Introduction
Ageing is the critical contemporary demographic change in New Zealand and the developed world (de Jong Gierveld Reference de Jong Gierveld2006; Statistics New Zealand 2004). Reference to the demographic shift and the need to manage a population increase that many argue has the potential to outstrip financial resources are regularly used to justify research and interventions with older people (Robertson Reference Robertson, Minkler and Estes1999). Among such interventions, identifying the factors that enhance independence and wellbeing among older people is claimed in many policy documents to be of great importance (e.g. New Zealand Ministry of Social Development 2001). Independence is often used as a marker of ‘successful ageing’, and strategies to increase independence among older people are encouraged (Smith et al. Reference Smith, Braunack-Mayer, Wittert and Warin2007). Older people are encouraged to plan responsibly and manage their own lives as they age (Grant Reference Grant2006; Townsend, Godfrey and Denby Reference Townsend, Godfrey and Denby2006). These prescriptions are part of a wider advocacy of personal responsibility for health and wellbeing (Kemp and Denton Reference Kemp and Denton2003; Murray, Pullman and Rodgers Reference Murray, Pullman and Rodgers2003).
The importance of social connections in the lives of older people is also mentioned in public and policy discourse. International evidence has consistently demonstrated the benefits of social integration for older people, and social exclusion has been linked to poor health and low levels of life satisfaction among them. For example, social support and social networks have been shown to exert significant positive effects on the physical and mental health of older people (Seeman et al. Reference Seeman, Lusignolo, Albert and Berkman2001; Unger et al. Reference Unger, McAvay, Bruce, Berkman and Seeman1999). Poor social connections and social disengagement in older people predict a later risk of cognitive decline (Zunzunegui et al. Reference Zunzunegui, Kone, Johri, Beland, Wolfson and Bergman2004). The demonstrated value of social connection for health and wellbeing in older age is reflected in social policy: in particular, policy suggestions for social connectedness tend to focus on the value of older people as contributors to the community through paid work or in near-work roles (Biggs Reference Biggs2001). In social policy accounts, activities such as volunteering or mentoring are suggested as the pathway to social inclusion (e.g. New Zealand Ministry of Social Development 2001). Contribution and connection are among ways to demonstrate and manage an identity as an integrated member of the community.
Reciprocity has also been shown to be an important aspect of managing identity in relation to others. Strong reciprocity norms in society mean that people keep track of the level of support they give to and receive from others (Antonucci, Fuhrer and Jackson Reference Antonucci, Fuhrer and Jackson1990). Receiving help obligates individuals to reciprocate and to manage their relationships to ensure an equality of giving and receiving. Instances of both immediate and long-term reciprocity are important. Although reciprocity may be managed immediately, it may also be deferred to a later time or generalised between people indicating that exact repayment is not expected (Ingersoll-Dayton and Antonucci Reference Ingersoll-Dayton and Antonucci1988). Particularly relevant for older people is the notion of a ‘support bank’, in which a lifetime of investment in giving and receiving support may be tallied (Antonucci Reference Antonucci, Binstock and Shanas1985). The resources amassed in this support bank allow older people to continue to be positive about unequal immediate relationships, as they can be included within broader understandings of deferred or generalised reciprocity. The purpose of keeping track is to remain positive about those relationships that demonstrate a lack of equity in giving and receiving (Antonucci, Fuhrer and Jackson Reference Antonucci, Fuhrer and Jackson1990). When people have few resources to contribute to a relationship, this places them in a dependent position (Beel-Bates, Ingersoll-Dayton and Nelson Reference Beel-Bates, Ingersoll-Dayton and Nelson2007). This imperative to maintain equality in relationships provides the basis for our consideration of the ways older people talk about their friends and family.
Discursive resources
In everyday talk, people negotiate a positive identity using shared linguistic and social resources. They construct their relationships with the world and others in the context of their biographies and situated narratives. The descriptions people use are tailored to the specific social context. Using particular socially-available discursive resources makes certain subject positions available for a speaker (Korobov Reference Korobov2001). These positions are constituted by the rights and obligations to say certain kinds of things in certain situations (Harré and Gillett Reference Harré and Gillett1994; Hollway Reference Hollway, Henriques, Urwin, Venn and Walkerdine1984). Consequently, a person's talk about independence and social relationships does not represent static aspects of their life, but a particular version of events produced in a specific context to present themselves as a certain type of person (e.g. Williams Reference Williams and Radley1993). Thus, rather than understanding independence or social connection as something to be achieved, a discursive approach shows how such qualities are constructed through language. Language is not only used to describe such attributes, but also reflects and reproduces the associated social and moral values. Accordingly, accounts that reflect the social fabric of ageing are not ‘only’ discursive: the discursive management of potentially contradictory moral imperatives such as independence and support has implications for what older people can do as part of the practice of reinforcing their own value within the prevailing construction of the virtuous older member of society. Accordingly, discursive resources are understood in two ways: as reflecting accepted understandings of how to be a certain sort of person in the world, and as ways of managing actual practices and activities of daily living to support discursive self-presentations.
Identifying the factors that enhance independence among older people is reported in many media, public and policy documents as of vital importance to improving wellbeing (e.g. New Zealand Ministry of Social Development 2001; Rudman Reference Rudman2006). At the same time, social connectedness and contributing to the community are also often mentioned as part of healthy and productive older age (e.g. New Zealand Office for Senior Citizens 2002). Together these accounts construct a particular view of a ‘positive old age’ as a time of freedom, self-reliance and activity that explicitly rejects past notions of dependency, while promoting the importance of social connections in terms of contribution and participation. Older people construct their identity based upon such accounts (Gilbert and Powell Reference Gilbert and Powell2005) and use these widespread understandings to negotiate a positive identity as the capable and useful older adult presented in media accounts of successful ageing and reproduced in the policy discourse of positive ageing. In older age, increased anticipation and awareness of frailty may contribute to a greater salience of dependence and independence as a way to interpret social interactions (Ingersoll-Dayton and Talbott Reference Ingersoll-Dayton and Talbott1992). These understandings of older age provide a backdrop against which older people understand their own family and community interactions. Within this particular vision of old age, older people must position themselves as virtuous members of society. Thus, media accounts, social policy direction and a shared understanding among many older people provide the linguistic resources by which to construct an identity as a morally virtuous and socially valuable older person.
In the study described in this paper, we were interested in the ways in which older people talked about their close social connections, specifically those with family members and friends. The central research question was how older people discursively manage their identity in the current social climate when discussing their relationships with family and friends.
Methods
The participants
Thirty-six people aged between 55 and 70 years were interviewed about their family situation and their personal understanding of the role of family life and social connections for older people. The volunteer participants were drawn from a larger sample of older adults for a longitudinal survey (Alpass et al. Reference Alpass, Towers, Stephens, Fitzgerald, Stevenson and Davey2007). The age group was chosen as being involved in the transition (of themselves or their spouses or partners) from participation in paid work to retirement and the consequential changing roles in public and private life. The transitions focus attention on people's changing roles in social relationships, and provided an opportunity for the participants to discuss significant aspects of their relationships. Drawing on the demographic information provided by the wider survey, the participants were purposively selected to include both those who had contact with family and friends and those who did not. Of the 36 participants, 23 reported contacts with both family members and friends, seven reported contacts only with family, four reported contacts only with friends, and two participants reported no contacts with family or friends. Twenty-two participants were legally married or partnered, five had never been married, and nine were separated, divorced or widowed. Sixteen participants were men and 20 were women. Twenty-nine participants reported only New Zealand European ethnicity, three reported Māori ethnicity, and three reported ‘other’ ethnicities. The interviews were undertaken in diverse large and small urban and rural settings across New Zealand.
Data collection
After sending letters with information about the study and the invitations to participate, the interviews were arranged by telephone with those who agreed. They were semi-structured with questions around three main topics: important social connections, family connections, and family change. The audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and a copy of the transcript was sent to each participant for checking and release. Ethical approval for this project was gained from the Massey University Human Ethics Committee.
Data analysis
The participants' talk about their family lives and social connections were considered as discursive practices that construct these relationships in certain ways. Each transcript was read and re-read to gain an understanding of the content and complexity of the language used and to form initial observations about the data. The texts of the interviews were then coded, and the codes were used to map the key themes that recurred during the interviews. These themes were used as a basis for the identification of the sets of words and images that constitute coherent ways of talking about particular objects. In addition, we looked for evidence of subject positions provided by the discourses used; that is, the ways in which particular constructions of independence and social connections provided positions for a person as a particular kind of subject (Korobov Reference Korobov2001). Rather than viewing these as private accounts, they are located within a particular discursive and social environment. As such, these representations are both personal and public accounts that reflect the wider social context. To report the results of this analysis, these discourses were unpacked to investigate how accounts of social connections were discursively constructed by the participants, and the implications of these accounts for positioning. The analytic account was outlined, explained and accompanied by some quotations from the participants to illustrate this interpretation of the data. The names, occupations and place names in the reproduced quotations have been altered to maintain the participants' anonymity.
The results
During the interviews, the participants discussed the important ways by which their lives were linked to those of others. They described relationships with spouses, children, grandchildren and friends as vital to their happiness. They discussed important contacts in church and community groups, and the ways these relationships contributed to their social networks and improved their wellbeing. The participants were also careful to present themselves as independent. They sought to avoid both others becoming dependent on them and their own dependency on others. This meant it could be difficult for older adults to juggle relationships whilst preserving their independence. The apparent contradiction implied by close relationships with others and independence was managed using the discursive resource of reciprocity. This paper elucidates how reciprocity is discursively constructed by older people and the implications of reciprocity for the construction of identity.
Obligation
Reciprocity is understood as a balancing of giving and receiving over time. Receiving either practical or emotional support is balanced with earlier giving, so that it may be seen as repayment rather than a gift. In the following extract, Mark described this sense of repayment when talking about his anticipation of care in later life. Although he hoped strongly to avoid the frailty of old age and maintain his independence, he constructed any care that in the future would be provided by his children and grandchildren as payment for the care that they had received. In this way, he positioned himself as deserving rather than needy and dependent:
My children will be there. I don't have any fears about dying. If I had a choice I would hope that I would die while I was working so that I wouldn't have to go through that frail stage. … My children will be there for that, my granddaughter, I guess this is why you look after them – there's some sort of payback time. I keep telling them that.
Mark constructed receiving care in frail old age from his granddaughter not as a burden, but as a return on his investment in caring for them. By using his understanding of reciprocity, he constructed receiving care as a due, something that is owed, rather than as a position of dependency. Mark's final statement in this extract is ironic: the use of humour indicates that the sense of obligation by children to return earlier care is a moral and social imperative that may not reflect current patterns of family relationships and care, but Mark also made it clear that he is confident that his children will be there when he needs them.
The obligation inherent in reciprocity is also apparent when accepting help is avoided to avoid the obligations that are part of the reciprocal expectation. Gifts or favours may be constructed as setting up an obligation that some participants wished to avoid. In the following extract, for example, Sandra was concerned that accepting gifts from her brother would set up a sense of debt between them. She uses the discursive resource of reciprocity as a justification to avoid a social connection in which she might be obliged to return favours in the future:
That's how it started and when the kids were young it was nice and there used to be jam for the kids and that was nice but I moved on from that, sort of. I don't want to be beholden to him.
Another participant, Elizabeth, similarly saw favours as potentially difficult territory because they convey an immediate sense of obligation. Expecting the favour to be returned might cause disappointment and discord. Here, reciprocity is used to provide a justification for avoiding social connections based on obligation:
There is nothing worse than asking people for favours or whatever and then they think, oh, you know, if someone says to me I'm going to do this for you I expect them to do it. No excuses because that's what I would do for them, so I expect the same in return, it doesn't always happen.
Receiving must be evaluated in the context of whether it invites future obligations. In this way, both speakers drew upon reciprocity to justify avoiding a social connection that is characterised by difficulty or discord. Reciprocity may be used to dissolve ties between people as well as to cement them.
Equal value
The reciprocal nature of relationships is carefully managed in everyday life in terms of the equality of the exchanges. In this way, reciprocity may be drawn upon by older people to position themselves as independent, even when they need physical help. In the following extract, for example, Anna counters the suggestion that she has been helped by friends with an account of the ways she has been able to repay support through her skills in knitting and tapestry-making. The interviewer prompted, ‘so these friends have been there to provide you with support in terms of shopping or taking you to doctors’. Anna replied:
I do things for them, like at the moment the tapestry I'm doing is for my friend. She wants cushions like mine, so I said ‘okay, I'll do the tapestries and you provide the materials’ … but I sort of pay back in my own little way. In the winter I knit and they always want something knitted in the winter and we sort of get around it that way.
Anna's response indicates that she interpreted the interviewer's indirect question as constructing her as needy and dependent. In her response, she immediately disavowed this idea by focusing not on the help that the interviewer enquired about, but on the giving she did in return. Through the exchange, Anna reasserted herself as a morally virtuous person who is correctly described as a giver rather than a receiver. The crucial aspect of this extract is the paying back and the notion of ‘we get around it’. This shows that the need and receipt of help is an obstacle to a social connection based on equality; this must be managed by strategies of giving in return for services received. These strategies mean that Anna could accept the help she needs because of her poor health, without accepting a position of dependency on others.
Another informant, Peter, also constructed equality in his exchanges in the context of maintaining social connectedness. To him, achieved reciprocity ensured that his friendship did not involve financial dependence, and had become like a game in which Peter and his friend vied with each other to equalise the cost of their holidays. Peter explained:
The friend who comes and stays with me – we have a lovely financial arrangement actually. I go over there (United Kingdom) with no money in my pocket and he pays for everything, and we keep a note so when he comes out here and does his holiday out here, I pay for everything here. The last visit that we did, but I have to say I was only there two weeks and he was out here for a month but we came within 0.73 cents … so when I come back, if I've spent 700 pounds we exchange that and that's how many dollars he's in credit, and then I start spending and we just keep seeing how close we are.
This account describes reciprocity explicitly as a debit and credit account. The implicit social contract is framed as each giving in turn, and both counting the cost and accepting it as a debt which is repaid, ensuring that dependence is avoided. This is a practical, operational form of the metaphor used by Anna to ‘get around’ the obstacle of accepting help in her ill health. In Peter's account, reciprocity becomes a balance sheet that can be credited or debited, but needs to be reconciled to ensure the equality of the exchange over time.
Equal need
The management of giving and receiving and the balancing of obligations depend on both parties having equal need of the relationship. In the next quotation, Margaret describes the equality of emotional support in her relationship with an older woman. Margaret specifically contrasts the equality of the two parties' enjoyment of a shared Christmas with the lack of equality when she spends Christmas with her extended family. Their lack of reciprocal need of her company can make her feel quite outside of the family. Margaret explained:
You know, my honorary Mum, she really enjoys having me too because she's got no family of her own. We spend Christmas together and it's wonderful. I mean, I could spend it with the rest of the family but they've all got their families, all their children and grandchildren and partners and things like that, and sometimes I can feel quite out of it.
Another informant, Betty, also talked about exchanging practical for emotional support. In the following quotation, she described how she cared for older friends and provided practical assistance with meals and running errands. This was not entirely altruistic because, in return Betty had their company and a feeling of being needed in their lives. The statement that all parties benefit from the relationship is important in understanding the function of this relationship. Betty said:
Well, yes, I have a friend or a couple of friends who are older than me that I sort of look after and take in, go around and do things for them. They are important at the moment because, you know, we all go to cards together, but they come up here and play cards here, and we do the horses … and everything, an occasional meal I have them up here for. Yes, they are important to me … company, company and social, and I think because I feel needed, I suppose that's the other one. They've got nobody else, one has family but the other one is 82 and she's got nobody here. I keep an eye on her, she's good company. … Yes, we all get something from it, one would say so.
Give and take
Not all reciprocity is described in terms of managed equality and specified returned obligations. Some participants drew on reciprocity to describe a sense of shared support across time and assurance of future support, whatever the particular need. This may be either practical or emotional support. Ruth described how she and her ex-husband have a reciprocal understanding that involves the provision of any help that might be required at any point in the future. Ruth is linked to her ex-husband through their shared children, their friendship and through his positioning as part of her family. She explained:
My husband who is the father of my older children, and we've always been really good friends and, you know, once again the family thing there would come through as if either of us needed help the other would provide it.
For another participant, John, the relationship with his neighbour was the context for sharing both tools and conversation as examples of both practical and emotional support. John said:
My neighbour across the river … we have a very rural relationship in as much that if I need something and he's got it, he would give it to me and vice versa, and we sit out in the office outside there on the deck chairs and we set the world to rights on a lot of mornings.
These are accounts of generalised reciprocity in a relationship of mutual care (whether friend, family or neighbour). This form of reciprocity is constructed on the understanding that needs determine the requirements and ability to provide determines the response. Rather than balancing equal value and equal need, this construction of reciprocity is in general rather than particular terms.
Family relationships
Reciprocal practices are not only important for maintaining equal friendships, but are also used to balance family relationships. Older parents use the principle of reciprocity to tally the concrete contributions they have given to children and the help with practical tasks they have received in return. It was important for people to be able to recount the times they helped in return for help accepted, and to measure the equality of these in some sense. In the specific context of family relationships, however, it is important not only to demonstrate independence and social connection, but also the moral imperative of having children capable and willing to support their parents, whilst neither is dependent or beholden to each other. These complexities of the family relationship were well illustrated by Deidre:
We do things for them like upholstery and curtains and things if we can. They don't expect it but we certainly help them. … Our son helped paint the house and helped Dad paint that [pointing], and our daughter at Christmas time, she said, ‘Oh Mum you're so busy, do you want me to come and help you sew?’ I said, ‘No dear, that's fine, I can box on’. But, no, they are, they're very supportive and I would only have to ask and they would … I'd only have to say Dad's not well or something and they would be straight here, but no, they are very good. I think we get good support back.
This account of the support received from children describes giving as well as receiving. Deidre explained how reciprocity maintains links and independence. The children are helped, but this help is not expected and as such both the children and the parents are understood as independent and not demanding. The children provide help willingly to their parents, but Deirdre prefers ‘to box on’ even in the face of difficulty. In this way, Deirdre constructed herself as a capable independent person who is also supported well by her family and able to support her family in turn. This extract usefully demonstrates both the careful management of relationships, independence and reciprocity that older people negotiate, and that parents wish their children to demonstrate they care about them, rather than feel obliged to care for them. Similarly, Penny negotiated the relationship with her daughter and grandchildren. She was concerned to provide help in the form of child care, and yet not to impinge on her daughter's independence. She sought a point of regular contact with family members and provides assistance without placing demands. Penny explained:
But I see my daughter every, I don't know, I don't really live in her pocket, sort of thing, but I look after the children now and again, maybe every second week or something like that. We talk a little bit more on the phone. I like to have my space and I gather she would, you know, like to have her space.
The participants have shown how reciprocity is a linguistic resource that is drawn upon to manage the tensions of lives linked together. It is used to account for and balance the need for emotional and practical support and the need to demonstrate independence and maintain personal integrity into older age. The participants talked about caring and support as a debt to be called on or an obligation to be avoided. They discussed the care taken to manage the equality of contributions to any relationship in terms of need, time, money, practical help and emotional support. Parents described the provision of emotional and practical support in terms of money, household chores and child care. In return, they can accept supportive and ongoing contact with their children without being positioned as a burden. In this way, relationships provide a web of obligation for support, which must also be managed in terms of equality of giving.
Managing identity
These accounts exemplify the resources used by people to construct themselves as virtuous members of society. In the terms of this analysis, one morally virtuous position is to focus on the intersection of independence and contribution. The virtuous subject position is that of an independent individual who demonstrably contributes to family and community, while the position to be avoided is that of dependency and demand. The discursive work required to maintain these positions in the face of potentially competing accounts is illustrated in the descriptions of avoiding excessive emotional and practical demands and achieving reciprocity. The participants were concerned to present themselves as both independent and socially integrated.
This was well illustrated during the exchange with Sarah reproduced below. The interviewer (I) asked if the arrival of a new grandchild would be ‘a bit of a challenge’. Sarah (S) initially explained that there were unlikely to be any tensions with her daughter's family, and denied that there would be any competition for attention by positioning herself firmly as ‘not that type of person’. Sarah used the exchange to describe herself:
I: Because that will be a bit of a challenge once the baby is born as to?
S: I don't think so because I'm not that type of person.
I: Not too?
S: I'm here if my daughter wants me.
I: Okay.
S: But I'm not a demanding
I: Okay, that's nice.
S: I don't demand that my daughter be here and they let me know when they're coming over and if we're here we're here.
I: Sure.
S: And she rang me this morning and said, ‘Mum, we're coming over after work to see Dad’. I said, ‘that's fine, come for dinner’. But no, I would never ever make demands on my children.
This extract begins with the interviewer enquiring about Sarah's relationship with her son-in-law's family and suggesting that the birth of a grandchild will be a challenge for the family. To Sarah, the hesitation of the interviewer's ‘as to’ implies that she will be a demanding grandmother. In her swift response, Sarah re-positions herself as independent from her daughter (which the interviewer reinforces as a good position). She does not demand to see her daughter, and has a life outside of her children's visits. By stating, ‘if we're here, we're here’, Sarah establishes that she and her husband could easily be somewhere else when her daughter visits. She is also concerned to be available to her children: she is ‘here if my daughter wants me’ and will accommodate visits if given warning. This demonstrates that her daughter's wants determine the intimacy of their relationship, not the mother's demands. The extract is explicitly directed towards establishing Sarah as a certain ‘type of person’, in opposition to the negative portrayal only referred to obliquely as someone who might be possessive of a new baby in the family. Sarah, like many of the participants, manages her presentation of social contact to avoid the negative position of demand and dependency.
The independence positioning was not unproblematic for Sarah. Later in the same interview, she described the difficulty of managing her need to connect and share her concerns with others, illustrating how positioning herself as a not-demanding person impacted on her ability to manage the social contact. Sarah described her husband as an unsuitable confidant because of his unsympathetic fatalism, and remembered the support she received from her late mother. The interviewer then inquired about support from her daughter:
S: I always used to be able to talk to Mum, Mum never advised me, she would just listen. You've got to make your own decisions but it was nice to talk.
I: What about with your daughter?
S: I do but I don't like bothering her. I think you don't bother your own children with Mummy's problems.
I: Interesting, and yet you would talk to your Mum but she didn't ever convey that she was being bothered or anything?
S: Oh no, and Mum enjoyed the company.
I: Okay, who do you confide in now since Mum's passed away over the last few years; who has been your confidant?
S: Quite often I do talk to my daughter but I don't talk to anyone. I guess one day I will blow and I'll just go absolutely, I just let things flow over.
Sarah has a daughter she would like to talk to and who is ultimately described as the only person in whom she can confide, but the relationship is difficult to negotiate given Sarah's concern not to burden her daughter with ‘Mummy's problems’. The relationship between mother and daughter of ‘bothering her’ can be read in the context of efforts to avoid being demanding, as discussed earlier. Sarah has clearly positioned the relationship between mother and daughter as one determined by her daughter's wants, not her own. Sarah admitted the inadequacy of this relationship with her daughter and accepted that her concerns are mounting and that one day she will ‘blow’. The way she constructed the relationship with her daughter limits what Sarah can say to her, and consequently the level of support she received.
When the interviewer positioned the relationship between Sarah and her mother in the same way and asked ‘did she ever convey that she was being bothered?’, Sarah immediately denounced this interpretation by explaining that the relationship was reciprocal. Sarah's mother was not bothered because ‘she enjoyed the company’. This reciprocal need of the company of her daughter justified the relationship. The extract demonstrates well how reciprocity provides a resource for managing the boundaries between avoiding demands and dependency and maintaining valued social connections. Through her reply, ‘Oh no, and Mum enjoyed the company’, Sarah re-positioned her need for social support and her mother's need for company as beneficial to both and so not demanding, and avoided the previously established positioning of the type of person who demands from others. Sarah is able to say more and receive more support from her mother through the reciprocity of the relationship. She is unable to use this same resource to manage the relationship with her daughter, and consequently is constrained from experiencing the support she needs.
Reciprocity figures as an important social exchange with which to negotiate the tensions inherent in family obligations, expectations and independence. Because the focus in much of this talk was on the complex management of relationships and the participants' wishes to maintain independence, issues of helping were often framed by the understanding that it is appropriate for relationships to be reciprocal. In this way, helping and receiving help and support in return is separated from the dependency that most participants were keen to distance themselves from.
Discussion
The participants in this study constructed themselves as independent and socially integrated people through their accounts of how they practised reciprocity. The notion of reciprocity allowed them to describe social connections that were without dependency. Reciprocity works in a number of different ways, with particular concern for equality of value and equality of need in reciprocal arrangements. Reciprocity understood as an equivalence of giving and receiving offers older people a clear rejection of the position of dependency through the maintenance of equal relationships. Although reciprocity was commonly described in terms of a balance of giving and receiving, it was also constructed during the interviews within a broader understanding of a long-term commitment to accepting what you need and providing what you have.
Many recent discussions of reciprocity in the lives of older people have focused on intergenerational reciprocity (e.g. Cylwik Reference Cylwik2002; Grundy Reference Grundy2005; Verbrugge and Chen Reference Verbrugge and Chen2008), particularly financial reciprocity within families (e.g. Kunemund, Motel-Klingebiel and Kohli Reference Kunemund, Motel-Klingebiel and Kohli2005). Our analysis demonstrates that reciprocity is an important feature in the relationships of older people in many ways that are not confined to intergenerational or financial transfers. These constructions of reciprocity are used to manage time, skills and caring obligations across diverse relationships. They depend in part on how the participants conceptualised independence and managed social relationships, and have important implications for identity in older age. Townsend, Godfrey and Denby (Reference Townsend, Godfrey and Denby2006) noted that their participants emphasised reciprocity and caring about others whilst also being careful not to become a burden. Their understandings of a good life in older adulthood included mutual help and reciprocal relationships, with ‘success’ seen as the ability to give and receive. Similarly, our findings demonstrate that accepting help is often subject to complex negotiations, and these often included efforts to maintain a balance between giving and receiving. When older people required help from others, the importance of maintaining some equivalence in the exchange relationship was emphasised. The discursive resource of reciprocity allows older people to accept and acknowledge their connections to others without needing to accept a position of dependency.
The demands of managing a moral identity in the context of poor health and limited financial and social resources have implications for more disadvantaged elders. Accounts of ‘positive’ and ‘successful’ ageing have been criticised for the ways in which they ignore and exclude many older people. The ability to age ‘positively’ or ‘successfully’ is dependent on social location, as the effects of a lifetime of disadvantage tend to accumulate in later life (Barrett et al. Reference Barrett, Twitchin, Kletchko and Ryan2006; Holstein and Minkler Reference Holstein and Minkler2003). Consequently, attempts to link positive ageing to self-reliance and activity have the potential to reinforce disadvantage, as disparities in economic and political power and health tend to intensify with age (Greene and Cohen Reference Greene and Cohen2005). Consequently, older people may need to manage their self-presentation and attend to moral accounts of independence and their contributions in the context of poor health and limited resources.
The constructions of reciprocity described here were utilised by a group of ‘young-old’ people (aged 55–70 years) who reported their health as predominantly good as they approached retirement. These discursive resources may be used differently by those who are much older or who have poor health or limited mobility. For example, older people living in an assisted-living facility used deference to staff and family as a way of reciprocating for the increasing help they required as they aged (Beel-Bates, Ingersoll-Dayton and Nelson Reference Beel-Bates, Ingersoll-Dayton and Nelson2007). These older people explained techniques of participation in community activities and pleasantness to staff and family as demonstrations of reciprocity. In particular, for those with the fewest resources and the least ability to reciprocate, gratitude was one of their only forms of social exchange. Alternatively, older people could position themselves with respect to a discourse of reciprocity by focusing on their past participation in reciprocal care and support. This would claim the positional advantage of reciprocity whilst maintaining the social connection and re-positioning any experience of dependency. Future research could unpack how differences in wider discourses of ageing that privilege independence and social inclusion are managed in the context of older age and poorer health.
Implications of the findings
Older people attempt to reject the association of ageing with dependency and to regulate their own behaviour with regard to becoming or being treated as dependent. Many older people position themselves as a culturally constructed virtuous actor (Holstein and Minkler Reference Holstein and Minkler2003) that pursues self-reliance and productivity (Rudman Reference Rudman2006). Such positioning, however, has implications for what older people can do and for older people's ability to ask for help and support. Older people are often strongly self-reliant (Grant Reference Grant2006; Motenko and Greenberg Reference Motenko and Greenberg1995), but a focus on self-reliance and the avoidance of dependency may have negative consequences when older people face challenges for which they would benefit from support and care.
As people age, many become less able to manage on their own, and it is then that elders may be at risk of avoiding legitimate help-seeking or social support. With increasing age, the possibilities for continuing to reciprocate all help and support required in equal measure are likely to be limited. Many older people indicate that they would rather go without support than be a burden to others (Breheny and Stephens Reference Breheny and Stephens2007). This focus on balancing giving and receiving may mean older people refuse to accept assistance that they are unable to reciprocate, but relations of need can be understood as part of a normal process of mutual interdependence as people develop and grow in interaction with each other (Motenko and Greenberg Reference Motenko and Greenberg1995). Seeking and accepting help can be viewed as maintaining connectedness between people (Fine and Glendinning Reference Fine and Glendinning2005). This acknowledges the fundamental interdependence between people (Robertson Reference Robertson, Minkler and Estes1999) and involves a generalised expectation of giving and receiving without any specific counting of who gives or receives (Vincent Reference Vincent1995). Older people in a retirement community drew upon this understanding of reciprocity as a communal coping mechanism (Lawrence and Schiller Schigelone Reference Lawrence and Schiller Schigelone2002). Rather than attempting to maintain equality between people, members of this community used the resources and abilities of each other to cope with the changes as they aged.
In terms of policy implications, the ways that policy documents and media accounts discuss old age contain morally laden messages about positive or successful ageing and shape people's possibilities for action (Rudman Reference Rudman2006). These are not inevitable ways of experiencing older age, as individual action is both enabled and constrained by the structure and resources available (Powell Reference Powell2001). As such, these statements of social connection and independence are not private, but reflect shared understandings influenced by publicly available discourses of ageing. Current policies regarding older people promote individual independence, ways to promote self-reliance, and evince concerns with dependency (see New Zealand Ministry of Social Development 2001; New Zealand Office for Senior Citizens 2002). Encouraging older people to age more independently promotes a valued position for members of the community who are able to avoid dependence. How might social policy and support agencies manage the importance of social contact and participation in the context of independence? One possibility is to focus on enabling older people to interact more independently and to make fewer demands that they are unable to reciprocate. Alternatively, such agencies could promote a shift from independence as a marker of successful ageing, to include understandings of interdependence. Rather than focusing on dependence as linked with decline and disengagement, interdependence may be constructed as a stage of reciprocity and connectedness (both present and lifelong). Promoting the positive identity of older people could contextualise all members of the community as embedded within a social network of interdependence and reciprocity.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by a grant from the New Zealand Families Commission Blue Skies Fund.
