This is one of those occasions where the experience of one "disability" does
not equate to the experience of another
having an invisible "disability" means that people are not likely to be so
tolerant to what they see as abberant behavior, arising they would presume
from a character flaw, which the individual ought to mend. Sensory
Integration problems are invisible, and therefore not so easily understood
as the discomfort that may arise from attempting to propel a wheelchair
whilst wearing a garment designed for vertical locomotion.
Yes I am aware that in some circumstances failure to observe a particular
social custom such as a dress code, will lead to disadvantage in employment
but from my neurologically atypical but equally valid viewpoint I regard
this as an aberational pattern of belief and one not based on logic, where
for a great many jobs appearance is not of any import.
I was on a training course a year or so ago, where it was specified that you
were supposed to wear business like clothing. Fortunatley most people on
this course regarded that as an imposition and did not bother.
I do not have a family, or live in a nice house. I live on a run down public
housing estate where I am essentially left to rot. I do hold some socially
valued positions but it seems my communication style often means that I am
not listend to in real life to the extent I might be in on line or non
spoken communication.
I have in the past experienced no end of problems in situations where I have
had difficulty in communicating effectively or been unable to read the
invisible social rules of the situation.
My argument is one to re-educate society to accept difference much more so
that these kinds of potential conflict do not occur.
It is an old argument of whether to shave the edges of the square peg to fit
it through the round hole, or whether to make the hole bigger.
It was my understanding of the SRV approach that it tends more toward peg
shaving than the social model which wold invisage hole widening.
Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Leipoldt [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 27 May 2001 02:57
> To: [log in to unmask]; Erik Leipoldt;
> [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: SRV/social model
>
>
> I likewise do not wear suits as it is just too uncomfortable when in a
> wheelchair. I have one jacket that I wore at the time of and for
> purpose of
> my wedding and which I sometimes still use. It has made me stand out at
> times when at occasions everyone wore suits. However it has not made me
> stand out to such an extent that I therefore became the subject of
> exclusion, abuse, violence or stopped my ambitions. I am however, in the
> unspoken disability hierarchy not a greatly devalued person: I sit on a
> tribunal, am a post grad student, have a family and live in a
> nice house in
> a street where people know me and in a community where I also
> chair a local
> environment group. For many people with disabilities this is just
> not their
> reality. People with intellectual disability for instance are in
> prison at a
> high disproportianate rate in Western Australia. Some individuals with
> intellectual disability have been killed in the city. They are
> exploited in
> sheltered workshops at $50 per week for a full time week. Many
> are isolated
> from any meaningful relationships. For them, strategies to increase the
> value in which trey are seen as a human being, such as being seen in
> settings valued in our culture, with friends that interact with them and
> looking good and well-dressed, having some social and work skills
> all helps
> in minimising their discrimination and abuse and advance their position.
> Seems straightforward to me.
>
> No-one is going to prescribe to you or me that soft collars are
> out or that
> you cannot decide to dress as you like. Sometimes there are
> consequences of
> that. For those who are quite able to assess that situation for
> themselves
> it sometimes is a question of adapt and sometimes where you don't. For
> people stuck in service systems for instance that do segregate, congregate
> and devalue them don't have that sort of freedom.
>
> Rather than guess at what SRV might and might not say - and I am certainly
> no SRV expert myself - read something like "A brief introduction to Social
> Role Valorization: A high-order concept for addressing the plight of
> societally devalued people and for structuring human services (3rd revised
> edition 1998 - hey! a publication after 1967 Michael!).
>
> For those who would like to read some real life stuff on disability and
> what may or may not work I refer you to an exciting online forum now
> happening with people with disabilities and interested others, run by
> Queensland Advocacy Inc. on [log in to unmask]
>
> Erik Leipoldt
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Larry Arnold <[log in to unmask]>
> To: Erik Leipoldt <[log in to unmask]>;
> <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 5:58 PM
> Subject: RE: SRV/social model
>
>
> > 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.
|
