Integrating older persons’ narratives of resistance with critical discourse analysis to counter ageist discourses

CDA framework

There are several analytical approaches to critical discourse analysis. However, this study has used Fairclough’s (1995) Three-Dimensional Critical Discourse Analysis Model. This study is specifically structured to demonstrate different examples of ageist discourses and provides a critical analysis of these discourses from participants’ perspectives. The CDA perspective enables a consideration of how power relations and ageist ideology in society construct and position older persons through discourse. At the same time, the narratives of older adults contextualize and challenge the power relations and ageist ideology.

Fairclough’s (1995) three-dimensional analysis is an approach to critical discourse analysis. The scope of critical discourse analysis extends beyond language and its system of representation (Phelan, 2018). As Wodak and Meyer (2009: p. 2) state, “CDA [Critical discourse analysis] is not interested in investigating a linguistic unit per se but in studying social phenomena which are necessarily complex. . .”. Hence, discourse has social implications and can produce, sustain, and reproduce inequalities in power relations (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997). In the case of ageist discourse, older people are negatively stereotyped, while empowered perspectives that value youthfulness are naturalized (Harbison, 1999). Ageist discourse can produce inappropriate and derogatory ways of speaking about older people (Wilińska and Cedersund, 2010). As Gee (1990: p. 143) says:

A discourse is a socially accepted association among ways of using language, of thinking, feeling, believing, valuing, and of acting that can be used to identify oneself as a member of a socially meaningful group or ‘social network’, or to signal (that one is playing) a socially meaningful ‘role’.

Fairclough (1995) developed a particular understanding of discourse and its operation in producing social knowledge. According to Gendron et al. (2017), Fairclough’s (1995) three-dimensional model may be effective in unmasking age-based inequality in society. The model has been used by Lustañas (2019) to analyze ageist discourse in the Philippines’ context critically. The three dimensions in Fairclough’s model include text, discourse practice, and social practice. Text is described through textual analysis focusing on linguistic features in a text. In discourse practice (processing analysis), interpretations of social conventions are made. In social practice (social analysis), explanations are provided for social institutions, such as how courts, assemblies, hospitals, schools, universities, news agencies, and other institutions exercise control and shape/produce discourse.

The integration of narratives with critical discourse analysis

The critique of the commercialization of academia (Fairclough, 1995), policing of knowledge boundaries (Macgilchrist, 2020), and obsession with validity criteria rather than context-sensitive transgressive validity criteria (Lather, 1993) have resulted in the narrative turn in CDA (Forchtner, 2021). Against the “operational capitalism of research,” (Macgilchrist, 2020: 389) that has excluded stories from academic texts, researchers (Gavriely-Nuri, 2017; Souto-Manning, 2012) are advocating for the integration of narratives with critical discourse analysis. The integration of narratives with critical discourse analysis can broaden the analysis (Bucholtz, 2001), foreground unheard voices (Liguori, 2019), help build relations with readers (Gergen & Jones, 2008), and maintain a balance between scholarly and aesthetic standards (Macgilchrist, 2020).

By serving as premises in arguments for action (Fairclough and Fairclough, 2012), narratives can help achieve legitimization (van Leeuwen and Wodak, 1999) and understanding of the meaning-making process within discourse (Viehöver, 2011). According to Braidotti (2013) and Hughes (2018), integrating narratives and critical discourse analysis can combine creativity with critique to pursue alternative visions and projects. Similarly, Macgilchrist (2020) argues that storytelling in critical discourse analysis can support the epistemological, relational, and political goals often associated with critical discourse analysis.

This study takes place against the backdrop of the narrative turn in critical discourse analysis. In line with Lather’s (1993) context-sensitive transgressive criteria, this study uses observations and older persons’ narratives of resistance as a contextual framework to guide the process of critical discourse analysis. In this study, narratives of resistance are conceptualized as autobiographical accounts of older persons that elucidate their capacity to counter ageist discourses. This study operationalizes the guiding mechanism by integrating older persons’ narratives with Fairclough’s (1995) three-dimensional critical discourse analysis model, thereby foregrounding older persons’ voices and subverting the knowledge boundaries that have excluded older persons’ perspectives from the analytical process in CDA.

This study addresses the following questions:

Physical decline discourse

Observation 1 in column 1 of Table 1 is an example of ageist discourse about the physical decline of older persons. Linguistic items in the observational data, such as “weak,” “frail,” “vulnerability to extreme weather patterns,” “hair loss,” “teeth decay,” “wrinkles,” and “body shaking,” are ageist terms used to refer to older persons. In this example, lexical items referring to physical weakness, such as “weak,” “frail,” and “wrinkles,” have been used with phrases indicating physical decline, such as “hair loss” and “teeth decay.” Moreover, a younger person’s quoted remark in response 1a in Table 1, “You have grown too old to walk fast,” indicates how it interconnects with and incorporates elements of weakness and slowness from the ageist discourse of physical decline. Fairclough (1995) identifies such interconnection between texts as intertextuality. Excluding the quoted remark, linguistic items in response 1a in Table 1 counter the ageist terms in observation 1. For example, “at my own pace,” “not discourage,” “take these comments as a challenge,” and “sometimes leave younger persons behind” provide a counter perspective to the ageist discourse of physical decline. The energy of movement (pace), resisting discouragement, challenging ageist remarks, and overtaking younger persons defy the ageist discourse of physical decline.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Examples of Physical Decline Discourse.

Examples of physical decline discourse	Narratives of resistance
1. In the physical decline discourse, older persons are perceived as “weak” and “frail.” Physical weakness is often linked with older persons’ vulnerability to extreme weather patterns. Hair loss, tooth decay, wrinkles, and body shaking are signs of old age.	1a. Yes, I get it. One day, I went to a shopping center to buy something. It was a big shopping mall, but there was no lift to move from one floor to another floor. So, I went upstairs at my own pace. One of the young fellows behind me shouted, “Uncle, you have grown too old to walk fast. Move a bit and let us go first.” Such remarks do not discourage me from going to the market. I take these comments as a challenge and sometimes leave younger persons behind when going upstairs or downstairs. Yes, there are some examples of young persons walking faster than I walk.
	1b. One bright day in winter, I was reading a book on the lawn. A few of my friends visited me that day. One of them sarcastically said that I had grown weaker due to old age because I was reading the book in the sunlight. This and other such comments could not stop me from getting the pleasure of reading in the sunlight in winter. So, I still read in the sunlight in winter.
	1c. Yes, I can narrate a related story from my life. When one of my teeth was broken, one of my younger relatives said that teeth loss was a sign of old age and that I had become an older person. So, I told him it was not like that. Teeth loss is not typical of old age only because it is, these days, becoming common in many young persons as well. I can feel healthy, and I do feel healthy, though I have lost a few teeth.
2. Laziness is a common stereotype in physical decline discourse. Older people are seen as “lazy” and “inactive.” They are characterized as “slow eaters, slow walkers, and slow riders/drivers.”	2a. There are indeed some related narratives in my life, and I am telling you one of them. A cousin addressed me as a slow eater when I was taking my lunch. I responded to him that the speed of eating does not determine the amount of energy we get from food. Eating slowly has been my habit since childhood. It is not something that I have developed in old age.
	2b. I usually go out on long solo drives. These young drivers challenge me to race with them, but I do not accept such challenges. They often try instigating me by saying, “Hey, old man, I think you can not drive faster than that speed.” I am not interested in these types of reckless acts.
3. Physical decline discourse also contains the element of dependence. Older people are seen as “dependent” on younger people. When moving from one place to another or performing a task, older people are said to “rely on” younger people for help.	3a. When I visit a place with my grandson, people pat him, saying he is helping his grandmother. I do not depend on his help; instead, we cooperate with each other. I guide him through the places we visit and provide him with the necessary information that he should know.
	3b. My daughter accompanies me to the doctor. This does not mean I depend on her. When she needs it, I go with her to the doctor. We inter-depend on each other rather than only one person depending on the other.

Observation 1 and response 1a in Table 1 demonstrated that young persons produced the ageist discourse of physical decline against older persons. The physical decline discourse was expressed through public interaction involving mostly younger persons on the producing side and older persons at the receiving end. In the context of response 1a, a young person produced an ageist remark against an older person when going upstairs in a shopping mall. However, the young person’s verbally produced discourse motivated the participant, who saw the remark as a challenge and decided to demonstrate his energy by continuing to go to the shopping mall and overtaking many young people when going upstairs. However, resistance via out-walking was not a consistent response exhibited by the participant. In some instances, younger individuals overtook the participant while walking, and this admission shows an internalized ageist attitude, wherein the older participant perpetuates negative age-related stereotypes, exemplifying self-ageism.

Power relations and social institutions shape the discursive practice of physical decline. The young person is in a superordinate position as he commands the older person “to move a bit,” while the older person is in a subordinate position as he moves aside and lets the young person go first. This unequal relationship between a young person and an older person draws on the ageist ideology that being young and fast should be prioritized, whereas being old and slow should not. According to Fairclough (1995), ideology can naturalize one group’s hegemony over another group. However, in this study, ageist ideology seeks to naturalize young persons’ hegemony over older persons and ageist responses to accusations of physical decline.

Response 1b in Table 1 validates and resists the dimension of older persons’ vulnerability to extreme weather (cold) (see observation 1). The ageist phrase “vulnerability to weather” is in an inter-textual relationship with the phrases “grown weaker” and “reading the book in sunlight” in response 1b. The comparative degree (of the adjective) “weaker” has been used to assume that older persons are more vulnerable to cold weather than young persons. This assumption of vulnerability has been negated by the participant using “not” with the modal verb “can.” The syntactic item “such comments cannot stop me from getting the pleasure of reading in sunlight” and the verb phrase “still read” resist the ageist terms and assumptions. In the words of Fairclough (1995), such textual features demonstrate how meaning (ageist meaning in the context of response 1b) is framed through discourse.

One of the participant’s friends verbally makes the ageist remark and associates reading in sunlight with age-related growing weakness. In contrast, the participant resists the sarcastic comment and decides not to stop reading in the sunlight. These discursive practices take place through verbal interaction in the public domain. One discursive practice (re)produces older persons’ weather vulnerability, while the other discursive practice resists the discourse of weather vulnerability.

According to Fairclough (1995), discourse is shaped by power relations and ideology. Similarly, in response 1b, power relations and ideology have shaped the ageist discourse of the participant’s (older person) vulnerability to cold weather. The participant perceived to be vulnerable to cold weather is in a subordinate relationship with the superordinate young persons considered invulnerable to cold weather. The relation has been identified by Fairclough (1995) as a power relation. This power relation is based on the ageist ideology that claims that weather vulnerability results when one ages. Such ageist ideology has been resisted by integrating an older person’s narrative with CDA.

Response 1c in Table 1 has been made in the context of an older person’s teeth loss and his young relative’s ageist remark against the older person. The ageist remark contains noun phrases, such as “teeth loss” and “the sign of old age,” and these phrases, as reported in response 1c in Table 1, characterize old age as the age of loss and “broken” things. These linguistic items constitute what Fairclough (1995) calls textual features of discourse. In contrast to these ageist terms, age-inclusive terms, such as “not typical of old age” and “common,” have been used to refer to teeth loss. Moreover, response 1c has been verbally produced by an older person in the home domain. The verbal response is an example of social interaction, highlighting how older persons are targeted in the discourse of tooth decay. Power relations and ageist ideology shape the discourse of tooth decay against older persons. Young persons are assumed to have stronger teeth, while older persons are claimed to have weaker teeth. Such ageist assumptions are based on ageist ideology that teeth decay is a feature of old age. The participant countered the ageist ideology of teeth decay in response 1 in Table 1 by dissociating old age from teeth loss.

As shown in observation 2 in Table 1, laziness is another element of physical decline discourse. Responses 2a and 2b in Table 1 contextualize the element of laziness in the discourse of physical decline. The ageist term “a slow eater” in response 2a refers to the participant (an older person) who was taking his lunch. The word “when” provides a temporal context to the ageist remark of the participant’s cousin. The participant’s response to the ageist remark contains the syntactic element “the speed of eating does not determine the amount of energy we get from food.” Moreover, the word “since” provides a temporal context to the older person’s response when he says “eating slowly” has been his “habit since childhood.”

Response 2a in Table 1 is an example of narrative verbal communication. In Fairclough’s (1995) terms of discourse distribution, the communicative act can be seen as a form of social interaction in the home domain during lunch. The target of this ageist communicative act is a slow-eating older person who is assumed to be in a subordinate relationship with fast-eating young persons. This assumption is based on ageist ideology that physical decline causes slow eating (Laziness) in older persons. The participant has countered the ageist discourse of physical decline in response 2a, stating that eating fast does not provide more energy than slow eating.

Response 2b in Table 1 has been provided in the context of an older person driving a car on the road. The adverb “usually” provides a temporal context to driving. The response refers to a young person’s ageist remark: “Old man, I think you cannot drive faster than that.” According to the participant, the ageist remark was made to “instigate” him to start a race. He uses terms such as “not interested” and “reckless acts” to refer to car racing. The response is an instance of narrative verbal communication. It highlights how the ageist discourse of physical decline (Laziness) is distributed through interaction in the social domain (while driving on roads) and how such discourse targets older persons. In the response, it is implied that the young person is the one who addresses, while the older person is the one who is addressed, resulting in what Fairclough (1995) calls a power relation between them. The power relation is based on the ageist ideology that older persons can not drive fast due to mental and physical weakness. However, the participant resists this ideology by saying that racing is a reckless act.

The ageist discourse of physical decline, as shown in observation 3 in Table 1, also contains the element of dependence. Responses 3a and 3b in Table 1 contextualize the ageist discourse of dependence. Response 3a was provided by an older person when she visited a place with her grandson. The linguistic item “helping his grandmother” constructs the idea of dependence. The syntactic item “people pat him” shows how helping older persons is appreciated. In contrast, the verbal response “I do not depend on his help” shows how the participant views the grandson accompanying his grandmother.

Response 3a in Table 1 is an example of narrative verbal communication. It also contains the non-verbal form of communication (patting). The response shows how the ageist discourse of dependence (physical decline) is distributed through interaction between two relatives (a grandmother and her grandson) in the public domain. The dependence discourse has been shaped by what Fairclough (1995) calls power relations and (ageist) ideology. The grandmother has been shown to depend on her grandson’s help to visit a public place. Moreover, this relationship of the older woman, depending on the help of her grandchild, is appreciated through the non-verbal act of communication (patting). Patting, otherwise considered a gesture of appreciation, has been viewed as an ageist act as it justifies the discourse of dependence. The grandmother resists the discourse of dependence with the discourse of cooperation because she guides and provides the necessary information to her grandson.

Response 3b in Table 1 concerns an older woman who goes to see a doctor with her daughter. Lexical items such as “depend” and “inter-dependence” have been used in the response to show how the idea of dependence and interdependence are expressed in verbal communication. The participant resists the discourse of dependence with the discourse of interdependence.

Responses in Table 1 illustrate various ways in which participants actively resist ageist discourses of physical decline, laziness, and dependence. In other words, the responses challenge stereotypes that associate ageing with physical deterioration, inactivity, and reliance on others. For example, in response 1a, the participant resists the stereotype of physical weakness by refusing to internalize comments about walking slowly due to age. The participant’s ability to occasionally surpass younger individuals challenges the stereotype that ageing results in physical decline. Moreover, response 1b in Table 1 resists the assumption that ageing inevitably brings about frailty, using reading in the sunlight as an act of persistence. The response demonstrates that the participant keeps engaging in the activities he likes (reading in sunlight) despite sarcastic remarks, emphasizing that ageing does not mean giving up intellectual pursuits or pleasures. Response 1c in Table 1 challenges the ageist discourse of physical decline by rejecting the idea that age-induced changes imply poor health. In the response, the participant’s assertion of feeling healthy in spite of losing some teeth rejects the idea that ageing is synonymous with physical decline or unwellness.

Responses 2a and 2b in Table 1 resist the ageist discourse of laziness. For example, response 2a challenges the association of slowness with inefficiency or lack of energy and redefines efficiency beyond speed. By stating that eating speed does not equate to energy levels, the participant resists the notion that older persons are inherently sluggish or less capable. Furthermore, in response 2b, rejecting recklessness as a measure of competence, the participant declines to engage in driving challenges. The participant emphasizes wisdom and responsible behavior, countering the ageist idea that ageing reduces one’s ability to engage in skilled or active tasks. Finally, responses 3a and 3b resist the ageist discourse of dependence. In response 3a, the participant resists the assumption that older persons are passive recipients of care. The participant instead emphasizes mutual cooperation with her grandson, positioning herself as an active guide rather than a dependent person. Similarly, in response 3b, the participant disrupts the common ageist perception that ageing necessitates dependence by highlighting interdependence. The participant’s relationship with her daughter is not based on one-directional help but on reciprocating support, and this relationship helps resist the infantilization of the participant.

Unhealthiness discourse

Unhealthiness is a sub-theme of ageist discourse of physical decline. Observation 1 in Table 2 demonstrates how diseases are associated with old age and older persons in physical decline discourse. Responses 1a, 1b, and 1c in Table 2 validate the observation and question the discourse of unhealthiness.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Examples of unhealthiness discourse.

Examples of unhealthiness discourse	Narratives of resistance
1. Unhealthiness discourse describes older adults as “diseased persons.” Different diseases are associated with old age, such as diabetes, high blood pressure, asthma, etc.	1a. I was traveling on a train. The young person sitting in the front seat said seeing an older adult without a disease is uncommon. I told him that there were many healthy older persons without disease.
	1b. Yes, I have diabetes and blood pressure. But I don’t want to be identified as a “diabetic” or “blood pressure patient.” My identity is my name, profession, or current doing (social work). I don’t want to be identified as “diseased.”
	1c. Many older persons may be suffering from one or more diseases. However, many young people are also suffering from different types of diseases. I am a healthy person without any disease; I don’t take medicine when I am feeling fevered, which rarely happens to me.

Response 1a in Table 2 takes place in the context of an older person traveling on a train. The response provided by the older person reports a young person making an ageist remark, such as “It is uncommon to see an old person without a disease.” The older person uses an age-inclusive noun phrase, “many healthy older persons,” to refute the ageist remark. The verbal ageist and age-inclusive remarks (textual features in the words of Fairclough, (1995)) between the older person and the young person take place through social interaction while traveling on a train. The young person’s remark is based on ageist ideology that older persons are diseased. This ideology has been countered using the discourse of older person’s healthiness.

The linguistic item “yes I have. . .” in response 1b in Table 2 indicates the older person’s acceptance of having diseases (diabetes and blood pressure). However, he does not want the noun “diabetes” and the noun phrase “blood pressure” to become his identity. The participant’s preferred nouns of identity are his name and past/current profession. Moreover, this verbally produced age-inclusive discourse counters the ageist ideology that identifies old age as the age of diseases.

Response 1c in Table 2 provided by the participant contains the modal verb of probability “may be” to refer to older persons’ experience of disease(s), and the helping verb of surety “is” to indicate young persons’ suffering from “different types of diseases.” Moreover, he has used “some” with older persons to imply that a limited number of older persons are affected by a disease. In contrast, he has used “many” with “young people” to suggest that there is a large number of older persons suffering from the disease. According to Fairclough (1995), such textual features can shape discourse. Moreover, the syntactic item “I am a healthy person” in response 1c (Table 2) shows the counter-discourse of the healthiness of the older participant. The word “when” provides a temporal context for the participant’s onset of fever. However, the reduced frequency in the occurrence of fever demonstrated through the adverb “rarely” indicates the participant’s strong immunity against diseases. By dissociating old age from diseases, response 1c (Table 2) counters the discourse of the unhealthiness of older persons.

In summary, the ageist discourse of physical decline comprises discourses on weakness/loss, laziness, dependence, and unhealthiness. This study’s theme of ageist discourse of weakness is based on three elements: weakness in walking, weather vulnerability, and teeth loss, and the ageist discourse of laziness involves slow eating and slow driving. The ageist discourse of dependence discusses how older persons rely on their young relatives. Moreover, the ageist discourse of unhealthiness conceptualizes old age as the age of diseases and identifies older persons as diseased persons. However, this ageist conception in the discourse has been countered by discussing the participants’ counter perspectives. For example, a participant (1a) actively challenged ageist discourse by emphasizing his well-being and rejecting assumptions that equate old age with illness. Another participant (2a) asserted a preferred identity that aligned with the participant’s lived experiences, resisting reductive categorizations based only on chronological age. By dissociating health from age, a participant (3a) contested the stereotype that ageing results in unhealthiness, instead calling for a more detailed understanding of later life.

Psychological instability discourse

Psychological instability discourse is another feature of ageist discourse. Observation 1 in Table 3 shows how older persons’ mood swings and emotional volatility are seen as psychological characteristics. Moreover, responses in Table 3 validate observation 1 in the table and seek to resist power relations and ageist ideology.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Examples of psychological instability discourse.

Examples of psychological instability discourse	Narratives of resistance
1. “Mood swings” and “emotional volatility” are psychological characteristics of older persons. They are said to vent their anger in reaction to a trifling matter.	1a. I have often reacted angrily to different matters. But is it only because I am now an older person? Many young people in my family react angrily to different matters. If my grandson does not get his favorite toy, he gets angry. If my son or his wife disagrees, they get angry. I think it’s normal in all age groups.
	1b. One day, my relative said something that made me extremely angry and unhappy. You know what I did. I just tried to ignore him. I showed patience and calmly told him, “It’s my personal matter, and I know how to deal with it. You do not need to get worried about it.” Having said that, I came back to my home.
2. “Nervous attacks” are also a common stereotype in psychological instability discourse. In this discourse, older adults are seen as easily terrified persons.	2a. In troubled times, I have behaved sensibly and bravely. My caring nature is often misunderstood as fearful.
	2b. Fear is common to all age groups. My little granddaughter fears ghosts, witches, and other such creatures, and my other young family members have their fears. Fear is in our nature; however, the ability to manage and control fear can vary from one person to another.
3. Forgetfulness is another feature of the discourse on psychological instability. Older adults are viewed as “forgetful,” often forgetting things.	3a. But we do not forget everything. I try to forget unpleasant experiences. If you can do that, it is a blessing. Otherwise, life can be challenging without forgetting a few unpleasant things. . .yes it happens, I feel like I’m forgetting a lot lately.
	3b. As a child, I used to forget things. Even when I became a grown-up woman, I still forgot things. Forgetting is a part of human nature. It should not be associated with old age. When I forgot to bring something my daughter asked me to, she smiled and said I was getting older.

Response 1a in Table 3 discusses psychological instability discourse in the home domain. The participant uses “many times” to provide a temporal context to his angry reactions. The verb phrase “react angrily” has been linked with kinship terms, such as “my grandson,” “my son,” and “his wife,” to suggest that angry reaction is “normal” in all age groups. These linguistic items verbally produced by an older person indicate how the discourse of psychological instability is distributed in the home domain and how such discourse can be resisted through a rhetorical question, such as “is it only because I am now an older person?”. This rhetorical question challenges power relations implicit in psychological instability discourse. The participant resists the power relation between an anger-reacting older person and a young person who is assumed to be cool, calm, and collected by saying that angry reactions are common in all age groups. According to Fairclough (2015), such a rhetorical use of language is an example of discursive practice.

Response 1b in Table 3 has been provided in the context of a young person making an unpleasant remark against the participant. The phrase “extremely angry and unhappy” has been used to describe the participant’s feelings against the unpleasant remark. However, the verb phrase “tried to ignore” implies how the participant avoided an angry reaction. Overall, response 1b is a verbal narrative reaction to the discourse of psychological instability. However, the participant’s going back home can be interpreted as a non-verbal response to the ageist discourse. Moreover, by demonstrating patience and calmness against an unpleasant remark, the response resists the ageist ideology that propagates that angry reactions in older persons can be ignited easily.

In addition to angry reactions, the element of nervousness is found in the discourse of psychological instability. Observation 2 in Table 3 claims that older persons can be easily terrified. Responses 2a and 2b in Table 3 also validate observation 2. Response 2a in Table 3 regarding the participant’s behavior during troubled times has been provided. The noun phrase “troubled times” provides a temporal context to the participant’s behavior, while the verb phrase “behaved sensibly and bravely” helps identify the participant’s behavior. These textual features, as discussed by Fairclough (1995), can shape the meaning-making process in discourse. According to the participant, “being caring” appropriately describes his behavior during troubled times. The participant’s response also shows how, in the discourse of psychological instability, “being caring” is often misunderstood as being “fearful.” The verbally produced response counters the ageist ideology by foregrounding the discourse of an older person’s sensibility and bravery and resisting the discourse of nervousness (psychological instability).

Response 2b in Table 3 provides an age-sensitive context to fear, another element in the discourse of psychological instability. The participant uses terms such as “fear,” “common to all,” and “fear. . .in our nature” to naturalize the discourse of fear. This discourse produced through verbal communication in the context of the home domain questions the ageist ideology that fear is common only in older persons. By proposing that everyone has their fears, the participant, in response 2, dissociates ageism from the discourse of fear.

Observation 3 in Table 3 identifies forgetfulness as a key feature of psychological instability discourse. Responses 3a and 3b in Table 3 also validate observation 3 and counter ageism. In response 3a, the syntactic items “we do not forget everything” and “. . .forget unpleasant experiences” provide a context to forgetfulness, implying that some things are retained in memory while others are forgotten. According to Fairclough (1995), discourse not only shapes but also is shaped by the context in which it is used. In the context of response 3a in Table 3, the participant counters the sweeping ageist claim that older persons are forgetful. The verbally produced response also subverts the ageist claim by discussing that forgetfulness is a “blessing,” without which life can be “tough and difficult.” While the response resists ageist discourse, it paradoxically reinforces internalized ageism because the participant’s self-reported increase in forgetfulness aligns with negative age-related stereotypes, indicating a demonstration of self-ageism.

Response 3b in Table 3 provides an age-sensitive context to the discourse of forgetfulness. The word “when” has been used twice in the response to provide a temporal context. First, it relates to the participant’s childhood period. Second, it relates to her adulthood period. She uses these two periods as a discursive strategy to imply that forgetfulness is ordinary in all age periods. She uses the noun phrase “human nature” to suggest that forgetfulness is rooted in human nature and to dissociate forgetfulness from the process of “getting older.” In other words, she resists the ageist ideology that associates forgetfulness with old age.

In short, psychological instability discourse contains the claims of mood swings/emotional volatility, nervous attacks, and forgetfulness. The ageist discourse of mood swings/emotional volatility is characterized by older persons’ angry reactions, while the ageist discourse of nervous attacks features older persons’ feelings of fear/nervousness. Finally, the ageist discourse of forgetfulness discusses how older persons forget different things.

Responses in Table 3 resist the ageist discourse of psychological instability by countering ageist stereotypes related to mood swings/emotional volatility, nervous attacks and forgetfulness. For instance, the participant who provided response 1a in Table 3 normalizes emotional reactions by saying that frustration and anger are not exclusive to older persons but are found in all age groups. This response challenges the ageist claim that ageing inevitably leads to increased emotional instability. Besides, the participant who provided response 1b resists the assertion that older persons are emotionally volatile by demonstrating self-regulation and patience in response to provocation. Additionally, responses 2a and 2b in Table 3 resist the ageist discourse of nervousness. For example, response 2a rejects the stereotype of older persons as timid or anxious by stating that the participant’s caring nature is misperceived as fear. Response 2b counters the ageist notion that nervousness is a defining feature of ageing by discussing that fear is a universal experience that affects all age groups.

In the same vein, responses 3a and 3b in Table 3 provide examples of resistance to the ageist discourse of forgetfulness. For example, the participant who provided response 3a resists the idea that forgetfulness is exclusive to older persons by reframing it as a selective process that involves forgetting unpleasant experiences. In other words, forgetting unpleasant experiences is positioned as strength rather than a cognitive deficit. Moreover, response 2b resists the ageist stereotype that memory decline is a characteristic of old age by defining forgetfulness as a common dimension of persons of all age groups.

Implications and recommendations

This study highlighted the significance of integrating observations, participants’ narratives of resistance, and critical discourse analysis in dealing with ageist discourses. Using narratives may help critical discourse analysts provide a contextual framework to question ageist discourses from participants’ perspectives. Based on this study, older persons’ preferred identities can come from foregrounding their unheard voices. Ageist ideologies can limit older persons’ access to the platforms of meaning-making. Policymakers must intervene and devise policies that discourage and penalize ageist ideologies and discourses.

It is essential to combine multiple ways of resisting ageist discourses (verbal and nonverbal, as discussed in this study) to support a person facing ageism. Such support can help achieve age-inclusive and sustainable development and the healthy well-being of older persons. Creating age balance and challenging ageism in all social domains can give older persons equal chances of social participation.

Finally, given the focus of this study on ageist discourses in Pakistan’s Sindh province, future research can focus on comparison across Pakistan’s provinces and may provide different results. Future research can also explore the intersection of resistance, resilience, and ageist discourse, particularly in cross-cultural contexts to develop a more holistic understanding of how older persons navigate societal perceptions of ageing.

Strengths and limitations

One strength of this study is that two methods of data collection (observations and interviews) were used. The other strength is the integration of participants’ narratives with critical discourse analysis to provide a nuanced analysis of ageist discourses. In contrast, with only six participants, the findings may not be representative of the broader population of older adults, especially those from different cultural, social, or economic backgrounds. The participants were largely retirees with a specific professional background (government servants), which may limit the diversity of perspectives on ageism. The lack of variation in education and occupation (with the exception of two housewives) could also limit the generalizability of the findings to other groups of older adults. The criteria for participant selection, which excluded those who might succumb to emotional breakdown, may have led to a bias in the sample, potentially excluding individuals who have experienced more intense or distressing forms of ageism.