sharin, a Low Flying in the City

정상화의 개념은 덴마크의 Bank-Mikkelsen이 "정신지체인이 가능한한 정상에 가까운 생활환경을 획득하도록 해야한다."고 주장한 데서 출발하였으며, 이는 1972년 이후 북미 대륙에 본격적으로 정착하여 인간서비스 분야를 지배하는 메타 이론, 메타 체제로서 자리잡기 시작하였다(Wolfensberger, 1980).

The origins of inclusion can be traced back to the normalization principle.
Nirje (1969) defined the normalization principle as "making available to the mentally retarded patterns and conditions of everyday life which are as close as possible to the norms and patterns of the mainstream of society" (p. 181).

Nirje, B. (1969). The normalization principle and its human management implications. In R. Kugel & W. Wolfensberger (Eds.), Changing patterns in residential services for the mentally retarded (pp. 179-195). Washington, DC: President's Commission on Mental Retardation.

Scandinavia saw some of the earliest models of normalisation develop (Bank-Mikkelson, 1980; Grunewald, 1986; Nirje, 1970, 1976) and in the USA the concept took a strong hold (Wolfensberger, 1972, 1980b).

The normalization principle reflects several perspectives (Nirje, 1993):
1. People with disabilities ought to have lives that are similar to the lives of people without disabilities. Thus, the principle is rooted in the concept of equality.
2. People with disabilities ought to have the opportunity to create and pursue good lives that are related to their own personal situations. Thus, the principle is rooted in the concept of quality of life.
3. People with disabilities ought to be valued and have the same rights as people without disabilities. Thus, the principle is grounded in the concept of human rights.
The normalization principle provides the framework for inclusion by stating that individuals with disabilities "should participate equally in the normal routines of community life, including having a home to live in, access to school or a job, self-selected and self-directed leisure time, and the opportunity to establish social networks which include individuals without disabilities" (McDonnell, Hardman, McDonnell, & Kiefer-O'Donnell, 1995, p. 32).

Wolfensberger distanced SRV(Social Role Valorization) from the egalitarian, human rights value base of Nirje’s normalisation to make it ‘‘scientific’’.
In inclusion, debates already rage about its empirical basis.
Questions are asked, for example, about the evidence for inclusive education leading to better outcomes than special education (Hornby, 1999). The need for such evidence is rejected by those who argue that inclusion is a human rights issue (Mittler, 2000; Thomas, 1997). With inclusion, as with normalisation, is the human rights agenda in danger of being lost all over again? Or, through critical appraisal and learning lessons from the past, are we wiser now?