 |
 |
Erik requested me to fw this message anna ----- 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." > > > > > > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%