摘要 : One sociopolitical ideology that in the last 2decades or so has been on the rise in the service andadvocacy culture is that of conveying to bodily orfunctionally impaired people, and to members ofother societally devalued classes,... 展开 One sociopolitical ideology that in the last 2decades or so has been on the rise in the service andadvocacy culture is that of conveying to bodily orfunctionally impaired people, and to members ofother societally devalued classes, power (as expressedin ‘‘empowerment’’ language), self-determination,and choice (as in ‘‘freedom of choice’’ language),even to the point of unbridled license to do whateverthey want. Sometimes, this strategy is specificallyalleged to be a superior or preferable alternative toSocial Role Valorization (e.g., Branson & Miller,1992; Chappell, 1992; Perrin & Nirje, 1985). Somepeople have also claimed (e.g., Nirje, 1992; Perrin &Nirje, 1985) that the original formulation of thenormalization principle had been all about rightsand empowerment, and that this emphasis has beenignored, left out, or overridden by later formulationsof the principle by Wolfensberger and colleagues(e.g., Wolfensberger, 1972; Wolfensberger & Glenn,1973a, 1973b, 1975a, 1975b), and possibly by others,and by its reconceptualization as Social Role Valorization(e.g., Wolfensberger, 1983, 1991, 1992,1998, 2000), 收起