Dear Thomas,
The debate about normalisation and SRV has been raging for many years, and
has somewhat abated in recent years. It's probably not necessary to open up
the debate too much here. However, it is really important that we do not
accept uncritically what Dr. Wolfensberger says, and I'd like to point out
that you mention, as fact, that the wish of all people to associate with and
develop roles within groups is "sociological theory". It is important to
know that it is but one of many sociological theories, many of which have
not so much been discredited, but debated and refined. My own view of SRV
is that it is based on a mixture of functionalist and interactionaist
sociological theory, neither of which tend to be utilised now to gain an
understanding of how our world currently works. We have, to use the jargon,
"moved on".
The same may be true also of the various psychological theories that
Wolfensberger uses, but I am not acquainted with those so cannot comment.
However, I am aware, having done the SRV training myself in the 1990s, that
considerable wieght is placed upon the fact that SRV is based on
"sociological and psychological theory", and that this is supposed to give
it an unshakeable credibility. I believe that credibility is not deserved,
and I would urge you to look into the basis for the assumptions made by
Wolfensberger, and SRV, more critically.
All the best,
Michael Bleasdale
Michael Bleasdale
Senior Researcher
Disability Studies and Research Institute
________________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.
|