DID I STUTTER?
  • Home
  • About
  • Blog
    • Contributors
  • FAQ
  • Art
  • Contact
  • Resources

Three Issues with Speech Therapy

8/17/2014

2 Comments

 
PictureMore Foucauldian than indended
Let me start off by recognizing that speech therapy is an incredibly complicated issue. We want to make space here for those who desire speech therapy while at the same time being able to stand back and question some taken-for-granted assumptions. So I have a couple of disclaimers up front. First, these are simply some thoughts on speech-language pathology, not final nor sedimented beliefs. I am very much still working through this issue. Second, as the amazing disability writer and activist Eli Clare pointed out to Zach and I a couple months ago, speech therapy enables people with “severe” communicative disabilities to access education and (thus) other social opportunities that would be denied them otherwise. Because of these complexities, it is not our intention to dismiss speech therapy outright. However, we are nevertheless concerned with the way in which speech-language pathologists, even at their best, exert subtle yet very real power over people who stutter.

As the name suggests, speech-language pathology or speech therapy “pathologizes” our voices. In other words, these practices begin with the assumption that our voices are abnormal or deviant, and then medically intervene, either to increase our fluency or to offer therapeutic and emotional supports. With this in mind, I would suggest that speech therapy has three effects:

(1) Entering into a client/therapist relationship produces a specific kind of identity for the stutterer (in academic terms, it is a form of “subjection”). I enter into a relationship where I become someone who is pathologized. This is a relationship where a therapist has the authority to speak the “truth” about my body and my disability, which includes the seemingly obvious fact of my physiological/medical condition. At the same time, entering into this relationship limits the kinds of responses and control I can have over my body. Individual speech-language pathologists seek to use this authority in positive ways, and I want to stress that the vast majority of speech pathologists I have encountered in my life have been incredibly wonderful and well-intentioned people. However, this is not about individual intentions. As I have mentioned in another blog post, I just don’t think the medical, physiological difficulty of producing sounds is the best way to understand what stuttering is and what makes it a so-called “impediment.” Because pathologization is built into the client/therapist relationship—because my stutter is defined upfront as a medical issue that the therapist is given authority to help with—the option of deciding for myself that there is nothing wrong with my voice is severely limited.

(2) The client/therapist relationship is “depoliticizing.” That is, speech pathology assumes, and convinces stutterers, that what stuttering is (when we get right down to it) is an individual and biological thing. This process of medicalization covers over the ways that the very idea of normal and abnormal speech is produced by cultural values and expectations—and of course, by speech pathology itself. Because of this depoliticization, the stutterer is left with the belief that ultimately (a) stuttering is something that only I can manage (whether it be through fluency reduction or reducing avoidance, fear, etc.), (b) being able to communicate is primarily my responsibility, and (c) these are not political and social, but individual psychological and physiological issues. Speech pathology can thus distract us from getting at the root causes of our oppression.

(3) Speech pathology is a massive industry that makes money off of our bodies. Or, more specifically, it makes money off of pathologizing our bodies and reinforcing the idea that we, rather than society, are the ones who ultimately need to change. On an individual level this isn’t such a big deal. We pay people to provide us with services all of the time. However, stepping back a little and looking at the big picture, the speech pathology industry rests entirely on the assumption that our bodies require intervention. Besides traditional speech pathology, this industry includes pharmaceuticals, technology such as Speech Easy, psychology, neuroscience, and genetics. Contemporary speech-language pathology cannot therefore be separated from capitalism—or what has been termed “late capitalism.” There is big money being made by exploiting our bodies.

In my own life, I have found speech therapy both helpful and unhelpful. Even while it treated my voice as broken and needing to be fixed, it encouraged me to speak up in ways I had previously avoided, and I am grateful for that. Whether or not to participate in speech therapy is a personal decision, and if you choose to engage in it you are very welcome here. Our hope is simply that as a community of stutterers we can begin a critical conversation about the pathologization of our voices. 

-Josh

2 Comments
Chris Marshall
1/30/2015 10:59:56 pm

Your essay essentializes SLP and fits it into a polemic. We need the polemic, because we need to reclaim our power and rage, but we also need to realize its a polemic. The map is not the territory...let's not accept a map, no matter how useful and important for our project at this time.
My experience with the National Stuttering Association and my speech therapist may illustrate my critique of your argument. The NSA creates local chapters of people who stutter (others are welcome to attend as allies, but it's "our" group). Each of us brings her/his own intentions, but typically we give each other support, empowerment, and clarity in reject ing the dominant paradigm of "disability". We try to deconstruct the idea of fixing ourselves or getting fixed by speech therapy. Many of us are clear that we're there because we want to stutter better, by which we typically mean stutter with more ease, mindfulness, and joy. One valuable member of my group is an SLP who stutters. My few private sessions with her are more about empowerment than therapy, and that's also what she contributes to the group. It's about consciousness-raising, as the women's movement began saying in the 60s.
Is this political? Yes and no. Problematizing ableism, reclaiming the value of our voices, identifying ourselves as a community, rejecting the false ideal of getting fixed, letting each of us determine our own stance rather than mandating a one-size approach to our own voices....sounds pretty good to me.
This has been my experience with the NSA, and with speech therapy in general. Your argument is necessary and important, and adds to what I've been talking about. What I find problematic is the way it essentializes therapy and the way it fits it into a narrative which, while powerful, needs to be nuanced in order to be mor real.
This reminds me of the situation in the women's movement in the 60s, as I was saying before... The radicalization of the discourse made it feel necessary to react against the work women had been doing with things like consciousness-raising groups, but in time it appeared that both approaches were necessary on different levels. I'd say we can learn from that in our project.

Reply
Josh
2/3/2015 11:17:33 pm

Chris,

Thanks for your thoughtful comment. It is true that DIS writes polemically about SLP at times, but always for very strategic purposes. For me, a polemic is not an untrue account, but is rather an account that emphasizes one aspect (of something like SLP) while minimizing other aspects. We are very upfront in many of our posts and in our four main tenets that SLP can be helpful for many people. We are also wary of how SLP has been lodged in our society's consciousness as the primary way of understanding stuttering--this is where polemical writing can be useful. However, drawing attention to the ways in which SLP as a discipline and industry governs our bodies--as in this article--is neither essentializing nor polemical. This article makes three points which I believe are all fairly noncontroversial. It would definitely be essentializing if it were referring to SLPs as individuals; but my point is rather that we need (desperately I think) to attend to the *logic and structure* of SLP as an industry and discipline. This is something that really has not been done. DIS is continuing to nuance our critique of SLP, and I think that this recent post (http://www.didistutter.org/blog/not-all-speech-language-pathologists ) provides some of the nuance you were looking for.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Categories

    All
    Ableism
    Charis
    Cheryl
    Chris
    Communication
    Community Formation
    David
    Disability
    Disability Politics
    Disability Rights
    Dori
    Eli
    Emma
    Empowerment
    Erin
    Gender
    Inspiration
    Intersectionality
    ISAD
    Jacquelyn
    Josh
    Language
    Medical Model
    Notes For Allies
    Passing
    Person-first Language
    Podcasts
    Relational Stuttering
    Review
    School
    Self Help
    Sexuality
    Social Model
    Speech Language Pathology
    Speech Therapy
    Stuttering Stories
    The King's Speech
    Time
    Zach

    SUBMIT

    Authors

    We stutter and we're down with it.

    Contributors

    Archives

    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2017
    February 2017
    October 2016
    September 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014

    RSS Feed


Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.