Valorisation and Marxian Valorisation theory
Social Role Valorisation (SRV)
Disability and community
Valorisation and empowerment
Valorisation and the community
Valorisation and Marxian Valorisation theory
value of something is determined by the society, community or group and
members of the society, community or group.
Is the value of the person
determined by the value of
his/her skills and resources ?
Each of the
above is valid.
Or is the
value of a
person determined by the relationships and shared experiences.?
The value of each is
determined by the setting, expectations and values
of the members of the society, community or group.
A person may be positively valued for their skills and resources, but
negatively valued for their relationships and shared
experiences. Alternatively a person
may be negatively valued for their skills and
resources, but positively valued for their relationships and shared
focus of SRV is Social
Enhancement and Competency Enhancement, where disadvantaged people are
be accepted as valued members of society and live a more normal life.
of the Hawthorne Effect was to engage the workers (real or imaginary)
decision making process.
SRV loosely says or implies
that the value of
the person is determined by the value of his/her personal and social characteristics
and competencies (roles),
and that by enhancing these roles (through the development of personal and social characteristics
and competencies), a person's
value is enhanced.
Marxian valorisation theory
loosely says or implies that the value of
the person is determined by the value of his/her productivity rather
than his/her personal worth, and that by enhancing the
person's selfworth (through the development of personal and social characteristics
and competencies), a
person's productivity is enhanced.
I remember watching a video
study done in the Hawthorne Works of the General Electric Company in
Hawthorne Effect). In one test, the workers were asked for their
how things could be made better to improve their working conditions.
response was that the lighting could be brighter. So the management
lighting a bit brighter and the work improved in quality and quantity.
management then asked if workers how they felt about the lighting and
them if they would like it brighter and the response was: yes. The
then did nothing, but gave the impression that they were interested in
welfare of the workers. The outcome was that the quality and quantity
even though nothing had happened.
There has been much debate
outcomes and value of the study, however whatever the criticisms are,
that the output improved through having more participation in the
making process (real or imagined) is still valid. The project also
while the conditions may not have improved, the fact that an observer
present and interested in their performance might have been enough to
productivity. (See Mind
Hawthorne Effect - BBC)
It could be argued that SRV
elements of the Hawthorne Effect:
... The institutions of the clients (in the
institution) and workers
(in the factory) are negatively valued
behaviours, expectations, values and roles
of the clients/workers change
are enabled through these strategies in becoming more productive
... Both strategies
are designed to increase clients/workers value, in their community
Whether the outcomes of
approaches are positively valued really depends on the values of the
In a factory, for example, the outcomes may be positively valued by the
management, where productivity has increased, and the workers, where
believe that they have a more valued role
in the factory. In a facility that supports people with high support
outcomes are measured by a tool (PASSING, Wolfensberger,
W. & Thomas, S. (1983)) to gauge the
effectiveness (value) of
SRV. Whether the value of the outcomes of PASSING are consistent with
of the service and SRV is dependent on a number of factors (1).
As far as I am aware there
has been no
study on using the principles of SRV and the PASSING instruments in a
setting, where the principles of SRV are applied to workers in a
students in a classroom. You may say "What’s the point of that?" and
my reply would be "If the principles of SRV are effective strategies in
providing Social Image Enhancement and Competency Enhancement for
disability, why can't they be effective strategies in the work place,
classroom or any setting where people may be devalued or their self
poor. By enhancing Social Images and Personal Competencies of the
members of a
community (accommodation, workplace, school etc) I would assume that
members would benefit. However this is all theory until someone decides
it is a
Any way, the point I am
trying to make
is that it could be argued that: the goal of SRV is to enhance Social
and Personal Competencies, where devalued people are able to lead a
meaningful and productive life (receive the good things) where they
skills and resources and valued roles
in being a part of society. The implication is that the person is
valued as a
friend, worker, painter, writer etc, and through this process the
person may by
valued as a person. A person with a severe disability that cannot have
assigned to them, or be placed in an existing role,
still has the opportunity to be treated and valued the same as you or
In both paradigms, it is the
of the approach within the accommodation, workplace, school etc that
positively or negatively valued. Marxian valorisation has criticised
of the management in their treatment of the workers in a factory, and
criticises the treatment of devalued people within the institution.
it possible to change the outcomes through various strategies
etc) where the workers / devalued people are positively valued in the
workplace, facility or the community
SRV: Looks at the person and
the person can be more included (Social Image Enhancement and
Enhancement) in the normal activities of everyday living. Marxian
looks at the value of the person and how the person can be valued as a
and not a commodity.
So, it could be argued that
consistent with the Marxian valorisation theory in that both paradigms
important value on what the person contributes to the community
school etc). Marxian valorisation theory has a top down approach and
SRV has a
bottom up approach. SRV and Marxian valorisation try to change the
institutions, (values, roles,
behaviours, expectations and settings etc) where the person has a
(real or imagined) within the setting.
When providing the most appropriate
care for people with high support
1) The community is not where the
person is living, but where the
person participates, shares experiences and has valued relationships
2) People with high support needs (severe disability, aged etc.)
will always need support structures as a part of their lives.
3) The amount of participation in a community (living, education,
employment or recreation) is directly related to the skills and
resources of the person, and, the skills and resources of the
community that the person wishes to participate in.
4) Institutions are going to be around in one form or another
whether we like it or not, It is the way that they are used that is the
5) The institutions of a society towards a particular group
determine the way the group participates in society.
6) The institutions of a particular government department,
profession or service define the way the person is supported within
7) Facilities that support people with high support needs do not
need to be the nursing homes or prisons in the
that they are today, but can become warm inviting community places that
offer a range of services to the community, as well as be a part of the
wider community within that society.
8) People with high support needs are a minority group in our
society, and will have the same problems as other minority groups in
being a part of society.
: "The literature on the relationship between size of residence and
quality suggests that size is not a sufficient condition in itself and
other variables must also be considered including staffing
characteristics and patterns, and service processes such as supports
for residents' development. PASSING takes these into account. A more
extensive paper providing more detailed analysis on these issues and
this evaluation is being prepared for publication by the author."
(Cocks, E. 1998, Evaluating the Quality of Residential Services
for People with Disabilities Using Program Analysis of Service Systems'
Implementation of Normalization Goals (PASSING). (http://www.dinf.ne.jp/doc/english/asia/resource/z00ap/002/s00ap00207.html