Desperate Dan: The Disempowerment of People with Learning Disabilities Through Direct Action

{"title":"Desperate Dan: The Disempowerment of People with Learning Disabilities Through Direct Action","authors":"","doi":"10.1179/096979505799103759","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"According to Wolfensberger (2003) the advent of the ideologies of radical individualism coupled with radical self-determination and the derivative constructs of choice, self-advocacy and empowerment has resulted in many people with a learning disability being turned loose without any, or without sufficient, supports, guidance, tutelage, or outright controls. He makes the further point that in the Western world it has been believed until very recently that rights were linked to corresponding obligations. Now, he argues, people claim rights without seeing themselves as having any corresponding obligations. In fact, the common mentality now appears to be ‘the rights are mine, the obligations are yours’. Wolfensberger singles out for criticism the kind of assertiveness training promoted by collective self-advocacy groups. Whilst he accepts that elements of it are certainly adaptive, one should never teach assertiveness outside the contents of a broader preparation for life and without regard to the characteristics of the person at issue. Particular concern is expressed at the radicalisation of the advocacy movement its increasingly confrontational stance and the strident tone which threatens to antagonise and alienate those whose support is vital if appropriate services are to be developed. Wolfensberger’s observations have a resonance at a time when the agenda of collective self-advocacy for people with a learning disability in the UK appears to be influenced by one particular pressure group The British Journal of Developmental Disabilities Vol. 51, Part 1, JANUARY 2005, No. 100, pp. 103-107","PeriodicalId":412658,"journal":{"name":"The British Journal of Development Disabilities","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The British Journal of Development Disabilities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1179/096979505799103759","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

According to Wolfensberger (2003) the advent of the ideologies of radical individualism coupled with radical self-determination and the derivative constructs of choice, self-advocacy and empowerment has resulted in many people with a learning disability being turned loose without any, or without sufficient, supports, guidance, tutelage, or outright controls. He makes the further point that in the Western world it has been believed until very recently that rights were linked to corresponding obligations. Now, he argues, people claim rights without seeing themselves as having any corresponding obligations. In fact, the common mentality now appears to be ‘the rights are mine, the obligations are yours’. Wolfensberger singles out for criticism the kind of assertiveness training promoted by collective self-advocacy groups. Whilst he accepts that elements of it are certainly adaptive, one should never teach assertiveness outside the contents of a broader preparation for life and without regard to the characteristics of the person at issue. Particular concern is expressed at the radicalisation of the advocacy movement its increasingly confrontational stance and the strident tone which threatens to antagonise and alienate those whose support is vital if appropriate services are to be developed. Wolfensberger’s observations have a resonance at a time when the agenda of collective self-advocacy for people with a learning disability in the UK appears to be influenced by one particular pressure group The British Journal of Developmental Disabilities Vol. 51, Part 1, JANUARY 2005, No. 100, pp. 103-107
绝望的丹:通过直接行动剥夺学习障碍人士的权力
根据Wolfensberger(2003)的说法,激进个人主义意识形态的出现,加上激进的自决和选择、自我倡导和授权的衍生结构,导致许多有学习障碍的人在没有任何或足够的支持、指导、监护或直接控制的情况下变得松散。他进一步指出,直到最近,西方世界一直认为权利是与相应的义务联系在一起的。他认为,现在人们主张权利,却不认为自己有任何相应的义务。事实上,现在普遍的心态似乎是“权利是我的,义务是你的”。沃尔芬斯伯格特别批评了集体自我倡导团体倡导的那种自信训练。虽然他承认其中的一些因素肯定是适应性的,但人们永远不应该在为生活做更广泛准备的内容之外教授自信,也不应该不考虑当事人的特点。委员会特别关切的是倡导运动的激进化,其日益对抗的立场和尖锐的语气可能会激怒和疏远那些如果要发展适当的服务,其支持至关重要的人。沃尔芬斯伯格的观察引起了人们的共鸣,当时英国的学习障碍患者集体自我倡导的议程似乎受到了一个特殊压力集团的影响。《英国发展障碍杂志》第51卷第1部分,2005年1月,第100期,第103-107页
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信