|
It's time to take back our speech.
|
Voluntary Stammering Finds New Meanings in Stammering Pride
“Voluntary stammering can be therapy for society”
I No Longer Dream of Being Normal
“So much of what I’ve observed in stuttering spaces is influenced by the dream of assimilation...“
From Covert Stuttering to Solidarity
"I thought the tricks I used were what I was supposed to do..."
Reclaiming the Dysfluent Disabled Voice
Whether stuttering should be considered a disability is complex
On Interrupting, Being Interrupted, and Being Interruptible
How can the power to interrupt be used critically to cultivate community and resistance?
Every Word I Speak is Resistance
“My voice doesn't exist in a neutral political space.“
1 |
Stuttering is not a medical defect. |
Following the disability rights movement that took hold in the 60s, we understand disability and stuttering not as an individual defect, but first and foremost as a social discrimination against certain forms of human speaking. We can speak of “ableism,” just like racism or sexism. The experience we call stuttering must fundamentally be understood as a discrimination against dysfluent ways of communicating and using one’s body.
Stuttering is only a problem—in fact is only abnormal—because our culture places so much value on efficiency and self-mastery. Stuttering breaks communication only because ableist notions have already decided how fast and smooth a person must speak to be heard and taken seriously. An arbitrary line has been drawn around “normal” speech, and that line is forcefully defended.
Stuttering is only a problem—in fact is only abnormal—because our culture places so much value on efficiency and self-mastery. Stuttering breaks communication only because ableist notions have already decided how fast and smooth a person must speak to be heard and taken seriously. An arbitrary line has been drawn around “normal” speech, and that line is forcefully defended.
2 |
Speech assimilation is an ongoing cultural process in which we are shamed and subtly forced to conform with dominant speech patterns.
|
From the first time that we speak, we are corrected or shamed for any delays or repetitions. Parents, teachers, and our fellow students notice and stigmatize all nonconforming speech. Society intervenes to change the individual, adding anxiety to our lives and making it more difficult to speak, instead of encouraging us to be confident speaking as we will.
3 |
The only way to free ourselves is through local re-education and the creation of communities that affirm dysfluent speech.
|
Individually and collectively, we must begin to understand ‘stuttering’ as a result of ableist expectations, norms, and values spread throughout our culture, and refuse to let our bodies and selves be pathologized. This process can only be accomplished through education and a reimagining of our speech, our identities, and our society. We therefore also need communities that affirm the necessity of dysfluent voices, collectively naming and resisting the ableism through which we have become objects of shame and pity. We must together unlearn a lifetime of self-hatred, subjugation, and silencing.
4 |
Finally, we affirm informed consent at all ages to any form of speech rehabilitation as a basic human right and necessity.
|
There is no hope of empowerment as long as dysfluent speech is shamed. We remain alone and stigmatized as long as we are led to believe that dysfluent speech is a problem. We need to be given the choice of whether or not to receive speech rehabilitation. Dysfluency-positive and dysfluency-negative perspectives should always be offered before choosing long term speech therapy. We contend that at any age multiple perspectives on dysfulency are an absolute necessity for autonomous choice regarding one's therapeutic options.
