On integrated aging and residences

On this occasion I would like to talk about the residencies of older people, although it is not part of my usual research topics. In fact, the blog is called aging in society, understanding that aging at home is what allows (in theory) to grow old while still forming part of society, in a way that I in my doctoral thesis called integrated (although later degrees and different impediments related to housing, key point of my research).

But this denomination and this way of posing it is one that I have struggled to defend. When I started my doctorate, as an urban sociologist interested in housing, I was very curious to know the residential situation of the elderly in Spain. It is a subject about which there is not an abundant literature in Spain, although there are investigations of great interest. Of course I found other topics interesting, such as the situation of the homes of the elderly. For example, with other authors -Zamora, Barrios, Lebrusán, Parant and Delgado- I wrote a chapter titled Households of the elderly in Spain: between solitude and family solidarities in the book Ageing, Lifestyles and Economic Crises: The New People of the Mediterranean) . I was also interested in other questions about the experience of old age and ways of living, but what I was looking for was to establish the relationship between old age, housing and the unresolved needs from the residential point of view in Spain. I decided, finally, about the situation of elderly people living in homes (that is, main dwellings).

From a statistical approach, if we want to know how older people live in Spain, we have to distinguish between those who live in homes or main dwellings (that is, in a "house", live or not alone, with their families or with a friend , whether in property, rental or other forms) and those who live in collective establishments (residences, yes, but also those people who reside in a convent or in prison, to mention some types of collective accommodation).

More clearly to understand the concept, within the different types considered as collective housing we find: Health institutions; Residences of elderly people; Institutions for people with disabilities or social assistance institutions; Religious institutions; Military institutions; Penitentiary institutions; and Other types of collective establishments. Collective housing can occupy only partially a building or, more frequently, the whole of it.

But, returning to my approach on the conceptualization of aging in society, why do I suggest that aging at home - in yours, in that of your children, in one to which you move - is to age in an integrated way in society while to grow old in a residence, right? I am not talking here about the quality of aging or about other issues that deserve more space and more reflection. And again, let's clarify that this post is not a criticism of residences; Sometimes they can be the best option to grow old. Returning to the question, in the residences to which I have gone (about 14, of very different characteristics, both public, concerted and private) I always had to identify myself at the door or reception and indicate the reason for my visit to the center : the entrance is not free. In addition, in most of them, especially in those that were not in very central areas of the city, there was some kind of fence that protected the residents of the residence from the "dangers of the outside". And these fences and doors, sometimes more symbolic than others, just as they protect, limit the freedom of movement and movement. The fences and fences work in both directions.

In general, the occupants had (need) some type of family permit to enter and exit. And I understand that this is not the case of all these residential centers, but these references serve to explain my point: the space of the residence becomes a private or semi-private social space, while there is a need for prior identification (and therefore permission) of those who enter and those who leave. Let us compare the type of use of the space of the parks or gardens of these residences (some precious ones) with that of any municipal park. Juan, our neighbor of the fifth who accompanies us already in so many posts, can go down to the park to play Majhong with strangers. He can walk and play in those public parks, but he can not do it in this space. Only authorized users of the residence space can play and interact with each other. The door is not opened (physically or symbolically) to the possible establishment of new relationships with strangers who are not space residents (or authorized). And that means that Juan will not be able to meet Sofia and Tomás, who are great Mahjong players, but who live inside the residence. The Mahjong games that are being lost. That's what I mean. I understand protection, but such protection also means a division of uses of space and segregation. If we go further and analyze the location of residences in the urban space (residences, where they reside, not day centers) we will see that, moreover, they are not usually found in very central areas. This is the result of logical questions (urban and economic planning too).

In general there is little space available to identify in the central areas of the municipalities, and also that land is much more expensive, which makes these residences are located in more peripheral and cheaper areas (which does not always translate into a reduction for users, we know). That is, segregation is not only symbolic but also practical, spatial and even territorial. Sometimes this question of the situation in space takes on an even greater impact, and some residences are located on the outskirts of the municipalities, far from the urban centers and difficult to access by public transport. This also affects the visits received by the occupants of the residences.

A few years ago, while waiting for the bus, a woman told me how happy she was because her husband, who was in a public residence in the Community of Madrid, had been transferred to a nearby residence. She told me that he could not go to the previous one if his children did not take him by car. The other option was to take a taxi, but she could not afford that, because I was really far away. The lady lived the transfer as a gift.

This, which I call a spatial division and age segregation, happens not only in Spain but in other European countries, so that intergenerational relations are reduced to a minimum. But also the intragenerational ones are limited by rigid rules. In some centers (especially in other countries) the occupants are even separated by plants according to the state of health and accreditation is required to move to certain areas. This adds another level of segregation, producing minimum levels of interaction between people suffering from dementia and people who do not, for example, beyond what they may have with the professionals who care for them and their family members. It is a separation that limits interaction and exposure to social relationships. That does not allow aging in an integrated way but on the margin of society. I understand perfectly the need of the residences. But I advocate affordable residences in the economic and spatial, that can be financed with the pension and in which there is control over quality of care.

This also passes to take care of the working conditions of the workers and caregivers, undoubtedly. But, at least while these models of residences are kept segregated from the use of the city, protected and closed to the exterior, we can not speak of residences that allow aging in society. Maybe we need to rethink these models of residences to be able to propose new models of aging also in the case of institutionalized people.