Unsettling Standards: The Biological Age Controversy

Abstract

One key debate within the sociology of aging and the life course over the past decade has been focused on understanding the extent to which there has been a shift from a reliance on chronological age to segment the life course and ascertain age‐specific norms, values, and expectations toward a destandardized life course in advanced economies. In this, little attention has been devoted to the infrastructural processes that would support such a transition: the technologies, standards, and conventions that would, in practice, equip a personalized, individualized management of the life course. This article focuses on one of such standards, “biological age” (BA), and the 40‐year controversy around the method and purpose of its measurement. Drawing on published research and archival and interview data collected in Europe and North America, the article suggests that the persistent uncertainty surrounding BA measurements is structured by differing interlocking relationships between normative ideals of the life course and methodological approaches to knowledge making to understand and manage the relationship among aging, health, and illness. Understanding this controversy and the configuration of normative and epistemic conventions that underpin its dynamic provides a unique lens on the complex interweaving relationship between expertise, scientific and technological standards, and social, normatively embedded age identities in contemporary societies.

Protein profiling reveals consequences of lifestyle choices on predicted biological aging

“…A number of molecular markers have been used to study the ageing process and to compare chronological age with the predicted age, also termed biological age. The definition of biological age has been a matter of debate for decades 29 as have the biomarkers used to define it 30 . We have shown that the plasma protein abundance profile is highly predictive of both chronological age and basic anthropometrical traits.…”

Anti-aging technoscience & the biologization of cumulative inequality: Affinities in the biopolitics of successful aging

“…Its advocates are therefore generally more concerned with reducing later life morbidity and disability than extending lifespans indefinitely ( Mackey, 2003 ). This healthspan focus deliberately distinguishes contemporary anti-aging technoscience from pseudo-scientific historic efforts to bolster its scientific legitimacy ( Moreira, 2015 ). It also reflects the emergence of societal concerns regarding the continued extension of global life expectancy, and fears that growing populations of older people are spending more time in (economically undesirable) ill-health ( Crimmins, 2015 ).…”

“Old age” as a social location: Theorizing institutional processes, cultural expectations, and interactional practices

“…These individuals are thought to engage in specific lifestyles based on the consumption of products and lifestyles, including cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, vacations, and gym and club membership. The powerful anti‐aging industry, for example, encourages individuals (especially women) to engage technologies and lifestyles to “slow” the physiological signs of aging (Katz & Gish, ; Moreira, ). Such consumption is a means for individuals to maintain the ideals of a youthful mind and body that dominate mass culture (Gullette, 2004; Twigg, ).…”