“The normalization principle means making available to all mentally retarded people patterns of life and conditions of everyday living which are as close as possible to the regular circumstances and ways of life or society.” (Bengt Nirjie, The basis and logic of the normalisation principle, Sixth International Congress of IASSMD, Toronto, 1982.)

History

---

The principle of normalization was developed in Scandinavia during the sixties and was first developed and articulated by Bengt Nirjie (The normalisation principle and its human management implications, in R. Kugel & W. Wolfensberger (Eds.) Changing patterns in residential services for the mentally retarded, Washing, D.C. President’s Committee on Mental Retardation.)

The principle was developed during the seventies, especially by Wolfensberger in Canada through the National Institute on Mental Retardation (NIMR) (Normalization. The principle of normalisation in human services, Toronto, NIMR, 1972).

Normalization has had a significant effect on the way services for people with disabilities have been structured throughout the UK, Europe, North America, Australasia and increasingly other parts of the world. It has led to a new conceptualisation of disability as not simply being a medical issue (the medical model which saw the person as indistinguishable from the disorder), but as a social situation. Government reports began from the 1970s to reflect this, e.g. the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board report of 1981 made recommendations on “the rights of people with intellectual handicaps to receive appropriate services, to assert their rights to independent living so far as this is possible, and to pursue the principle of normalization.”

Definition

---

Normalization involves the acceptance of people with disabilities, with their disabilities, offering them the same conditions as are offered to other citizens. It involves an awareness of the normal rhythm of life – including the normal rhythm of a day, a week, a year, and the life-cycle itself. It involves the normal conditions of life – housing, schooling, exercise, recreation and freedom of choice. This includes “the dignity of risk”, rather than an emphasis on “protection”. (Bank-Mikkelsen, 1976, Misconceptions on the principle of normalisation, Address to IASSMD Conference, Washington, D.c.)

Misconceptions

---

There are a few misconceptions about the principle of normalization:

a) Normalization means making people “normal” – forcing them to conform to societal norms.

Wolfensberger himself, in 1980, suggested “Normalizing measures can be offered in some circumstances, and imposed in others.” (Wolfensberger, W. (1980) The definition of normalisation: update, problems, disagreements and misunderstandings. In R.J. Flynn & K.E. Nitsch (Eds). Normalization, social integration and human services. Baltimore: University Park Press)

This view is not accepted by most people in the field, including Nirjie.

b) Normalization supports “dumping” people into the community or into schools without support.

Normalization has been blamed for the closure of services (such as institutions) leading to a lack of support for children and adults with disabilities. However support services which facilitate normal life opportunities for people with disabilities – such as special education services, advocacy and housing support – are not incompatible with normalization, although some particular services (such as special schools) may actually detract from rather than enhance normal living.

References

---

• "Setting the record straight: a critique of some frequent misconceptions of the normalization principle", Perrin, B. & Nirjie, B, Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 1985, Vol 11, No. 2, 69-72

• Wolfensberger, W. (1980) The definition of normalisation: update, problems, disagreements and misunderstandings. In R.J. Flynn & K.E. Nitsch (Eds). Normalization, social integration and human services. Baltimore: University Park Press