– Holstein, 2006, 317
“You’re not important in society.”
When Robert Butler coined the word “ageism”, he defined it as
“[a] process of systematic stereotyping or discrimination against people because they are old, just as racism and sexism accomplish with skin colour and gender. Ageism allows the younger generations to see older people as different than themselves; thus they subtly cease to identify with their elders as human beings.” (as cited in Butler, 1975) 
Butler saw ageism manifested in “a wide range of phenomena on both individual and institutional levels- stereotypes and myths, outright disdain and dislike, simple avoidance of contact, and discriminatory practices in housing, employment, and services of all kinds.” The strongest stereotypes around aging are those which equate aging with the “3 Ds”- disease, disability (in terms of actual functional impairment, or as perceived potential to lose abilities), and death. The Ontario Human Rights Commission has defined ageism to mean, in part,
“a tendency to structure society based on an assumption that everyone is young, thereby failing to respond appropriately to the real needs of older persons.”
Ageism can function as stereotypes (general statements about a group which may or may not be based on fact, or generalizing from the group to the individual). However ageism also functions as older persons’ invisibility, marginalization, and social exclusion. This is because the “other age” (persons who are not old) are treated as the norm and the more valued group. To the extent to which older people do not fit the perceived social norm, they are treated as “less”, which may include less valued and less visible. They become relegated to a second class status; their needs and their lives are treated as if they do not matter as much.
Ageist ideas are often ingrained and systemic. Ageism can inhibit people’s objectivity and subsequently influence decisions at the micro (individual/ family), meso (organization/ community) or macro (government/societal) levels of human interaction, law, and policy development without people even realizing this is happening. As a society, we seldom think to question the basis for our attitudes and beliefs. People simply incorporate the societal “norms” and values into their own way of thinking about and behaving towards older adults.
Ageism can be manifested as many small behaviours and decisions that cumulatively have significant negative impact on the lives of older adults. If we look at “small decisions“ individually and in isolation, any one may not appear to have much consequence or effect, but together they undermine rights and dignity of older persons. Phelan (2008) notes “Ageist assumptions become so integrated into common discourse in diverse social contexts that they become tacitly acceptable and legitimize a particular version of social reality which objectifies older people as a homogenous group in subject positions which emphasize these stereotypical negative attributes.“
Ageism is justly criticized as being exclusionary, anti-equality and anti-social justice. Among other things, ageism may be considered the lack of ability to have one’s interests represented or rights respected in society. Ageism is predicated on the belief that older adults do not and should not have equal rights and their interests “of course” should be subordinated to other persons and other interests.
B. What is the context of ageism?
At what points does ageism tend to occur? Do all persons experience ageism equally? Is there a conceptual difference between “ageism” and areas of law or policy that “simply” give greater attention to other exigencies?
While ageism is often characterized as only having to do with age or aging, a fuller understanding of the concept requires reflection on the multifaceted and diverse experiences of people before they reach (and in) later life. The concept of ageism must be able to reflect and integrate the fact there are differences in income, education, sexual orientation, gender, area of geographic residence, their family and marital status, immigration and citizenship status, race and ethnic origin, and mental, physical, or intellectual disabilities. It will be important to consider the cumulative effect of other “isms”, and the extent to which ageism may simply be later life sexism in disguise. There is likely not one ageism, but many diverse ageisms.
It has been suggested that ageism is somehow different (and implicitly not as bad) as other “isms”, because it is inherent to all persons (“we all grow old”). Because of this perceived “universal” nature, ageism is often taken for granted or not treated as seriously than sexism/heterosexism, able-bodiedism (ableism) or racism. The Ontario Human Rights Commission also points out that in law:
“Age cases tend to be treated differently than other discrimination cases, … The most noticeable difference from a human rights perspective is the lack of a sense of moral opprobrium linked to age discrimination which in comparable circumstances would generate outrage if the ground of discrimination were, say, race, sex or disability.” 
Jean Carette, retired professor at L’Université de Québec à Montréal, and president d’ESPACES 50 + has eloquently described the way in which many prejudices and negative images cultivated about older adults go beyond just a fear associated with aging and decline. Instead they are an unrestrained search for scapegoats for collective social difficulties, with increasingly virulent attacks against the current and emerging older generations. As baby boomers become “grandpa boomers” they are assumed to “have all the privileges and to have monopolized the advantages of their generation, leaving a country strangled by the debt, collapsing under the load of elder and condemned to the decline.” This caricature sets up a dangerous war between the ages, supplied with ignorance and prejudices, allowing for lapses of memory of the true historical and social causes.
C. Ageism and society
Ageism includes the wide range of stereotypes and a constellation of attitudes that prevent people from accurately assessing and responding to social problems and conditions of older adults. Like racism and sexism, it is a form of prejudice or prejudgment, and a form of oppression. It limits the lives of older people who are the object of this oppression; it also shapes perceptions of young and old. Both young and old can hold ageist attitudes. Ageism can contribute to apathy towards the ill treatment of older people and tolerance of activities which would be unacceptable for other age groups. Ageism may be considered as a barrier to obtaining full social citizenship in Canada.
Ageism is based on primarily negative perceptions of older persons and what life can or should hold for people in the “third age” and “fourth age”. Ageism is also perpetuated by the ways in which our society communicates about older adults. Ageist language can homogenize through the use of terms like “the elderly” and “the aged” (both terms carrying connotations of mental and physical frailty). Language can paternalize through the use of terms like “our seniors”, or “your loved one”. Ageist language allows older people to be treated as property, possessions or objects, not as individuals.
There are two competing views of aging and as a result potential sources for ageism:
“The ancient Greeks had two views of aging- the “geronte”- the ridiculous old person with cognitive and other declines and the “presbyte”- the wise old person rich in experience and wisdom.” 
In his original characterization of ageism, Robert Butler spoke of ageism in the context of positive and negative attitudes. The former refers to positive stereotypes about older adults (e.g. as wise, always caring). However what happens when we view older people in this manner, and what happens to those who fall short of these perceived ideals?
In recent years the gerontological literature, the media, and social policy have been placing increasing emphasis on “successful aging”, exemplified by the 85 year old marathoner, and the ever busy (“Energizer Bunny”TM) senior. The focus of successful aging is on activity, volunteerism and engagement. In part, the perspective helps to counter the negative attitudes about aging and older persons, but it still relies on a youth norm. Charpentier notes
“…while these approaches are certainly dynamic and inspirational, we feel that they risk becoming solidified into a new “hyperactive and socially useful” conception of aging, which risks maintaining the marginalization and personal liability of sick and dependent old people who “haven’t succeeded in aging well.”
There is an unstated social expectation and responsibility to live up to that ideal, with those who do not (or cannot) being blamed for their failure.
Ageism is also the perpetuation of the belief that individuals by themselves can achieve this “successful aging”, or that by individual effort and sufficient willpower they can undo all the social inequities that have led up to their later years or the inequities that arise in later life. Calasanti (2008) notes
“It [ageism] includes “age-blindness”—the belief that ‘age doesn’t really matter, and we should ignore age.’ But age does matter: bodies do change, old age is a social location burdened with the stigma of marginal status, and accumulated experiences do make a difference. Why deny this?”
1. Ageism, power and contribution
One of the emerging gerontological debates for ageism is t