 |
 |
The ideas come from Lamb, S. 1996. The Trouble With Blame: victims, perpetrators and responsibility Harvard University Press She isn't a writer in the disability field, but has had some really interesting things to say about the (lack of) value of fault and blame in relation to theorising the relative positions of victims and perpetrators in the area of sexual abuse. She maintains that there is no transcendent position from which critical comments can be made, and goes on from there to tease out how victim and perpetrator positions migtht be re-theorised from this starting point. I got into this line of thinking partly through hearing a comment made by a very well respected disability academic, whose work I really admire, in NZ a couple of years ago. One of her comments in response to the tabling of a report outlining evidence of widespread abuse in intellectual disability day service settings was "of course, we need to stamp out abuse". At the time, I felt very uncomfortable about this use of words and equally as uncomfortable with the thought I then had - that such a phrase might be as much a contributing factor to the problem as it might signal that such practices needed to be eliminated! I'm also still thinking about how we might more gainfully conceptualise the use and abuse of the 'ain't it awful' stories we can tell .... . But that is a much more difficult area to try and re-theorise without either becoming part of the problem oneself, or receiving much flack. I really liked Lillith's idea of unpaid advocacy. and re useful journals, I go more for useful articles across various academic disciplines for workable ideas, but have found Disability Studies Quarterly and Disability and Society very useful on occasions to name a couple. Cheers Carol Lamb, S.19 Lamb, S.1996. The Trouble with >Hi there, I think you´re right about being able to move past the >blame thing into doing something different and creative. I've >probably missed something fundamental here, but who is Sharon Lamb? >I've never seen anything by her but sounds like someone I should be >reading. I probably need to start subscribing to some useful >journals, I used to have access to a humungous library for free and >I'm starting to realise what a luxury that was. I'm probably missing >loads of what I would need to stay up to date. > >Cheers >Hazel > > >On 23 Jul 2006, at 18:34, Carol Hamilton wrote: > >>Since the postings of the last couple of days on this topic, I have >>been thinking about how those of us who are in any kind of support >>position in relation to intellectually disabled people might >>respond differently in respect of these all too familiar and often >>very difficult to hear stories. In my own work I am trying to see >>how, as supporters of any kind or description, we might begin to go >>beyond the fault and blame of others position that these stories >>can so often leaves us in. >> >>One of the questions I have been asking myself in my own research >>into the support work area is how do we get beyond what Sharon Lamb >>calls 'this general tendency in people to blame others' for what is >>not right in the disability world, posing this question in view of >>the reality that a blaming stance does not seem to help, given that >>it is not possible to both blame and encourage another to take >>responsibility for their actions at the same time. >> >>As Lamb suggests, as much as we might wish for the clarity of >>vision a fault and blame position provides, it may be impossible to >>deal with the complexities that make up the day to day lives of >>intellectually disabled people and those who support them from >>within this view. I agree. >> >>Lamb also talks about the zero/sum position blame reinforces and >>how becoming locked into this position means that we cannot explore >>questions such as: How far are individuals controlled by the >>conditions of their lives? At what point in time could the >>(blamed) person concerned have had a choice to take a different >>road, to make a different decision? >> >> At the moment I think these are key questions that need to be >>addressed in respect of unlocking what wider issues surround the >>practices andrea and hazel outline, and how gainful changes might >>be nurtured and encouraged. >> >>Perhaps one thing that might be useful here is for the workers >>themselves to be asked >> >>What (material and social) support do you need in order for you to >>succeed in your role right now? >> >> >>Cheers Carol >> >>>Go for it... >>> >>>I'd be interested to know which council you are referring to, you >>>can reply off list if you like. I was involved in some leisure >>>work with people with learning difficulties in the UK with a >>>council which could be similarly described as dire. But from the >>>Cornwall stories, it seems like there's more than a few councils >>>in the same boat. >>> >>>Examples that I came across were group homes where no staff were >>>available to accompany residents for anything that could be seen >>>as "leisure", so only those residents who were able to use public >>>transport unaccompanied were able to have a social life. In one >>>group home a new worker took a resident out on his bike, hooray >>>hooray... but she then found out it was "not her job" to do that. >>>Question... who's job would it be then? Answer... no-one's. >>>Which is why it had never happened before and probably won't >>>again. In other cases only one member of staff would be on duty, >>>and the rule was that that member of staff could not leave the >>>premises if there were any residents home. So if five out of the >>>six wanted to go to the pub and the sixth didn't, then no-one >>>could go. The option of choosing friends outside the home was >>>therefore completely negated because they all had to go together, >>>or no-one went anywhere. On one occasion I was meeting up with a >>>resident, and a staff member phoned me in advance to ask if the >>>man should have a bath before he came... dignity? personal >>>choice? And as for day centres, I've not seen one yet that >>>wasn't characterised by bad practise from top to bottom. I >>>apologise in advance if there's someone reading this who is >>>working in a fantastic innovative day centre, don't take offence, >>>but you are in a small small minority in a bad bad world. >>> >>>I could go on, but it would become a rant and we'll probably all >>>familiar with similar stories. Re organisations, I'm currently >>>working in Latin America, so I'm not completely up to date with >>>everything. Valuing people, possibly? People First? I haven't >>>had any dealings with them for ages though so I don't know what >>>they're up to. If they don't have a local group then the national >>>organisation might be interested. Maybe it doesn't have to be >>>specifically a learning disability organisation, perhaps some of >>>the wider disability campaigning groups might be interested? Some >>>of the other guys who regularly post on-list might be able to help >>>you there. >>> >>>Best of British to you >>> >>>Hazel >>> >>> >>> >>>On 21 Jul 2006, at 11:35, Andrea Hollomotz wrote: >>> >>>>Hello everyone, >>>> >>>>I have discovered a 21st century institution right at my doorstep >>>>and am since then steaming with anger and driven into action. The >>>>residential home concerned houses twenty-something individuals >>>>with learning difficulties in England and continues to dehumanise >>>>its residents. Thanks goodness I happen to have a very supportive >>>>manager and he told me to get in touch with the Commission for >>>>Social Care Inspectorate and he will also support me further, but >>>>I should not broadcast any more details. I am currently >>>>collecting further evidence of "bad practice" from other >>>>individuals and professionals within my council and I am very >>>>hopeful (I may be naïve?) that change is possible. I would like >>>>to share my thoughts with you and am therefore sending the >>>>initial letter I have written to the Commission for Social Care >>>>Inspectorate below. Please note that although I changed all dates >>>>and names, I left it in social work jargon. I am conscious of >>>>words like "learning disability", "service user" and "good >>>>practice" and "empowerment", but unfortunately one has to use >>>>them in order to be understood by other professionals. >>>>Please let me know if any of the points I raised could be backed >>>>up better with current UK or international Human Rights >>>>legislation or any kind of policy or practice guideline, as this >>>>would assist me to support my claims. >>>> >>>>Andrea >>>> >> >>________________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. ________________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.