See old age differently
To write the book 80, 90, 100 per hour! , journalists Judith Lachapelle and Alexandre Sirois met many octogenarians and nonagenarians from Quebec who have a lot to say about the place we give to seniors. Extract.
The past year has put the spotlight on the vulnerability of the very old. However, many of them are still very active and have their heads full of projects, even at the dawn of their centenary! Journalists Judith Lachapelle and Alexandre Sirois highlight them with 80, 90, 100 per hour! (Les Éditions La Presse), a series of interviews with octogenarians and nonagenarians from Quebec who have a lot to say about the place we give to seniors. In this excerpt, the authors discuss with the sociologist Guy Rocher, who, at 97, is still deeply involved in our social debates.
Let us start with a personal question: do you feel like you're old?
I would tell you that I feel that my body has aged, that it is aging. It has been around for almost a century. But in this body, there is the me, which I distinguish from the body. What I call the me is my feeling of existing, my awareness of being, my passions, my intelligence, my emotions… And this me, it is not the same age as my body. I don't know how old he is, however. So let's say that the impression of being old, for me, is ambivalent. I know I am not okay with my aging body. And I think that's a feeling you can get with age. When I was young, I didn't have that feeling at all. I felt like a unity between me and my body. But I think I gradually felt, as I got older, a kind of dissociation. I would say that I am not aging at the same time as my body, mentally, psychically. Maybe that's why I continue to be active. I have the feeling that I still have within me the passion to live and the passion to act when I feel the need to do so.
There are likely more influential octogenarians today than ever before in history. This is blatant in the United States and especially in Washington. Americans will even have for the first time, in 2023, an octogenarian president. Are we witnessing a turning point?
Let us start with a personal question: do you feel like you're old?
I would tell you that I feel that my body has aged, that it is aging. It has been around for almost a century. But in this body, there is the me, which I distinguish from the body. What I call the me is my feeling of existing, my awareness of being, my passions, my intelligence, my emotions… And this me, it is not the same age as my body. I don't know how old he is, however. So let's say that the impression of being old, for me, is ambivalent. I know I am not okay with my aging body. And I think that's a feeling you can get with age. When I was young, I didn't have that feeling at all. I felt like a unity between me and my body. But I think I gradually felt, as I got older, a kind of dissociation. I would say that I am not aging at the same time as my body, mentally, psychically. Maybe that's why I continue to be active. I have the feeling that I still have within me the passion to live and the passion to act when I feel the need to do so.
There are likely more influential octogenarians today than ever before in history. This is blatant in the United States and especially in Washington. Americans will even have for the first time, in 2023, an octogenarian president. Are we witnessing a turning point?
I am not sure this is a turning point. What I personally believe is that the generation born immediately before or during World War II was fortunate enough to have the freedom to change things afterwards. To rebuild a society. To rebuild a culture. And I think it marked her a lot. And this is perhaps what makes Joe Biden, who belongs to this generation, can be what he is today. I am part of this generation. She was marked by the possibility to change things and the will to do so. We experienced an exceptional situation during the several decades following the Second World War. This is how I see the Biden phenomenon right now, like others elsewhere.
In your collection of interviews with your nephew, François Rocher, you speak of your generation when you recount your first years of teaching. You say that there were young people around you who looked like you. “Who knew that life is fragile, who knew that situations are fragile, that everything can change and that what is given to us, we must make the most of it. »It is this generation which, today, wants to benefit as much as possible from what it received and to continue to change things?
You are right. I think that's part of the mentality of this generation. The war had made many things fragile. We quickly learned, after the war, of the division of the world, the fragility of peace. And then, we were marked by the arrival in human history of the atomic bomb and the possibility of atomic war. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we were suddenly well aware that a weapon of mass destruction had just been born. And that we could all die quickly, like the citizens of Hiroshima. I think that we should not minimize what represented for us the advent of the dissociation of the atom.
In your collection of interviews with your nephew, François Rocher, you speak of your generation when you recount your first years of teaching. You say that there were young people around you who looked like you. “Who knew that life is fragile, who knew that situations are fragile, that everything can change and that what is given to us, we must make the most of it. »It is this generation which, today, wants to benefit as much as possible from what it received and to continue to change things?
You are right. I think that's part of the mentality of this generation. The war had made many things fragile. We quickly learned, after the war, of the division of the world, the fragility of peace. And then, we were marked by the arrival in human history of the atomic bomb and the possibility of atomic war. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we were suddenly well aware that a weapon of mass destruction had just been born. And that we could all die quickly, like the citizens of Hiroshima. I think that we should not minimize what represented for us the advent of the dissociation of the atom.
Could it be inferred that the attitude of your generation towards old age is not the same as that of the previous generation? And can we conclude that the attitude of society towards old age is changing?
I think the XX th century was difficult for the elderly. It is the century of inventions. During the XX th century, there were so many technical changes ... The automotive, aviation, marine. Transport, but also communications, robotization. And each of these technical changes favored young people. When cars first appeared, they were scarce on the roads, and the elderly did not drive. Aviation ... The aviators were young people, not old people. Communications… The elderly have been increasingly overwhelmed. And still are today.
It is young people who master the new communications.
I would say that the elderly fell victim to the fact that these inventions came quickly, that the young people grabbed them quickly and that it created a negative generational gap. Previously, the elderly could represent, in Quebec as elsewhere, experience and perhaps even wisdom. We respected what they had done for us. They were pioneers. But this aura of respect for the elderly quickly dissolved due to technical changes. Their experience was no longer worth much in front of the automobile, the telephone, the radio, the television… Their experience was becoming outdated. I believe it is a phenomenon of civilization linked to modernity. And it continues, we cannot escape it. If we want to reestablish a more positive relationship with the elderly, you have to do it with that context in mind. This means that we have to change our attitude towards the elderly and not believe that they are necessarily outdated because they no longer
have control over some of these recent inventions.
I also note that, in residences [for the elderly], we did not take into account the fact that the elderly may have fields of interest. The climate of these residences, whether they are called CHSLDs or otherwise, is not favorable to intellectual development, to the continuity of intelligence. I find it to be bankruptcy. And that's part of the attitude we have towards the elderly. I often hear nurses or attendants - and I have experienced this in nursing homes or in hospitals - talking to us like children. Tell us: "little old people" or "little old women".
It is both infantilizing and a little contemptuous.
You are therefore telling us that there are mentalities to change in Quebec with regard to old age.
Yes. And what should contribute to the change in mentality would be a change in policy towards the elderly. Instead of continuing to build residences for the elderly as we want to do at the moment, we should on the contrary encourage the maintenance of the elderly at home. France is a model that we should follow. The elderly are kept at home as long as possible, and services are organized to allow them to stay at home. There are many more services for the elderly at home in France than here. And that has a significant effect. I notice that the elderly who have been sent to CHSLDs or residences, we no longer take care of them much, we no longer visit them, because someone else is taking care of them. Responsibility has been handed over to the staff. While an elderly person who stays at home, children, parents, neighbors and friends take care of much more. And there is the possibility of a more active life. I have had the opportunity to verify it in France on several occasions and I find that it is a much more humane and socially profitable policy. Less expensive, too.
I think the XX th century was difficult for the elderly. It is the century of inventions. During the XX th century, there were so many technical changes ... The automotive, aviation, marine. Transport, but also communications, robotization. And each of these technical changes favored young people. When cars first appeared, they were scarce on the roads, and the elderly did not drive. Aviation ... The aviators were young people, not old people. Communications… The elderly have been increasingly overwhelmed. And still are today.
It is young people who master the new communications.
I would say that the elderly fell victim to the fact that these inventions came quickly, that the young people grabbed them quickly and that it created a negative generational gap. Previously, the elderly could represent, in Quebec as elsewhere, experience and perhaps even wisdom. We respected what they had done for us. They were pioneers. But this aura of respect for the elderly quickly dissolved due to technical changes. Their experience was no longer worth much in front of the automobile, the telephone, the radio, the television… Their experience was becoming outdated. I believe it is a phenomenon of civilization linked to modernity. And it continues, we cannot escape it. If we want to reestablish a more positive relationship with the elderly, you have to do it with that context in mind. This means that we have to change our attitude towards the elderly and not believe that they are necessarily outdated because they no longer
have control over some of these recent inventions.
I also note that, in residences [for the elderly], we did not take into account the fact that the elderly may have fields of interest. The climate of these residences, whether they are called CHSLDs or otherwise, is not favorable to intellectual development, to the continuity of intelligence. I find it to be bankruptcy. And that's part of the attitude we have towards the elderly. I often hear nurses or attendants - and I have experienced this in nursing homes or in hospitals - talking to us like children. Tell us: "little old people" or "little old women".
It is both infantilizing and a little contemptuous.
You are therefore telling us that there are mentalities to change in Quebec with regard to old age.
Yes. And what should contribute to the change in mentality would be a change in policy towards the elderly. Instead of continuing to build residences for the elderly as we want to do at the moment, we should on the contrary encourage the maintenance of the elderly at home. France is a model that we should follow. The elderly are kept at home as long as possible, and services are organized to allow them to stay at home. There are many more services for the elderly at home in France than here. And that has a significant effect. I notice that the elderly who have been sent to CHSLDs or residences, we no longer take care of them much, we no longer visit them, because someone else is taking care of them. Responsibility has been handed over to the staff. While an elderly person who stays at home, children, parents, neighbors and friends take care of much more. And there is the possibility of a more active life. I have had the opportunity to verify it in France on several occasions and I find that it is a much more humane and socially profitable policy. Less expensive, too.
Let's come back to this idea that the elderly have somehow fallen victim to inventions because they lack the knowledge to navigate today's society. Your generation - you and others like Anthony Fauci who, at 80, has been the number one expert in the United States since the start of the pandemic - haven't decided to thumb their noses at this destiny?
To prove that it remains, despite technological advances, very relevant?
Yes, I believe so. While this generation may feel overwhelmed, there are still people who have been active until the end. I am thinking of Paul Gérin-Lajoie [politician who was the first to occupy the post of Minister of Education in Quebec], Arthur Tremblay [senior civil servant, professor and senator], Yves Martin [senior civil servant, professor and rector]. I can name quite a few. I tell myself that it is not for nothing that I continue to have a certain social and political activity. It is because I am from this generation. It goes back to my time in college. When I was active in Catholic Action. It goes back to the time when, when we saw the Duplessis regime go away, we said to ourselves:
“This is our chance to change things. It stuck with us.
To prove that it remains, despite technological advances, very relevant?
Yes, I believe so. While this generation may feel overwhelmed, there are still people who have been active until the end. I am thinking of Paul Gérin-Lajoie [politician who was the first to occupy the post of Minister of Education in Quebec], Arthur Tremblay [senior civil servant, professor and senator], Yves Martin [senior civil servant, professor and rector]. I can name quite a few. I tell myself that it is not for nothing that I continue to have a certain social and political activity. It is because I am from this generation. It goes back to my time in college. When I was active in Catholic Action. It goes back to the time when, when we saw the Duplessis regime go away, we said to ourselves:
“This is our chance to change things. It stuck with us.
We get the impression that you are not one of those who feel overwhelmed. We also used your Gmail address to reach you.
It's true. I think it's because I keep looking to the future. I'm interested in our past, of course, but what interests me most is the future. If I was passed I think I would stop. But there, I continue to take care of the future of Quebec. Of the future of the rising generations. Perhaps this is a sign that I am not too overwhelmed!
In your opinion, should we also change our mentalities on the retirement age?
In this regard, Quebec has been ahead. For a while, retirement was compulsory at age 65. The Government of Quebec was one of those who pioneered the elimination of this obligation, which was considered discriminatory. This law was adopted by the PQ government of René Lévesque. When I was an academic, retirement was mandatory at age 65, as it still is in Ontario. But the new law allowed me to continue teaching until the age of 85, like others. And it's the same in many other areas.
This is important, because it means that retirement at 65 becomes a choice, whereas previously it was a constraint. I witnessed tragedies before this law. I have known colleagues who had to leave university at 65, but with too little retirement because they entered university at 45. I remember campaigning for these 65-year-old retirees to have additional benefits.
So the answer is yes, we should change mentalities. Because there are professional, administrative and intellectual careers where you can work much longer. It was arbitrary, 65 years old, and luckily we understood that in Quebec a number of years ago. I stayed at the university because I liked my job, the relationship with students, research, relationships with colleagues. So I didn't see why I would retire at 65. I was able to continue to live happily; I wasn't kicked out of college when I was 85!
Winston Churchill once said that "the further you can look into the past, the further into the future you will see." At almost 100 years old, with your in-depth knowledge of Quebec society, can you tell us what you see as the future for Quebec?
There are major trends which can already herald the future. The first is demographics. We cannot contradict her. She says what she has to say. What is striking, in Quebec as in certain other countries, is the very low birth rate. Too weak for the population to renew itself naturally. Our rate is around 1.6 or 1.7, whereas it should be 2 to 2.5. We are in a demographically declining society. And, therefore, aging. A society which, in the future, will be reduced numerically or will continue through the contribution of immigration.
It's true. I think it's because I keep looking to the future. I'm interested in our past, of course, but what interests me most is the future. If I was passed I think I would stop. But there, I continue to take care of the future of Quebec. Of the future of the rising generations. Perhaps this is a sign that I am not too overwhelmed!
In your opinion, should we also change our mentalities on the retirement age?
In this regard, Quebec has been ahead. For a while, retirement was compulsory at age 65. The Government of Quebec was one of those who pioneered the elimination of this obligation, which was considered discriminatory. This law was adopted by the PQ government of René Lévesque. When I was an academic, retirement was mandatory at age 65, as it still is in Ontario. But the new law allowed me to continue teaching until the age of 85, like others. And it's the same in many other areas.
This is important, because it means that retirement at 65 becomes a choice, whereas previously it was a constraint. I witnessed tragedies before this law. I have known colleagues who had to leave university at 65, but with too little retirement because they entered university at 45. I remember campaigning for these 65-year-old retirees to have additional benefits.
So the answer is yes, we should change mentalities. Because there are professional, administrative and intellectual careers where you can work much longer. It was arbitrary, 65 years old, and luckily we understood that in Quebec a number of years ago. I stayed at the university because I liked my job, the relationship with students, research, relationships with colleagues. So I didn't see why I would retire at 65. I was able to continue to live happily; I wasn't kicked out of college when I was 85!
Winston Churchill once said that "the further you can look into the past, the further into the future you will see." At almost 100 years old, with your in-depth knowledge of Quebec society, can you tell us what you see as the future for Quebec?
There are major trends which can already herald the future. The first is demographics. We cannot contradict her. She says what she has to say. What is striking, in Quebec as in certain other countries, is the very low birth rate. Too weak for the population to renew itself naturally. Our rate is around 1.6 or 1.7, whereas it should be 2 to 2.5. We are in a demographically declining society. And, therefore, aging. A society which, in the future, will be reduced numerically or will continue through the contribution of immigration.
It is a very important aspect of the future of Quebec. Will we have a nativist policy? I do not think so. I was aware that Mr. Lévesque would have liked to institute a nativist policy, and that was very badly received. This means that, for the future of Quebec, it is even more important to give future generations a vibrant, rich and attractive culture of Quebec. Because it is obvious that the demographic decline
poses a problem of collective identity. It's inevitable.
At the moment, we are working on a language policy, but it cannot be detached from a cultural policy for the future. That is to say, a cultural policy based on a knowledge of our history, which tells us both what we have been, but also what we can still be.
Let's come back to this idea, for some, that it was better before. Let's say that tomorrow we invent a time machine. And let's say someone asks you for advice on whether their child should be born today or in 1924,
the year you were born. What do you recommend to him?
Today, certainly. I am not going back to the past. Note that I am happy to have been born in 1924, but there are today, for the unborn child, considerable possibilities of development of all kinds which did not exist when I was born. So there are future prospects for young people, which we did not have when I was born. In this regard, that today's young people can take advantage
of all that the current world has to offer, so much the better!
And how do you want to be remembered?
As of a committed citizen, I think. It would be enough!
poses a problem of collective identity. It's inevitable.
At the moment, we are working on a language policy, but it cannot be detached from a cultural policy for the future. That is to say, a cultural policy based on a knowledge of our history, which tells us both what we have been, but also what we can still be.
Let's come back to this idea, for some, that it was better before. Let's say that tomorrow we invent a time machine. And let's say someone asks you for advice on whether their child should be born today or in 1924,
the year you were born. What do you recommend to him?
Today, certainly. I am not going back to the past. Note that I am happy to have been born in 1924, but there are today, for the unborn child, considerable possibilities of development of all kinds which did not exist when I was born. So there are future prospects for young people, which we did not have when I was born. In this regard, that today's young people can take advantage
of all that the current world has to offer, so much the better!
And how do you want to be remembered?
As of a committed citizen, I think. It would be enough!
Judith Lachapelle et Alexandre Sirois
ACTUALITE
https://lactualite.com/societe/voir-la-vieillesse-autrement/?utm_source=L%E2%80%99actualit%C3%A9&utm_campaign=34e8db6ea5-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2021_09_25_05_00&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f566f03091-34e8db6ea5-397295322
ACTUALITE
https://lactualite.com/societe/voir-la-vieillesse-autrement/?utm_source=L%E2%80%99actualit%C3%A9&utm_campaign=34e8db6ea5-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2021_09_25_05_00&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f566f03091-34e8db6ea5-397295322