As the ‘aging and society’ paradigm examines structure in its own right, it should have an immediate appeal to sociologists. On the one hand it can be seen as a schematic for gerontology or research on human development and, on the other, as a theory or paradigm in its own right. I see the various parts and phases of the paradigm as a learning process, where stopping somewhere half-way is risky: one has to go the whole hog before really prospering from its logic.

To focus on individuals and social change together requires analyses that, in the words of Hardy and Waite (1997), can assess the nature and temporal patterns of individual behaviour, while simultaneously attending to the manner in which this behaviour is enclosed in different organisational structures that are themselves changing, whether synchronically or asynchronically.

The Rileys have always reminded us of the dangers of neglecting structure, or of treating it as a mere contextual characteristic in people's lives, particularly in the form of life course reductionism. In addition, however, the temporal aspects of structures are important. There is a risk in using solely the various social situations of different cohorts as the basis of analysis. Mere comparison with an older cohort causes the ‘surrounding structure’ to appear too static. The explanation or understanding of a phenomenon consequently stops half-way. We must also remember that the cohort concept, as well as chronological age, serves as a proxy measure for attitudes and behaviours that actually carry the effect and provide theoretically meaningful interpretation.