Churches Aren't Tumbling Down
"The chimes of time ring out the news, another year is through." And the year-closing Christmas season would not be complete without the Canadian media's number one perpetrator of the secularization myth, religion writer Michael Valpy of the Globe and Mail, offering his annual proclamation of religion's demise. This year, the would-be news flash reads, "Churches come tumbling down" (December 22, 2007).
Funny thing. Valpy never called me. He used to call me routinely. Come to think of it, he hasn't called me much ever since our enjoyable session over coffee at the paper in the fall of 2004, when we energetically and enjoyable debated the direction religion in Canada seemed to be going. Our affable conclusion was that I didn't believe his take on secularization and he didn't believe my data.
These days, as in his current "tumbling down" article, Michael ignores me and draws on others whose views are more akin to his. I'm crushed.
Actually, I'm both envious and a shade frustrated. Michael is able to disseminate his views via the front page of a Saturday edition of the Globe and Mail, while I am left trying to get my side of the story out via this obscure blog. Who said life is fair.
We now have lots of data, as summarized in my book, The Boomer Factor (2006), that make it clear that organized religion in Canada isn't tumbling down. Far from it. Sure, anyone can point to the numerical problems of Mainline Protestantism, as Michael once again does to make his case. The identification and attendance numbers are down for the United Church, Anglicans, Lutherans, and Presbyterians. But by now we know that the reason is tied primarily to demographics, not disenchantment. Those groups used to benefit from immigration and relatively high birth rates; they no longer do.
Conversely, Roman Catholics outside Quebec continue to enjoy a robust immigration pipeline, and their numbers keep going up. In Quebec, most of the province continues to see itself as Catholic and, even though the majority of people attend services only occasionally, few are about to defect. The trick for the Catholic Church is to figure out how to engage Quebeckers; at this point it seems that the Church lacks both the motivation and the ability, although that could change. Evangelical Protestants are solid, as are other major world religions – the former largely because of vitality plus modest external outreach, the latter largely because of immigration plus a measure of vitality. All this doesn't add up to a lot of tumbling.
Contrary to Valpy's data-less claim that younger women rejected the church in the post-1960s, we have a fair amount of very good data that point to younger women becoming less involved for fairly pragmatic reasons. As growing numbers became employed outside the home, they had less time for a variety of activities, including churches where, frankly, the costs of involvement frequently outweighed the benefits. Most congregations were slow to adapt to the changing labour force and time crunch realities by making life easier for young mothers and young families. The result? Most young women, rather than being mad at anyone, simply found that church involvement warranted their showing up with their children every once in a while, rather than regularly (a paper summing up all this is found on my website, reginaldbibby.com, under Papers, "The Untold Story of the Role of Women in the Fall and Rise of Religion in Canada.").
But, as I see it, the resolution of the "tumbling or not tumbling" debate lies not only with data but also with some basic theorizing. If it's true that significant numbers of Canadians continue to (1) have needs that only the gods can satisfy, (2) have religious group preferences, and (3) find that those groups respond to their needs, it will be only a matter of time before they become more involved with those groups. Sociologist Rodney Stark's insightful argument about the persistence of religion is applicable to Canada: the demand persists; the onus lies with the suppliers.
The "Humpty Dumpty" argument is out of touch with the Canadian religious reality. There are signs that many Canadians and many churches are stirring. Neither the demand nor the suppliers are disappearing. What remains to be seen is when the connection will be made.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Beyond Celling One's Soul
The news that a woman who was trapped for eight days in her car at the bottom of a ravine in Seattle was found because of the crackling sound of her dying cell phone serves as a poignant reminder of the paradox of cell phone use. In telling the story in the Globe and Mail on September 28th, Rod Mickleburgh wrote that, although the battery on Tanya Rider's cell phone eventually died out, a steady ping from the phone had registered at the nearest communications tower. After obtaining the woman's cell phone records, police managed to identify the tower and guessed she was within an eight-kilometre radius.
I own a cell phone. But, in many ways, I hate cell phones. Yes, I realize that "hate" is a pretty strong word. But I feel strongly about the way that cell phone use is abused (another strong word).
I hate the way that they keep strangers from interacting with each other. I hate the way they steal parents away from focusing on their children. I hate the way they detract from friends focusing on friends in a restaurant or as they walk down a sidewalk. I hate the way they interrupt a moment of relative calm when I am sitting in an airport waiting area or walking in a park. I hate the way they keep people from having to sit and think and reflect on life and their lives. And I hate the way they want to track me down when I simply want to be left alone – to focus on my five-year-old daughter, visit with a friend, relax in the airport or park, and think about life and people.
That's why I seldom use mine, except, pretty much, for emergencies and necessary contact, along with the occasional impromptu photo.
As I have emphasized in The Boomer Factor, "Technology, as always, is not the enemy. But clearly it always needs to serve us rather than the other way around. We have to determine our needs and wants and values, and draw on technology accordingly" (88). I remind readers of sociologist William Ogburn's important observation that cultural norms do not move quickly enough to keep up with technological developments; norms that are we need in order to make optimum use of technological innovations literally "lag" behind.
When it comes to balancing cell phone use with good interpersonal life, we are lagging behind, mightily. That said, "the cell" is obviously a wonderful communication addition, particularly in its expanding multi-functional forms. At its best, it brings us together; at its worst, it keeps us apart.
What we need to do, collectively and individually, is figure out how to use the dang thing!
I own a cell phone. But, in many ways, I hate cell phones. Yes, I realize that "hate" is a pretty strong word. But I feel strongly about the way that cell phone use is abused (another strong word).
I hate the way that they keep strangers from interacting with each other. I hate the way they steal parents away from focusing on their children. I hate the way they detract from friends focusing on friends in a restaurant or as they walk down a sidewalk. I hate the way they interrupt a moment of relative calm when I am sitting in an airport waiting area or walking in a park. I hate the way they keep people from having to sit and think and reflect on life and their lives. And I hate the way they want to track me down when I simply want to be left alone – to focus on my five-year-old daughter, visit with a friend, relax in the airport or park, and think about life and people.
That's why I seldom use mine, except, pretty much, for emergencies and necessary contact, along with the occasional impromptu photo.
As I have emphasized in The Boomer Factor, "Technology, as always, is not the enemy. But clearly it always needs to serve us rather than the other way around. We have to determine our needs and wants and values, and draw on technology accordingly" (88). I remind readers of sociologist William Ogburn's important observation that cultural norms do not move quickly enough to keep up with technological developments; norms that are we need in order to make optimum use of technological innovations literally "lag" behind.
When it comes to balancing cell phone use with good interpersonal life, we are lagging behind, mightily. That said, "the cell" is obviously a wonderful communication addition, particularly in its expanding multi-functional forms. At its best, it brings us together; at its worst, it keeps us apart.
What we need to do, collectively and individually, is figure out how to use the dang thing!
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Is God Dead...Or Just Misread?
In case anyone hasn't noticed, for the past year or so two books by two British-trained intellectuals who describe themselves as atheists, anti-theists, and anti-religious have been sitting at the top of best-seller lists. I am speaking, of course, of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, and God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens. What troubles them both is not just the fact that large numbers of people continue to believe in something that is false but that such people also subscribe to ensuing religions that are dangerous, individually and socially.
The heart of such arguments are hardly new. One only has to browse some of the classic works of people like Auguste Comte, Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx to uncover similar sentiments. All three observers maintained that God is a human creation, and that holding such beliefs has negative personal and social consequences. They called, respectively, for people to move forward by embracing science, abandoning illusion, and taking control of their lives.
However, since 9-11 such anti-religious arguments have taken on new currency. Large numbers of people, it seems, are questioning both the social good of religion, as well as the more general question as to whether or not there is a God. To the extent that belief in God does not translate into positive interpersonal life, even those who subscribe to religion are left with the conclusion that, at minimum, God and God's purposes for humankind are either being badly misread or not implemented very well.
One thing is certain from our ongoing examination of beliefs in Canada: for whatever misgivings Canadians may have about the consequences of people being religious, they still are just as inclined as ever to believe in God. The earliest national poll I have been able to uncover in Canada on belief in God is one that Gallup carried out in 1945. At that time, 95% of Canadians told the pollster that they believed in God. Levels of belief were slightly lower among males and younger adults. By 1969 the figure was essentially the same at 96% (excluding a small percentage with no opinion) . In short, the early surveys pegged atheism at around 5%.
My Project Canada surveys spanning 1975 through the present time have found little change in the level of atheism over the years. It was a position held by only 6% of Canadians in 1975 and 1985, 9% in 1995, and 7% in 2005. As in those early Gallup surveys, atheism tends to be marginally higher among men and younger adults than women and people who are older.
An interesting finding is that Canadians who don't believe in God are not necessarily hostile toward organized religion. In fact, our Project Canada 2000 national survey found that almost one in two atheists agreed that "religious groups still have a role to play in Canadian lives." About one in five actually said that they personally would be open to greater involvement in religious groups if they found such involvement to be worthwhile for themselves and their families.
For all the attention being given atheism and anti-religious sentiments these days, the survey findings are clear: the proportion of atheists is not growing and significant numbers of atheists are not anti-organized religion.
Canadians continue to believe in God, and appear to demonstrate what many of their parents, grandparents, and earlier family members did before them – the inclination to differentiate between God and what people both claim and do in the name of God. The net result, as I have been saying for years, is that God continues to do well in the polls.
The heart of such arguments are hardly new. One only has to browse some of the classic works of people like Auguste Comte, Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx to uncover similar sentiments. All three observers maintained that God is a human creation, and that holding such beliefs has negative personal and social consequences. They called, respectively, for people to move forward by embracing science, abandoning illusion, and taking control of their lives.
However, since 9-11 such anti-religious arguments have taken on new currency. Large numbers of people, it seems, are questioning both the social good of religion, as well as the more general question as to whether or not there is a God. To the extent that belief in God does not translate into positive interpersonal life, even those who subscribe to religion are left with the conclusion that, at minimum, God and God's purposes for humankind are either being badly misread or not implemented very well.
One thing is certain from our ongoing examination of beliefs in Canada: for whatever misgivings Canadians may have about the consequences of people being religious, they still are just as inclined as ever to believe in God. The earliest national poll I have been able to uncover in Canada on belief in God is one that Gallup carried out in 1945. At that time, 95% of Canadians told the pollster that they believed in God. Levels of belief were slightly lower among males and younger adults. By 1969 the figure was essentially the same at 96% (excluding a small percentage with no opinion) . In short, the early surveys pegged atheism at around 5%.
My Project Canada surveys spanning 1975 through the present time have found little change in the level of atheism over the years. It was a position held by only 6% of Canadians in 1975 and 1985, 9% in 1995, and 7% in 2005. As in those early Gallup surveys, atheism tends to be marginally higher among men and younger adults than women and people who are older.
An interesting finding is that Canadians who don't believe in God are not necessarily hostile toward organized religion. In fact, our Project Canada 2000 national survey found that almost one in two atheists agreed that "religious groups still have a role to play in Canadian lives." About one in five actually said that they personally would be open to greater involvement in religious groups if they found such involvement to be worthwhile for themselves and their families.
For all the attention being given atheism and anti-religious sentiments these days, the survey findings are clear: the proportion of atheists is not growing and significant numbers of atheists are not anti-organized religion.
Canadians continue to believe in God, and appear to demonstrate what many of their parents, grandparents, and earlier family members did before them – the inclination to differentiate between God and what people both claim and do in the name of God. The net result, as I have been saying for years, is that God continues to do well in the polls.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Summer Hockey Headaches
Don't get me wrong. I'm an avid hockey fan. I followed the Oil Kings and Flyers as a kid growing up in Edmonton, and stayed on board as the Oilers, complete with the likes of Gretzky, Messier, Coffey and Anderson, evolved from near-WHA champs to Stanley Cup champs. Over there on one of my shelves sits a prize possession: a disc copy of the recording of the five minutes of Oil King hockey that I called live on radio as a 10-year-old. It featured a goal by a guy named "Ullman," with some player by the name of "Bucyk" drawing the assist. Not a bad memoir - one goal, two hall-of-famers.
But even hockey fanatics have hockey quotas. In case you need to be reminded, the Stanley Cup playffs for the 2006-07 season ended this past June 6th, when Anaheim took out Ottawa in five games. But get this:
* Just eight days later on June 14th, the NHL handed out its post-season awards.
* Eight days after that, on June 22nd, the league held its entry draft.
* Eight days later (is there a pattern here?) with June 30th came the eve of free agency. Over the next two weeks we were inundated with reports from those who cover hockey for a living on who was headed where, for how many years, and - of course - for how many million bucks. One of the highlights of the two-week period was the announcement July 10th that Sydney Crosby had inked a new-five-year, $43.5 million extension with the Pittsburgh Penguins.
* On July 11th the new 2007-08 schedule was released by the NHL, highlighted by the news that the Ducks and Kings would play two opening regular season games in the hockey hot-bed of London, England, "the first teams in league history," spouted the NHL, to do so.
* As we rounded the middle of July, some sports wags actually exclaimed that a second wave of second tier free agents were about to be signed. I, for one, couldn't wait.
Now, if all of that is giving you a bit of a headache, you are starting to get my point. There was a time when we used to have seasonal sports with seasonal coverage. Hockey was for winter, baseball for the spring and summer, football for the summer and fall. Some of us laughed a bit at how soccer in a place like Britain didn't end until late May and then resumed in August - a mere three months later. (Isn't Chelsea touring the U.S right now, in late July? When do those guys take holidays?)
But the NHL also is now a nine-month sport (the training camps for 2007-08 are scheduled to begin in mid-September). The goal of this powerful hockey corporation is to keep the league on the minds of every hockey fan during the remaining three summer months of the year. The assumption is that such non-stop attention is a fairly easy sell because, after all, we are a hockey-mad country with an insatiable thirst for hocky.
However, as I have pointed out in The Boomer Factor, it's far from clear that we really are as crazy about hockey as the sports types would have us believe. I've been monitoring interest in a variety of pro sports since 1990 through the Project Canada national surveys. What I have found is that some 30% of people across the country say that they follow the NHL ("very closely" or "fairly closely," versus "not very closely" or "not closely at all"). What may come as a surprise to many people is that, for all the hype, the figure for the hockey-following public was actually higher (38%) in 1995. You hardly need to be reminded that 30% is a good distance from 100%; it also is a fan base that is top-heavy with males.
So it is that all that hockey coverage is hard to take. It also is not necessarily a good thing for some other sports, notably Canadian professional football. In the midst of the obsession with NHL developments, it's worth noting that the league that suffers the most nationally from southern Ontario's preoccupation with every off-season twitch of the NHL - the Canadian Football League - has actually experienced a modest increase in attention since 1990. Some 16% of Canadians were following the CFL back then, versus 19% now. Comparatively, in 1990, 11% of Canadians said they were following the NFL, a figure which presently stands below that of the CFL, at 13%. The current fan levels for Major League Baseball and the NBA are 13% and 7% respectively. By the way, should I have some cynical readers just east of Manitoba, I would remind you that, in Ontario, the NFL following is 14%, slightly below the 16% level for the CFL.
This takes me back to where I began. Why is the NHL receiving so much play, even in the midst of summer? Probably primarily because, unlike the situation in the U.S. where hockey is invisible much of the year, there are a lot of hockey reporters in Canada with a lot of pages and radio and TV space to fill. This legion of journalists works in tandem with a league that strategically works to constantly keep its product in the public eye - whether we want it or not.
A story for another time is why, in contrast, a league like the CFL fails to receive even a respectable fraction of the attention shown the NHL, despite the fact that surveys such as my own show it has a significant following, findings that are corroborated by very solid TV ratings for CFL games. I suspect much of the answer lies with the corporate and media tastes and inclinations of...Toronto.
Then again, better not alienate you people who keep my work in front of the country.
Go Leafs go!
But even hockey fanatics have hockey quotas. In case you need to be reminded, the Stanley Cup playffs for the 2006-07 season ended this past June 6th, when Anaheim took out Ottawa in five games. But get this:
* Just eight days later on June 14th, the NHL handed out its post-season awards.
* Eight days after that, on June 22nd, the league held its entry draft.
* Eight days later (is there a pattern here?) with June 30th came the eve of free agency. Over the next two weeks we were inundated with reports from those who cover hockey for a living on who was headed where, for how many years, and - of course - for how many million bucks. One of the highlights of the two-week period was the announcement July 10th that Sydney Crosby had inked a new-five-year, $43.5 million extension with the Pittsburgh Penguins.
* On July 11th the new 2007-08 schedule was released by the NHL, highlighted by the news that the Ducks and Kings would play two opening regular season games in the hockey hot-bed of London, England, "the first teams in league history," spouted the NHL, to do so.
* As we rounded the middle of July, some sports wags actually exclaimed that a second wave of second tier free agents were about to be signed. I, for one, couldn't wait.
Now, if all of that is giving you a bit of a headache, you are starting to get my point. There was a time when we used to have seasonal sports with seasonal coverage. Hockey was for winter, baseball for the spring and summer, football for the summer and fall. Some of us laughed a bit at how soccer in a place like Britain didn't end until late May and then resumed in August - a mere three months later. (Isn't Chelsea touring the U.S right now, in late July? When do those guys take holidays?)
But the NHL also is now a nine-month sport (the training camps for 2007-08 are scheduled to begin in mid-September). The goal of this powerful hockey corporation is to keep the league on the minds of every hockey fan during the remaining three summer months of the year. The assumption is that such non-stop attention is a fairly easy sell because, after all, we are a hockey-mad country with an insatiable thirst for hocky.
However, as I have pointed out in The Boomer Factor, it's far from clear that we really are as crazy about hockey as the sports types would have us believe. I've been monitoring interest in a variety of pro sports since 1990 through the Project Canada national surveys. What I have found is that some 30% of people across the country say that they follow the NHL ("very closely" or "fairly closely," versus "not very closely" or "not closely at all"). What may come as a surprise to many people is that, for all the hype, the figure for the hockey-following public was actually higher (38%) in 1995. You hardly need to be reminded that 30% is a good distance from 100%; it also is a fan base that is top-heavy with males.
So it is that all that hockey coverage is hard to take. It also is not necessarily a good thing for some other sports, notably Canadian professional football. In the midst of the obsession with NHL developments, it's worth noting that the league that suffers the most nationally from southern Ontario's preoccupation with every off-season twitch of the NHL - the Canadian Football League - has actually experienced a modest increase in attention since 1990. Some 16% of Canadians were following the CFL back then, versus 19% now. Comparatively, in 1990, 11% of Canadians said they were following the NFL, a figure which presently stands below that of the CFL, at 13%. The current fan levels for Major League Baseball and the NBA are 13% and 7% respectively. By the way, should I have some cynical readers just east of Manitoba, I would remind you that, in Ontario, the NFL following is 14%, slightly below the 16% level for the CFL.
This takes me back to where I began. Why is the NHL receiving so much play, even in the midst of summer? Probably primarily because, unlike the situation in the U.S. where hockey is invisible much of the year, there are a lot of hockey reporters in Canada with a lot of pages and radio and TV space to fill. This legion of journalists works in tandem with a league that strategically works to constantly keep its product in the public eye - whether we want it or not.
A story for another time is why, in contrast, a league like the CFL fails to receive even a respectable fraction of the attention shown the NHL, despite the fact that surveys such as my own show it has a significant following, findings that are corroborated by very solid TV ratings for CFL games. I suspect much of the answer lies with the corporate and media tastes and inclinations of...Toronto.
Then again, better not alienate you people who keep my work in front of the country.
Go Leafs go!
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Boomers and Age-Defying Gadgets
Who Said Boomers Are Vain?
A few weeks ago, Shannon Proudfoot of the CanWest Newspapers chain contacted me for some thoughts about Boomers and their desire to address the problem of failing hearing in an inconspicuous manner. Gadgets and euphemisms are replacing traditional "hearing aids" for many aging Boomers. Her question was why is the Boomer generation responding to aging and deteriorating bodies in different ways from previous generations?
Newspaper editors came up with predictable headlines when they ran her piece, including "Growing old doesn't mean getting old" (Calgary Herald), "Device ups volume for under-60s who aren't ready to admit they're aging" (Victoria Times-Colonist), and "Vain boomers insist on growing old in style" (Edmonton Journal).
Charges that Boomers are simply fighting aging, want to be perpetually young, and are more vain than any generation to date simply miss the point of what is going on.
Woody Allen, the much-maligned borderline Boomer, once quipped, "I don't want to experience immortality through my work; I want to experience it by not dying." Boomers are often portrayed as wanting to deny death and aging - to be perpetually young and everlasting.
Our data suggest that Boomers don't have any illusions about getting older, or about their mortality. They are realistic, for example, about declining health. Some 40% of Boomer women and men say that their health is a concern for them, up from 30% twenty years ago. While 92% of Boomer males described their health as "excellent" or "good" in 1975, today that figure has dropped to 79%; the comparable figures for Boomer women are 85% and 74% (The Boomer Factor, p. 119).
Yet, most Boomers accept the fact that both aging and death are inevitable. Only 1 in 4 say that they worry all that much about aging - no higher a proportion than people who are younger. And just 13% say they are troubled about dying - again, no higher than their younger, Post-Boomer counterparts.
All that said, Canada's Boomers have little interest in spending their latter decades passively succumbing to declining vitality, looks or health. This is a generation that has given so much emphasis to life and its possibilities. They seized the opportunity to get good educations, pursue the occupations of their choices, and do it all and have it all re: careers, family, and a comfortable life.
Rather than being beleaguered by scientific and technological change, they are the very people who have brought in the information age. Contrary to popular stereotypes, they didn’t learn about cell phones and PDAs from their teenagers; they invented them and gave them to their teenagers. Boomers are a well-informed and technologically savvy generation.
Consequently Boomers want to draw on all that information and ever-emerging technologies to make their latter years as optimal as possible. Accustomed to input, aware of emerging options, and equipped with considerable buying power, they see no need to be fatalistic about aging and declining health. Accustomed also to good self-esteem, they are not about to give way to the stigma and degradation that many of their parents and grandparents knew in their "senior years."
The emergence of viagra was just the beginning of the Boomers' "latter years" fireworks display. As their eyes grow dim, their hearing starts to go, and their mobility is not what it used to be, Boomers know that solutions can be pursued that can readily be unobtrusively packaged. It's not that they are trying to defy age; it's just that there is no reason either to accept such limitations or to bear the unnecessary and unsubtle symbols that such challenges exist. Boomers have no interest in such "cow bells" of aging as visible hearing aids, thick special glasses, and blatant dentures and toupees. They also see themselves as life-long learners who are willing to stretch and upgrade when it comes to their houses, furnishings, clothes, cars, music - and even their partners.
The net result is that the large Boomer demographic represents a tremendous market for entrepreneurs who are in touch with such realities. The trick is finding out how to address their growing health-related needs, but using imagination and the best available technologies to ensure that those needs are addressed in ways that are cognizant that this is a well-educated, affluent, and proud generation.
Anyone who can find that magical ability to combine need with unobtrusiveness stands to win very big with Boomers.
By the way, such successful entrepreneurs will not use terms like "seniors" or "golden agers" on Boomers, nor will they prematurely put them into the residual "55 and over" category in providing special restaurant prices, organizing church groups, or offering discount banking fees. One would be wise to call Boomers "Boomers" pretty much until they die!
And, oh yes, "that recent book of mine" helps to clarify the story:
Reginald W. Bibby. The Boomer Factor: What Canada's Most Famous Generation is Leaving Behind. Toronto: Bastian Books, 2006.
Now how's that for uninhibited vanity!
A few weeks ago, Shannon Proudfoot of the CanWest Newspapers chain contacted me for some thoughts about Boomers and their desire to address the problem of failing hearing in an inconspicuous manner. Gadgets and euphemisms are replacing traditional "hearing aids" for many aging Boomers. Her question was why is the Boomer generation responding to aging and deteriorating bodies in different ways from previous generations?
Newspaper editors came up with predictable headlines when they ran her piece, including "Growing old doesn't mean getting old" (Calgary Herald), "Device ups volume for under-60s who aren't ready to admit they're aging" (Victoria Times-Colonist), and "Vain boomers insist on growing old in style" (Edmonton Journal).
Charges that Boomers are simply fighting aging, want to be perpetually young, and are more vain than any generation to date simply miss the point of what is going on.
Woody Allen, the much-maligned borderline Boomer, once quipped, "I don't want to experience immortality through my work; I want to experience it by not dying." Boomers are often portrayed as wanting to deny death and aging - to be perpetually young and everlasting.
Our data suggest that Boomers don't have any illusions about getting older, or about their mortality. They are realistic, for example, about declining health. Some 40% of Boomer women and men say that their health is a concern for them, up from 30% twenty years ago. While 92% of Boomer males described their health as "excellent" or "good" in 1975, today that figure has dropped to 79%; the comparable figures for Boomer women are 85% and 74% (The Boomer Factor, p. 119).
Yet, most Boomers accept the fact that both aging and death are inevitable. Only 1 in 4 say that they worry all that much about aging - no higher a proportion than people who are younger. And just 13% say they are troubled about dying - again, no higher than their younger, Post-Boomer counterparts.
All that said, Canada's Boomers have little interest in spending their latter decades passively succumbing to declining vitality, looks or health. This is a generation that has given so much emphasis to life and its possibilities. They seized the opportunity to get good educations, pursue the occupations of their choices, and do it all and have it all re: careers, family, and a comfortable life.
Rather than being beleaguered by scientific and technological change, they are the very people who have brought in the information age. Contrary to popular stereotypes, they didn’t learn about cell phones and PDAs from their teenagers; they invented them and gave them to their teenagers. Boomers are a well-informed and technologically savvy generation.
Consequently Boomers want to draw on all that information and ever-emerging technologies to make their latter years as optimal as possible. Accustomed to input, aware of emerging options, and equipped with considerable buying power, they see no need to be fatalistic about aging and declining health. Accustomed also to good self-esteem, they are not about to give way to the stigma and degradation that many of their parents and grandparents knew in their "senior years."
The emergence of viagra was just the beginning of the Boomers' "latter years" fireworks display. As their eyes grow dim, their hearing starts to go, and their mobility is not what it used to be, Boomers know that solutions can be pursued that can readily be unobtrusively packaged. It's not that they are trying to defy age; it's just that there is no reason either to accept such limitations or to bear the unnecessary and unsubtle symbols that such challenges exist. Boomers have no interest in such "cow bells" of aging as visible hearing aids, thick special glasses, and blatant dentures and toupees. They also see themselves as life-long learners who are willing to stretch and upgrade when it comes to their houses, furnishings, clothes, cars, music - and even their partners.
The net result is that the large Boomer demographic represents a tremendous market for entrepreneurs who are in touch with such realities. The trick is finding out how to address their growing health-related needs, but using imagination and the best available technologies to ensure that those needs are addressed in ways that are cognizant that this is a well-educated, affluent, and proud generation.
Anyone who can find that magical ability to combine need with unobtrusiveness stands to win very big with Boomers.
By the way, such successful entrepreneurs will not use terms like "seniors" or "golden agers" on Boomers, nor will they prematurely put them into the residual "55 and over" category in providing special restaurant prices, organizing church groups, or offering discount banking fees. One would be wise to call Boomers "Boomers" pretty much until they die!
And, oh yes, "that recent book of mine" helps to clarify the story:
Reginald W. Bibby. The Boomer Factor: What Canada's Most Famous Generation is Leaving Behind. Toronto: Bastian Books, 2006.
Now how's that for uninhibited vanity!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
