Hi
Its good to see some discussion of the issue of normalisation on the list. I
think we need to distinguish between normalisation as a service philosophy
and normalising tendances, which is a Foucauldian concept (i think) with
much broader application. They are related but not the same thing. Also the
SRV model may be a social constructionist model, but it is focused on the
individual and not the social or structural and so has some very distinct
differences from the social materialist model. I think it is important to
note that SRV is accepted as a model in the areas of disability where the
people with disabilities are not present in the process of theory building.
Most people feel that it is a bit of a psychological jail to be always
thinking of how to be more normal and I do wonder what messages it gives
people with a learning difficulty or cognitive impairment about themselves.
For example, some people spend a lot of time learning how to read
(unsuccessfully) whereas they could instead demand that information is
presented in a more easily accessible format and get on with using the
information to achieve a better lifestyle for themselves.
I agree that SRV is better than no service philosophy and respect the great
work that has occurred to date using the model, but I think it is time to
expand. I have found Mairian Corker's and Carol Thompson' s work really
helpful in looking for ways to understand intellectual impairment within a
social model framework.
regards anna williamson
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Arnold <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 6:58 AM
Subject: RE: Normalisation vs Pride and Self-Expression
> No - even Wolfensburger has revised his original model, he doesn't say
> normalisation anymore but social role valorization.
> The Social model which I usually defend up to the hilt elsewhere is still
> what I would call a transitional model. A statement toward what we
> understand by the constructs disability and impairment, which have no
> absolute values but to me are relative to what you measure them against.
>
> Now normalisation is a better concept than social apartheid but
> unfortunately demands that we have a social construct of normal, which as
we
> know may be a sexist, racist median of behavior.
>
> Wouldn't want to be a normal redneck.
>
> Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Timothy
> Lillie
> Sent: 05 September 2000 15:31
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: Normalisation vs Pride and Self-Expression
>
>
> I have always understood "normalization" (see Wolfensberger) to be (in
its
> time) closely related to what we now call the social model. Simply put,
it
> said: We don't care about the medicalization of disability; what does
count
> is that people with disabilities are able to function in the community;
> therefore, the environment needs to be made accessible so that its use by
> PWD becomes "normal."
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|