Introduction
This essay seeks to evaluate the concept of adultism through the sociological lenses of power, privilege, intersectionality, and identity. Adultism, defined as the systemic bias and discrimination against younger individuals based on age, reflects the social construction of reality as highlighted by Johnson (2006), where identities are shaped by societal norms and structures. Drawing on key texts such as Johnson’s *Privilege, Power, and Difference* and Adams et al.’s *Readings for Diversity and Social Justice*, this analysis will explore how age influences power and privilege at the micro, meso, and macro levels as conceptualised by Kirk and Okazawa-Rey (Adams et al., 2018). It will further consider the daily impact of privilege (or its absence), the role of social institutions and the legal system in perpetuating age-based power dynamics, and the intersectional dimensions of age with factors like gender, race, and class. Through this examination, the essay aims to provide a sound understanding of how age operates as a axis of privilege and oppression within society, while acknowledging the limitations of a singular focus on age without broader contextualisation.
Age, Power, and Privilege: A Social Construction
Johnson (2006) argues that the “social construction of reality” fundamentally shapes identities, including age, by ascribing meanings and values to certain groups over others. Adultism emerges as a clear manifestation of this process, where adults are positioned as inherently more capable, authoritative, and deserving of power compared to children and youth. This bias is not rooted in biological inevitability but in societal norms that privilege maturity and experience, often marginalising younger individuals. For instance, children are frequently denied autonomy in decision-making, whether in familial settings or educational environments, reflecting a power imbalance that is culturally ingrained.
At the individual level, age influences daily existence profoundly. Young people often face restrictions on their agency, such as curfews or mandatory schooling, which, while arguably protective, limit their freedom compared to adults (Johnson, 2006). Conversely, adults enjoy privileges such as voting rights and legal autonomy, which are denied to minors, illustrating how age operates as a gatekeeper to societal participation. This daily disparity highlights the tangible effects of privilege, where the absence of power for younger individuals can result in frustration or diminished self-worth, while adults may take their access to resources and decision-making for granted.
Age and the Micro, Meso, and Macro Levels of Social Identity
Kirk and Okazawa-Rey, as cited in Adams et al. (2018), provide a framework for understanding social identity across micro (individual interactions), meso (community and organisational contexts), and macro (societal and institutional structures) levels. At the micro level, age influences power through interpersonal dynamics. For example, a child’s opinions may be dismissed by adults in family settings, reinforcing adult dominance in private spheres. This mirrors Johnson’s (2006) observation that privilege often operates invisibly in everyday interactions, where adults may not even recognise their authority as a form of power.
At the meso level, age-based privilege manifests in community and organisational settings such as schools or workplaces. Schools, for instance, often prioritise adult perspectives—teachers and administrators—over students, who are rarely involved in governance or policy-making. This imbalance perpetuates adultism by framing youth as passive recipients rather than active contributors. Furthermore, in workplaces, older employees may be privileged with assumptions of wisdom or reliability, while younger workers face stereotypes of inexperience, impacting hiring or promotion decisions.
At the macro level, societal structures and cultural narratives broadly shape age-based power dynamics. Media portrayals often depict youth as reckless or naive, while venerating older age as synonymous with wisdom (Adams et al., 2018). Such representations reinforce systemic adultism, embedding power imbalances into the collective consciousness. Additionally, economic policies that exclude younger individuals from certain benefits—such as limited access to welfare for those under 18—further entrench disadvantage at this level.
Social Institutions and Age-Based Power Dynamics
Social institutions play a pivotal role in shaping and maintaining power and privilege based on age. The education system, for instance, often operates as a site of adult authority, where curricula and disciplinary measures are designed without input from students. As Johnson (2006) notes, institutions reflect and reproduce societal inequalities, and schools are no exception, frequently prioritising control over empowerment when it comes to younger individuals. This can stifle critical thinking and agency among youth, perpetuating their marginalisation.
Similarly, the family as an institution often upholds adultism by reinforcing hierarchical structures. Parents or guardians wield significant control over children’s lives, from financial decisions to personal freedoms, reflecting broader cultural assumptions about adult superiority. While such structures may be intended to provide care, they can inadvertently diminish a young person’s sense of self-determination, highlighting the dual nature of institutional power as both protective and oppressive.
The Legal System: Enforcing and Denying Privilege by Age
The legal system is a key mechanism through which age-based privilege is created, enforced, or denied. In the UK, laws explicitly delineate rights and restrictions based on age, such as the minimum voting age of 18 or the legal drinking age of 18 (UK Government, 2023). These thresholds, while often justified by developmental concerns, inherently privilege adults by granting them access to political and social participation that is denied to minors. Moreover, laws around child protection, though necessary, can sometimes infantilise young people, denying them agency in decisions about their own welfare.
Conversely, older adults may also face legal marginalisation, as seen in policies around mandatory retirement ages, which can strip individuals of economic power based on arbitrary age limits. Thus, the legal system operates as a double-edged sword, conferring privilege to some age groups while denying it to others, often without fully accounting for individual capacities or contexts (Johnson, 2006).
Intersectionality: Age in Conjunction with Gender, Race, and Class
Intersectionality, a concept central to Adams et al. (2018), reveals how age interacts with other axes of identity such as gender, race, and class to shape experiences of power and privilege. For instance, a young Black male may face compounded marginalisation due to adultism, racism, and assumptions about masculinity, experiencing heightened scrutiny or stereotyping compared to a young White female. Similarly, class intersect with age, where wealthier youth might access private education or legal advocacy to mitigate adultist constraints, privileges unavailable to working-class peers.
Gender also plays a significant role; young women often face additional layers of control rooted in patriarchal norms, such as stricter curfews or expectations of domestic responsibility, compared to young men. Therefore, while age alone structures power, its impact is amplified or mitigated by these intersecting identities, underscoring the complexity of privilege as not merely additive but interwoven (Adams et al., 2018).
Conclusion
In conclusion, adultism exemplifies how age operates as a critical axis of power and privilege within the social construction of reality. At micro, meso, and macro levels, age influences interpersonal dynamics, community structures, and societal norms, often positioning adults as dominant while marginalising youth. Social institutions and the legal system further entrench these disparities, creating tangible impacts on individuals’ daily lives through restricted autonomy or access to rights. However, intersectionality reveals that age does not operate in isolation; its effects are shaped by gender, race, and class, complicating experiences of privilege and oppression. This analysis highlights the need for a nuanced understanding of age-based power dynamics, suggesting that addressing adultism requires not only policy reform but also cultural shifts towards valuing youth agency. Future exploration might consider how these dynamics evolve across different cultural contexts, further enriching our grasp of age as a sociological construct.
References
- Adams, M., Blumenfeld, W. J., Castaneda, C., Hackman, H. W., Peters, M. L., & Zuniga, X. (Eds.). (2018) Readings for Diversity and Social Justice. 4th ed. Routledge.
- Johnson, A. G. (2006) Privilege, Power, and Difference. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill.
- UK Government. (2023) Voting in the UK. GOV.UK.
