>invisible elsewhere by private transport. But there was still a huge
>fraction missing, which I now see is at least partially an epistomologial
>question: one must think of the mentally disabled as disabled before you
>perceive them as such. One must accept that everyone who has
>self-reported trouble negotiating everyday life counts as disabled, and
>that that is the proper, sociological, definition of the term. Once that
>is granted as a definition, I don't think I have a hard time accepting 20%
>based on my everyday experience.
I agree. But that leaves us with the question of analytical usefulness of such an expanded concept. If we start including subjective deviations from the "ideal" - where do we stop? Should we include the obese, the no to so bright, the unattractive, the elderly? One danger is implicit acceptance of the notion of the "ideal human being" ingrained in eugenics and pop-culture. Another is trivializing the concept of disability, which can lead to the abandonment of those in real need. We already saw that with mental disorders - first the politically correct crowd fought to re-defined them as "alternative life styles" only to make it easier for the Repugs to close mental hospitals and cut funding for mental health. As a result, people with mental disorders who need institutionalization swelled the population of the homeless.
wojtek