I am working with some colleagues on a research project that will rely on Social Role Valorization Theory or SRV. A good overview of the theory can be found at: http://www.srvip.org/overview_SRV_Osburn.pdf
I was not familiar with the concept. A few useful quotes:
It's an interesting theory, and I tend to concur with it. I shared with my group a couple of quotes from Adam Smith's The Theory of Moral Sentiments that share the same conclusions (albeit from a couple of hundred years ago and using slightly different language):
What I liked about the superior passage is the idea that we have a natural inclination to serve those who are in the valued classes/groups. I thought it nicely echoes Osburn’s statement, “all sorts of good things that other people are able to convey are almost automatically apt to be accorded to a person who holds societally valued roles, at least within the resources and norms of his/her society” (or really, Osburn echoes Smith and other thinkers). We give willingly to the valued even if they have done nothing to earn it, and likewise, the poverty quote shows how the needs of the non-valued classes are completely ignored.
Wolfensberger, W., & Thomas, S. (2005). Introductory Social Role Valorization workshop training package. Syracuse, NY: Training Institute for Human Service Planning, Leadership and Change Agentry (Syracuse University).
I was not familiar with the concept. A few useful quotes:
The application of empirical knowledge to the shaping of the current or potential social roles of a party (i.e., person, group, or class) -- primarily by means of enhancement of the party’s competencies & image -- so that these are, as much as possible, positively valued in the eyes of the perceivers (Wolfensberger & Thomas, 2005).
all sorts of good things that other people are able to convey are almost automatically
apt to be accorded to a person who holds societally valued roles, at least within the resources and norms of his/her society... To mention only a few major examples, they include being accorded dignity, respect, acceptance; a sense of belonging; an education, and the development and exercise of one’s capacities; a voice in the affairs of one’s community and society; opportunities to participate; a decent material standard of living; an at least normative place to live; and opportunities for work and self-support.
Devalued individuals, groups, and classes are far more likely than other members
of society to be treated badly, and to be subjected to a systematic -- and possibly lifelong -- pattern of such negative experiences as the following.
1. Being perceived and interpreted as “deviant,” due to their negatively-valued differentness.
The latter could consist of physical or functional impairments, low competence, a particular ethnic identity, certain behaviors or associations, skin color, and many others.
2. Being rejected by community, society, and even family and services.
3. Being cast into negative social roles, some of which can be severely negative, such as “subhuman,” “menace,” and “burden on society.”
Being put and kept at a social or physical distance, the latter most. Also, when a person holds valued social roles, attributes of theirs that might otherwise be viewed negatively are much more apt to be put up with, or overlooked, or “dismissed” as relatively unimportant.The article goes on to talk about action steps to work with groups on increasing their social recognition.
It's an interesting theory, and I tend to concur with it. I shared with my group a couple of quotes from Adam Smith's The Theory of Moral Sentiments that share the same conclusions (albeit from a couple of hundred years ago and using slightly different language):
Our obsequiousness to our superiors more frequently arises from our admiration for the advantages of their situation, than from any private expectations of benefit from their good–will. Their benefits can extend but to a few; but their fortunes interest almost every body. We are eager to assist them in completing a system of happiness that approaches so near to perfection; and we desire to serve them for their own sake, without any other recompense but the vanity or the honour of obliging them.”
The poor man, on the contrary, is ashamed of his poverty. He feels that it either places him out of the sight of mankind, or, that if they take any notice of him, they have, however, scarce any fellow–feeling with the misery and distress which he suffers. He is mortified upon both accounts; for though to be overlooked, and to be disapproved of, are things entirely different, yet as obscurity covers us from the daylight of honour and approbation, to feel that we are taken no notice of, necessarily damps the most agreeable hope, and disappoints the most ardent desire, of human nature. The poor man goes out and comes in unheeded, and when in the midst of a crowd is in the same obscurity as if shut up in his own hovel.http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/2620#lf1648_label_116
What I liked about the superior passage is the idea that we have a natural inclination to serve those who are in the valued classes/groups. I thought it nicely echoes Osburn’s statement, “all sorts of good things that other people are able to convey are almost automatically apt to be accorded to a person who holds societally valued roles, at least within the resources and norms of his/her society” (or really, Osburn echoes Smith and other thinkers). We give willingly to the valued even if they have done nothing to earn it, and likewise, the poverty quote shows how the needs of the non-valued classes are completely ignored.
Wolfensberger, W., & Thomas, S. (2005). Introductory Social Role Valorization workshop training package. Syracuse, NY: Training Institute for Human Service Planning, Leadership and Change Agentry (Syracuse University).
