By Allie Cohen
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the average life expectancy in the US increased from 69.7 years to 79.4 years between 1960 to 2015. Because of this, coupled with declines in birth rates and aging baby boomers, our population is older. A result of these demographic changes is the emergence of the successful aging movement. Successful aging was an idea introduced in 1962 that emphasized the responsibility of gerontologists to ensure the continued quality of life during the later years of a person’s life, according to the National Center for Biotechnological Information; at the forefront of this is an over $191.5 billion effort to mask visible signs of aging.
The practice of masking visible signs of aging stems from bio-gerontology, or simply anti-aging. Anti-aging is a medical and applied science that focuses on delaying and deterring the effects of aging. At the core, anti-aging practitioners believe that “unproductivity, inflexibility, and senility” is not inevitable, as stated in an article by the National Center for Biotechnological Information. While not all of the science of anti-aging is plagued with ageism, it has been a catalyst for it because it engages in practices that set unrealistic and outdated gender norms for how life should be and look.
The Cosmetic Industry’s Elixir
A concerted effort from bio-gerontologists, the cosmetic industry, and the advertising industry has made baseless promises that people can obtain eternal youth, as stated by a study by Cambridge University, through medical interventions and cosmetic elixirs. While the cosmetic industry is a broad category that targets several things related to beauty, anti-aging skin treatments have been a primary concern. This is because most experts agree that science has yet to discover a single ingredient that can permanently reverse the skin aging process, as discussed in an article by NBC. Additionally, many of the medical interventions and cosmetic treatments for aging skin have shown significant variations in efficacy, as most over-the-counter skin care products are considered cosmetics, not drugs, and therefore, marketing claims about their success are not held to the same level of scrutiny that medicines are, as stated in an article by Business Insider. As a result, not only do most anti-aging creams not work, but they can actually make the skin worse, as many of the products contain ingredients that break down the skin barrier, which harms your acid mantle, according to the New York Times. This is concerning because harming the acid mantle can lead to symptoms including inflammation and patchy, flaky skin, and can even eventually lead to other problems since it means the skin’s defenses are compromised, according to an article by the New York Times. Considering the lack of evidence leads one to question: why have the anti-aging market and bio-gerontologists been so successful?
The Ageist Triangle
While the concept of prolonged life has existed since early human civilizations, the idea of pro-longevity that we currently hold was introduced in 1796, according to Jstor; the modern definition of pro-longevity combines the two ideas of prolonged life and hygiene, according to Jstor. Marked by the entrance of the advertising and cosmetic industries’ into the anti-aging market, which incorporated and contorted the modern definition of pro-longevity, subsequently changed bio-gerontology. This is supported by a study from The National Center for Biotechnology Information, which provided an analysis of 31 anti-aging practitioners’ responses to a survey to understand anti-aging practitioners’ attitudes about their work. Ultimately, the study found that the key attitude driving anti-aging efforts stems from a heightened focus on appearance, which was indicated by the fact that most of the responses focused on how aging should appear, rather than on prolonging life. The majority of the responses also reinforced the idea that aging is preventable and that it’s an individual’s responsibility to be ageless. These results are concerning because holding such views leads to unnecessary surveillance of the body. Furthermore, the advertising and cosmetic industries’ involvement has caused a cyclical process whereby gerontologists are encouraged to purport ageism.
Although it would be premature to assume that all practitioners hold these views and that all efforts are rooted in ageism, because of how lucrative the anti-aging market is, it can be assumed that it incentivizes practitioners to spur ageist and sexist attitudes. Additionally, the business models of practitioners take the cosmetic and advertising industries into large consideration which are notorious for their ageism. In particular, advertising has garnered attention in recent years over its ageism. Specifically, as previously stated in my last article, only 10% of marketing dollars are targeted towards the 50+ audience, as stated by the AARP. Additionally, a study conducted by AARP found that many job descriptions for advertising include five key ageist phrases: “recent college graduates,” “digital natives,” “energetic person,” “cultural fit,” and “five to seven years of experience,” which is meant to target a specific amount of experience correlated with younger individuals. Moreover, these findings indicate ageism through a lack of attention towards older consumers, despite the age group accounting for more than half of the spending in the United States, as stated by Harvard Business Review.
The Sexist Division Within Ageism
Finally, the ageism found in these industries has disproportionately targeted women. This is due to age-old (pun-intended) gender norms. Specifically, while gender norms are undeniably more fluid, conventional ideas about the roles and responsibilities of women remain. For example, while the gap between men’s and women’s labor force participation rates has significantly narrowed, according to Blau and Winkler’s Economics of Women, Men, and Work, women spend 1.6 more times in non-market – meaning household – work than men. These norms have also made their way into the cosmetic industry. For example, according to Channel 4, age representation differs between genders with male characters more likely to be older and women characters more likely to be younger in advertising in the UK. These demographics indicate that physical appearance is still considered an optimal part of a woman, as aging is commonly associated with decreases in physical attractiveness, and therefore, showing older women is more taboo than showing older men. Moreover, as illustrated by both the labor force and the advertising industry, ageism is a more prevalent issue for women.
Moreover, a lack of scientific basis, coupled with indicators of ageist and sexist beliefs and practices employed by all the relevant industries in the anti-aging market, calls for a two-fold change. The first is that the conversation surrounding aging must shift from responsibility and control to acceptance. In other words, it’s time for us to have realistic expectations about aging, which in turn, will engender acceptance. Secondly, we must strip the responsibility of older consumers to manage their aging by masking it, particularly women. Having more older women represented professionally and in mainstream culture will achieve this. In turn, older women will feel more relevant, more visible, and more beautiful.
