> 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."
Wolfensburger talks very little about changing society's attitude to
difference. And he talks a lot about changing people with
disabilities-- changing the way we look and behave, so we fit in with
society's existing norm.
Social Role Valorisation isn't about broadening people's idea of
"valued roles". It isn't about valuing people with disabilities *as we
are*. It's about putting us in roles that society values-- showing
people that we're really OK, even if we are disabled...
Wolfensburger is right, of course, when he says people with
disabilities are devalued. He's partially right, at best, about what
needs to be *done*.
IMHO, of course :)
- Ria
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Ria Strong
Melbourne, Australia
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
[log in to unmask]
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
__________________________________________________________________
Get your free Australian email account at http://www.start.com.au
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|