I am still not sure to what degree I understand SRV
But look at this for example.
The wearing of suits. -- I am well aware that in certain circumstances one
is more socially valued if one wears a suit you only have to look at Michael
Foots failure to be elected to see that, however I do not like to wear suits
because it is a sencory issue with me. I should say a legitimate disability
concession shoud be to allow me to wear soft collars for instance. (does
anyone recall DH Lawrences son's and lovers where the protagonists elder
brother died as a result of erysipalis contracted from the irritation of a
stiff collar?)
I am without doubt treated diffenetly from the casual way I dress, and thus
devalued, however I am damned if I see why I shoud change my ways to suit
they who devalue me, it is they who need to shift there paradigmata, not I.
I have this suspicion that some of what SRV and its progenitor normalisation
has to say is that people with what is ridiculosly termed "lerning
difficulties" shoud be discouraged from perpetuating patterns of behavior
that stigmatise them. I would suppose this were part of social skills
training.
Larry
Divergent to the degree that if people started converging with me I would
have to embrace that great anathema in my life Change .....
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Erik Leipoldt
> Sent: 26 May 2001 08:35
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: SRV/social model
>
>
> Hi Anna,
>
> Of course theories, ideas etc 'connect with the people that were
> formulating
> the ideas...'. The values, beliefs and assumptions these persons
> subscribe
> to, consciously or unconsciously, play their inevitable part.
> It is quite
> another thing to claim , like Michael did, that some theory should be
> rejected solely because allegedly a formulator did not allow participation
> of people with disabilities in formulation and development of it.
>
> Human knowledge is always subjective and can be of various qualities and
> uses independent from the times they hail from - 'earlier' or later and
> therefore these observations don't constitute a substantial critique of
> SRV.. It is difficult to see how, by identifying a raft of negative roles
> that are often ascribed to people with disabilities (eternal
> child, deviant,
> object of ridicule), including by the medical profession and para-medical
> world, (as well as the 'wounds' occurring to individuals with disabilities
> as a result of their stigmatisation/labeling) this may in any way
> "preserve
> earlier medical and psychological discourses that it set out to overcome".
> By using the stigmatisation and devaluation of people with
> disabilities (or
> 'oppression', used by social model supporters) and to then argue from that
> basis that to assist people with disabilities (and it is important to
> remember that SRV was developed in the context of developmental disability
> where levels of devaluation are often much higher than for people with
> physical disabilities, who for instance formulated a social model) obtain
> socially, culturally relevant, valued roles as a means of
> safeguarding them
> from stigmatisation and abuse and advance their opportunities in
> life is in
> fact far removed from psycho/medical model discourses such as assessments
> of 'quality of life' or institutionalisation, segregation and
> congregation.
>
> Aren't the negative social roles that "predetermine the framework for the
> interpretation of actions and narratives of people who have a
> disability in
> SRV" narratives of the lives of many people who have disabilities? The
> observations leading to formulation of negative social roles and wounds
> weren't grabbed out of thin air surely but were based on what was seen as
> happening in the lives of people, many having levels and nature of
> disability that precluded them from telling any stories themselves and
> needed people to do it for them. The fact that the observations and
> conclusions drawn through normalisation and later through SRV only vary
> somewhat in degree but not in nature for people with different types
> (physical, intellectual, mental illness) of disabilities does not
> make these
> theories any less relevant or applicable as applying to any people who are
> being devalued in our societies and that happens to include most
> people with
> some sort of disability.
>
> Whereas it is true to say that SRV has a focus on the individual this does
> not mean that this is not a transformative approach to societal attitudes.
> a person with disabiluity who functions as a valued person, embedded in a
> web of freely given relationships, does much to transform the attitudes of
> those around them. perhaps this is more powerful than some legislative
> approaches can be (though I am not saying we should not have any
> laws around
> improving the situation). Secondly Wolfensberger as a main developer of
> normalisation and architect of SRV (over many years and many publications)
> has also developed schemas for implementation and evaluation disability
> advocacy schemes, showing an interest in effecting societal change by
> additional means. However Wolfensberger is also on record decrying the
> notion of power as the crucial tool of change. I agree with him that one
> brand of social model's marxist materialist foundations have
> failed and are
> naive in its expectations.
>
> As far as 'rights and choices remaining in the hands of professionals' is
> concerned i think that that is more an issue of how SRV may be used by
> people such as 'professionals' who are by no means the anointed
> implementers
> of SRV, though many may think so. Some of the more powerful
> examples of SRV
> that I am aware of is where parents and other individuals, not
> connected to
> formal services, have effected positive change in the lives of some people
> with disabilities, with and for them.
>
> I'd be interested in the reference for Thomas (99) if possible.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Erik Leipoldt
>
> ________________End of message______________________
>
> Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
> are now located at:
>
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>
> You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
>
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|