our purpose’ (p. 120).

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Prof. Johannes Westberg, my thesis supervisor, for his valuable comments on previous versions of this paper, and for his continuous support. In addition, I am thankful to Prof. Jyri Manninen for reading and commenting on a previous version of this paper.

Disclosure statement

There is no conflict of interest arising from writing this paper.

Additional information

Funding

This paper has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie [Grant Agreement No. 754285];

Notes on contributors

Hany Hachem

Hany Hachem is a PhD candidate at the University of Örebro, Department of Education. His thesis focuses on the principles of educational gerontology, and the outcomes of learning in older age, especially empowerment.