The O-Word
In this opinion piece, Tim Shanks challenges STAMMA's stance on using the term 'overcome' with regards to stammering, as well as some of our messaging.
STAMMA does not want to use the word 'overcome' in relation to stammering (Ed: see our Finding the Right Words page, where our guidelines suggest to 'Avoid saying that people 'defeat' or 'overcome' their stammer. It can't be cured'). Not wanting to use this word surely alienates people who stammer who want to overcome their stammer — and not always for reasons of societal disapproval. I think STAMMA should use the word.
When STAMMA was launched in 2019, overcoming stammering with costal breathing was getting a lot of publicity (Ed: the ITV documentary 'School for Stammerers' screened in 2018, which followed a group of people on a McGuire Programme course). As far as I am aware, STAMMA felt that society would see this as a cure and feel that we should all overcome it. I have never seen that attitude myself in society. There is just an obvious prejudice and discrimination which STAMMA should campaign against — and does so very well.
I believe the real drive to overcome stammering comes not from society, but from people who stammer responding to the claims of unqualified people who stammer like Dave McGuire (Ed: founder of the McGuire Programme). The speech and language therapy profession does not claim to cure or overcome stammering. I think STAMMA seems to have McGuire on the defensive and he now claims to be promoting 'articulate eloquence' rather than fluency or overcoming stammering. To be fair, he has never explicitly promised a cure.
I believe people, stammering and language (including semantics) are all complicated — so talking and writing about stammering is especially complicated. I do find some of STAMMA's statements confusing and contradictory. I think this is because there is an unresolvable tension that STAMMA understandably struggles with — promoting acceptance of stammering to society, while not judging people who do not want to accept their own stammering. This tension is because STAMMA have two different audiences — people who stammer and people who do not stammer. When you are promoting acceptance to people who do not stammer you are implicitly promoting acceptance to those who do stammer. This could be seen as a negative judgement on those who want to overcome it.
STAMMA has the value of "It is not our place to make judgements about if or how people choose to manage their stammer" (Ed: See Our Mission). I am presuming this means both negative and positive judgements? I do not think that STAMMA upholds this value by praising Joe Biden for 'sounding fluent'. This a positive judgement.
If STAMMA wants to be truly non-judgemental, it should refrain from making any comments, positive or negative, about how people deal with their stammer. This could be left to professional speech and language therapists or to individual people who stammer themselves.
I feel there is an assumption in the social model of disability about stammering that if society was accepting, all would be well for people who stammer. I am not sure if this is true.
When I returned to BSA/STAMMA in 2020 after two decades away, STAMMA was embracing the social model of the disability of stammering with their 'It's How We Talk' campaign to society.
I feel there is an assumption in the social model of disability about stammering that if society was accepting, all would be well for people who stammer. I am not sure if this is true. There are other reasons why a person might not want to stammer, or want to stammer less, apart from societal disapproval, and follow a medical model of disability treatment approach to fix and overcome their stammer. I posted recently on STAMMA's Facebook group Space For Stammering, asking if people would still want to be fluent (or more fluent) even if society accepted it — and several people said they would. I assume there are more.
STAMMA is happy to use the phrase of 'sounding fluent' (which to me is the same as overcoming stammering). This is a positive judgement, which I find is also contradictory and confusing. In 2020, CEO Jane Powell praised Joe Biden's "brilliant achievement of sounding fluent" and claimed that he "manages his stammer, so it is rarely seen or heard". Does this mean she also praises avoidance, covert stammering and false fluency? You can understand it — but you do not need to praise it!
Joe Biden himself stated in U Magazine (2021): "Everyone has something they are fighting to overcome and, sometimes, trying to hide. It taught me that there isn't anything that you can't overcome". I find his last sentence excessively optimistic to say the least!
I do not think that Joe Biden is a good role model to society for a person who stammers. That would be a person who openly stammers?
A way out of these dilemmas is to have two tribes, rather than the current one tribe.
Let's keep calling one STAMMA — based on the social model of disability. A narrower church — whose members all want to accept their stammer and stammer openly. This tribe provides support for their members and campaigns against prejudice and discrimination. Let's call the other tribe something else (perhaps the British Stammering Association). They would be more aligned with the medical model of disability and would include people who want to fix or overcome their stammer. They are a broad church supporting all other people who stammer with information and advice. They could also campaign against prejudice and discrimination.
Stamma says:
In response to Tim's article, the word 'overcome' in the context of stammering means different things to different people. At STAMMA, we don't have any concern about people who stammer using the word 'overcome' to describe their own experiences or wishes. If it does, no-one can tell them they're wrong. They know what's true of themselves.
Our concern arises when, for example, the media use the word 'overcome', because they almost always use it in the context of someone experiencing a journey from more stammering to less stammering. 'Overcome' is often used and understood by the media (and members of the fluent public) as a synonym for 'got rid of'. Yet, we know the reality is more nuanced than that.
If someone writes a Your Voice article, or applies to do a workshop at STAMMAFest on, for example, 'How I overcame my stammer', we'd ask them to drill down for the audience on what aspect of stammering they're referring to. For some people, 'overcoming' means overcoming the fear of stammering and choosing to talk (and stammer) more. For others, it might mean choosing to apply for a job they've always wanted because they've decided to face job interviews rather than avoiding them. Or, 'overcoming' to someone else might mean they've found a fluency-shaping technique that helps them to exert control over speaking.
So, it's not the word, per se, that we have a problem with, it's the way that it's used. The concern is that use of it in the media, or mention of 'how I overcame my stammer' in an article, could potentially mislead audiences into thinking that the person has 'cured' their stammer. We think it would be more transparent, as well as more representative of the breadth of the community experience if something different is used that better describes or specifies what the change had been for that particular person.
With regards to Tim's point about Joe Biden, the sentence referred to was in the article 'Joe Biden: A President with a stammer', which contained the sentence "So rather than talking up his brilliant achievement of sounding fluent whilst fighting a historic election, his stammer is talked down."
In retrospect, the particular sentence could have been better articulated. It was a mis-step, but a mis-step in the middle of a much bigger point that Jane was making. The point being that the media tended to perceive and focus on Biden's episodes of stammering as a failing, yet in many ways Biden's position as one of the most important and influential people in the world belied the stereotype of people who stammer as weak or nervous.
As Tim recognises, STAMMA as an organisation has multiple audiences which can make messaging complicated, with a tricky balance to maintain. We don't always get it right, but we do work to improve and refine that messaging constantly. As we aim to represent everyone who stammers, our intention is to not comment, positively or negatively, on the choices individuals make on how they choose to live with their stammering.
Have you got something you'd like to get off your chest or comment on? See Submit Something For The Site or email editor@stamma.org for details.
Join our 'Space for Stammering Facebook group if you'd like to take part in discussions or start one of your own.
Related Links
Become a member
It's free
Join the movement to change how people understand and react to stammering.
Campaign. Fundraise. Connect. Meet. Vote. Talk.
