Larry, Colin et. al.
I guess I'll say a bit more. First SUV is not a behavior approach. Second much of the information in SRV is relating to the oppression and wounding received at the hands of a society that rejects and does not accept people who are classified as marginal. Much more of the information is focused on strategies to cause systems to raise consciousness and stop the wounding. One can not speak of SRV and not mention those portions of it. Third the theory of valued social roles is applicable to diverse culture and sub-cultures in every nation, state, region, town, neighborhood etc. One can chose the group and apply the tactics. The problem is when external support workers working without benefit of the individuals voice apply the theories based on assumption and bias.
Everyone views the groups they wish to associate with and develop roles within that group that create belonging. That is sociological theory and can be applied as a narrow unaccepting force that demands people act in a predetermined and dominant ideological norm or apply it in ways that build community, associations and groups. In any case the application is what you take exception to not the theory. Once an individuals voice is applied to the theory great diversity evolves with the characteristics of belonging, valued roles within chosen groups and a presence that broadens the harmful dominant ideology oppression.
I of course could be wrong in my interpretation and the past 20 years of association with Dr. Wolfensberger have been mis-understood by me. Even with the possibility of my vast error I hope you can see that we have much common ground.
Peace
Thomas
________________________________
From: The Disability-Research Discussion List on behalf of Colin Revell
Sent: Mon 3/13/2006 11:26 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: can segregated school be said to be true to Normalization / SRV?
Larry
I agree with you.... Adrain stated a good term for this ignorance'. He
called it:- Neurotypical 'body-language-facism'. That says it it all for me
and Adrian has 'hit the nail right on it's head' and hammered a 'powerful'
statement towards others how our 'neurodiverse' behavioural differences are
not accepted as the 'socil-norm' within all behavioural discourses,
including SRV too.
I am with Larry on this one Thomas. I don't know what books, articles, or
websites you have been reading, but I bet they are not the 'neurodiverse'
empowered 'voices', of 'nothing about us, without us'.
Why do behaviourist always want to try and assimilate and 'cure' us?
For who's benefit and interests?
Why do they want to test all mothers for 'pre-natal' genetic testing to see
if they may be carrying a 'defective' autistic/neurodiverse gene? I can
promise you that there is 'no-such' defective gene!!
What's the real hidden-agenda from the 'new' right behind 'genetic'
testing/counselling and behavioural therapies?
What is the 'neo-liberal' agenda on empoweing disabled people, or those who
are 'different' and 'diverse'?
Why are the 'neo-liberalist' so frightened of '(neuro) diversity' and
'differences' of all kinds?
Yours
Colin R
________________End of message______________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies). Enquiries about the list administratione should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|