Cross-cultural inclusive recreation and the normalization principle: Nirje’s and Wolfersberger’s differing approaches

Abstract

The normalization principle surfaced in Canada and the United States between the late 1950s and the early 1970s and today is the single most significant model for policy and services in the field of disability studies. For the last 40 years, normalization theory has been a paramount conceptual cornerstone in inclusive recreation service delivery in both Canada and the United States. Building on Foucault’s research methodology of genealogy, this paper compares Nirje’s and Wolfensberger’s principle of normalization and argues that Nirje’s approach gives voice to cross-cultural difference, whereas Wolfensberger’s normalization principle advocates that people with disabilities conform and assimilate to the dominant cultures of society. That is, Nirje’s model is based on liberal autonomy whereas Wolfensberger’s approach is based on liberal equality. Inclusive recreation professionals should see persons with disabilities as multicultural beings and should use models and theories that are cross-culturally relevant, such as Nirje’s theory of normalization.