SOCIOLOGY OF AGING JOURNAL ARTICLE REVIEW

The article review itself should consist of four parts. Use numbered sub-headings to show which part of the assignment you are addressing:

1. Reason for choosing this article: Why this one?

a. Include a personal reaction to the topic or issue and the article itself here.

2. Summary of the article: Write this immediately after reading your article, when it is freshest in your mind. Think of it as your ‘impressions’ of what it is about:

a. Do not include massive amounts of detail – this is not a summary.

b. A summary contains a balanced presentation of relevant ideas about the article so that another person is able to tell what it is about.

c. Depending on the length of the article, anything more than about a page is going beyond summarizing.

3. Assessment of the article: This is the core of the review, assess the article critically, which doesn’t necessarily mean negatively:

a. What did you think of the main thesis/purpose of the author?

b. How well did the author state and support their position?

c. What evidence/arguments do they use to do so?

d. What else do you feel needs to be said or examined besides the points the author made?

e. Are there identifiable paradigms and/or theoretical perspectives being used?

f. How radical – or mainstream – is the assessment?

g. Does the author engage in empathetic analysis?

h. Don’t just give a superficial treatment of plusses or minuses: go into depth.

4. Quotations. As you read the article keep track of statements you find particularly interesting or meaningful to you. Select four of them and analyze/react to them – about half a page double spaced should be sufficient for each of these.

GRADING CRITERIA :

· Is the article scholarly, and does it address an important social problem.

· Is the article adequately and correctly cited?

· Are each of the four parts stated above addressed, and in sufficient detail?

· Is the review written coherently and grammatically?

· Does the review meet the criterion?

2

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wean20

Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect

ISSN: 0894-6566 (Print) 1540-4129 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wean20

The Changing Career of “Elder Abuse and Neglect” as a Social Problem in Canada: Learning from Feminist Frameworks?

Joan Harbison PhD

To cite this article: Joan Harbison PhD (2000) The Changing Career of “Elder Abuse and Neglect” as a Social Problem in Canada: Learning from Feminist Frameworks?, Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 11:4, 59-80, DOI: 10.1300/J084v11n04_05

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1300/J084v11n04_05

Published online: 24 Oct 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 373

Citing articles: 15 View citing articleshttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wean20https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wean20https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1300/J084v11n04_05https://doi.org/10.1300/J084v11n04_05https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=wean20&show=instructionshttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=wean20&show=instructionshttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1300/J084v11n04_05#tabModulehttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1300/J084v11n04_05#tabModule

The Changing Career of ‘‘Elder Abuse and Neglect’’ as a Social Problem in Canada:

Learning from Feminist Frameworks? Joan Harbison, PhD

ABSTRACT. ‘‘Elder Abuse and Neglect’’ was constructed as a social problem by experts and has largely been a product of ‘‘expert’’ knowl- edge building and intervention. The idea of woman abuse as a social problem, on the other hand, originated with women themselves. The paper examines the changing social context in which some older people are currently seeking ownership of responses to mistreatment. It ex- plores emerging criticisms of present constructions of ‘‘elder abuse and neglect’’ and the needs they imply, and links these to feminist frame- works. It then considers the appeal and utility of these frameworks for older women active in the fight against mistreatment. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail address: [email protected] <Website:http://www.haworthpressinc. com>]

KEYWORDS. Elder abuse and neglect, feminist frameworks, social construction, ageism

INTRODUCTION

‘‘Elder Abuse and Neglect’’ was constructed as a social problem by ex- perts and has largely been a product of ‘‘expert’’ knowledge building and

Joan Harbison is Associate Professor, Maritime School of Social Work, Dalhou- sie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 3J5, Canada.

The author acknowledges with gratitude the earlier collaboration with her col- league, Marina Morrow, as well as her comments and support during work on the present paper.

The paper was developed from a paper authored by Joan Harbison and Marina Morrow presented at the Second National Conference on Elder Abuse, Toronto, March, 1999.

Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, Vol. 11(4) 1999 E 1999 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 59

JOURNAL OF ELDER ABUSE & NEGLECT60

intervention. Until recently older people’s participation in responses to the mistreatment of their peers has remained at the margins. Their increasing involvement has been supported by a period of emphasis by service and research funders on consumer and community participation, more than the initiatives of older people themselves. The idea of woman abuse as a social problem, on the other hand, originated with women. Women, mainly of younger generations, became intensely involved in lobbying against woman abuse and in providing services to women that would support them in identi- fying and leaving abusive situations and creating new lives beyond them.

This paper reviews the arguments about why older people so far have not taken charge of responses to the mistreatment of their peers. It examines the changing social context in which some older people are currently seeking ownership of responses to mistreatment, while others seek varying degrees and types of participation. It questions whether ‘‘expert’’ responses to older people’s mistreatment, constructed as ‘‘elder abuse and neglect,’’ may come under pressure to give way to lower cost community-centered responses, given the changing demographic situation, the socio-economic and political directions fostered by governments, and the demands of some older people. It explores emerging criticisms of present constructions of elder abuse and neglect and the needs they imply. It then considers why, so far, feminists have had little involvement in elder abuse and neglect and reflects on some emerg- ing feminist perspectives on the subject and their potential utility in the field and acceptability to older people. Finally, it identifies issues that older people will need to confront in incorporating feminist ideas into their work to com- bat mistreatment.

WHY HAVE OLDER PEOPLE NOT TAKEN OWNERSHIP OF THE MISTREATMENT OF THEIR PEERS?

The ways in which the mistreatment of older people have been constructed or understood, mainly by professionals and academics, have not easily lent themselves to the involvement of older people as full participants. Instead the mistreatment of older people under the guidance and domination of service providers and policy makers has become confined within a construction identified as ‘‘elder abuse and neglect’’ (Baumann, 1989; Biggs, 1996; By- theway, 1995; Dunn & Sadler, 1993; Harbison, 1998; Leroux & Petrunik, 1990; McCallum, 1994). This terminology reflects attempts to contain the problem of mistreatment as one which can be addressed at the level of the individual, for instance as emanating from interpersonal relationships in a dysfunctional family or from the illegal or criminal behaviors of family members or others (Biggs, Phillipson, & Kingston, 1995; Whittaker, 1996). These societal responses to the mistreatment of older people parallel those in

Joan Harbison 61

response to many of the social problems of our times. The ‘‘therapeutic idea in contemporary society’’ (Epstein, 1994, p. 3) refers to both the pervasive Freudian-based belief in the psycho-dynamic determinism of human behav- ior, and its corollary that all human behavior is amenable to positive change through the intervention of professional experts. This therapeutic approach [‘‘therapeutism’’] may also be seen as a ‘‘non-coercive social control mecha- nism’’ of the state (Epstein, 1994, p. 7). Not only are individuals, and the groups to which they belong, portrayed as inadequate to deal with their own problems but group demands based on broader interpretations are discour- aged. Where elder abuse and neglect remains constructed as ‘‘a family af- fair’’ (where even the need for, and negative outcomes of, residential care can be seen as a failure of the family to provide), there is less chance that older people will protest, en masse, about the social attitudes and conditions of an ageist society (Biggs, 1996; Bytheway, 1995). Hence, older people have received little support to take on major roles in combating mistreatment at either the individual or societal level.

Further there is evidence that throughout the history of Western Societies ‘‘ . . . ambivalence has been a recurring theme in social attitudes towards older people’’ (Biggs, 1996; Phillipson & Kingston, 1995, p. 89). This in- cludes social tensions relating to older people’s control over property, as well as their social, physical, and financial, demands on families. (This contradicts the popular myth of an earlier time when all older people were respected and loved by younger generations.) For the last several generations the assault on older people’s dignity and status in society has flowed from the needs of the economy and the labor market. From the 1950s on, retirement, and more recently early retirement, have become ‘‘ . . . in a real sense a euphemism for unemployment’’ (Townsend, 1981, p. 10). Older people were encouraged to think of themselves as disengaging from life and giving up responsibility for their own lives, as well as for those of others, and handing that responsibility to professional experts and caregivers (Cumming & Henry, 1961). The inter- nalization of these essentially ageist social values and social roles may play an important part not only in older people’s failure to take charge of re- sponses to mistreatment but in their willingness to suffer it in silence. More- over, the greater proportion who are women are in ‘‘double jeopardy’’ from ageism and sexism (Aitken & Griffen, p. 63). The reluctance to assume public roles which have not been part of their lives as housewives and moth- ers is reinforced by the fact that these domestic roles no longer lend them status in society (Aitken & Griffen, 1996; Harbison et al., 1995). There is also much discussion in the literature of how belief in traditional family values may deter older people from bringing their situation to the attention of others. Where older people believe that the family is the source of caring and protec- tion and that its privacy should be protected, it is seen as failure, betrayal, and

JOURNAL OF ELDER ABUSE & NEGLECT62

threat [of the unknown] to denounce it (Quinn & Tomita, 1997, pp. 5-7; Podnieks, 1992).

THE POTENTIAL FOR CHANGE

A number of factors which are now coalescing suggest that both the image and reality of how most older people live their lives may be undergoing important changes. These include in particular: the ageing of the population, and within it the impact of feminism grown older, and the ‘‘baby boom effect’’; the perception of the costs to society of continuing to construct older people as dependent; the consequent interests of governments, professionals, and older people themselves in reframing ageing in a positive way; and successful ageing and the discovery of older people as a market which is influencing their reconstruction in the media.

Changing ‘‘Dependencies’’: Reconstructing Ageing

As noted above many of the ‘‘dependencies’’ of older people were initially created by the state in the interests of the economy. Further, these dependen- cies were fostered by burgeoning professionalism based on gerontological theory and an exponential growth in the health care industry (Estes, 1993; Estes & Binney, 1989; Evans, 1985; Gibson, 1993). However, demographic projections of the ageing of society combined with concern about the costs of services to older people have reinforced in the public sphere society’s long standing ambivalence about the rights and entitlements of older people (Bytheway, 1995). This is clearly illustrated in articles debating the question ‘‘Do Seniors Have It Too Good?’’ written by journalism students (The Hali- fax Commoner, University of Kings’s College School of Journalism, Novem- ber 20th, 1998).

We need to get off our high and mighty lazy behinds and get to work. We are not defined by our history. Today’s seniors worked hard to ensure they had a retirement program. If we want one, we need to make one for ourselves. (Watt, N., p. 12)

Yes, the senior generation endured a cataclysmic Depression, turned back the tides of fascism, then ushered in social reform and civil rights for an encore. Grandma and Grandpa are certainly worthy of our re- spect, but not at the expense of our well-being. I refuse to keep selling out my future for their present. It’s high time the senior generation started paying its own way. (Pachal, P., p. 12)

Joan Harbison 63

The last quotation illustrates how constructions of older people as depen- dent and a burden on society have an alarming potential to support intergen- erational conflict. Governments need to be wary of ‘‘ . . . [shifting the] potential blame from their own economic management [failure] to particular segments (or victims) within the society’’ (Gibson, 1995, p. 22; see also Aber-Schlesinger & Schlesinger, 1999, p. 291; Gee & MacDaniel, 1994; Minkler, 1991; Vincent, 1995). Emerging revisionism in demographic pro- jections given publicity under newspaper headings such as ‘‘Amazing Facts: Boom gloom’s voice of reason’’ (Little, 1999, Globe & Mail). Little bases his discussion on research by Denton and Spencer, at McMaster University Re- search Institute for Quantitative Studies in Economics and Population, which suggests that previous projections and their interpretations over-rated both the rate of population ageing and its negative economic impact. Even if this new information is supported by further research, it may take some time to gain hold of the public imagination. Meanwhile governments are engaged in extricating themselves from the responsibilities and costs for the care of older people and are attempting to shift these responsibilities to ‘‘families’’ includ- ing older people themselves (Vincent, 1995). At the same time academics and other researchers are discovering (or rediscovering) the mental and physical powers of older individuals (see, for instance, Sperry & Rosen, 1996) which may imply their ability to care for themselves and others.

Successful Ageing and the Discovery of Older People as a Market

Over the last ten years or so the idea that older people can age ‘‘successful- ly’’ has been growing. In 1998 Rowe and Kahn, in their Successful Aging, reported on ten years of research which concluded that lifestyle choices (more than genes as popularly supposed) determined how well we age both mentally and physically. Older people, or at least those over fifty who are relatively well-off financially, have been discovered as a market. There is now an industry based on the notion of older people’s capacity for self-im- provement through new learning, spiritual development, mental and physical fitness, travel, and culture (Foot, 1996). A necessary accompaniment to this, supporting the notion of older people as consumers of goods and services for an active (as opposed to passive and dependent) life, has been a shift in the popular media images of ageing. For instance, Chen and Nan Zhou, in an analysis of the portrayal of older people in Canadian magazine advertise- ments published in 1994, described their findings as remarkably different from those of earlier studies by themselves and others. Older people are portrayed in a much more positive manner than previously. They con- cluded that this was on account of an ‘‘overwhelming’’ potential for profit (p. 214). They also noted that a change in Canadian societal values meant that ‘‘. . . advertising that demeans any group is no longer tolerated’’ (p. 215).

JOURNAL OF ELDER ABUSE & NEGLECT64

Driven by demography, socio-economic policies, research findings, and market forces the public face of older people is changing. Once older people were mainly viewed as frail, vulnerable, of limited capacities, and subject to care by others. Now they are being reconstructed as physically and mentally able with the capacity to take care of themselves. Further, many public portrayals are as people with choices based on sufficient or surplus income. The positive outcomes of this reconstruction of ageing are offset by a number of factors. These include the continuing tendency to deny the negative as- pects of ageing associated with structural inequalities in society such as poverty, especially among women and aboriginals, as well as issues of power related to gender, culture, ethnicity, and class. There is some evidence that older people’s portrayal as well-off, self-involved and physically and mental- ly sound has already produced resentment in younger age groups who are fearful of what opportunities their own futures hold. Those older people without these characteristics may be seen as individually responsible for their failure to age ‘‘successfully’’ and to provide for their old age, rather than as casualties of social, structural, or physiological circumstances. As well, some older people are attempting to isolate themselves from ageism by living in ‘‘seniors’’ communities. Often these ‘‘communities’’ are created by profit oriented entrepreneurs whose promises of positive care are likely to evapo- rate with their older residents’ financial resources and increasing health care needs.

The implications of these changes for other changes in society which would lessen ageism and the mistreatment of older people are uncertain. The career of ‘‘elder abuse and neglect’’ as a social problem may be shifting in a new direction. In 1990 Leroux and Petrunik questioned whether ‘‘elder abuse and neglect’’ would become a fully fledged social problem. Harbison and Morrow (1998) noted that in Canada throughout the 90s ‘‘elder abuse and neglect’’ had the attention and support, not only of the experts lobbying for its legitimacy but of governments and other funding agencies. Presently, for reasons discussed above, in particular governments’ restrictions on funding for social programs, ‘‘elder abuse and neglect’’ in Canada is unlikely to receive new resources (Aber-Schlesinger & Schlesinger, 1999). Based on the commitment of experts, and increasingly of older people’s activism, its mo- mentum is such that ‘‘elder abuse and neglect’’ is unlikely to fade away. However, its construction as a social problem may change.

‘‘PARTNERSHIPS’’ BETWEEN SENIORS AND EXPERTS: WHOSE PRIORITIES?

The new societal constructions of older people identified above with their potential relationship to government policies, have implications for responses

Joan Harbison 65

to the mistreatment of older people. In Canada the question of ownership of elder abuse and neglect is under discussion. Part of the agenda of the Second National Conference on Elder Abuse held in Toronto in March, 1999, was a proposal to establish a Canadian Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse. A number of seniors commenting on the proposal viewed it as an opportunity to identify ways in which seniors could take the lead in responses to ‘‘elder abuse and neglect.’’ However, the nature and degree of the ownership desired is not yet clear and is likely to differ among the many and diverse groups of seniors who are now active in various ways in attempts to deal with their mistreatment (see discussion in Gray Power–Working Session, Second Na- tional Conference on Elder Abuse: Proceedings, 1999).

CONSTRUCTIONS OF ‘‘ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT’’: WHOSE NEEDS? WHOSE RESPONSES?

To date academics and professionals from a wide variety of backgrounds within health and gerontological frameworks have mainly been responsible for the construction of ‘‘elder abuse and neglect’’ (Baumann, 1989; Biggs, 1996; Bytheway, 1995; Dunn & Sadler, 1993; Harbison, 1998; Leroux & Petrunik, 1990; McCallum, 1994; MacLean, 1995), whereas ‘‘ . . . elderly people and their advocates have been minor players in defining the discourse on elder abuse’’ (Neysmith, 1995a). Mistreated older people are seen as ‘‘adults in need of protection,’’ ‘‘persons subject to illegal acts,’’ ‘‘victims of domestic violence,’’ or as ‘‘agents for their own lives’’ (Harbison & Morrow, 1998). The first three of these constructions identify certain ‘‘needs’’ (Fraser, 1989) most of which can ‘‘best’’ be met by individualized, professional interventions (Epstein, 1994).

Where adults are viewed as in need of protection the implication is that they, like children, are unable or unwilling to make appropriate decisions for themselves and that targeted legislation (adult protection, mandatory report- ing, guardianship) is required which allows others to make decisions on their behalf. This overlooks the increasingly well publicized evidence that only a small minority of older people, including older abused people, are mentally incompetent. Despite the arguments of many academics and lawyers (Colling- ridge, 1993; Coughlan et al., 1995; Gordon & Tomita, 1990; McCallum, 1993; McDonald et al. 1991; Neysmith, 1995; Robertson, 1995) that targeted legislation can be used successfully in only a small number of situations (usually those subject to guardianship), the belief among professionals, older people in general, and seniors’ organizations, that legislation can provide satisfactory solutions for many manifestations of mistreatment continues. (For an exception see discussion in McKenzie, 1999, pp. 435-436). Legisla- tion is not only usually paternalistic in itself, it is also frequently invoked

JOURNAL OF ELDER ABUSE & NEGLECT66

(because it exists) where its use may be an infringement on the rights of mentally competent adults (Coughlan et al., 1995). Where legislation governs interventions professionals receive formal designation to intervene. Hence, older people are rarely eligible to assist their peers.

Despite provisions which would allow for prosecution, little use has been made of the existing Canadian criminal code to address those suffering mistreatment as victims of illegal acts relating to financial abuse or fraud or physical or sexual assault. This appears to follow strongly held beliefs among older people that abuse should be contained within the family and is ‘‘ . . . reinforced by the ways in which abuse and neglect are understood by professionals as individual or family issues, without reference to larger politi- cal and economic forces’’ (Harbison & Morrow, 1998, p. 702; see also Neys- mith, 1995a). Where abuse occurs outside the family, not infrequently the case with fraud, seniors may nevertheless be too embarrassed or intimidated to pursue legal action. As well, under-resourced police departments have ‘‘ . . . been slow to recognize the need to develop initiatives for dealing with seniors’’ (Hill, 1999, p. 445). Where police have become involved prelimi- nary evidence suggests that failure to gain sufficient evidence to charge or convict in cases of suspected abuse, especially where families are involved (see for instance discussion in McKenzie, 1999) has led police departments to advance professional ownership of abuse and neglect through close liaison with professional agencies (see, for instance the establishment of an inter-dis- ciplinary community consultation team in Calgary, Alberta; Hill, 1999, pp. 453-454, where seniors’ input into elder abuse and neglect is fostered sepa- rately through a Senior’s Police Advisory Committee which deals with policy issues external to the family). Initiatives which focus on professional inter- vention may well receive support from older people. However, while they are developed to protect older people from the consequences of ageism, when older people’s needs and the responses to them are identified by others they also retain the ageism that they are intended to address (Harbison, 1998; McKenzie, 1999).

There is a long history of attempts by younger women to engage and refine police intervention in domestic violence. However, older people’s need for privacy and the protection of their families frequently inhibit them from involving police. Further, given the reported lack of success of police inter- ventions and the predominance of professionals in responses to mistreatment of older people, it is not surprising that professionals have promoted and engaged in the development of responses based on interdisciplinary team- work, counseling, and family mediation (Kurrle, 1993; Lithwick, 1999; Quinn & Tomita, 1997). As well, the literature consistently suggests that many older victims of mistreatment choose to remain in abusive families. Therefore the services provided focus on dysfunction in the family (Nah-

Joan Harbison 67

miash, 1999; Quinn & Tomita, 1997) rather than ‘‘complex gender issues’’ or power conflicts in society (Whittaker, 1996). Some older people are wary of these approaches fearing that ‘‘ . . . when a response involves labeling seniors as recipients of services, it also implies a lack of equity and respect and in that way mimics the abusive relationship’’ instead of building on older people’s strengths, resiliency, and capacity for change (McKenzie, 1999, p. 439). Further, the reasons for older people’s ‘‘need’’ to remain in their families lie in the ineffectiveness of society in general, and specific communities in particular, to address the mistreatment of older people as a social and struc- tural issue as well as on an individual basis. This includes acknowledging that much abuse occurs outside the family, in particular in residential institutions (Beaulieu & Belanger, 1995). From her perspective as a senior’s advocate active in elder abuse, McKenzie suggests that ‘‘ . . . components of this work [addressing mistreatment] include a broad range of responses and a multi-layered or holistic that is consistent with local needs and abilities’’ (1999, p. 439). The Ontario Older Women’s Network (OWN) echoes this need for a broad-based approach in their study of shelter needs for abused older women (OWN/Kappel Ramji Consulting Group, 1998).

Older people’s participation in responses to mistreatment is both increas- ing and becoming more visible within the Canadian context. Currently many seniors’ organizations at both the national and the provincial/local level have undertaken initiatives concerning the mistreatment of older people. Often these involve partnerships among professionals, academics, and seniors themselves. Indeed such partnerships have, in many instances, become the pre-requisite for funding education, research, and services relating to mis- treatment and ‘‘elder abuse and neglect’’ (ARA Consulting Group, 1994). Hence older people’s views of mistreatment, and their appropriate roles in addressing it, have come under the influence of existing expert constructions of the problem of mistreatment of older people as ‘‘elder abuse and neglect.’’ Within this ideological framework roles have been legitimized for older people (as reflected for instance in many of the papers presented at the Second National Conference on Elder Abuse, Toronto, 1999, see SNCEA Proceedings). These roles include those as: consultants to governmental bod- ies about developing and implementing policies relating to abuse and neglect; consultants or participants in research about mistreatment; members of boards and advisory committees of organizations offering services to abused older people; members of seniors’ organizations which have other purposes but which involve themselves in addressing some aspects of mistreatment; members of seniors’ organizations established to address issues of mistreat- ment through public advocacy and education; volunteer participants assisting in direct service provision by professionals to older people who may reveal

JOURNAL OF ELDER ABUSE & NEGLECT68

themselves as suffering mistreatment; and direct service providers to older people who identify themselves as mistreated.

However, the degree to which the roles and activities in which they engage constitute older people acting as agents for their own lives, in the sense that their understanding of the conditions and circumstances of mistreatment are based on their own experiences rather the hegemonic interpretations of oth- ers, remains in question (Aronson, 1992; Sax, 1993).The complexity of this issue, and the difficulty of transcending the pervasive ideology of therapeut- ism (Epstein, 1994) are illustrated where the stated intent to ‘‘empower’’ older people nevertheless retains them firmly in roles as clients to be helped, and volunteers who assist professionals at the margins of helping. ‘‘Profes- sional intervenors are busy people who are limited in the time they can give for each client. Trained volunteer buddies who are carefully supervised can help to fill this gap for the client and pay regular friendly visits’’ (Nahmiash, 1999, p. 397).

What has emerged as territory relatively uncontested by professionals is the education of older people about elder abuse and neglect by their peers (although professionals are often hired as collaborators or assistants). It is not surprising therefore that educational materials, often produced with the help of government grants, usually refer to categories of abuse identified by pro- fessionals and academics such as financial abuse, physical abuse, neglect, and psychological abuse. However, these categories are illustrated by the individual experiences of older people, in written case histories, in person, or in video films (see, for example, the work of Way-Clark and Pace for Cana- dian Pensioners Concerned, Nova Scotia, 1994). While older people recog- nize that mistreatment occurs within an ageist society, suggested interven- tions are usually those of social workers, counselors, nurses, lawyers, and the criminal justice system as opposed to interventions which attack the social origins of abuse. For the reasons discussed above these professional re- sources are under pressure. The idea of community responses to abuse and neglect is one which is therefore attractive to governments as funders as well as older people who experience ageism in its many forms (Bytheway, 1995). One example of this shifting of responsibility to the community is the Com- munity Response Networks Initiative in British Columbia (McKenzie, 1999, p. 438). As well, the British Columbia Coalition to Eliminate Abuse of Seniors initiated an effort to address financial abuse of seniors where seniors played ‘‘ . . . a major role in the design and implementation of the project’’ (Ward-Hall, 1999, p. 326). (This was funded by Health Canada.)

Older people are as diverse as any other group in society. Further, much has been made of the fact that within our ageing society they now represent at least two generations (see discussion in Higgs, 1995). Not all are ‘‘joiners’’ and even those who are active in many seniors’ group activities may choose

Joan Harbison 69

to ‘‘leave elder abuse to the experts.’’ Many choose to work in collaboration with professionals. However, some older people, not infrequently those who are or have been professionals in policy or the caregiving professions, are beginning to assert their rights to take ownership of the directions for elder abuse through leadership in national and provincial/local organizations and specific initiatives. One Voice: the National Seniors’ Network entitled a press release promoting its community action resource kit ‘‘From Consultation to Action: Empowering Seniors to Combat Abuse of Older Adults.’’ In a back- ground paper for a Round Table discussion about the creation of a Canadian Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse, Jill Hightower emphasized both the importance of using her experience as an older person and of addressing ageism at the societal level (Hightower, 1998, pp. 19-21). Ms. Hightower was formerly a policy analyst for a provincial department of health and executive director to the British Columbia Institute of Family Violence and is currently a consultant and seniors’ activist in B.C. The Older Women’s Network (OWN) Ontario initiated its own study on the shelter needs of older women based on its concern ‘‘ . . . about the lack of public awareness, professional sensitivity and gaps in services in the area of abuse of older women’’ (OWN/ Kappel Ramji Consulting Group, 1998). A chief focus of discussions among seniors, academics, and professionals leading to the creation of a Canadian Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse was the position of seniors’ leaders that seniors should have leadership roles in the Network ‘‘ . . . to ensure ownership of the issues’’ (Second National Conference on Elder Abuse, Proceedings, 1999, p. 254). The increasing demand to attain leader- ship comes mainly from the younger generation of older women. This raises the question of whether feminism ‘‘grown older’’ will influence the direction that responses to the mistreatment of older people will take in the future.

FEMINIST THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS AND ‘‘ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT’’

There is a general agreement that the abuse of older women has been neglected by feminist theorists and activists (Aitken & Griffin, 1996, Aron- son, Thornewell, & Williams, 1995; Crichton, Bond, Harvey, & Ristock, 1999; Neysmith, 1995a, Whittaker, 1996). In part, this may be attributable to earlier understandings of the nature and consequences of ageing which cen- tered on dependency, frailty, and disengagement from life, and thus disquali- fied them from agency (Bytheway, 1995; Cumming & Henry, 1961). It has also been suggested that ‘‘ . . . the overemphasis on ‘experience’ in second- wave feminism has made feminists focus very closely on their specific life stages and immediate experiences, thus leading to a lack of engagement with issues not pertinent to their own situation’’ (Aitken & Griffen, 1996, p. 6). In

JOURNAL OF ELDER ABUSE & NEGLECT70

any case the dependency legitimized for older people was not challenged in the same way as that of younger women. However, now that ageist stereo- types of older people are coming under scrutiny, and elder abuse and neglect is becoming established as a social problem (Leroux & Petrunik, 1991, Har- bison & Morrow, 1998; see also discussion of the emergence of woman abuse in DeKeseredy & McLeod, 1997), some older people are beginning to make demands on their own behalf. At the same time a number of feminist theorists have begun to explore the issue of violence against older women (Aitken & Griffin, 1996; Neysmith, 1995a, Whittaker, 1995) and some common under- standings have emerged. These theorists point out that power structures with- in society ensure that women and particularly older women have been subject to oppression and economic disadvantage all of their lives. For these reasons they insist that abuse against older women should be a public issue and one which is addressed not just through changes in ageist attitudes in society but through changes in social policies. They all recognize a need to focus on the particular concerns of women belonging to cultural and ethnic minority groups. They also assert the centrality of gender in women’s lives and note that attention to this fact is lacking in both how elder abuse and neglect is constructed and in research which purports to be gender neutral (Neysmith, 1995b; Walker, 1990). What is the likelihood that older women will accept these ideas so that the paths of action of older women activists in the area of mistreatment of older people will begin to parallel those of earlier feminists working in women abuse?

While all feminists challenge women’s subordination to men and male power within society, they hold differing views about the nature of this subordination and how it should be addressed (Crichton et al., 1999; Currie, 1998). Some focus on reforming societal institutions, such as the marriage, family, and the legal system; others view these institutions as fundamentally patriarchal and oppressive and not amenable to the kind of changes necessary to deal with women’s subordination and repression. Still others focus on the economic oppression of women (Currie, 1998). Although acknowledging the difficulty of translating theory into action, Currie points out: The point of feminist theory is not simply to explain the social world but to change it. From this perspective beliefs about how patriarchy operates to sustain the subordination of women become expressed in collective movements and individual actions to end women’s subordination. In the final analysis, femi- nist practice is the test of feminist theory (1998, p. 44).

The older women that are involved in responding to elder abuse and neglect appear to best fit the mold of what has been termed liberal feminism. That is, they do not reject outright existing institutions such as marriage, the family, and the law, although they may see them as having limitations. They also frequently look to governments and governmental policy changes for

Joan Harbison 71

support for their efforts to bring about change. To some extent these positions are predicated on a seniors’ leadership which as with the early feminist movement appears as chiefly white, female, middle-class, and heterosexual (Bonnycastle & Rigakos, 1998). What is striking about older women leaders in the fight against mistreatment and in their lobby for ownership of the issue, is their continuing interest in developing collective solutions, at the local and provincial level, involving seniors of both sexes as well as professionals, academics, and governments.

The Issue of Gender

Despite their leadership in seniors’ efforts to address elder abuse, the actions and writings of most older women give little indication that they wish to emphasize the issue of gender. (There are exceptions, for instance, the work of the Ontario Older Women’s Network which explored the shelter needs of older women, see OWN, 1998.) This may be because they embrace a broadly based collectivist approach. Even when the gendered situation of older women is acknowledged and discussed, it is usually within a context of gender inclusiveness (see McKenzie, 1999). In establishing the Canadian National Network on Elder Abuse, the rights and benefits and the cessation of abuse are being sought for all seniors. Women’s issues are not identified as separate and unique (Gray Power Working Session Grounding Assumptions and Principles, Proceedings: Second National Conference on Elder Abuse, Toronto, 1999). It seems then that these older women do not wish to promote the understanding of women’s oppression through elder abuse at the expense of abused older men. It may also be a manifestation of both internalized and societal sexism which sustains their belief that they are of less value than men and may need men’s power to succeed. However, pondering the case of Marjorie, an older woman who had been in an abusive marriage for over 50 years, McKenzie makes the following comments:

This label [of elder abuse] that we ask seniors to wear has great signifi- cance in planning services or in the development of policies and legisla- tion that eventually determine what kind of response occurs. There may be very good reasons to separate the response for abuse of frail older people and people with disabilities from general violence against women. A feminist analysis of those reasons would significantly con- tribute to the theoretical framework being used to develop programs to help seniors. (1999, p. 436)

This raises the question of the potential for dialogue between older people and feminists to expand the debate on older people’s involvement in elder abuse and neglect.

JOURNAL OF ELDER ABUSE & NEGLECT72

Feminist Commentaries and Interventions

With regard to interventions, the comments and recommendations in the literature reflect both similar and sometimes differing and/or conflicting views of feminism. There is a general concern about the way in which the career of ‘‘elder abuse and neglect’’ has tended to ‘‘mimic science . . . as a successive, linear story of increasing complexity but also of greater ‘truth’’’ (Aitken & Griffen, 1996), rather than developing as a fully fledged social problem. Hence approaches to research and interventions have been circum- scribed and individualized, located within dysfunctional families, and sup- posedly ‘‘gender neutral’’ without adequately addressing broader social is- sues (Aitken & Griffin, 1996; Harbison & Morrow, 1998; Neysmith, 1995b). There is therefore a call for all research and interventions into elder abuse to address gender issues and gender stereotyping. The need to move away from ‘‘ . . . the hold of family violence ‘experts’ on the elder abuse terrain’’ (Whittaker, 1996, p. 157) where ‘‘ . . . elderly persons and their advocates [are] minor players in defining the discourse’’ (Neysmith, 1995a, p. 52) is declared. That the experiences of older women should guide both individual interventions and policy directions is also stressed (Whittaker, 1996; Ney- smith, 1995a).

Feminist writers express differing opinions regarding the use of the crimi- nal justice system. The arguments include those which consider it unaccept- able to use a system which reflects and perpetuates patriarchal oppression of women, those whose concern is that criminal justice interventions are limited to identifying and punishing criminals (Currie, 1998; Whittaker, 1996), and those who argue that the justice system discriminates according to class, culture, and ethnicity, and that ‘‘ . . . individuals caught in the net of formal social control will not be representative of abusers; they are likely to be those men with fewest resources and least ability to resist labeling and prosecu- tion’’ (Currie, 1998, p. 47). Some women worry that intervention by the police deflects attention away from abuse rather than addressing it, when charges are not laid and follow-up does not occur (Currie, 1998, DeKeseredy & McLeod, 1997). Other women activists object on the grounds that criminal- ization forces women ‘‘ . . . to ally themselves with and strengthen the same patriarchal and racist institutions complicit in practices of gender domina- tion’’ (Bonnycastle & Rigakos, 1998, pp. 17, 18). At the same time these efforts are perceived as draining energy from longer-term goals which ad- dress socio-structural issues. However, DeKeseredy and McLeod also give several examples of innovative ways in which the justice system has at- tempted to accommodate to the needs of women thus making it a ‘‘ . . . less blunt instrument of change’’ (1997, pp. 174-175).

Feminists also seem uncertain about the helpfulness of shelter accom- modations for older women. The diverse needs and abilities of older women

Joan Harbison 73

and the fact that most want to remain in their own homes are noted (Whittak- er, 1996; Wolf, 1999). The Older Women’s Network initiated and oversaw a study in Ontario (OWN, 1998) which concluded that there were insufficient reasons to establish separate facilities for older women. Instead they sug- gested that existing shelters be made ‘‘ . . . accessible to and inclusive of all women seeking their services’’ (p. iv) and that alternatives be developed which might include access to safe shelter in existing housing, retirement, or nursing homes. Their recommendations are supported by those of Wolf (1999) who after studying shelters in the United States concluded ‘‘ . . . as to whether elder shelters are a viable solution [to elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation], it is too early to say’’ (p. 164). Yet it has also been pointed out that shelters were a focus for collective consciousness raising and activity in the development of responses to woman abuse (Neysmith, 1995a, Wolf, 1999).

A striking example of this volunteer commitment to fight elder abuse and neglect can be seen in the efforts of the 5000 member, Kerby [Seniors] Center in Calgary, Alberta. The Center established a need for and became involved with elder abuse work in the 1980s. In the early 1990s they carried out a study focusing on ‘‘intervention and treatment,’’ funded by the Family Vio- lence Prevention Division of Health and Welfare Canada (McCreight, 1999, p. 240). They identified needs both for public education and for a shelter through the study. They then ‘‘. . . authored and published a handbook ‘Golden Years: Hidden Fears’ for use by frontline workers dealing with elder abuse’’ (McCreight, 1999, p. 240). Within two years of forming a Shelter Steering Committee, they had raised $1,700,000 to build and furnish the shelter and had an ongoing plan to raise operating funds (McCreight, 1999). The comment ‘‘ . . . all of Kerby’s supports and services will be there for our clients in the shelter’’ indicates that this shelter has a different orientation than that of the early stages of the woman abuse shelter movement with its focus on abuse as a political issue (Dekeseredy & McLeod, 1997). It may also reflect the need for seniors to do things their way.

Where women act as both formal and informal caregivers for older people, feminists have some very specific concerns. Informal caregivers in particular have been the subject of research that emphasizes abuse as a response to stress. Recent research also supports concern about the effects of stress on those working in formal care institutions (Baltes, 1996). Some feminists focus on the demands and stresses of caregiving and call for support, educa- tion, and training (Aitken & Griffen, 1996). Others comment on why caregiv- ers are predominantly women as well as the strong societal expectation that they take on caregiving tasks (Baines, Evans, & Neysmith, 1991). Feminists also question the implications of constructing elder abuse and neglect as responses to stress among [women] caregivers rather than as a larger societal

JOURNAL OF ELDER ABUSE & NEGLECT74

issue of the distribution of power and resources among men and women (Aronson, 1990; Baines, Evans, & Neysmith, 1991). However, here again the older women who are caregivers may be interested in immediate supports for their caregiving role as well as, or instead of, challenging the legitimacy of a role which is intrinsic to at least the older generation’s perception of woman- hood.

CONCLUSIONS

Feminist theoretical frameworks for woman abuse and the experiences of feminists with interventions for woman abuse have raised questions and initiated debates. These questions and debates illuminate the problems of responses to the mistreatment of older people. However, they do not neces- sarily offer solutions to many of the issues raised in relation to older women’s involvement in responses to elder abuse and neglect. Nor does it appear that many older women embrace the more contentious aspects of feminism. It is likely that the failure of older women to explore these ideologically based dilemmas surrounding power relations between men and women, class, race, and sexual orientation, is based on many factors. For instance it may be that older women do not identify these issues and dilemmas as relating to their situations because, as within the early feminist movement, older people with the capacities and confidence to join in the fight against ageism and elder abuse and neglect may typically be ‘‘ . . . white, western, heterosexed, and middle class’’ (Bonnycastle & Rigakos, 1998, p. 40). Or it may be that most of the older women who are committed to combating the mistreatment of their peers also wish to avoid generating the kinds of conflicts that have been endemic to feminism and which many feminists are struggling to overcome (Dekeseredy & McLeod, 1997). Older women may also fear that if they actively seek the engagement and support of younger women, older people’s issues may become subsumed by them. Such fears have credibility given comments such as that of Whittaker (even if her views are not representative of many other feminists) that ‘‘ . . . elder abuse is just one part of a spectrum of male hatred and violence against women [so] that it is a mistake to separate off any particular manifestation or to see it as a special case’’ (1996, p. 155). Older women recognize that for most of their peers such positions in relation to men, and by implication families, are untenable.

On the other hand feminist frameworks can be judged helpful in other areas. One of the things that will be crucial for the future of elder abuse and neglect, as it has been for woman abuse, is the basis on which research questions are constructed. For instance, feminist authors are able to present detailed challenges to the findings of purportedly gender neutral research which makes claims such as there are as many women abusers as men

Joan Harbison 75

(Crichton et al., 1999; Dekeseredy & McLeod, 1997; Dobash & Dobash, 1990; Neysmith, 1995b). Women are a major part of the equation in elder abuse and neglect, not only as the subjects of abuse but as caregivers in the home and in institutions of abused older people. It is therefore important that the generation of information about elder abuse should take gender issues fully into account whether investigations are based on secondary analysis or on the creation of new data.

Feminists active in woman abuse strongly support the notion of responses to abuse based on the ownership and experiences of those who are the subject of the abuse. These ideas have clearly been taken up by older women, and to a lesser extent by older men, active against elder abuse and neglect. However, older women differ from younger women. Younger women’s concerns about survival outside of the abusive situation may be primarily financial; older women are concerned not only about their need for financial resources but also about needs for scarce health and social services both for themselves and their loved ones [elderly parents and spouses]. Hence, it is perhaps not sur- prising that while they are willing to criticize ageism inherent in clinical and legal interventions they do tend to yield those areas to professional experts. The territory to which they are laying claim is that of educating their peers and the general public about ageism and mistreatment in its various forms. These educational initiatives may enhance older people’s agency to varying degrees, given the pervasive influence of professional constructions of ‘‘elder abuse and neglect.’’ Nevertheless, they do allow older people opportunities to come together to explore collectively their understanding of mistreatment and how to address it. At the same time, it is uncertain whether these efforts are sufficient to capture the sustained attention of the media in a way that both promotes societal concern for abused older people and at the same time corrects ageist stereotypes (DeKeseredy & McLeod, 1997).

For older people committed to gaining control of responses to ‘‘elder abuse and neglect’’ there may be hidden dangers in not entering areas of potential conflict. Where conflicts are not confronted, the danger of frag- mentation among groups is perhaps just as great as where they are. With fragmentation comes loss of group power. There are a remarkable number of seniors groups involved in varying types of actions against abuse and neglect. (The National Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse was conceived as a national organization. Perhaps this was one of the reasons that its ownership was the subject of debate.) A critical mass of older people with common purposes will be necessary to garner the resources to gain better understand- ing of issues.

At present older people are taking on the fight against the mistreatment of older people through non-conflictual strategies and mainstream institutions. In question is whether this will be sufficient to sustain elder abuse and neglect

JOURNAL OF ELDER ABUSE & NEGLECT76

as a social problem and curb its growth as a new area for the development of health and gerontological expertise:

In the long term any serious attempt to work to prevent elder abuse must address, through research, advocacy and education, the overall institutionalized ageism within our society which is reflected in stereo- typing and discrimination in newspapers, television and everyday life. (Hightower, 1998, p. 19)

REFERENCES

Aber-Schlesinger, R., & Schlesinger, B. (1999). Elder abuse: The Canadian experi- ence. In J. Pritchard (Ed.), Elder abuse work: Best practice in Britain and Canada (pp. 271-293). London & Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley.

Aitken, L., & Griffin, G. (1996). Gender issues in elder abuse. London: Sage. ARA Consulting Group (1994). Older Canadians and the abuse of seniors: A contin-

uum from participation to employment. Ottawa, ON: Family Violence Prevention, Health Canada.

Aronson, J. (1992). Are we really listening? Beyond the official discourse on needs of older people. Canadian Social Work Review, 9 (1), 73-87.

Aronson, J. (1990). Women’s perspectives on informal care of the elderly: Public ideology and personal experience of giving and receiving care. Ageing and Soci- ety, 10, 61-84.

Aronson, J., Thornewell, C., & Williams, K. (1995). Wife assault in old age: Coming out of obscurity. Canadian Social Work Review, 14 (sup. 2), 72-88.

Baines, C., Evans, P., & Neysmith, S. (Eds.). (1991). Women’s caring: Feminist perspectives on social welfare. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart.

Baltes, M. M. (1996). The many faces of dependency in old age. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press.

Baumann, E. A. (1989). Research rhetoric and the social construction of elder abuse. In J. Best (Ed.) Images of issues: Typifying contemporary social problems. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Beaulieu, M., & Belanger, L. (1995). Intervention in long-term-care institutions with respect to elder mistreatment. In M. J. MacLean (Ed.) Abuse and neglect of older Canadians: Strategies for change (pp. 3-16). Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishers, Inc.

Best, J. (Ed.) (1989). Images of issues: Typifying contemporary social problems. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Biggs, S. (1996). A family concern: Elder abuse in British social policy. Critical Social Policy, 16 (2), 63-87.

Biggs, S., Phillipson, C., & Kingston, P. ( 1995). Elder abuse in perspective. Buck- ingham & Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Bonnycastle, K. D., & Rigakos, G. S. (Eds.). (1998). Unsettling truths: Battered women, policy, politics and contemporary research in Canada. Vancouver: Col- lective Press.

Joan Harbison 77

Bytheway, B. (1995). Ageism. Buckingham & Philadelphia: Open University Press. Chen, M. Y. T., & Nan Zhou (1994). The portrayal of older people in Canadian

advertisements: Regular vs. specialized magazines. In V. Marshall & B. McPher- son (Eds.), Aging: Canadian perspectives (pp. 206-218). Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press/Journal of Canadian Studies.

Collingridge, M. (1993). Protection of the elderly: Some legal and ethical issues. Australian Journal on Ageing, 12 (4), 32-36.

Coughlan, S., Downe-Wamboldt, B., Elgie, R., Harbison, J., Melanson, P., & Mor- row, M. (1995). Legal responses to elder abuse and neglect. Halifax, Canada: Dalhousie University, Health Law Institute.

Cumming, E., & Henry, W. (1961). Growing old: The process of disengagement. New York: Basic Books.

Currie, D. H. (1998). The criminalization of violence against women: Feminist demands and patriarchal accommodation. In K. D. Bonnycastle & G. S. Rigakos (Eds.), Unsettling truths: Battered women, policy, politics and contemporary re- search in Canada (pp. 41-51). Vancouver: Collective Press.

Crichton, S. J., Bond, J. R., Harvey, C. D. H., & Ristock, J. (1999). Elder abuse: Feminist and ageist perspectives. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 10 (3/4), 115-130.

DeKeseredy, W. S. & McLeod, L. (1997). Woman abuse: A sociological story. Toron- to: Harcourt Brace.

Dobash, D. J., & Dobash, R. P. (1990). How theoretical definitions and perspectives affect research and policy. In Basharov, D. J. (Ed.), Family violence. Washington, DC: The AEI press.

Dunn, P. F., & Sadler, P. M. (1993). Claim making about elder abuse in Australia. Australian Journal on Ageing, 12 (2), 42-45.

Encel, S. (1995). Age dependency: Myths and realities. In Sarah Graham (Ed.), Dependency, the life course and social policy. University of New South Wales, Australia: SPRC Reports and Proceedings No. 118.

Epstein, L. (1994). The therapeutic idea in contemporary society. In A. S. Chambon & A. Irving (Eds.), Essays in postmodernism and social work (pp. 3-18). Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.

Estes, C. L. (1993). The aging enterprise revisited. The Gerontologist, 33 (3), 292-298.

Estes, C. L., & Binney, E. A. (1989). The biomedicalization of aging: Dangers and dilemmas. The Gerontologist, 29 (5), 587-596.

Evans, R. G. (1985). Illusions of necessity: Evading responsibility for choice in health care. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 10 (3), 439-467.

Foot, D. K. (with Stoffman, D.) (1996). Boom, bust and echo: How to profit from the coming demographic shift. Toronto: Macfarlane, Walter & Ross.

Fraser, N. (1986). Unruly practices: Power, discourse and gender in contemporary social theory. Oxford: Polity Press/Blackwell Pubs.

Friedman, B. (1993). The fountain of age. New York: Simon & Schuster. Gee, E., & MacDaniel, S. (1994). Social policy for an aging society. In V. Marshall

and B. McPherson (Eds.), Aging: Canadian perspectives. (pp. 219-229). Peterbo- rough, Ontario: Broadview Press/Journal of Canadian Studies.

JOURNAL OF ELDER ABUSE & NEGLECT78

Gibson, D. (1995). Dependency: The career of a concept. In Sarah Graham (Ed.), Dependency, the life course and social policy. University of New South Wales, Australia: SPRC Reports and Proceedings No. 118.

Gordon, R. M., & Tomita, S. (1990, December). The reporting of elder abuse and neglect: Mandatory or voluntary? Canada’s Mental Health, 38, 1-6.

Green, B. S. (1993). Gerontology and the construction of old age: A study and discourse analysis. Hawthorne, New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Harbison, J. (1998). Models of intervention for ‘‘elder abuse and neglect’’: A Cana- dian perspective on ageism, participation and empowerment. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 10 (3/4), 1-17.

Harbison, J., Couglan, S., Downe-Wamboldt, B., Elgie, R., Melanson, P., & Morrow, M. (1995). Mistreating elderly people: Questioning the response to elder abuse and neglect. Volume 1. Halifax, Canada: Dalhousie University, Health Law Insti- tute.

Harbison, J., & Morrow, M. (1998). Questions and contradictions: A re-examination of the social construction of elder abuse and neglect. Ageing and Society, 18, 691-711.

Hazan, H. (1994). Old age: Constructions and deconstructions. Cambridge, En- gland: Cambridge University Press.

Higgs, P. (1995). Citizenship and old age: The end of the road? Ageing and Society, 15, 535-550.

Hightower, J. (1998). Program plans, funding and sustainability. In E. Podnieks & E. Dow, Creating a Canadian network for the prevention of elder abuse (pp. 19-21). Toronto: Author.

Hill, W. K. (1999). Police service to seniors. In J. Pritchard (Ed.), Elder abuse work: Best practice in Britain and Canada (pp. 444-456). London & Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley.

Kurrle, S. E. (1993). Elder abuse: A hidden problem. Modern Medicine of Australia, (September), 58-71.

Leroux, T. G., & Petrunik, M. (1990). The construction of elder abuse and neglect as a social problem: A Canadian perspective. International Journal of Health Ser- vices, 20 (4), 651-663.

Lithwick, M. (1999). The dynamics of senior mistreatment and the options for intervention. In J. Pritchard (Ed.), Elder abuse work: Best practice in Britain and Canada (pp. 354-377). London & Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley.

Little, B. (1999, July 19th ). Boom gloom’s voice of reason. The Globe and Mail, A2. MacLean, M. J. (Ed.). Abuse and neglect of older Canadians: Strategies for change.

Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishers, Inc.. McCallum, J. (1993). Elder abuse the new social problem. Modern Medicine of

Australia, 9, 74-83. McDonald, L. P., Hornick, J. P., Robertson, G. B., & Wallace, J. E. (1991). Elder

abuse and neglect in Canada. Toronto: Butterworths. McKenzie, P. (1999). A community response to abuse of seniors. In J. Pritchard

(Ed.), Elder abuse work: Best practice in Britain and Canada (pp. 426-444). London & Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley.

Minkler, M. (1991). ‘‘Generational equity’’ and the new victim blaming. In M.

Joan Harbison 79

Minkler and C. Estes (Eds.), Critical perspectives on aging: The political and moral economy of growing old. Amityville, New York: Baywood.

Morris, M./Older Women’s Network (1999). Elder abuse: Older women’s voices. Proceedings: Second National Conference on Elder abuse, 5-11. Toronto: Univer- sity of Toronto, Institute for Human Development, Life Course and Aging.

Nahmiash, D. (1999). In J. Pritchard (Ed.), Elder abuse work: Best practice in Britain and Canada (pp. 294-319). London & Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley.

Neysmith, S. (1995a). Power in relationships of trust: A feminist analysis of elder abuse. In M. J. MacLean (Ed.), Abuse and neglect of older Canadians: Strategies for change (pp. 43-54). Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishers, Inc.

Neysmith, S. (1995b). Research methodologies: A consideration of principles and practice for research in gerontology. Canadian Journal on Aging, 14 (sup. 1), 100-118.

Older Women’s Network/Kappel Ramji Consulting Group (1998). Study of shelter needs of abused older women. Toronto: Author.

Pachal, P. (1998, November 20th). Do seniors have it too good? The Halifax Com- moner, 12.

Podnieks, E. (1992). Emerging themes from a follow-up study of Canadian victims of elder abuse. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 4 (1/2), 59-111.

Prosen, H. (1996). Aging in the twenty-first century: Postscript. In L. Sperry & H. Rosen (Eds.), Aging in the twenty-first century: A developmental perspective. New York & London: Garland.

Quinn, M. J. & Tomita, S. K. (1997). Elder abuse and neglect: Causes, diagnosis and intervention strategies (2nd ed.) New York: Springer.

Robertson, G. (1995). Legal approaches to elder abuse and neglect in Canada. In M. J. MacLean (Ed.), Abuse and neglect of older Canadians: Strategies for change (pp. 111-116). Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishers, Inc.

Rowe, J. W. & Kahn, R. L. (1998). Successful aging. New York: Pantheon Books. Sax, S. (1993). Ageing and public policy in Australia. Sydney, Australia: Allen &

Unwin. Second National Conference on Elder Abuse: Proceedings (1999). Toronto: Univer-

sity of Toronto, Institute for Human Development, Life Course and Aging. Sperry, L., & Rosen, H. (Eds.) (1996). Aging in the twenty-first century: A develop-

mental perspective. New York & London: Garland. Townsend, P. (1981). The structured dependency of the elderly: The creation of

social policy in the Twentieth Century. Ageing and Society, 1 (1), 5-28. Vincent, J. A. (1995). Inequality and old age. London: UCL Press. Walker, G. A. (1990). Family violence and the women’s movement: The conceptual

politics of struggle. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Ward-Hall, C. (1999). Financial abuse of seniors: A growing concern: Seniors in

British Columbia, Canada ‘‘taking action against financial abuse.’’ In J. Pritchard (Ed.), Elder abuse work: Best practice in Britain and Canada (pp. 320-329). London & Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley.

Watt, N. (1998, November 20th). Do seniors have it too good? The Halifax Common- er, 12.

Way-Clark, R. & Pace, J. [1994]. Battered and betrayed: Facing up to the abuse of

JOURNAL OF ELDER ABUSE & NEGLECT80

the elderly in Nova Scotia. Canadian Pensioner’s Concerned Incorporated, Nova Scotia Division.

Whittaker, T. (1996). Violence, gender and elder abuse. In B. Fawcett, B. Feather- stone, J. Hearn, & C. Toft (Eds.), Violence and gender relations: Theories and interventions (pp. 147-160). London: Sage.

Wolf, R. S. (1999). Elder shelters: United States, Canada and Japan. Proceedings: Second National Conference on Elder abuse, 156-165. Toronto: University of Toronto, Institute for Human Development, Life Course and Aging.

for faculty/professionals with journal subscription recommendation authority for their institutional library . . .

If you have read a reprint or photocopy of this article, would you like to make sure that your library also subscribes to this journal? If you have the authority to recommend sub- scriptions to your library, we will send you a free sample copy for review with your librarian. Just fill out the form below–and make sure that you type or write out clearly both the name of the journal and your own name and address.

( ) Yes, please send me a complimentary sample copy of this journal:

(please write in complete journal title here–do not leave blank)

I will show this journal to our institutional or agency library for a possible subscription. The name of my institutional/agency library is:

NAME:

INSTITUTION:

ADDRESS:

CITY: STATE: ZIP:

Return to: Sample Copy Department, The Haworth Press, Inc., 10 Alice Street, Binghamton, NY 13904-1580