User:Dms05f/sya4010draft

Normalization

"Normalization is a process whereby behaviours and ideas are made to seem 'normal' through repetition, or through ideology, propaganda, etc., often to the point where they appear natural and taken for granted. (See also: norm)" A basic definition of Normalization states that it is “a philosophical view that the lives of exceptional individuals of any age should be characterized as much as possible by the same kinds of experiences, daily routines, and rhythms as those of persons who do not have disabilities”. The term was first developed in Denmark during the 1950s as a method for enabling the learning disabled to find and live “normal lives” (Parker, et al., 1992). Thus, Normalization has become a dominant paradigm in researching and development for the learning disabled (Chappell, 1992). Due to the ever-changing and vague nature of the term, it is continually being revised. Normalization can be viewed as “both a principle and theoretical perspective” (Parker, et al., 1992). Basically, it is easiest to define Normalization as a process of how those labeled as “stigmatized” or “deviant” by society are being socialized to live “normal” lives (Parker, et al., 1992). Numerous sociological theorists have concerned themselves with Normalization, yet Foucault and Wolfensburger have led the pack. Foucault visualized Normalization as having a strong relationship to Weber's ideas and theories of rationalization and routinization (Goldman, 1993). Continually, Foucault placed Normalization as a broad strategy that is motivated and held together by society’s “total institutions” (Goldman, 1993). According to Paternek in her article about Foucault, “the fact remains that however intrusive the normalizing power of disciplinary technology may be slight irregularities do not generally result in confinement by the state” (Paternek, p. 98, 1987). Another perspective on Normalization is Wolfensberg’s notion of a relationship with societal reactions and labeling theory and how Normalization works to banish such labels. Despite the efforts of Normalization, the labels that separate and stigmatize the subjects from society cannot just disappear with the snap of one’s fingers (Parker, et al., 1992). Although it is typically associated with attempts to aid the learning disabled in living “normal” lives, in recent years, Normalization has experienced an evolution of sorts. Normalization’s boundaries have expanded and broadened in order to encompass and accommodate more and more situations. As a term and a theory, it has become attached to drug use studies as well as the treatment of patients in medical facilities (Chappell, 1992). One of the most famous studies concerning Normalization is the Northwest England Longitudinal Study. Normalization was used as a method for exploration and hoped to explain the drastic increase in recreational drug use and familiarity in British adolescents and young adults (Parker, et al., 1992). The study focused 465 young adults over a period of five to nine years during the 1990s. Normalization of perspectives on drug behaviors and usage was the most logical way for researchers to piece together a way to explain how these previously condemned behaviors were now ordinary and day-to-day (Parker, et al., 1992). The study concluded that: “(Normalization) also means setting limits to what society can and cannot tolerate as part of establishing clearness about obligations and rights of drug users as members of organized society” (Parker, p. 943, et al., 1992). Also, it expanded the notion of Normalization as a multi-dimensional tool that could be used to gauge changes in society, behavior, perspectives, etc. (Parker, et al., 1992). Additionally, the concept of Normalization as a two-way street emerged. The idea can be exemplified with the trends towards toleration of cigarette smokers. Not too many years ago, smoking was greatly tolerated despite the fact that smokers were not the majority of the population. This tolerance was a product of Normalization of society’s behavior and perspectives towards cigarette smoking. In recent years, the trend has reversed and society has also been reprogrammed through Normalization to the point where tolerance for cigarette smoking is much lower (Parker, et al., 1992). Another area where Normalization is now emerging is how it is used to separate families that comply and do not comply with ideas, suggestions, etc., or medical staff when a family member is ill. This compliance or non-compliance leads to varying consequences in patient care. Normalization came to the forefront in a study conducted to explore the differences between Chinese and American with chronically ill children and how the families cope with the illness and “normal” life. The study also discusses the issues associated with compliance and non-compliance with Western medicine and how treatment was then altered. Normalization theories allowed for medical staff to categorize these families and the study concluded that: “‘The ideology of normalization’ represents one of those instances when medical and nursing knowledge must be understood not merely as scientific knowledge, but as historically, socio-culturally, politically, and economically located.” (Anderton, p. 253, et al., 1989). It seems as though Normalization is a multi-purpose term used to merely conceal a problem that researches and theorists are unable to truly pinpoint or define. It is theoretically weak and concerns professionals rather than subjects (Chappell, 1992). The subjects are oblivious to the happenings around them that may be a result of the slippery slope scapegoat known as Normalization. References Anderton, Joan M., et al. (1989). “Ideology in the clinical context: chronic illness, ethnicity and the discourse on normalization”. Sociology of Health and Illness 11(3), 253-278. Chappell, Anne Louise (1992). “Towards a Sociological Critique of the Normalisation Principle”. Disability and Society 7(11), 35-51. Goldman, Harvey (1993). “Contemporary sociology and the interpretation of Weber”. Theory and Society 22, 853-860. Parker, Howard et al. (2002). “The Normalization of ‘Sensible’ Recreational Drug Use: Further Evidence from the North West England Longitudinal Study”. Sociology 36(4), 941-964. Paternek, Margaret A (1987). “Norms and normalization: Michel Foucault’s overextended panoptic machine”. Human Studies 10, 97-121. Additional Resources: http://www.coping.org/specialneeds/normaliz.htm http://www.thebody.com/encyclo/harm_reduction.html