Eric, I too have had first hand experience of SRV in action, and cannot
agree with you. I think that the onus on individuals to change themselves,
in order to suit society, often negates pride and self-expression. I can
provide you with personal accounts if you like, but please contact me off
list for these. The keys to my discomfort with SRV are contained in the
terms 'a degree of social acceptance that is not below the average range',
'valued experiences', 'typical citizen' etc. For example, is the typical
citizen a man or a woman? Are they white? Are they heterosexual? What is
the average range of social acceptance and who decides what this is?
In my view, the social relations of intellectual disability have taken shape
within capitalist, rational societies during the last few centuries.
Contractual changes in the governance of society were and are a major
influence on the shape of these social relations. The core theme is
rationality. Societies have been contractually arranged to exclude people
who are not rational. Medical experts and later psychologists have 'managed'
irrational people on behalf of the state, and through this management a
theme of improving people through the application of expert knowledge has
developed. The actions of these people have been disregarded as behaviour
and behavioural psychology is a very strong theme in SRV. Other
sociological theory has also contributed, such as Goffman's work and some
role theory, but the changes in these schools of thought since the 1960's
have not really been incorporated into the theory or practice. And what
about other important theory, such as critical theory etc?
I agree with your statements about the oppression of disabled people but
want to use a different lens to look at the issues, one that accepts
differences and celebrates diversity of bodies (including minds). Also I
think that power must be taken and cannot be given or 'accorded' via valued
social roles. For me part of this process is to perceive behaviours as
actions, as statements and communications. Another part is recognising the
power of collectives, associations of people who come together around issues
that are common to them and act in a political manner to change society and
gain power for themselves.
Finally, I ask why do people with an intellectual disability need a separate
theory/philosophy from anyone else who is oppressed by disability? Is this
not part of a sort of segregation in of itself? The point is that in SRV
theory, the person gets 'normalised' and not society, the person needs to
change rather than the social relations. I think this is depressing for
people with an intellectual disability, especially if they do not make it to
the 'average range of social acceptance' after trying really hard. It can
also create a sense of shame about impairments.
Given all these differences of opinion, I still think that SRV has been a
great help.
regards
anna williamson
----- Original Message -----
From: Erik Leipoldt <[log in to unmask]>
To: anna williamson <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: Normalisation vs Pride and Self-Expression
> It is a misconception to understand normalization as having people with
> disabilities be 'normal' or imposing cultural uniformity. A quick dip
into some
> of Wolfensberger's writings may help.
>
> From Wolfensberger & Thomas' "Program Analysis of Service Systems
Implementation
> of Normalization Goals (PASSING) the following (p.28): "One can say that a
> person is 'normalised' if s/he (a) experiences a degree of social
acceptance
> that is not below the average range, (b) hs a culturally normative degree
of
> personal autonomy and choice, (c)has access to the valued experiences and
> resources of open society much as would be the case for a typical citizen,
and
> (d) is free and capable of choosing and leading a lifestyle that is
acceptable
> to at least a majority of other people of the same age." Plenty of room
for
> pride and self-expression I think.
>
> Wolfensberger & Thomas go on to say that since this is not always an
attainable
> scenario "normalisation strategies take into account the particular
individual
> concerned, the limits of current service know-how, and the individual's
own
> choices".
>
> Also, Social Role Valorization (SRV) is not just a 'service philosophy'.
As
> Wolfensberger writes: "SRV principles are equally applicable to all sorts
of
> decisions that people make outside of formal, organised human services eg
in
> their ordinary lives, in informal interpersonal relationships, and in
natural,
> informal, non-organised, non-structural ways of helping or relating"
(1998,
> Wolfensberger. A brief introduction to Social Role Valorization: A
high-order
> concept for addressing the plight of socially devalued people, and for
> structuring human services, p.1).
>
> I am a person with 22 years experience of quadriplegia and I see the
eminent
> relevance of SRV when it tells us that:
> 1. Many people with disabilities are devalued by the societies they live
in,
> 2. That means many people with disabilities are more vulnerable to
> discrimination, abuse etc. than others,
> 3. According people with disabilities valued social roles will avoid or
minimise
> 1. and 2. and open the way to better opportunities for a full life
including the
> development of individual potential,
> 4. Strategies include image-enhancement, enhancement of personal
competency,
> de-congregation and de-segregation.
>
> Next to this it is also true of course that the environment handicaps
people
> with disabilities and hinders their participation but according them
valued
> roles may well do more about lowering these barriers lastingly and
> wholeheartedly than any amount of insistence on rights will, though the
latter
> definitely has its place.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Erik Leipoldt
>
> anna williamson wrote:
>
> > 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."
> > >
> > >
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|