Hercule Poirot: I pity you, Norton… how very sad to find that this great and beautiful world is so foul and disappointing. And your mother, I pity even more.

‍Stephen Norton: M-my m-m-mother? You pity my mother?

Hercule Poirot: To endure the agony of bringing you forth only to discover that she had nurtured in her loins such wickedness – is that not worthy of pity?

Stephen Norton: It is you who is n-not worthy! She m-m-meant the world to m-me!

Hercule Poirot: And you to her?

Stephen Norton: She l-loved me… l-loved me m-m-more than… m-more than…

Hercule Poirot: Did she ever hold you, Norton, as mothers do? Stroke your hair… kiss your cheek?

Stephen Norton: She… she… she…

Hercule Poirot: Scared you, did she not? She pushed you away!

— Christie (1975) ITV adaption (2013)

• Fluent ↔︎ Stuttered
• Medical models ↔︎ Social models
• Speech restructuring therapies ↔︎ Neurodiversity

<hr>

Authentic self as fluent

Authentic self is repressed by bodily power (pathology). We can liberate the self by restoring normal functioning.

• Behavioral therapy.
• Medication.
• Surgery.

<hr>

Authentic self as stuttered

Authentic self is repressed by social power (ableism). We can liberate the self by rejecting fluency.

• Stuttering pride.
• Activism.
• Creative expression.
• Identity is always relative.

<hr>

Identity is always relative

There is no true self to be emancipated, there is only different selves constituted through power relations.

I am constantly being encouraged to pluck out some one aspect of myself and present this as the meaningful whole, eclipsing or denying the other parts of self.

— Lorde (1984)

<hr>

A rejection of authenticity does not necessarily lead to determinism.

We are free in so far as we continuously rebelling against the ways in which we are already defined, categorized, and classified.

Stuttering consists of involuntary disruptions to the rhythmic flow of speech, the speaker’s cognitive and emotional reactions to them, and the speaker’s perceptions of listener reactions.

In persistent stuttering, the speaker develops a sense of self-who-stutters resulting from attributing meaning to personal experiences through self-narrative. The construction of self-who-stutters is influenced by the speaker’s relationships with others. Current research indicates a neurodevelopmental basis for stuttering, with epigenetic influences. The narratives of people who stutter are key environmental factors contributing to the epigenetic process.

— O'Dwyer (2016)

“One of these days I’m going to have to hang a sign on that door,” Agent Samson used to say. She was probably thinking along the lines of SPEECH THERAPY LAB, though a more appropriate marker would have to be read FUTURE HOMOSEXUALS OF AMERICA. We knocked ourselves out trying to fit in but were ultimately betrayed by our tongues.

— Sedaris (2000)

In the first short story of David Sedaris’s 2000 collection, Me Talk Pretty One Day, Sedaris recounts four months of his 4th grade year, in which he was removed from class once a week at 2:30 on Thursdays to meet with the acerbic school speech therapist he called “Agent Samson” to treat his lisp. Her clients were all lisping boys, he noticed, and none of them conventionally boyish, and he jokes that if there were a sign on her door it should not read “Speech Therapy Lab” but “Future Homosexuals of America.” At this young age Sedaris already has an inkling that speech impediment, in his case lisping, is related to sexuality, a personal affectation continuous with a dislike of sports or a love of making one’s own curtains. Sederis taps into a cultural trend that includes the identification “gay voice,” and that states that one can read sexuality off the voice, particularly the male voice, through how one speaks, what one says, or what one does not say.

With expressions like “stuttering pride” and “coming out of the stuttering closet,” activism by people who stutter explicitly ties its historical struggles and political goals to queer liberation, and queer theory has offered a verdant store of language and concepts for re-imagining dysfluent speaking as a kind of queer form of being in the world. Moreover, these intersections point towards the critical potential of the dysfluency itself as a kind of queer object, an object that presents a problem for sexual and gender norms, as well as conventional forms of reading, expression, and time. I am interested in how the experiences of being queer and a stutterer interpenetrate, and how each informs the other. In the few first-person accounts I read from queer people who stutter I often saw the authors comparing their social encounters as queers and as stutterers. One person notes that homosexuality was removed from the DSM in 1973, but that stuttering or “child-onset dysfluency disorder” remains. Another said that they were encouraged to embrace their queerness but to cure their stutter, and that speech therapy for them amounted to a form of conversion therapy. What I saw were not necessarily similarities but cases in which people embody two marginal positions, where one could have been treated like the other, and was not. How do queerness and stuttering misconnect with each other? Returning to Sedaris: of interest to us in Sedaris’s story is the detail that there was no sign on Agent Samson’s door, and that “Future Homosexuals of America” does not substitute for other language but for an absence of language. Agent Sampson’s is a door with no writing that suggests that as much as her door clearly opens for a certain kind of boy, it offers no clear language for that child, and the name of the certain type of boy who goes through it for a certain type of speech remains in some sense unspeakable. Sedaris is not cured of his lisp, but rather like many young stutterers develops an enormous vocabulary in order to avoid the sibilant s. The s is occulted in Sedaris’s speech, and this haunting, unspeakable s produces not a reduction in language but an excess of language in the form of the enormous vocabulary. How might we think of writers as people who work by suppressing language? This connection between the unspeakable and the excess of language conceptually ties dysfluency to the emergence of male homosexuality as a pathological category in the 19th century.

<hr>

I've had therapy to help deal with the way my parents reacted when I came out, but the therapist never insinuated that things would be easier if I was less gay. On the other hand, the speech therapy I've had as an adult focused very strongly on how things would be easier for me if I was more fluent.

— Elias K (2015)

<hr>

Sexuality between men had, throughout the Judaeo-Christian tradition, been famous among those who knew about it at all precisely for having no name – ‘unspeakable,’ ‘unmentionable,’ or ‘not to be named among Christian men’.

— Sedgwick (1985)

<hr>

The unspeakable transformed in the 20th century to what she calls a “byword” likely most familiar in Lord Alfred Douglas’s phrase, “the love that dare not speak its name.”

Like Sedaris forming his vocabulary around the absent s, the unspeakability of male homosexuality did not correspond to a dearth of language about it, but what Michel Foucault famously refers to in The History of Sexuality as “a steady proliferation of discourses concerned with sex… a discursive ferment that gathered momentum from the eighteenth century onward.” For the Victorians male homosexuality may have been occulted in the language, but:

Silence itself – the things one declines to say, or is forbidden to name, the discretion that is required between different speakers – is less the absolute limit of discourse, the other side from which it is separated by a strict boundary, than an element that functions alongside the things said, with them and in relation to them within over-all strategies… There is not one but many silences, and they are an integral part of the strategies that underlie and permeate discourses.

— Foucault (1976)

<hr>

The Victorians implicitly made the connection between homosexuality and stuttering. James Malcom Rymer’s fictional autobiography The Unspeakable: or, the Life and Adventures of a Stammerer, explores this link. Riley McGuire’s research on this novel argues that attaining mature heterosexual masculinity is predicated on attaining a fluent voice.

Freud’s famous diagnosis of stuttering as anal-sadistic is comprised of a few brief remarks made in passing. His more substantive thoughts on stuttering actually come earlier in a case study about woman with adult-onset stuttering and various neuroses. But the psychoanalytic understanding of stuttering as the unresolved frustrations of the narcissistic tendencies of the anal stage has captured more minds. Stuttering, after all, is the most uncomfortable type of shit-talk. But the threat of stuttering to masculinity also appears to be explained by the impediment’s root in anality, with its association with sexual submission, women, and the end of gender. There is a productive queer reading to be made about the threat of stuttering and the moral panic around sexual submission in gay male culture. At the end of his famous essay Is the Rectum A Grave? Leo Bersani finds in fantasies about the rectum “the place where the masculine ideal of proud subjectivity is buried”. Bersani offers a mythological location in which to reimagine the value of sexual submission. Besides being the “death” of male dominance, the anus is also the death of sexual difference, for we all have one.

Publication

The action of making 
something generally known.

— Oxford Dictionary

The format that the text / typeface is packaged in is as important as the textual content or typeface itself. Kind of like how in JJJJJerome’s work, there’s an interesting relationship to song or score sheets, through his use of a publication that is linked to his music. The format of this requires a unique level of engagement from the reader and listener.

Since I created the first issue of Dysfluent, I have been thinking about how the format of a publication defines the intent behind the work. It made me think about while there is a certain power to publication, there is also a quietness and consideration to it. At least from a design or artistic perspective, it requires a great deal of engagement from the viewer.

<hr>

Protest

A statement or action expressing disapproval of 
or objection to something.

— Oxford Dictionary

Recently I have been thinking of this concept of display, or posters, or for lack of a better term, protest.

Protest to me is really interesting from a creative or design stand point. For a person to display a poster, it is a deliberate act of reflecting an inner voice or identity, for the world to see.

I think of teenagers pinning up posters in their bedrooms, and of people marching on the streets voicing concerns. There is a certain passion or aggression (maybe not the right word?) to the idea of posters.

How does the idea of protest or display speak to earlier discussions on stigma?

I was interested to see what Fiona showed earlier in our talks, that banner where children visualised their stammer. There is something really nice there in terms of displaying their dysfluency.

It gets me thinking then. What is the content of the posters? What do they say? Do they need to say anything? or can they just be visualisations of dysfluency?

What is the fluent gaze? Can we see it in cinema? Is the gaze the right conception due to the auditory nature of stammering? Is there an oppositional gaze: a stammered/dysfluent gaze?

<hr>

‘The scene for the portrait is designed by a stammerer; photographed and painted by a stammerer; of a stammerer stammering. The stammered gaze.’ — Patrick Campbell

<hr>

Close-up of Dysfluent mono typeface, in use in Dysfluent magazine issue 1.

‍

We do not, as scholars from different disciplines, bring together our objects and practices to one another through a kind of free-trade agreement; rather we re-enter a long history of binding, tangling and cutting [across disciplines/practice] within which the current moves towards integration are much more weighted than they might first seem.

– Fitzgerald and Callard (2016)

<hr>

A ‘dynamic of entanglement’ rather than a push towards integration.

<hr>

We have tried to conjure a different palette of affective dispositions through which we might […] live in interdisciplinary spaces. Those dispositions (eddying around ambivalence, awkwardness, frustration, failure and so on) depart from the most common affective registers (critique, adulation, disinterested rigour) through which [many] have tended to approach the terrain of the medical, clinical or biomedical. We want resolutely to claim the stance of interestedness. But we also see interest as a stance that can be (indeed usually is) taken up without someone quite knowing the place at which they stand, or the entwinements through which they are always-already bound with/in others […]. So it is, to be entangled.

– Fitzgerald and Callard (2016)

• Facilitating cultural competence and awareness
• Understanding the dynamics of stigma, self-stigma and masking and the psychological consequences of living with a concealable stigmatised identity
  
• Exploring the lived experience and feelings associated with stammering in an ableist world that privileges fluency
  
• Understanding minority stress and ableist trauma
  
• Supporting the development of new affirming narratives around stammering
  
• Finding own unique stammering aesthetic
  
• Disclosure and self-advocacy
  
• Community

• Public information and education programmes
• Reducing barriers – creating a stammer-friendly environment and culture
• Campaigning
• Lobbying
• Representation
• Cultural change
• Celebration of stammering and difference

MEMPHIS, Tenn. (Sept. 17, 2012) — Jane Fraser, president of the Stuttering Foundation, made the following comments concerning the Sept. 15, 2012, Saturday Night Live skit ridiculing those who stutter:

We are deeply troubled by Saturday Night Live’s recent decision to make light of stuttering, a communication disorder faced by more than three million Americans and 68 million people worldwide. The release of The King’s Speech was a giant step forward for the stuttering community, bringing understanding and acceptance to those who stutter. SNL’s poor judgment was an equally huge step backwards.

The most troubling part was the obvious research conducted by producers, writers and cast into stuttering, evidenced by their use of the term ‘fluency.' They clearly did their homework but chose to overlook the pain felt by many who stutter and their families for just a cheap laugh.

The Stuttering Foundation supported SNL’s Seth Meyers when Donald Trump chose to call him out as a ‘stutterer’ after the White House Correspondents’ dinner. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Not funny, SNL. Not funny at all.

— Fraser (2012)

In our zeal to resist medical conceptions of stuttering do we just substitute one normalizing litmus test for another?

By rejecting fluency in and of itself or by asking whether forms of knowledge are consistent with our favorite model of disability, what ways of being do we disqualify?

I’m not comfortable telling another stutterer how to think/feel about their stuttering.

Stutterers are always already resisting how they are constituted.

How are they currently resisting societal demands for fluency?

How are they currently resisting their body’s demands for effortful speech?

Rather than see therapy as a means to liberate the self (be it fluent or stuttered) I suggest we see it as an exploration of the stutterer’s resistance and agency.

We explore how the stutterer has been constituted not to determine who they must be but to determine who they do not have to be.

We explore how they got here but leave where they’re going up to them.

In my clinical experience, most stutterers value both an increase in their ability to resist societal pressures to speak fluently and an increase in fluency, or at least easier stuttering.

We want to affirm, especially for the young people out there, that it is okay to stutter. We believe that not only is it okay to stutter, but people who stutter should be empowered to speak however is most comfortable for them – even if that speaking style contains pauses, repetitions, and blocks.

— NYC Stutters (2020)

<hr>

• Educators to integrate the diversity agenda into speech and language therapy training to enable future therapists to consider the philosophical underpinnings of their role and approach.
• Forums for therapists to examine their underlying values, role and scope of practice.
• Meaningful collaboration to rethink the scope, focus and role of future stammering therapy for CYP & adults.
• Open, public debate about social and ethical implications of research in the fields of neuroscience and genetics.
• Research into what matters for people who stammer.
• Balanced investment of funding.
• Accessible research findings & conferences.

<hr>

Still it appears to us that the answer will be forthcoming if we as a field are serious about engaging in a partnership between researchers and the population of people who stutter, for people who stutter can provide the most meaningful metric for determining whether a treatment is viable.

— Yaruss & Quesal (2004)

<hr>

It is critical for professionals to realise that people with lived experience are best situated to drive the effort for changing how our society thinks about stuttering. Professionals bring resources and credibility to the table which can be very important for public attitude change, and they can play a supportive role to improve social conditions. However, people who stammer themselves are best positioned to promote the agenda of their community in terms of actions and policies that effect their lives.

— Boyle (2019)