I work in an organisation that was set up in the 60's as a rehabilitation
unit for disabled adults. I joined in 1995 and we were still using the word
then. We started a process of redifining what we do, including the language
we use.
While we have a way to go with this, I believe we are now on the right
track. We use person centred planning to define goals with people which
recognise their dreams. We find that most people's dreams boil down to
living in the community, being valued by that community and taking an active
part in it. We action plan those goals and this defines the work we do.
To reinforce the equality of this process, we use similar tools to plan with
staff. All staff are appraised and supervised on the basis of their goals
and aspirations. Planning for all of us becomes a natural and inclusive
activity and generates the notion of development and continuous learning
rather than one of "fixing" or making "ready". It also values the individual
and recognises the need sometimes to adapt systems rather than people.
"We are all born in, it is only later that some are excluded"
Rob Outram
From: Ron Amundson <[log in to unmask]>
To: Disability Research List <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 31 May 2000 12:02
Subject: Re: Rehabilitation?
>I'd just like to note as a preface that this was written before Laurence's
>recent post. I agree with him about education, which is implied below.
>
>R
>
>
>====
>
>I think there are several tensions going on among the ideas of
>rehabilitation, leisure, and disability.
>
>First, as everyone seems to recognize, rehabilitation as "fixing" is a
>product of the medical model. Nevertheless, education and expert help in
>developing skills are valued by both disabled and non-disabled people. So
>perhaps the problem with rehabilitation is that it is defined as remedying
a
>defect rather than (like education) just improving a person's skills. It's
>also controlled by a different power structure than other education
systems,
>in particular a power structure that defines its beneficiaries as
defective.
>Aside from that, some of the things that rehabilitation people actually
_do_
>are no different or more objectionable than the things that school teachers
>or hockey coaches do.
>
>Second, who invented the idea of 'leisure'? I'm not a social historian,
but
>I'll bet it's a late development of capitalist economics. Anything that is
>not productive labor is 'leisure'. (Especially since we can then define it
>as a commodity and make people pay for it.) Since rehabilitation systems
>are typically (at least in the US) justified by their goal of getting
people
>back to work, it's not a surprise that leisure activities within
>rehabilitation systems have to be functionally justified. So I suspect the
>conflict between rehabilitation and leisure comes from the economic
>assumptions of rehabilitation programs. (Massively obvious to everyone, I
>suspect.)
>
>Third, why should 'leisure' activities be assumed to be non-productive?
>(Probably the best answer is the economic answer above -- if they were
>economically productive we wouldn't call them 'leisure'). In the world at
>large, it seems to me that a lot of leisure activities are considered by
>their practitioners to be self-improving. Exercise and skill games
>(including mental exercise and skill games) are exhilarating to many people
>because you think you're getting better, or at least keeping up your
skills.
>I know people who feel sluggish if they haven't had challenging bridge
>sessions recently (bridge the card game). I realize that leisure, to some
>people, is getting inert on a couch and watching stupid TV. But that's not
a
>defining feature of leisure.
>
>I understand Laurence's point that leisure ought to be a relief from
>therapy. But I think the important point is that it ought to be voluntary.
>The therapy involved in rehabilitation programs is not voluntary in any
>broad sense. So leisure would at least be a break from the routine. Whether
>a wide enough range of options is available to call it voluntary is another
>question.
>
>Some bureaucrats would argue that if leisure activities are voluntuary,
they
>are not self-improving or rehabilitative. I point out that they would not
>say this about the voluntary leisure activities of non-disabled people. At
>least not to their face. Many non-disabled people (and others) consider
>their leisure activities to be very self-improving, and would spit in the
>face of the bureaucrat who told them otherwise.
>
>I think the important fact is that the leisure of disabled people is open
to
>scrutiny. Isn't that interesting?
>
>I don't mean this as a criticism of Laurence's or earlier posts -- I'm just
>musing. In the past 5 years I've gotten involved in a very rigorouis
>exercise program, and I can give equally well justified therapeutic and
>non-therapeutic justifications for it. Why the hell should I have to
choose?
>Non-disabled people are quizzed about things like this.
>
>Ron
>
>--
>Ron Amundson
>University of Hawaii at Hilo
>Hilo, HI 96720
>[log in to unmask]
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Laurence Bathurst <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 9:33 PM
>Subject: Re: Rehabilitation?
>
>
>> Hello Alison
>>
>> In attending this enquiry, you have articulated a problem that is
relevant
>to
>> leisure service delivery within Rehab Units in Australia. I am glad that
>> there is someone who has recognised this dilemma. The biomedical
>> model of rehabilitation is so antithetical to the notion of leisure, yet
>leisure
>> services are compelled (by funding agreement outcomes and by the
>> 'superior' position of therapists within a therapeutic environment - many
>of
>> whom are trained by this School) to adopt a functionalist perspective -
to
>> 'use' leisure as a therapy.
>>
>> I think that leisure services in rehab settings should provide relief
from
>> therapy. To provide programs that facilitate opportunities for self
>> determination; that look toward the brightest future; that attend to
>> emotional upheaval with the comforts of continuity and the excitement of
>> change; and that lift the lid off the realm of possibility rather than
>lock it
>> and become the gatekeeper. I know of several people working in this
>> area who feel this tug between what is expected of them and what they
>> feel is right. It would be fabulous to have someone or something that
>> recognises and articulates the conflicting paradigms and how to travel
>that
>> road.
>
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
