Thriving Intergenerational Cultures: Transitioning to de-center able-ism, age-ism, and individualism
Envisioning the Future
This is the fourth post in our five-part series on the isolation of the elderly in the Greater Pittsburgh area. In this post, we articulate a vision for 2075 in which individualism is reduced or non-existent. With this as the base, we then speculate what the milestones may be across three time scales: 5–10 years; 25–35 years; and 50–60 years from present day.
For part one, we parsed the multiple intersecting points where thorny issues met and shaped the experiences of the elderly. For part two, we identified key stakeholders by creating high-level and low-level stakeholder maps. The high-level map outlined the actors that reside in this problem space; the low-level map highlighted the potential points of conflict and affinity between three stakeholders. For part three, we created a Multi-Level Perspective map that exhaustively outlined major historical events that informed the development of the issue and its current manifestations.
Introduction
From our Multi-level Perspective mapping, we found that the current iteration of the issue — isolation of the elderly — was initially sparked by three key events: the migration of Anglo-centric Protestant missionaries to the US, the emergence of the nuclear family through suburbanization [in the US], and the ways in which disability status was determined. These historic moments in time laid fertile grounds for individualism, age-ism, and able-ism to mature and thrive. They manifest in many ways including the acuity of elders’ sense and reality of isolation; elders often feel the hollowing effect of isolation in social structures (everyday lives) while experiencing a disregard of their lived experiences in formal structures (policies and services). For instance, the built environment may have stairs as the only way to enter a building, and, if help is needed, many may walk past the elder before someone provides assistance to walk up the stairs or cross the street. These illustrate one-time events; however, they are commonplace and reflective of an arc of historical entanglements of intentional marginalization reflected in individual and collective psyches.
In this light, we directed our visioning and speculative design efforts to thinking about a future that diminished or eradicated the three aforementioned characteristics: able-ism, age-ism, and individualism.
Approach
We considered perspective, purpose, and goal as we drafted an image of 2075 and milestones that may transition us towards it. An emphasis on perspective determined the lens through which we developed content and the arc of our narrative. An emphasis on purpose made clear the utility of each exercise. Finally, an emphasis on goal provided a focal point for visioning and speculating.
Perspective: In lieu of directly speaking with stakeholders, we distilled our secondary research and sketched four personas that best reflected elders from different backgrounds across the Greater Pittsburgh area. Through this exercise, we were able to identify a strong starting point for our visioning process. It identified needs, experiences, and mindsets that were thematic which then became the foundation for content creation.
Note: We intentionally did not reach out to the community due to not being IRB certified for this particular project. We also did not want to give the false impression that an intervention was being prototyped.
Purpose: We identified the utility of each exercise separately and in relation to one another. For instance, the visioning exercise articulated a preferred future for the elderly in 2075; however, its utility was to understand change based on scale, multiple stakeholders, and in relation to the lens through which this future is being dreamt.
Goal: We stated the hope or the key takeaway for each exercise separately and in relation to one another. This allowed us to think about the arc of the narrative, respectively and holistically.
VISION: Map 1
Overview
Our vision of the future illustrates a society where the isolation of elderly communities is no longer a wicked problem. The typology of our map further articulates the distinction of each level of the system all the while underscoring the interconnected nature of what is envisioned for 2075. This future vision underscores different cross-sections at each societal level. This particular way of illustrating the different levels captures the foci at each level while demonstrating the interlocked nature of the system as a whole.
To methodologically think through details of such visions of the future, we identified each node within each societal level and highlighted themes that we believe would sustain such an image of a future. Characteristics of the future are labeled as environmental, infrastructure/technology, political, economic, and social futures. Themes are distilled and translated into four core principles: care, choice, collective-thinking, and elasticity. The four principles tie our image of the future together and ground it in what we know intimately of the experiences of elders in the Greater Pittsburgh area.
Principles
The four core principles garnered from our image of 2075 are:
Care: Relationships are rooted in reciprocity, and the well-being of self and community
Choice: Agency to determine the path that one wants to take than to be imposed a way of living
Collective-Thinking: Embodiment of a deep understanding that all are interconnected
Elasticity: Adaptability to change and ruptures; generative and iterative
Our four principles underscore the values that the elders in the Greater Pittsburgh area find vital in their care, experiences, and engagements. They connect the vision of the future while also guiding the process of grounding the materializing of this future. These principles are the guiding lights to provide a balance of focus and flexibility. It provides structure while inviting creativity and experimentation.
How to Read
Starting at the apex of the prism, we identify our future state: thriving intergenerational cultures. At the base of the prism (far-left), the four core principles are labeled which then connect the ideals within each systemic level and across scales. The labeling of these principles exist at the base of each systemic level, from the lowest (the household) in the far left to the highest level (the planet) to the far right.
Care — lavender
Choice — sky blue
Collective thinking — avocado green
Elasticity — baby yellow
At each systemic level, detailed ideals characterize the long-term future from that particular perspective. Each is denoted by a distinct color to indicate its relationship to one of these five categories.
Political — Orange
Environmental — Green
Social — Purple
Economic — Pink
Infrastructure— Blue
Principles and details nested within each systemic level illustrate a vivid picture of what we imagine 2075 to be through the needs of elders in the Greater Pittsburgh area.
Highlights
- Collective -Thinking is a leading principle through all system levels.
- Elasticity is excised the most in the city level as it has close ties to the infrastructure, economy, and politics of multiple neighborhoods.
- Care is emphasized more as one moves down systemic levels as the impact of care increases.
DESIGNING FOR A TRANSITION: Map 2
Overview
To design for a transition, we extended the original template that parsed what to leave behind, what to keep, what are innovations, and what are proposals. We did this by creating a matrices that took into account three key components: the four principles concluded from our vision; the systemic levels articulated in our mapping of the future; and the aforementioned assessment of what to leave behind to what to propose. Each principle has its own matrix; the matrices in aggregate constitute a comprehensive and detailed story of possibilities and intentions. The far-right half of the map articulate the near, mid, and long-term milestones that mark transitions. Each painting a vivid picture of complete stories concerning elders in the Greater Pittsburgh area.
How to Read
There are two sections to this map: taking stock (far-left) and envisioning long-term transitions(far-right).
In taking stock, there are three lenses to consider: guiding principles, systemic levels of analysis, and assessment of of what to leave behind to what to propose. Each principle provides a particular lens through which the assessment may take place; each — care, choice, collective-thinking, and elasticity — are outlined in a navy blue color. In each of these matrices, the rows from top to bottom represent the original transition matrix at an increasing societal level (from household to planet). Each row in a principle matrix made up of four boxes thus represents the transition matrix of one principle at one specific societal level.
A row is color-coded: red outlines what we want to leave behind, blue outlines what we are keeping, yellow outlines what existing innovations we want to integrate into our society, and green outlines what we need in our future that doesn’t exist right now.
In envisioning long-term transitions, near, mid, and long-term visions from left to right are articulated with a description of the state of Pittsburgh and specifically its culture and infrastructure for that moment in time.
Taking Stock
Creating a matrix per principle provided us with the tool to consider the plausible futures and preferred futures from the perspective of elders in the Greater Pittsburgh area. It allowed us to identify how the principles may appear presently while highlighting their downfalls. This allowed us to be imaginative in a grounded and expansive manner.
For example, the image above breaks down the principle Choice at the household systemic level. In this light, we want to leave behind the lack of choice in choosing where to live and who to live with. We want to keep efforts dedicated to expanding elders’ choices in terms of living and being cared for. We want to integrate services that protect elders from being defrauded to make elders less dependent on others. Conclusively, we propose the further development of creative financing for elders; this will give elders more agency over how to manage their household property and personal assets.
Envisioning Long-term Transitions
Primary to the process of designing for a transition remains the key vision: the thriving of intergenerational cultures.
With an emphasis on collective thinking and using participatory design to redefine the political landscape, the short term 5–10 years plan centers redefining success with added weight on reciprocity and symbiosis. There is also an attempt to shift towards a support-oriented society. Additionally, Pittsburgh would redesign the built environment aiming to improve accessibility and to promote clean energy for the purposes of having a city that is intuitive for elders. The 25–35 years milestone depicts the city’s decision-making process to be highly participatory and inclusive of all, especially the previously the elderly community. The infrastructure of Pittsburgh continues to be made more accessible across public and private spaces. The 50–60 years long-term milestone will be a realization of what residents envisioned in the design process: Pittsburgh will be clean, green, and accessible; the society will be inclusive, collective, and caring. Above all, an intergenerational mindset, culture, and ontology is the center of gravity for the Greater Pittsburgh area.
Reflections
Our team insights fall into three categories:
Reflective questions
Creative amendments
Identified gaps
Reflective questions
As we began thinking through ways to build upon our MLP exercise findings, we began to ask ourselves questions on ethics, knowledge, and a sense of authority. Some of them were:
If ruptures like COVID-19 are challenging to predict, then to what extent and depth can we illustrate a rich image of a preferred future?
In a similar vein, how do we take into account anticipation as we sketch possible futures?
Are there different ways to think through the anticipation of multiple futures?
How can these images of the future be amenable? For instance, what happens if preferences change? Would the initial vision of the future/s be counterintuitive and cause a gridlock where change cannot occur, much like policy-making?
What is the role of humility in envisioning possible futures, whether participating in the visioning exercise or facilitating such an endeavor?
With these in mind, we decided to be cognizant of the delicate balance between emboldened visioning and limited pragmatism. Through the perspective of our personas, we were able to craft milestones that were both building upon present reality yet profoundly shifting away from a status quo.
Creative amendments
Principles: We identified themes that were apparent across levels of scale (e.g., planet to household). These themes were then synthesized to be guiding principles for how we can ground the ideals of this future (of 2075). Principles of care, choice, collective-thinking, and elasticity became guardrails to identifying what to toss, keep, integrate, and propose. These ultimately led to speculating core milestones for transitioning.
Matrix of needs and futures: We expanded the initial template for backcasting to include our principles in relation to levels of scale. This allowed us to include nuance in portraying possible milestones for transition. The example above illustrates a line of thinking at the city level in relation to the principle of elasticity (focusing on iterative and generative qualities). Each provided a rich picture of different ways in which we could ground the ideals of 2075.
Un/designing and transitioning: In our milestones, we were cognizant of the delicate balance between bold visions and limitations of the present. In an effort to take both into consideration while still challenging what the realities of a future may be, we emphasized equal parts of undesigning aspects of a system while recalibrating a whole new way of being. For example,: milestone one focuses on redefining / rethinking the American Dream (a way of un-designing), and milestone two outlines a new way of making decisions in politics (a way of recalibrating or envisioning).
Ecologies of ________: In our backcasting and milestoning, we focused on the interconnected nature of all of our interventions. For instance, we propose an ecology of care and an ecology of new political decision making. These underscore relationality as a key component to moving forward.
Identified Gaps
Lenses: We found that it is critical to include the voices of those directly impacted by an issue with an added emphasis on those disparately impacted by the same thorny problem. Though embodiment exercises may be applied by way of channeling our secondary research, direct feedback and insights shaped by lived experiences are rarely ever possible to emulate.
Relationality: We found that how people understood one another deeply affected the perpetuation of the three items we aimed to diminish or eradicate in our future: ableism, ageism, and individualism. We wonder how multi-stakeholder engagements may take into consideration structural differences as well as interpersonal relationships.
Power: We found that power shapes how systems move forward. For example, the Pittsburgh City Council determines the city’s budget which can curtail or extend efforts intended for the elderly. It made us wonder about asymmetries that may exist even when crafting a future and identifying milestones, and how to take this into account.
Next Steps
In a bold attempt to confront individualism, age-ism, and able-ism, we found that designing for an intergenerational culture of care to be a primary concept to behold. This entails un-designing existing networks of pain, such as age-ism and able-ism, and transitioning to ecologies of embrace, relationality, and depth.
In this light, we will be sharing interventions that address cultural and/or infrastructural needs that may profoundly alter an elder’s experience in the Greater Pittsburgh area.
This post was collaboratively written by Esther Kang, Isabel Ngan, & Yu Jiang
Bibliography
“AARP Foundation Survey: Loneliness Numbers Rise Among Adults Age 45 and Older; Neighborhood Connections Key to Countering Social Isolation.” 2018. MediaRoom. Accessed February 15, 2021. https://press.aarp.org/2018-9-25-AARP-Foundation-Survey-Loneliness-Numbers-Rise-Among-Adults-Age-45-Older-Neighborhood-Connections-Key-Countering-Social-Isolation.
“Age-Friendly Greater Pittsburgh.” 2021. SWPPA. Accessed February 15, 2021. https://www.swppa.org/agefriendly/.
Brooks, David. 2020. “The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake.” The Atlantic Monthly, March 2020. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/03/the-nuclear-family-was-a-mistake/605536/
Davis, Lennard J. 2006. The Disability Reader. New York: Routledge.
Kania, John, Hanleybrown, Fay, and Juster, Jennifer Splansky. 2014. “Essential Mindset Shifts for Collective Impact.” Stanford Social Innovation Review. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/essential_mindset_shifts_for_collective_impact
Marcus, Jon. 2016. “How Free College Tuition in One Country Exposes Unexpected Pros and Cons.” The Hechinger Report. October 18, 2016. https://hechingerreport.org/free-college-tuition-one-country-exposes-unexpected-pros-cons/
