>On Thu, 25 Jul 2002, Jim Westrich wrote:
>
> > I would not get into the obvious representation fallacy (who do you
> > "see" and who don't you "see"?) of your casual observation
>
>Oh but do. That's the whole question. Now that I think of it, there's a
>half-way house on my block for people with mental and emotional
>disabilities, so almost every time I go out I walk by a dozen people who
>are disabled. But I never think of them as disabled so they didn't come
>to mind without a half hour's reflection. Is this a bad thing, not
>thinking of them as disabled?
I guess it would depend on what you think of disability, wouldn't it? Generally though, I think it is a good thing you don't think of people you see regularly as some category (even "disability"). People first.
Afterall, "disability" is a social result from a physiological lack of function. Not having legs or the ability to reason linearly is not itself a disability (it can be an improvement in some contexts). Corrective vision is not considered a disability because of glasses/contacts/Lazik. People with different social and financial means have very different sets of limits depending on access to resources and technology.
> And is there a social solidarity between
>the physically and mentally disabled that mirrors their statistical unity?
Generally no. Although in many political/social contexts a little solidarity and "give-and-take" would improve people in both positions.
Of course, the statistical unity of the "disabled" under the Census is just as artificial as "Hispanic". It is just those constructions happen to be useful in many contexts.
Historically, there have been splits between and among people with sensory, developmental, physical, and psychological. The official stats for Medicaid still list Blind separate from Disabled ("Blind" advocates insisted they were not "Disabled").
>Also do you have any stats on what proportion of the disabled are are
>suffering exclusively mental or emotional disabilities? And what their
>total number would be if it was corrected for what you suggest is a
>systematic undercount?
No, I do not off-hand. Generally (as you hinted at) the Census numbers are thought to be "too high". This is because of the self-reported disability status in part and also in part that people tend to think of the Disabled as beneficiaries of government services ( around 10 million in Medicaid and Medicare/Social Security as disabled).
I only pointed out that behavioral/psychological disabilities are not included in Census stats because it is an example of an undercount rather than the generally perceived overcount. I do think it mostly an accounting issue but useful for program/political planning.
Peace,
Jim
"A rising tirade lifts all boats."
--Stephen J. Raphael, wag