Representation, barriers and motivations

Much of the debate about the legitimacy of participants in governance processes is constructed around different conceptions of representation (Barnes et al. Reference Barnes, Newman, Knops and Sullivan2003). Those who assume a statistical notion of representativeness want to establish whether participants are ‘representative’ of the broader population in terms of socio-economic and other characteristics – i.e. are they ‘like’ other members of the population in terms of variables that are both measurable and assumed to be important (such as gender, ‘race’, class, disability status). Analysis of the characteristics of participants in these terms can identify structural exclusions that are operating, and thus determine both who is present and who is absent from deliberations intended to shape policy and service delivery. One example of this is work by Broese van Groenou and Deeg (Reference Broese van Groenou and Deeg2010) who explore the ‘social determinants’ of social participation amongst different cohorts of older people in the Netherlands by considering educational level, chronic disease, paid employment, marital status, age and gender. They account for an increase in what they refer to as ‘formal social participation’: ‘activities in which a person is of service to groups or individuals in the community through their involvement in political and voluntary organisations’ among young–old cohorts (60–69) between 1992 and 2002 by an increase in the educational level amongst those cohorts.

Democratic theorists who advocate a ‘politics of presence’ (Phillips Reference Phillips1995) point to the absence of specific groups (women, different ethnic groups) from political institutions and link ‘what’ is represented within political decision-making process with ‘who’ is doing the representation. Thus, there is a link between statistical and democratic notions of representation. However, a more common democratic understanding of representation is that this refers to the basis on which representatives claim authority to speak on behalf of people, rather than the expectation that representatives will share characteristics with those they represent. In systems of representative democracy this is determined by election and the accountability that accompanies this. Elections do take place to determine participants in some forms of participatory governance, but this is not typical and there is a tension between the principles and practice of deliberative democracy – that requires openness to transformation of views and positions through the process of deliberation (Dryzek Reference Dryzek2000), and systems that assume representatives who take a mandated position and are accountable to a particular constituency. Within participatory governance processes, the question of whether participants can be considered legitimate representatives of older people requires consideration of the basis on which they might be able to ‘speak for’ older people who are not directly involved, and whether they can and should be accountable to them. Warburton and Petriwskyj (Reference Petriwskyj and Warburton2007) distinguish two different bases on which older people might be considered legitimate participants: because they bring lived experience of growing older to the policy table, or because they are members of representative organisations that lobby on behalf of older people. This distinction reflects a broader distinction between ‘local knowledge’ and ‘local representation’ as a basis for participation in participatory governance processes (Barnes et al. Reference Barnes, Skelcher, Dalziel and Beirens2008).

Barnes and Shaw (Reference Barnes, Shaw, Warnes, Warren and Nolan2000) and Gould (Reference Gould2007) have identified barriers to older people taking part in initiatives intended to enable them to have a voice. These can be personal, circumstantial, institutional, and relate to the design of participatory practices. There is also evidence of the very different approaches necessary to enable older people who may be experiencing poor health, and/or who are in receipt of social-care services to have their say about the services essential to their health and wellbeing (Barnes and Bennet Reference Barnes and Bennet1998). We also know that there is a relationship between the design and composition of participatory forums, the nature of the deliberation that takes place within them, and the potential for transformative change arising from this (Barnes Reference Barnes2005). One model of participation is unlikely to resolve the dilemmas about inclusion/exclusion and representativeness.

Questions about who takes part also require consideration of why they do so – what motivates people to take part in activities that can be considered to come within the spectrum of voluntary/political action? Barnes et al. (Reference Barnes, Newman and Sullivan2006, Reference Barnes, Newman and Sullivan2007) have addressed motivations amongst participants in a range of participatory governance initiatives, including those involving older people. They identified a number of ‘commitments’ that were evident amongst participants and that were influential in their decisions to get involved: commitments to a place, a ‘people’ (i.e. a specific ethnic group), or a cause or causes (which could include lifelong commitments to a range of causes such as women's rights, anti-poverty issues); commitments to a set of values – including those associated with religious faith; and commitments deriving from personal experiences of difference, disadvantage or oppression. But, they also highlighted other factors, in particular the nature of people's social networks, that have also been identified as implicated in social movement mobilisation, and which may be important in understanding decisions to get involved in collective action by older people. Petriwskyj and Warburton (Reference Petriwskyj and Warburton2007) reviewed the literature on motivations and barriers to older people's decisions to become volunteers. They identify key motivators as: helping values; the social aspects of volunteering; the importance of opportunities to make a contribution to their community or to society; to use their skills, share knowledge, to learn or develop new skills and be intellectually stimulated; and to feel good or needed. But the authors point out that most studies neglect the diversity both of what might be considered ‘voluntary activities’ and of older people themselves. They also suggest a need for a more nuanced conceptual understanding of motivations, for example the need to distinguish ‘helping’ from altruism. From his review of research on older people's participation, Nick Gould (Reference Gould2007) proposes a conceptual model of factors leading to what he refers to as ‘sustained volunteerism’. This model encompasses demographic characteristics, personal beliefs and values; pro-social personality, specific volunteer-related motives, situational factors; social pressure, and relationships with organisations and their attributes. This work all suggests that the social construction of participants as ‘usual suspects’ conceals a complex interplay between personal, social, cultural, political and spatial factors that lead to particular individuals becoming involved in particular participation initiatives. There is a need for contextualised analysis of both the ‘who’ and ‘why’ of older people's participation and what implications this has for developmental strategies.

The discursive construction of people as ‘usual suspects’ can sometimes be a way of undermining the legitimacy of their contributions to participatory governance. Other constructions: as community leaders, committed volunteers, advocates, knowledgeable experts, for example, offer a rather different perspective on the role and characteristics of participants. But there is also a genuine concern that the distribution of ‘opportunities’ for participation is too narrow, that some people are doing too much and others are not getting a look in – because the design of participatory processes or the rules and norms associated with these are exclusive, because people simply do not know what the opportunities are or because their personal, social, economic and spatial circumstances make it hard for them to take part.

The spatial influences on patterns of older people's participation have been neglected in theoretical and empirical debates in social science, although there is a body of literature, particularly in human geography, that emphasises the importance of older people in constructing space and place. Mowl et al. (Reference Mowl, Pain and Talbot2000) explore the significance of space, and particularly notions of ‘home’, in constructing notions of ‘appropriate’ place for older people and older people's identification, whilst Biggs and Tinker's (Reference Biggs and Tinker2007) work on age-friendly environments stresses the positive impact of older people in particular urban spaces in building social cohesion and in challenging spatial exclusion. More broadly, the importance of place has been debated in relation to normative assumptions about particular social (marginalised) groups being ‘in-place’ and ‘out of place’ (Cresswell Reference Cresswell1996; Massey Reference Massey1994; Sibley Reference Sibley1981). In particular, it is suggested that such groups construct space and place through processes of resistance to such discourses of spatial constraint. Locality and place can also be synonyms for belonging, providing a sense of collective identity and cohesion (Lovell Reference Lovell1998). Conversely, a ‘lack of community’ is seen as being associated with weakened citizenship and arguably felt most acutely in areas where the population is more transitory and subject to fluctuation (Rapport and Dawson Reference Rapport and Dawson1998).

A more recent collection of papers focuses specifically on participatory practices, arguing that ‘participation itself is inherently spatial’ (Pain and Kindon Reference Pain and Kindon2007: 2807). Although it is focused on emerging participatory research theory and practice in geography, it also engages with the mutually constituted concepts of space, place and participation on a wider level. It is argued that space is constructed through practices of participation, but also that the nature of participation is such that it requires the negotiation of different scales of engagement, from local to global and that participation is ‘embedded within particular spaces and places’ (Pain and Kindon Reference Pain and Kindon2007: 2808).

In this article, we consider how older people who had joined senior citizens forums in one part of England, East Sussex, spoke about their involvement in the context of their lives. We consider issues of importance to older people, what they thought of relationships between the forums and ‘other older people’ and how all of this intersects with their views on the nature of the places in which they live.

East Sussex has the highest proportion of over 85 s in England and there are nearly three people of pension age to every two children under 16. One response to this has been the establishment of seven older people's forums across the county to provide a mechanism for dialogue between the county council, the Primary Care Trusts (which commissioned health services), other public agencies and older people. These forums have been led and shaped by older people themselves, including decisions about the geographical area covered by each forum. Collectively the forums constitute the East Sussex Seniors Association (ESSA), which is recognised by public bodies as the key focus for consulting older people about policies and service delivery.

Participation in place

Situated on the edge of the South Downs National Park, at the mouth of the river Ouse and between the coastal resorts of Brighton and Eastbourne, Newhaven is surrounded by both affluence and natural beauty. However, both physically and in terms of indicators of deprivation, Newhaven is very different from its surroundings. The main road through the town now encircles the old town centre, making it almost invisible to passing traffic. Driving out of town, cars pass an industrial estate to one side, and a retail park to the other. To the north, an incinerator is being built and now dominates the skyline. Along the river towards the sea, there is evidence both of Newhaven's industrial past and present, and of efforts to regenerate the town: new flats and a marina sit opposite a pile of scrap metal and derelict marine workshops. Significant indicators of deprivation reinforce a view that Newhaven does not fit the stereotype of the wealthy south-east of England. The proportion of children in receipt of free school meals is 73 per cent higher than the district average; shop vacancies in 2009 were among the highest in the United Kingdom (UK); in August 2009, the local Member of Parliament announced that Newhaven was hit worse by the recession than any other town in his constituency. Although a smaller proportion of Newhaven's 12,000 or so population is over 60 than elsewhere in the county, their life expectancy is lower.

By contrast, Lewes, the historic county town and which is only eight miles from Newhaven, appears much wealthier. Lewes, the home of the revolutionary Tom Paine, is presented in local and public discourse as both idiosyncratic and rebellious. It boasts numerous independent traders which thrive because there is a large enough constituency of relatively wealthy people (including academics from the nearby universities), who are prepared to pay to shop locally, and who celebrate Lewes's unconventional image. There is a thriving arts cinema in a disused church, theatre and music clubs, alternative and independent schools. Lewes does have pockets of deprivation and Newhaven is also changing; its stable long-term population has been added to by incomers purchasing flats in the new developments. Newhaven has been in receipt of some regeneration funds, including support to efforts to rebuild the town's physical infrastructure. But the contrast between the two towns remains strong.

Forum members: white, healthy and middle class?

Only a very small proportion of our respondents referred to financial insecurity as being a concern to them. This is of course not a clear indicator of class position, but when combined with the fact that most of our respondents still used a car, almost all were home owners, and a great many came from professional employment backgrounds, it indicates that the forum membership is mainly ‘middle class’. An unpublished survey carried out by the neighbouring Seaford forum supports this. It found that members were at the higher end of the social spectrum in terms of income or previous income and educational background, and that in these senses they were atypical of both the population as a whole and of older people in particular. The Seaford study also revealed its forum membership to be less ethnically heterogeneous than the town as a whole. This is also the case with the Meridian respondents, all of whom were White British.

The members of the Meridian forum we spoke with varied in age from mid-fifties to early nineties. The majority were in their seventies and eighties. The Lewes interviewees were aged from mid-sixties to mid-seventies. Age aside, most of our respondents were ‘active’ in the sense of being reasonably fit and healthy and having an active and varied social life, including voluntary work, gardening, church attendance and sport. However, despite these generally high levels of activity, few people were ‘activists’ in the sense of being involved in politics or in challenging the status quo. In general, the experience of being on committees, or of taking part in formal consultation and participation, was limited to a few respondents. These people tended to combine high levels of engagement with articulate and forthright views on the changing nature of society.

These findings are perhaps not surprising. They arguably also provide easy support for the suggestion that the forums are not legitimate representatives of older people as a whole, as they represent a largely white and middle-class constituency who are themselves not experiencing old age as a time of hardship. However, these kinds of broad-brush data tell us very little about the meaning of membership for those who have joined, nor about how people engage.

Motivation and engagement

What does motivate people to become part of the forums and who do they seek to represent? Is it the ‘older old’, frail, vulnerable, poorer older people? Or is it all older people, from a perspective of solidarity? From the perspective of social movement theory, do forum members develop a collective identity that sustains their mobilisation (Melucci Reference Melucci1996)? In other words, do representatives think in terms of ‘them’ or ‘us’ when they consider their constituency? Indeed do forum members see themselves as ‘representative/s’ at all?

The ways in which people engage with the forums covers a wide spectrum: from those whose motivation arises from a strong sense of social (in)justice and a wish to ‘change the world’, through to those whose engagement is limited and detached. The majority cluster at this latter end of the spectrum, respondents from both Lewes and Newhaven have both a somewhat distant engagement with the forums and a perception that they are mainly for ‘others’. This ranges from those who say that they did not even realise that they were members, or were signed up by a friend or spouse, to those who express mild detachment, or indeed are critical of the forums:

For several people, joining the forums is primarily about finding friends, in some cases related to a mobile life history. For example, one Lewes forum member described a lifetime of living in different countries and a tendency to get involved, almost regardless of the nature of the activity, wherever he is.

Even when people have not travelled extensively, for many, the forums are important for friendship and fellowship, especially when they are new to an area. One woman explained that she did not know anybody when she came to the town, so she joined things to meet people. In this sense, the forum plays the same role for her as her membership of a gardening club. Another woman also spoke about the social function of her extensive volunteering, to the extent that she stressed how she is happy to help anyone, even-handedly delivering leaflets for two different political parties.

Beyond this, the dominant perspective for many forum members is that the forums are for ‘other’ older people, not themselves. This is perhaps not surprising, given the profile of forum members as generally in reasonably good health and economically comfortable. The perspective may be associated with a general unwillingness among informants to see themselves as ‘old’, regardless of their chronological age:

If forum members generally perceive the forums to be for others than themselves in terms of both actual age and frailty, there is also frequently a class and economic dimension to this. Sometimes this can be strongly judgmental: ‘Well I think it's for people who can't think for themselves, really, isn't it? And who can't organise their lives’ (woman, 80, N). Even when less judgmental, the distancing is compounded by a sense that the forums are intended for those who are not so well off or generally less fortunate and thus might reflect either altruism or a sense that more ‘privileged’ older people have a responsibility to act on behalf of those in less favourable circumstances:

However, this sense that the forums are a means of protecting the interests of less-fortunate older people may also be accompanied by a strong concern about issues of representation and presence. Whether critical of the forums, or merely reflective of the challenges they face, several people demonstrate an acute sensitivity to the rather homogeneous nature of forum membership, and to the fact that a limited group of people find themselves on the committees, often including themselves in this. They also stress the difficulties of finding ways of changing this situation. One even talks in terms of ‘usual suspects’:

So, on the one hand, people are aware that the forums are ‘unrepresentative’ in the sense of being like those they seek to represent. On the other hand, for many, their own engagement is sufficiently limited for them not to be seen as representative in any other sense either. But what of the exceptions: those forum members for whom social justice and solidarity, combined with a wish to ‘give something back’, are important in their commitment to hard work for the forums? For these, their engagement is often associated with a more general willingness to speak out on different issues and a history of political engagement in other spheres. Whilst their current relationship with older people's forums takes priority, this is just one aspect of how and where they seek, and have sought, to make a difference. Closer examination of the motivation and background of these people, including how this links to place, also reveals some subtle differences between the two neighbouring towns, and begins to indicate how place intersects with identity factors to shape the diversity of those that may be labelled ‘usual suspects’.

Explanations for the engagement of the more active members involve a combination of character, identity and personal history, all entwined with the pull of particular issues. In both Lewes and Newhaven, there are individuals who refer in general to their moral motivation; that it is in ‘their nature’ to act against injustice and unfairness, but also that there have been moments in their past which first prompted this. A narrative of ‘public service’ or of ‘giving things back’ is also common, again reflecting people's sensitivity to their own relative privilege. In this, the voluntarism of forum and other charitable activity is important. A member of the Lewes committee describes his engagement as arising from a growing understanding of the difficulties felt by many older people (again, not so much himself); he describes a general feeling of loss of values and respect in society. This, combined with ‘poverty, inequality, abuse’, mean that ‘it is a frightening time for older people’. His motivation is rooted in a wish to change things for poorer older people, a position that has strengthened as he has done more with the forum. For others, the time freed up by retiring from formal employment also became a catalyst for latent activism to come to the surface.

However, there is not necessarily a straightforward relationship between perceptions of injustice and deciding to do anything about it. As one woman involved in the Meridian Forum put it, in relation to an early sense of injustice: ‘… inside there was a campaign going on but I didn't do anything about it’. Over time, particular incidents, education and exposure to politics all combined to make her the active forum member that she is now. Nor do even the most ‘active’ forum members have a strong ‘political’ life trajectory in any straightforward sense. People tend to distance themselves from formal politics, or to talk with pride about their rather maverick political history: ‘I have been a member of the Conservative Association and I have been a member of the Liberals. I belonged to a long-haired poetry group when I was younger and I was also a communist’ (woman, 75, L).

The more active women were quite explicit about the gender dimension to injustice. For example, one woman spoke about the origins of her long-standing tendency to speak out at perceived injustices as rooted in a combination of experiences at school and home:

Another woman also sees her motivation as associated with how her mother was treated:

So participants may have personal experiences that prompt action to address injustice. However, there is a persistent view that, even when people are active committee members of forums, this has a somewhat ‘accidental’ quality. In fact, all of those who had formal positions tended to talk down how they came to be in these positions, and even to be slightly apologetic about their roles, suggesting that this was not a result of strong personal motivation to take on a leadership, advocacy or strongly representational role. We could speculate that this in turn might be linked to their sensitivity about the extent to which they are legitimate representatives of others. For example, one committee member describes how he was invited as a result of having a high profile in other areas of public life. Another describes his involvement as the result of his general competence on other committees – that he was invited because of his ‘ability to do the job’. A woman committee member describes herself as a ‘reluctant participant’. Another says that she took on a position of responsibility ‘against my better nature’. A third woman tells us that she just went along to a meeting as a result of a mild interest and found herself ‘staying with it’.

Engagement and place

The first phase of work with the Meridian Forum had suggested the significance of place in relation to participation, and we then deliberately sought to explore possible differences associated with the very different nature of Lewes as a social and cultural context of older peoples' involvement. Our additional interviews lead us to some suggestions about the contrast between the two places. First, although Lewes respondents are engaged with the particular needs of the older people living in the town, their descriptions of motivating issues are generally much broader than those from Newhaven; they have a more ‘global’ and also in some senses more intellectual, perspective. Second, and possibly linked to this, while in both places, forum members were broadly ‘middle class’, in Lewes several respondents were educated to doctoral level, and had had high-level – and in some cases international – careers. This was not the case for any of the Newhaven respondents. One of our informants suggested that in Lewes, people are ‘fancy middle class’ as opposed to ‘ordinary middle class’.

Most Lewes informants express a firm affection for the place, particularly celebrating its individual and ‘stroppy’ character.

The issues confronting older people in Lewes, particularly those associated with transport and health, certainly are a concern for some informants, particularly those with knowledge of the less affluent areas of the town. For example, one of the major achievements, noted by several people, was the fact that the start time for free bus passes was brought back from 9.30 to 9.00, in line with the rest of the country. Transport was identified as a key issue in ensuring older people were not excluded from the places in which they lived and lobbying for this was something with which several forums were involved. For many people, however, the forum is seen as more a potential source of information and perhaps social engagement than as a force for effecting change. In addition, this local engagement is generally in the context of a wider international perspective. All of our Lewes interviewees have lived outside the UK at some point in their lives and two were not born in the UK, but came to study and stayed. Perhaps as a result of this, one man describes himself as a ‘world citizen’, another told us that ‘I'm still much more interested in big international issues’.

In contrast, our Newhaven informants are much more engaged with specific issues affecting the town, and concerned to campaign in relation to these generally, and how they influence older people in particular. Although within the wider Meridian sample, there are a few people who have lived outside the UK, most are strongly rooted in the town and primarily direct their energies to local campaigning on issues that are not ‘older people specific’, but which evidenced a strong sense of collective identity with the place they regard as home. As we noted, much of this is rooted in a sense that the town has suffered from a combination of neglect by policy makers and the vagaries of social and economic change, but it is also bolstered by a deep-seated affection and loyalty for Newhaven and a wish to change it for the better. One person sums this up well:

When it comes to older people too, committee members are primarily concerned to make a difference to the lives of older people in the Meridian area, whether in terms of health-care provision, access to transport, day-care provision, or providing support to those who are less able to get out of the house. They also stress their ability to do this precisely because of their ‘localness’. Interestingly, the one Newhaven committee member we spoke to who does not have this perspective also has other characteristics in common with several of the Lewes respondents; an academic, having lived and worked abroad, and a self-confessed ‘intellectual snob’, she suggests that the problem with the forum is the ‘parochialism’ of the old; ‘they can only see their own problems and their own needs and so on’ (woman, 90, N).