Kelley wrote:
>
> At 04:07 AM 7/29/01 +0000, Justin Schwartz wrote:
>
> >As I say, I don't follow Rawls.\
>
snip
> valid norms are
> morally binding because of their intimate connection with processes of
> social interaction and communication out of which one cannot easily (or
> even rationally) choose to step (1983: 109).
On valid "norms" --- These ethical conceptual frameworks have no place for disabled people as on a par with other human beings. I don't follow Rawls either because as I understand it Rawlsian distributive justice excludes disabled people from the category of "normal and co-operating" persons.
I would refer you to Michael Oliver's paper "Capitalism, Disability and Ideology: A Materialist Critique of the Normalization Principle." It may be on the web, it was printed in a University of Ottawa Press (1999) book "A Quarter Century of Normalisation and Social Role Valorization."
Oliver offers a critique of normalization theory (which is based upon interactionist and functionalist sociology). He rips up Parsons and Erving Goffman and Wolfensberger. In short, normalization has nothing to offer disabled people who are oppressed in capitalist societies. It certainly provides no strategy for liberation.
Having said this I must retreat into the background to work on my next deadline. I'm not following all the posts so forgive me if this seems crudely imposed upon the discussion. It is just a FYI kind of thing.
Marta