In the words of Shafik Asante (2002), a former leader of New African Voices in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, ‘‘Inclusion entails recognition of our universal ‘oneness’ and interdependence. Inclusion is recognizing that we are ‘‘one’’ even though we are not the ‘‘same’’ (p. 1). Fighting for inclusion involves assuring that support systems are in place to ease the person’s entry into social and civic life. Providing and maintaining support systems are civic responsibilities, not a favor to the less fortunate. We were all born ‘‘in.’’ Society will immediately improve at the point we honor this truth! Inclusion, therefore, really means accepting, embracing, and celebrating the gifts, talents, and differences in all of us as a means of shaping communities that are welcoming places for all people (Asante, 2002). The notion of inclusion has, in one form or another, been a motivating force for reform in the field of intellectual and developmental disabilities throughout the past 30 years. Conceptually, inclusion has evolved from an aspiration linked to place to one tied to participation, choice, and relationships. Probably the earliest expression of the idea of normalization was advanced by Bengt Nirje (1969/ 1994). The notion was further elaborated on in 1972 by Wolf Wolfensberger in his piece on normalization. He used the concept of normalization or social role valorization to criticize, among other things, infantilizing decorations and language and inadequate day activities. As the concept of normalization was refined and honed, it spawned more encompassing aspirations, such as community integration and community membership (Bradley, Ashbaugh, & Blaney, 1994). The notion of community integration was directly related to the movement of people out of institutions and implied a re-entry by those who had been excluded. Likewise, community membership implied joining a fellowship from which one had been alienated. Conceptions that stressed integration and community-based services also influenced public policy, which in turn influenced practice. Phrases such as ‘‘least restrictive environment’’ and ‘‘mainstreaming’’ emerged as part of the landmark right to education legislation. Class action lawsuits brought during the 1970s also echoed these notions, including the Halderman v. Pennhurst (1977) litigation, which found a right to habilitation in the community. These powerful legal ideals had a transformative impact on the delivery of educational as well as residential and day services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. As fewer and fewer children and adults left their communities to receive services and as institutional populations began a precipitous decline, the ideals that emerged to goad the system had less to do with opposition to a dominant norm (e.g., exclusion, extrusion, institutionalization, alienation) and more to do with affirmative notions of equality and the accommodation of differences. No longer was the system exhorted to provide better surroundings and opportunities than those available in the institutions, but to facilitate supports that would allow people with intellectual and developmental disabilities to lead lives available to all other citizens; in other words, to invite in those who had been traditionally locked out of our communities. The basis for judgment is now whether people with disabilities are able to enjoy such shared ‘‘goods’’ as relationships, friendships, home ownership, real jobs, spiritual fulfillment, and exercise of personal choice. These assumptions about what constitutes satisfying life have come to be known as inclusion (Bradley, 2000). The concept is relevant to the whole of society in that all people are unique with unique capacities. Everyone can learn and grow. Everyone has gifts to share and desire opportunities to make contributions. These assumptions do apply to everyone, no matter who they are. With this as a backdrop, the INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES VOLUME 49, NUMBER 5: 360–364 | OCTOBER 2011
Read full abstract