The train slows, a recording voices the familiar "mind the gap" warning, and the doors open. A horde steps mindlessly over the threshold and continues on its way without missing a beat.

If only the generation gap were so easy to cross.

Is it really inevitable that there should be a wide chasm between older generations and younger ones? Is the generation gap simply a function of progress�"because older people are not interested in new trends and younger ones are�"or has it been actively cultivated by a society and culture that believes age divisions are inevitable, if not preferable?

These are among the questions being asked by sociologists as they study what they call "institutional age segregation," by which they mean the socially constructed isolation of different groups according to their chronological age. In fact, sociologists have observed that institutions divide the human life timeline roughly into thirds: childhood, or the education phase; midlife, which involves work and family-building activities; and finally, retirement.

"In our view, it blocks essential opportunities for individuals to meet, interact, and move beyond ‘us versus them’ distinctions," write sociologists Gunhilde O. Hagestad and Peter Uhlenberg. "This has several consequences worthy of attention. First, it produces and reproduces ageism. Second, it is a threat to embeddedness, and it increases the risk for isolation in later life. Third, it thwarts socialization for young and old. Fourth, it impedes generativity, especially the creation and maintenance of a generative society."

Any one of these factors is cause for concern, but two of them in particular carry potentially serious long-term consequences. The first of these involves the concept of embeddedness. When individuals have strong relationship networks within society and culture at large, they are considered to be embedded in the social fabric. But if networks exist only among age-peers, this support system eventually begins to break down. As people age, those who outlive their close friends are likely to suffer severe isolation as their support system disintegrates.

The second factor, generativity, refers to building continuity from one generation to another through activities such as mentoring and teaching to ensure a positive legacy. Unfortunately, researchers find that older people without vertical ties to younger generations are less likely to be concerned about contributing positively to society than those who have children or grandchildren.

This state of affairs encourages the formation of diverging age cultures, and according to Hagestad and Uhlenberg, marketing entities are eager to exploit and fortify these differences. As a result, the more each generation is convinced of their differences, the less time they spend together, and the fewer opportunities they have to influence one another.

It’s a cycle that would appear very difficult to break. However, some researchers are working on ways to break it.

One way is through what sociologists call intergenerational interventions, or intergenerational programs. These are essentially organized activities that bring two or more generations together to become better acquainted through helping one another.

The center’s objective was to meet the care needs of preschool age children and elders in a single facility while providing a variety of opportunities for the two groups to interact daily. To evaluate the success of such programs, researchers interviewed the elderly participants specifically to find out how they perceived the interaction affected their emotional well-being. They found the elders to be overwhelmingly positive about the interaction they had with the children in the group and most of the respondents, no matter how much or how little they involved themselves with the children, reported a sense of calm and familial connection from the program. Many pointed to the youth and enthusiasm of the children as key elements of the emotional well-being they felt from their involvement.

Successful projects like this one raise hopes that society and culture could one day tear down the intergenerational walls that have been erected in recent decades. But other studies hint that efforts will need to be determined and consistent. One 2007 study published in the Journal of Intergenerational Relationships makes this interesting assessment: "While being a role model was embraced by many of the older adults [in the study], a few were unable to see themselves in this position. In our nation’s relatively recent past, our elder population was encouraged by media and other sources to view the retirement years as a time for self-indulgence and total relaxation. Now that the population is aging and demographics are changing, the need for older adults in the social fabric of society is crucial. . . .Yet, substituting one message for another is difficult and takes time."

Undoubtedly it is time worth taking. But substituting one message for another may actually be the easiest hurdle for society and culture. The more difficult task in improving intergenerational family relationships is likely to be that of substituting one course of action for another. This would seem to require a nearly complete overhaul of the social institutions that encourage us to congregate in peer groups, and which perpetuate a generation gap. Unfortunately, such widespread change seems an unlikely scenario. Especially considering that most people in today’s busy society and culture don’t really seem to mind the gap so very much.