(~4 minutes to read)
Are you in your youth, early adulthood, middle age, or old age?
Turns out, it depends.
Speaking (okay—writing) as someone in a grey area between two of the labels, I have an interest in the answer, and you may have too. And given that the area is, indeed grey, you’ll possibly work out that the two categories I refer to are middle and old age.
Before we go any further, hands up who thinks that “old age” sounds ominous, foreshadowing and generally depressing? Uh-huh… More later.
Dictionaries
If you check out the definition of middle age in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, you’ll find that it’s the period between youth and old age. Fair enough, you might say, but when does youth end, and when does old age begin? The Canadian Oxford says middle age is from about 40 to 60. Great news for those 30-something “youths”, but disconcerting to those of us whose 60th birthdays have been previously enjoyed.
Okay, so Canadian middle age ends at 60. What about south of the 49th?
Aha! Good news! Websters gives American middle-agers a reprieve—they won’t cross the line until they’re 65.
And the Oxford Online Dictionary tells a similar tale for Brits.
Is it Where You Live?
So perhaps Brits and Americans live longer, which is why their old-age threshold is later in life than for us Canadians.
Wrong. Canadians live, on average, a year longer than Americans, and nearly three years longer than Brits?
And why do Brits die younger than Canadians? Because they want to. (B-dum-kshhhhhh!)
So What’s the Explanation?
No idea!
It’s not the age of the dictionary and by extension, of the statistics.
Maybe the person who wrote the entry in the Canadian dictionary comes from a family that’s not known for its longevity. He/she was probably related to the person who wrote the entry in the 1963 Pocket Oxford Dictionary (which also cites 40 & 60).
Or maybe the Brits are doing their typical “adopt American trends and pretend it was theirs all along” thing, whereas many Canadians try hard to resist adopting American stuff.
Maybe the Canadian guy had had bad news from the doctor the day he/she wrote the entry.
The 1944 Shorter Oxford Dictionary doesn’t commit itself. It mentions youth and old age, but not any specific ages. Less precise, but more palatable. However, this information just muddies the waters rather than clearing them.
Perhaps we should stick with “no idea!”
Political Correctness
Remember that earlier on you voted as to whether or not “old age” sounds ominous, foreshadowing or depressing? I raised my hand, I can tell you!
“Old age” is a term I’m sure you grew up hearing, and it encapsulated all those dusty, crumbling old relatives that showed up at Christmas and weddings. All but one of them would show up at a funeral too. And then at the second funeral, two of them didn’t show. It was like they were playing musical chairs and taking one chair away at each funeral gathering.
But I digress. We were conditioned at a very young age to associate “old age” with aforementioned crumblies. And as we get older, we realize that one day, our relatives are going to take away our chair, so we decide we want to delay that time as much as possible.
All of which leads me to ask, “why do we (and the dictionaries) still refer to it as ‘old age’?” We’ve eliminated just about every other epithet in the English language (except “Prince of Wales”); why not “old aged”?
Sure, there’s “golden years” and “senior”. And people joke about being “80 years young”. But the mask of epithetery is thin!
Middle- or Old-aged?
So is a 61-year-old middle-aged, or old-aged? From my brain’s perspective, I’d say neither, although the mirror begs to differ, and the knees (and eyes (and ears (and nasal hair))) would concur with the mirror.
Perhaps the contents of one’s wardrobe might provide the answer? This thought came to me after reading a friend’s essay on clothes hoarding; he’s a little older than I am, and he recently discovered that his clothes stay in service longer than perhaps they should these days. When I read his essay, I realized that my wardrobe’s the same; shirts are worn way after their frayed collars suggest they should; pants are worn until they’re little more than a waistband and enough thread to retain one’s modesty. Fashion no longer provides a “best before” date on clothing—comfort and nostalgia have priority.
And that’s the key word. Nostalgia. When clothes have nostalgia value, it’s a sign that you’ve got a lot of history, and despite what your brain tells you, at 61, you’re probably in old age.
So embrace it. Take the senior discounts. Savour the warm slippers in that comfy, supportive, easy-to-get-out-of chair, and (assuming you can get into them still!) wear those flared pants and jumbo-collared shirts with pride when you’re working in the yard!
Your Turn
Are you in that grey area between 60 and 65? If so, which camp do you claim allegiance to?
If you haven’t reached 60 yet, will you embrace old age at 60 or cling on to middle age until the Queen sends you your telegram? (Okay—she doesn’t do that anymore…)
And you over-65s—is the labelling important? Or is old age more a state of mind than of body?
Leave a comment.