Society for the Study of Social Problems

Fragile Facades: Stuttering and the Strategic Manipulation of Awareness Author(s): Michael Petrunik and Clifford D. Shearing Source: Social Problems, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Dec., 1983), pp. 125-138 Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society for the Study of Social Problems Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/800204 Accessed: 19/09/2008 21:47
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of California Press and Society for the Study of Social Problems are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Problems.

http://www.jstor.org

SOCIALPROBLEMS,Vol.31, No. 2, December1983

AND STUTTERING FACADES: FRAGILE MANIPULATION OFAWARENESS* THESTRATEGIC PETRUNIK MICHAEL

of the SolicitorGeneral, Governmentof Canada Ministry

CLIFFORD D. SHEARING
Universityof Toronto We examine Thisis a studyof howstutterers strategies cope withtheirdisability. or disorderand identity used to manageinteractional by concealing, revealing, disabilities: the Thisoffersinsights intothe waypeoplemanage avowing stuttering. strateandspontaneous of premeditated articulation tactics,andhowmanagement of disability. gies shape,andare shapedby,the experience
Stuttering is a puzzling disorder of human communication which has defied explanation and cure for thousands of years (Van Riper, 1971:2). According to survey estimates in Europe and North America, stutterers constitute about 1 percent of the school-age population, regardless of language or dialect (Bloodstein, 1981:79;Van Riper, 1971:39). Although systematic data are not available - there are only impressionistic accounts from anthropologists - stuttering appears to be less common in non-western, non-industrial societies.' Stuttering typically appears between two and nine years of age. There is some evidence that stuttering has a genetic basis; it tends to appear in successive generations of the same family and frequently in identical twins (Bloodstein, 1981: 94). Stuttering is more common among males than females, by a ratio of three or four to one (Bloodstein, 1981:86). Only about one fifth of those who stutter in early childhood continue to stutter into adulthood (Bloodstein, 1981:86;Van Riper, 1971:45). Stuttering, as visible behavior, refers to interruptions in speech involving the prolongation or repetition of sounds or words, pauses between words or syllables, and "blocking" on words, sometimes accompanied by extraneous sounds such as grunts, facial grimaces, body movements, and postural freezing as the person struggles to "get the word out." These speech difficulties can range from a split second to, in the worst cases, about a minute (Bloodstein, 1981:3). Like other perceived impairments, stuttering interferes with "the etiquette and mechanisms of communication" (Goffman, 1963:103) and disrupts the "feedback mechanics of spoken interaction" (1963:49). Depending on the social context, the culture, and the health and social status of the speakers (Petrunik, 1977:37), persons who unintentionally and chronically deviate from fluency standards are likely to be defined as stutterers and subjected to various penalizing social reactions, including pity, condescension, embarrassment, amusement, ridicule, and impatience (Johnson, 1959:239; Lemert, 1967.:135).

* An earlierversionof this paperwas presented by Petrunikat the annualmeetingsof the Societyfor the thankJohnGilmore andthe anonymous Social Toronto,August,1981.Theauthors Studyof SocialProblems, for theircomments.Correspondence to: Petrunik,53 WestfieldCrescent,Nepean,OnProblemsreviewers tarioK2G,OT6, Canada,or Shearing, of Toronto,Toronto,Ontario Centre of Criminology, M5S University 1Al, Canada. is provided in Bloodstein 1. A good summary Someobservers havereported an absenceof stutter(1981:103). MidwestIndiantribessuchas the Utes, the Shoshone,and the Bannock ing amongcertainNorthAmerican (Johnson, 1944, 1944b;Snidecor, 1947). Other studies (Clifford, 1965;Lemert, 1967: 135; Sapir, 1915; Indiantribes. Stewart,1959;VanRiper,1946)havenotedthatthisis by no meanstruefor all NorthAmerican those on the Pacific Northwest coast of Canada) Both Lemertand Stewartfound that tribes(particularly and whichplacedmoreemphasison selfand stricter whichencouraged practices, child-rearing competition also offereda similarexplanation for a control, reportedmore instancesof stuttering.Lemert(1967:146) among Japanesethan Polynesians. higherincidenceof stuttering

126

AND SHEARING PETRUNIK

of stuttering varies.No one stuttersall the time. Indeed,thereare The extentand frequency some situationsin whichvirtuallyall stutterers are fluent, for example,when singing,speaking and speakingto themselves,animals, and in unison with others (includingother stutterers), areoften morefluentwhenspeakingwith a drawl,accent,or difinfants.In addition,stutterers stutteron some wordsor soundsbut not ferentpitch (Petrunik,1977:34, 71). Some individuals "I alwaysstutteron the word'coffee'.") others.("Ican neversay 'g's'." Settingis also important. than they do in face-to-faceconversation; Many stuttermore duringtelephoneconversations othersfind speakingto strangers difficult;still othersaremorefluentin formalthan particularly havegood periodsand bad periods.("Somedays I informalsituations,or vice versa.Stutterers Thereare evensome actorsand enterwakeup and I'm fine, otherdays I'min for hell all day.") tainerswho stutterbut who are fluent when playinga role or facing an audience. offersvaluableinsightsinto how people the waysstutterers cope with theirstuttering Studying and the disabilities stigmaassociatedwith themby potential (Freidson,1965) manageperceived and thus obscured(Davis, 1961).This for are taken that usually granted, processes highlighting been has the to the of by Kitsuse(1980) recently employed identify general strategy using specific whichestablish to examinethe processes who has used the "comingout of the closet"metaphor Kitsuse's and Conrad(1980)havedeveloped identities.Schneider new and legitimate analysisby is "noclear where there information discreditable how to examine personsmanage usingepilepsy .. subavailable 'new' "no where and or from" to to move supportive. readily (1980:32) identity cultureexists"(1980:33). thaninteractional and Conrad,focuson identityrather order,and BothKitsuse,and Schneider Webroaden ratherthan moment-to-moment and plannedmanagement on calculated strategies. of creatingacceptable this analysisby examining: (1) how people coordinatethe requirements how identitiesand orderlyinteraction; thoughtout in strategies management they integrate (2) withthose selectedon a moment-to-moment advance experience basis;and (3) how the subjective of disabilitytogether with the reactionsof others, shape the managementprocess (Higgins, 1980;Petrunik, 1983). Stutteringhas three featureswhich facilitatean examinationof these is a potentiallystigmatizing issues. First, stuttering disabilitythat disruptsinteraction.Second, whichtheyexercise over as a function becausestutterers partialbut precarious experience speech and is both of their Third,the experience spontaneous premeditated. control, management speech and others,define and managestuttering. is criticalfor how stutterers, of stuttering After briefly describingour research,we examinethe centralimportanceof stutteringas a use which stutterers We then examinea varietyof strategies by the stutterer. realityexperienced of their stutteringand presentthe fragile facade of normal speech. to manipulateawareness as a benchto Goffman's(1963)analysisof stigmamanagement Althoughwe referthroughout to a moregeneralunderof stuttering contributes how an understanding markin demonstrating standingof stigma, we go beyondGoffman and those who have extendedhis work, such as domainfor sociologiof the experiential the importance in emphasizing Conradand Schneider, cal analysis.
THE RESEARCH

This paper is based upon both our personalexperiencewith stutteringand a variety of between1970and 1983in clinicaland and field studieswhichwe conducted stuttering therapies, life histories, We used observation, methods, including participant qualitative settings. everyday and focussedinterviews. institute with a psychiatric Themajorresearch settingwas a speechpathologyclinicassociated for the observers in a largeCanadiancity.Between1970and 1972we wereparticipant (Petrunik entireperiod, Shearingfor the first year) takingpart in weeklytherapygroupswhichused an of stuttering (VanRiper,1971).A total of 25 individuals approachbasedon the non-avoidance

Stuttering

127

took part during this period, with the numbers present at group sessions ranging from three to 10. Most participants underwent therapy for less than a year (Petrunik, 1977, 1980). A year earlier Shearing had participated, with about 10 others, in a similar program, involving weekly sessions arranged through a private clinic for a year. A second setting was the Webster Precision Fluency Shaping Program, a three-week intensive course based on operant conditioning principles (Webster, 1975), in which Shearing participated with four others in 1980 and Petrunik with two others in 1983. In addition, both authors participated in a course conducted by the late William Kerr,a roving unlicensed speech therapist from the Isle of Jersey. This course was based largely on changing the rhythm of speech. Shearing participated in a three-week, intensive live-in session as an adolescent in Durban, South Africa, in 1954, with about 20 others. Petrunik took a two-week intensive course with nine others in Canada in 1970. Petrunik kept a research diary and collected news clippings, correspondence, and other documents related to the course. He attended several meetings either to introduce or advertise the course or to protest against it. He also maintained contact with six of the nine other stutterers who had participated in the course for at least a year afterwards (Petrunik, 1974:204, 215; 1977:27). Petrunik examined the clinical literatureof speech pathology, biographies and autobiographies of stutterers, works of fiction, the journal of the National Council of Stuttering, a voluntary association of stutterersin Washington, D.C., records from the speech pathology clinic and - with the consent of subjects - personal correspondence and diaries. A few subjects provided detailed written life histories. Petrunik conducted lengthy, formal interviews with 20 stutterersand numerous informal interviews with stutterers,2their families and friends, speech therapists, and medical and para-medical practitioners. Since stuttering varies with situation, circumstance and mood, we tried to see our subjects in as many different settings and for as long as possible. All quotes, unless otherwise attributed, are from our interviews and field notes. THE EXPERIENCE OF STUTTERING is to awakensome morningand find that his disabilityhas I supposethat the hope of everystutterer to makeit seempossible.Thereare days vanished.Thereis just enoughpromiseof this in his experience In suchperiodsof relief, web of wordstripshim only occasionally. when, for some reason,the entangled he may peer back into his other conditionand puzzleover the natureof the oppressive "presence" ... whichmightfade and vanish..... One feels that only an added aberration [hopingthat it] is a transitory for its conquest. will-power,someaccretionof psychicratherthan physicalstrength,shouldbe necessary Yet,try as I might, I could not take the final step. I had come up againstsome invisiblepowerwhichno strengthof will seemedto surmount(Gustavson,1944:466). Like normal speakers, stutterers believe speech is something that should be intentionally controlled. Yet, somehow their words are mysteriously blocked or interrupted. Stutterers experience stuttering as the work of an alien inner force (often referred to in the third person as "it") which takes control of their speech mechanism. Stuttering is something which stutterers feel happens to them, not something they do: "somebody else is in charge of my mouth and I can't do anything about it" (Van Riper, 1971:158). In coping with this subjective reality, stutterers use three general strategies: concealment, of both sexes,rangor observed stutterers we interviewed 2. Whilewe makeno claimsof representativeness, fromblue-collar workers to professionals. We to middleage and in occupations ing in age fromadolescence in additionto English-speaking studiedpersonsfrom a varietyof racial,ethnic,and culturalbackgrounds of Jew,severalItalians,an East Indian,a TIinidadian includinga FrenchCanadian,a Brazilian Canadians, East Indiandescent,a white South African, a South Africanof mixeddescentand a Jamaicanof mixed descent,a Dutchman,and a Chineseman.

128

AND SHEARING PETRUNIK

openness, and disavowal. Concealment strategies involve three principal tactics: avoidance, circumvention, and camouflage. These tactics allow most stutterersto avoid being seen as stutterers part of the time and a few to become secret stutterers.Openness tactics include: treating stuttering as unproblematic, struggle with the "it," and voluntary disclosure. Disavowal- which often calls for the tacit co-operation of others - involves the pretense that stuttering is not occurring when it is obvious that it is. We discuss in turn each of these strategies and their tactics.

CONCEALMENT

Avoidance
The simplest way to conceal stuttering is to avoid speaking. Many stutterers select occupations they think will minimize speaking. Others avoid situations in which they fear stuttering will embarrass them. I neverwentto the dancesat school becauseI was afraidof stuttering and lookingsilly.BecauseI didn't go, I didn'tlearnto danceor mix socially.I alwaysfelt bad whenpeoplewouldask me if I was going to a danceor party.I wouldmakeup some excuseor say that I didn'twantto go. I felt that peoplethought I was some sort of creepbecauseI didn'tgo. Each time I wouldn'tgo becauseof my fears, I felt even weirder. Stutterers avoid specific types of encounter. Instead of using the telephone they will write a letter, "drop in on someone," or go to a store to see if it has the item they want. Stutterers avoid particular words, substituting "easy" words for "hard"ones. Word substitution sometimes results in convoluted phrasing in which nothing seems to be addressed directly. If I didn'tdodge and duck, I wouldn'tbe able to carryon a conversation. If I didn'tcircumlocute, I wouldn'tbe able to get certainwordsout at all. Unless I'mcomingin throughthe back door and taking a run at it, I'd neverget it out. Where this tactic proves difficult or impossible, stutterers may structure conversations so others say the troublesome words for them. One way of doing this is by feigning forgetfulness: YouknowwhatI mean,whatwasit we weretalkingaboutthis morning,you know,John has one, it's ah, this is annoying,it's right on the tip of my tongue.... Another tactic is to structure the situation so that someone else will be called upon to do the talking. For example, most stutterers fear they will stutter on their name (Petrunik, 1982:306). To avoid introducing themselves when they meet strangers, stutterers sometimes arrange their entry so that someone who knows them will proceed them into the situation. They then rely on the social conventions governing introductions to compel the other person to introduce them. Similarly, stutterers often fear placing orders in restaurants because here, too, word substitution is difficult. To cope with this situation, stutterers may encourage others to order before them; as soon as an item they would like- or at least find acceptable- is mentioned, they can use words they feel more confident with to duplicate the other person's order: "me too" or "same here."With close associates such cooperation may take on the character of finely tuned team work. Whenwe werevisitingfriendsof oursand I washavingblocks,my wifewouldsometimes get whatseemed to be a slightlyanxiouslook and would quietlysupplythe word. She did this in a way that seemedso if the othersnoticedit. naturalto me that I wondered While the willing cooperation of others, especially intimates, has been well documented (Goffman, 1963:55, 97) a study of stuttering draws attention to how others may unknowingly be coopted to conceal a potential stigma.

Stuttering
Circumvention and Camouflage

129

Stutterers sometimesuse tacticsbasedon timingand rhythmto outsmartthe "it."Using these a knowledgeof both the etiquetteof conversation and the patternsof one'sown tacticsrequires up" momentumto get "past"or "over" stuttering.Some speak quickly,for example,"building handand/or "difficultwords." Othersrhythmically pacetheirspeechwiththe aid of coordinated ones, to esleg movements.Some arrangetheir sentencesso that "easy"wordsprecede"hard" over"trouble theirspeech tablisha "flow" whichcarriesthemuneventfully spots."Othersarrange sounds are said on falling(or rising)pitches.Still others find that changing so that "difficult" their tone of voice, or speakingin dialector with an accent,is helpful. A similartactic involvesdelayingsayinga troublesome worduntil the stutterer feels "it"no to controlspeechand the wordis readyto "comeout."One way of doing this longerthreatens is to introducestartersand fillers(well, like, er, ah, um) into speech,to postponetroublesome wordsuntil the momentwhen they can be said. One stutterer, for example,was walkingalong A sudden a streetwhen a strangerasked him for directions: "Where is the BordenBuilding?" He knewexactlywherethe buildingwas but, to permithim to wait panic grippedthe stutterer. for a momentwhen "it"could be caughtoff guard,he responded: "Well,let me see [pausewith
quizzical expression] oh, ah, near . . . let me see . . . near, I think Spadina and, ah, College."

A variant of this tactic involvesrearranging words. The late British humoristand stutterer, Whiletravelling on a London PatrickCampbell, gavean exampleof this in a televisioninterview. withoutstutterbus, he fearedhe wouldnot be ableto say,"MayI havea ticketto MarbleArch?" he said instead,"MayI havea ticketto that archwhich ing. So, whenthe conductorapproached, is of marblemade?"-which he executedfluently. Wherestutterers fail to outwit the "it"they may attemptto camouflagetheir problemby, for example, visually isolating others from evidence of their stuttering.A teacher who stutters this by writingon the blackboard just as he was aboutto stutter,thereby accomplished disguising a "block"as a pause to write. SecretStutterers Most stutterersavoid detectiononly part of the time. However,some stutterers manageto maintainthe identity of a "normalspeaker" virtuallyall the time. They define themselvesas stutterers not becausethey stutterin secret,like Becker's "secret but because deviants," (1963:11) to an innerpropensity to stutter.Somestutterers theyconfrontand respond reportgoingfor years without overtlystuttering.This fact-that a deviantidentitycan exist in the absenceof visible - adds weight to Jack Katz's(1972)critiqueof those conceptionsof labeling deviantbehavior on devianceas behaviorand ignoredevianceas an inneressenceimputed whichfocus exclusively to individuals.Goffman's (1963:56)refusal to recognizethat stigmatizedpeople may define an individualfrom others themselvesin termsof an inneressenceand "thatwhat distinguishes is the coreof his being"has limitedhis abilityto comprehend how both stigmatized and "normal" people perceivetheir differencesand the consequencesof this for defining their "real"or Some speechpathologists,on the other hand, have long recog"natural" groupings(1963:112). on the basis of theirsubjective nized that stigmatized peopledefinethemselves experience. They referto secretstutterers can be an internalexperience as interiorized, indicatingthat stuttering as well as an externalappearance (Douglassand Quarrington, 1952:378). Interiorized stutterers on preserving a social identityand will go to explace greatimportance it. For example,a self-employed in his early forties businessman traordinary lengthsto preserve concealedhis stutteringfrom his first wife. He confided in his second wife, but continuedto fromhis children. At work,he had his secretary handlepotentially concealhis stuttering trouble-

130

PETRUNIK AND SHEARING

some situations. He would, for example, have her make certain phone calls for him. He claimed he would lose business if his stuttering became known. At one time he fired a secretary who had been working with him for a number of years because he thought her facial expressions showed that she had noticed him stuttering. He took great care not to drink too much or become fatigued so that he would not lose control over his speech. He preferred to entertain at home rather than to go out because he felt he could better regulate his drinking at home. Successful interiorized stutterersdevelop a particular sensitivity to the intricacies of syntax. They "become 'situation conscious' [and display] special aliveness to the contingencies of acceptance and disclosure, contingencies to which normals will be less alive" (Goffman, 1963:111). Avoiding stuttering has many costs. Some tactics exclude the stutterer from fully participating in social life as a "normal person," infringing on the very status the stutterer wishes to preserve. The interactional costs may be relatively trivial (not eating what one really wants in a restaurant, or saying something quite different from what one intended), or far more consequential (depriving onself of a social life or not pursuing a desired occupation). I avoidedgoingto parties, BecauseI wasn'tnormalI thoughtI couldn'tdo normalthingslikeget married. becauseI didn'twantto feel bad, and then I felt bad becauseI didn'tgo and wasn'tmeetingpeopleand havinga good social life. Similarly, the consequences for social identity may be relatively benign (being defined as "quiet" or "shy")or even somewhat flattering (being a "good listener" or a "strong silent type"). On the other hand, avoiding interaction may result in derogatory characterizations ("nervous," "odd," A border crossing incident illustrates how "rude,""affected," "silly,""strange,"or "retarded").3 avoidance can be interpreted as evidence of impropriety: The borderguardaskedme whereI was born. BecauseI was afraidI wouldstutteron "NovaScotia,"I to him. "Letme see now ... it's the ... uh, Maritimes ... uh hesitatedand startedto "ah"and "um" searchof my car and even .." and so on. The outcomeof all this evasionwasthattheymadea thorough to slit my seat covers. threatened The importance which stutterersgive to the costs of concealment determinesthe tactics they use. Some people will do almost anything to avoid stuttering; others prefer to stutter in some situations rather than face the consequences of concealment. at the moteland goingthroughthe ritualof introOn the firstday [of the Kerrcourse]we weregathering ductions.One man put his hand out to me and said, "Mynameis ... uh ... actually. .. my nameis Jim."Afterwards one of the other men in the groupwho had a highlynoticeablestuttershook his head and said, in an aside to me, "Whata fool! I'd ratherstammer my head off than avoidlike that. It looks ridiculous.People must think he's crazy!" OPENNESS

Unproblematic Stuttering
Unlike interiorized stutterers, those with visible and audible speech disruptions find that some audiences become so familiar with their stuttering that they no longer have anything to conceal. ("All my friends know I stutter. I can't hide my stuttering long enough.") These stuttererssimply go ahead and speak without thinking about the consequences. As a result, particularly when speaking with persons who know their problem, they can be barely conscious of their stuttering. WithEvelyn,if you askedme, I neverstutter.If therewas a tape recorder going it mightshowthat I was But I don't notice it and it doesn'tbotherme. I don't have any troubletalkingto her on the stuttering. phone unlessothersare there. for a parallelbetweenstutterers and the hardof hearing. 3. See Goffman(1963:94)

Stuttering

131

At the sametime those who knowstutterers well seemless consciousof theirstuttering. Spouses and friendsremarked: Youknow, sinceI'vegot to knowyouwell,I hardly evernotice yourstuttering. Youknow, I forget sometimes he stutters. I notice hisstuttering I'mmore I don't others arepresent. conscious of it. At other care. times, onlywhen Goffman(1963:81) of a stigmatized because person's arguesthat friendsareless aware problem are familiar In of critical is its more with the the case what is they stigma. stuttering,however, - "howmuchit interferes obtrusiveness withthe flow of interaction" rather (Goffman,1963:49) than merevisibility.Whenstutterers arewith friendsthey feel less constrained to meetthe exactwhich in because both talk other circumstances, requires ing requirements partiesdevelopidiowhich rules enable them to become less on such as syncratic dependent things precisetiming.For in and friends conversations between stutterers their silencescan ceaseto be example, telephone in the a or as cues end of turn a break the interpreted indicating telephoneconnection. speaking Once such understandings aredevelopedstutterers feel less pressure to accountfor theirproblemsor to workat concealingand controlling the "it"; as a subjective thus,the senseof stuttering wanes. For who learn to stutterers presence speakfluentlyby meticulously learninga new set of behaviors the of an "it" as speech (Webster, 1975), experience stuttering may fade awaybecause with their speechundercontrolthere is no longer any need to account for stuttering.4 Strugglingwith the "It" who find it difficult to concealtheir stuttering Stutterers face the additionalproblemof how to conversewith people who take interruptions in the speechof stutterers as a signalto resume talking themselves.Stutterers attemptto avoid this by makingtwo claims:first, that they are of talk;and second,that theyhavenot relinthe conventions competentpersonswho understand quishedtheir speakingturn-even though they are lapsing into unusuallylong silences-and shouldbe permitted to continuespeakinguninterrupted. Theseclaimsare important to the stutin conversation tererbecausetogethertheyprovide the basisfor participation and for maintaining an acceptable makethese claimsis by confronting a block "headon" identity.One waystutterers and tryingto forceout the wordor sound:a typicalpatternis a deep breathfollowedby muscle and regain the interruption tensionand visiblestrainas the stutterer attemptsto "break through" control of speech. The late Japanesenovelist Yukio Mishima (1959:5)vividly describedthis "Whena stutterer is struggling to utterhis first soundhe is like a little phenomenon: desperately bird that is tryingto extricateitself from thick lime." demonstrate to those they are By makingvisiblethe "I/it"conflictthroughstruggle,stutterers with that and are have not their turn conversing they given up speaking doing their utmost to in their speech.This processof externalizing limit the interruption enablesstutterers stuttering to sharewith otherstheirexperience of stuttering as a mysterious intrusive force.By demonstratof speechis not intentional(Blumand McHugh, ing that their deviationfrom the conventions 1971;Goffman, 1963:128, 143;Mills, 1940)they hope to persuadeothersto bearwith them and the norms othersadhereto. not to regardthem as outsiderswho reject,or do not understand, that others The strugglethat stutterers engage in is the "stigmasymbol"(Goffman, 1963:46) as stuttering. aretryingto remedyin a classic recognize Strugglefeedsinto the troublesstutterers to the very social conventionsthat vicious circle:stutteringis in part a productof attachment stutterers struggleto avoid breaking. 4. While thecontinued maintencanbeachieved andthesense asan"it" candisappear, of stuttering fluency - through anceof fluency is quite achieved whatever another matter. Time andagain those whohave fluency

means- find themselves evenyearslater (Perkins,1979;Sheehan,1979, 1983). relapsing,

132

PETRUNIK AND SHEARING

This analysis is supported by evidence that some members of the British upper classes view stuttering (or stammering as it is referredto in Britain) as a mark of distinction (Kazin, 1978:124; Shenker, 1970:112).They openly cultivate stuttering as a display of their superior social status and expect others to wait at their convenience. These persons make no apology for their stuttering and accordingly do not struggle with it to demonstrate its involuntary character. Consequently, their stuttering typically takes the form of a "slight stammer" characterizedby relaxed repetitions and hesitations without any of the facial distortions associated with struggle.

Disclosure Voluntary
Like concealment, struggle also involves costs. Stuttering presents the listener with the problem of knowing how to sustain an interaction punctuated with silences, prolongations, and facial contortions. As one observer noted: is struggling to say something? ShouldI help him by saying Whatam I supposedto do whena stutterer the word-because I usuallyknowwhathe is tryingto say-or am I supposedto wait?Thenif you wait, It can be awful. And then thereis just no what do you do? Am I supposedto watchhim struggling? knowingwhat to do with the time. It can be a long wait. It's embarrassing. One way stutterers deal with this, and with the fear of exposure in the case of concealment, is by voluntarily disclosing their stuttering (Van Riper, 1971:211)in much the same manner as epileptics (Schneider and Conrad, 1980). The personwho has an unapparent, valuedattributeoften finds it expedientto begin an ennegatively counterwith an unobtrusive admissionof his own failing,especiallywith personswho are uninformed about him (Goffman, 1967:29). Stutterers who make public speeches may begin by referring to their problem so their audiences won't be unduly shocked. One university professor started off each term by talking about his stuttering and inviting students to ask questions about it. Another began his courses by deliberately stuttering, so that he would not create expectations of fluency that he might later fail to meet. Stutterers sometimes indicate the involuntary nature of their disability by apologizing or by noting that their present stuttering is worse than usual. Through such tactics they, in effect, argue that the stigmatized and normal categories represent poles of a continuum, and that they are much further toward the normal end of this continuum than their present behavior would suggest. In doing so, stutterers typically take advantage of the fact that while struggling with some sound or word they can often make fluent asides which display their relative normality. We went to the shh- shh- (s's alwaysgive me trouble)shh- show last night. I was talkingto K- K-en (Wow!I had a hardtime on that one) and he was saying.... Other stutterers put listeners at ease with retrospective accounts such as, "Boy, I'm having a hard time today. I must be really tired." Sometimes humor is used to anticipate and defuse confusion or embarrassment. One stutterer told people at informal gatherings to "go ahead and talk amongst yourselves if I take too long about saying anything." A teacher attempted to put his students at ease by inviting them to "take advantage of my stuttering to catch up on your note-taking." Other stutterers use humor to claim more desirable identities for themselves. I use humora lot now. If I'm havinga problem,I'll makea commentlike, "Boy,it's a problemhavinga big mouthlike mineand not beingable to use it." WhenI'm havinga hardtime gettingout a wordin a storeI'll say somethinglike, "Three tries for a quarter." Once a waitress startedguessingwhen I blocked givingmy orderand kept on guessingand guessingwrong.Everyso often, I wouldsmile and say, "You was laughingbut they werelaughingat her, not me. just keep guessing." Everyone

Stuttering

133

Stutterers may also take a more aggressive stance. By pitting themselves against the listener, they indicate that they refuse to allow others to use their stuttering to belittle them. One of our respondents referred to this as the "fuck you, Mac" approach. I challengethe listener.I can makea game out of it. I look them straightin the eye and in my mindtell them to "fuckoff." I might stutterlike hell, but so what. It doesn'tmake them any betterthan me. In using this strategy stutterers attempt to disavow the implications that they suspect others will draw about their lack of control over speech by displaying "cool." This strategy draws its impetus from the fear that many stutterershave that they will be seen as nervous and easily ruffled persons when they perceive themselves as normal persons in every respect other than their inability to control speech. Another non-apologetic, but less aggressive, strategy that is occasionally used is one in which the stutterer systematically attempts to redefine stuttering as a "new and proud identity" (Schneider and Conrad, 1980:32)and to use this new identity as a means of getting stuttering "out of the closet" (M. Katz, 1968; Lambidakis, 1972). Some of our respondents reported that talking about their problem to new acquaintances proved to be a good way of gaining rapport. Revealing one's weakness to another can be a way of appearing honest, frank, and "more human." Others claimed that their efforts to overcome their "handicap" had strengthened their character. A few (e.g. Van Riper, Sheehan, and Douglass) have even used their personal experience of stuttering professionally, in therapy and research, to gain knowledge and rapport with patients and/or subjects. Even in occupations such as sales or journalism, where stuttering might ordinarily be seen to be a great handicap, some stutterers have used stuttering to their advantage. A Canadian journalist was said to have "disarmed"those he interviewed with his stuttering so that they were sympathetic toward him and unusually frank. A salesman had his business cards printed: "B-BBob G-G-Goldman the stuttering Toyota salesman." Public figures sometimes use their stuttering as a trademark and a means to success. Some examples are the comedian "Stuttering Joe" Frisco, the humorist Patrick Campbell, and the country and western singer Mel Tillis. In his autobiography, Campbell (1967:212) reports how his stuttering on British television made him famous: Whilemakingthe gingerale commercials I looked upon my stammer as a nuisance that wouldhaveto be to haveendlesstakes.. . . AlthoughI didn'tcareto think playeddownas muchas possibleif we weren't about this aspectof it too much I did realizethat my stammerfitted ratherneatlyinto their campaign, the essenceof whichwas neverto mentionthe word'Schweppes', but merelyto mentionthe first syllable 'sch-', and that was quite enoughfor me in everyway. It wasn'tuntil nearlya year later [whenaskedto advertise butter]that I realizedmy mistake.[Again triedto controlhis stuttering. The producer calledhim asideand said]"I don'tknowquitehow Campbell to put this- but could we havea little moreof your trademark on the word'butter'?". . .I'd been trying to suppressthe very thing it seemedthat everyone wanted. Reflecting on his "asset," Campbell claimed that while he tried to put the best possible light on it, he never really became proud of his identity as a stutterer. The frequent and fleeting gains did not offset the losses that recurred day after day. If I was offeredby some miraculous curethe opportunity neverto stammer overnight again,I'd acceptit without hesitation,even thoughit meantthe end for me of television(1967:213). DISAVOWAL While stutterers sometimes try to put listeners at their ease by drawing attention to themselves, there are often circumstances in which they prefer to define their stuttering out of existence. To do this successfully, they need the tacit cooperation of their listeners. Both parties must share the assumption that the embarrassment and awkwardness associated with stuttering and attempts to

134

PETRUNIK AND SHEARING

controlit are best dealt with by actingas if the stuttering werenot happening.This providesa "phantomnormalcy"(Goffman, 1963:122). By overlookingstuttering,both parties act as if unusual is "nothing happening"(Emerson,1970)ratherthan acknowledgesomethingwhich would requirea responsefor which no sharedguidelinesexist. This tactic leaves intact the stutterer's statusas a normaland competent personand the other'sas a decentand tactfulperson who avoidsneedlessly as Safilios-Rothschild others. Tactful embarrassing overlooking, (1970:129) has suggested,is normatively prescribed: of anydegree of aversion felttoward thedisabled, thenon-disabled arenormatively notperRegardless to show in anywayandtheir fearof making ora non-verbal mitted thesenegative a verbal feelings "slip" renders andrigid. theiremotions theinteraction indicating quiteformal The importance of tacit disavowal of stuttering is indicatedby the anxietysome stutterers feel when they entera situationwherethey know it cannot, or will not, be ignored.Conversations with little childrenare one example. is wrong time. know andtheydon't hideit. Mylittlenephew Children They something givemethehardest I tried in frontof thefamily. mouth to explain to meterribly He said"your moves embarrassed funny." himthatI hadsomething withmymouth withtheir hadsomething wrong wrong justlikeotherpeople earsor theireyes. Another exampleis where stutterersare forced to watch and listen to themselvesor others stuttering.Just as many fat people avoid scales and mirrors(Himelfarband Evans, 1974:222), and audio and video tape recorders. stutterers areoften shun mirrors Similarly, manystutterers in the speechclinic covertheir uncomfortable watchingothers stutter.We witnessedstutterers faces with theirhandsor evenwalk out of the room ratherthan witnessanotherpersonstutter. in some casesto be experienced fromstuttering Theseattemptsto distancethemselves appeared of the bodyandthe self througha loss or blurring of self-awareness. Stutterers as a disassociation of what and not beingaware out of the situation" at the momentof stuttering talkedof "slipping experiencea they or othersweredoing when they "returned." Duringthese periods,stutterers Timeappears to stopso ScottandLyman,1968)fromthe situation. "timeout"(Goffman,1967:30; thatwhenspeechresumes it is as if the blockdidnot occur.Thissenseof timehavingstopped,and of stuttering someoccurringoutsidethe situation,is symbolizedby the frozenposes stutterers times adopt at the momentof stuttering: gesturesare stopped,only to be resumedonce speech continues.Forexample,one stutterer "blocked" on a wordjust as he was aboutto tap regularly in his block, the ash off his cigarettewith his finger.Duringthe few secondshe was "caught" Whenhe released his fingerremained the sound, poised,frozenan inch or so abovehis cigarette. the finger would simultaneously tap the ash into the ashtray. and theirlisteners Stutterers by severing eyecontact.Normally, managetime outs cooperatively people who are conversingindicatetheir attentiveness by facial expressionsand eye contact, in the interaction. thattheyarelisteningandinvolved By breaking eyecontact thereby reaffirming and theirlisteners at the momentof stuttering, stutterers jointlydisengagefromthe conversation is refromthe interaction. The momentfluentspeechreturns and excludestuttering engagement established confirmtheir mutualsubterfuge througha renewalof eye contact;the participants by actingas if nothinghad happened.Duringtime outs listenersmay also confirmtheir disensuchas assuming an airof nonchalance, unrelated, by doingsomething gagement shuffling papers, surthe immediate glancingthrougha magazineor a book, fiddlingwith an object,or surveying are not "in"the conversation. roundings.These signalsindicatethat the participants Whilestruggling to "geta wordout"stutterers mayaverttheirfacesor hide theirmouthswith in the social significanceof sight difference theirhands.This phenomenon revealsan apparent as with the time out, both parties and hearing.Duringthis obscuringof the sight of stuttering,

Stuttering

135

is doing her awarethat stuttering is taking place, and indeedthat the stutterer are presumably or his best to "getpast the block"and resumethe conversation. Yet,at the sametime, stuttering is denied.It is as if throughthe "thindisguises" whichcontradictory (Goffman, 1963:81) appearancesprovideit is possibleto establishopposingsocial claimsand thus "haveone'scake and eat it too." Time out, besidesresolving the interactional protects problemof how to respondto stuttering, or hides one'svulnerability; it's muchlike the commonresponseof averting youreyeswhenyou see someonenaked.Stutterers at the momentof stuttering; are,in a sense,"naked" accidentally they are without a mask, their front is crumblingand their "rawself" exposed (Goffman, theireyes is a cue to the otherto look awayfrom the stutterer's "nakedness," 1963:16). Averting thus saving both from embarrassment. The stutterers we interviewed expressedthis sense of "nakedness" or vulnerability with descriptions "likea little kid,"and such as "weak," "helpless," "withmy shellremoved." Some evensaid that at the point of stuttering This they felt transparent. can be relatedto the sayingthat the eyesare the mirrorof the soul, whichstemsfrom the belief that the eyesreflectone'strue feelingseventhoughthe rest of one's face may camouflagethem. Loss of eye contact gives stutterers time to recovertheir composure,managethe "unsatishavetheirown factory" imagethat has emerged,and, if possible,projecta new image.Listeners self to consider.Becausethey too may be held partlyresponsiblefor the stutterer's embarrassto ment, they can use loss of eye contactto indicatethat they did not intendthe embarrassment happenand, above all, that they are not amusedor uncomfortable. Whilethe tacticof mutualdisavowal is usuallya situationalone the commentof one stutterer we interviewed indicatesthat in some cases it can be much more pervasive: Ever sinceI wasa young childI can't remember ever It seemed myparents directly mentioning stuttering. obvious I stuttered, thattheysawmestuttering, andtheyknew buttheynever saidanything. TheonlyincidentI canremember is myfather a couple of times. I feltbadly about that.Nothing singing "K-K-Katy" direct wasever brother mea lotof trouble. Buthenever said,even bymybrothers. Myyounger always gave mentioned once.I wondered if myparents toldthem notto sayanything. didmake stuttering Myparents lotsof references to meas nervous, andwere ordifferent, to take sensitive, always theywere saying going meto thedoctor formynerves. Butexcept forbrief onvery references fewoccasions, never mentioned they aboutstuttering. anything In such cases, the disavowalof stigmais extendedacrossentiresituations.This requiresothers to tacitly agreeto ignorethe stigmain all encounterswith the stigmatizedperson.
DISCUSSION

Our study of stutteringprovidesa vehicleto elaborateupon and extendthe work of Davis, to Goffman, Schneiderand Conrad, and others on the strategicmanipulationof awareness managepotentialstigma.The implicationsof our analysisalso extendbeyondstigmamanagementto a consideration of the importance of the experiential dimensionfor the construction of social order.Becausethe stutterer finds problematic what otherstake for granted,the stutterer's social world is the world of everyman writ large. In our consideration of stuttering we havedeveloped threemajorlines of argument. First,our shows the of well as as behavior when analysis importance consideringsubjectiveexperience the of and the construction of interactional order. Stutterers studying management identity engagein the ongoing creationof a subjective realitywhich at once shapes,and is shapedby, the managementstrategiesthey employ to regulateawareness of their disabilityand claim or disown identities.This considerationof the subjectiveexperienceof stutteringsupportsJack Katz's(1972)argumentthat deviancetheory should recognizethat people sometimesperceive devianceas an inneressenceindependent of behavior.In addition,our analysisextendsrather

136

PETRUNIK AND SHEARING

than simply elaborates upon Goffman's work, for though he writes of "ego" or "felt" identity, which he defines as "the subjective sense of [the stigmatized person's] own situation" (1963:105), he does not develop this concept. Second, we have shown that the management of potential stigma can involve strategies conceived of, and executed, on a moment-to-moment basis, in addition to the premeditated strategies that have attracted most sociologists' attention. Advance planning was usually necessary where stutterers tried to conceal their problem through role avoidance. In speaking situations, management became more spontaneous: stutterersselected strategies in the light of opportunities and difficulties which arose in the course of interaction. In both cases, concealment strategies were marked by a high level of self-consciousness. When stutterersused openness or disavowal, however, only voluntary disclosure was consciously employed. Both struggling to overcome the "it" and time outs were non-calculated, though, especially in the latter case, stutterers were quick to recognize these tactics as coping and "restorativemeasures" (Goffman, 1963:128)once they were brought to their attention. Finally, we have called attention to the fact that stutterers, like other stigmatized persons, seek to manage two interrelated, yet analytically distinguishable, problems. They are concerned both with preserving an acceptable identity and with preserving orderly interaction so that they can get on with the business of living. In exploring this issue we have shown how stuttererssometimes find themselves in situations in which it is not possible to simultaneously achieve both these objectives and thus are required to choose between them. The repertoire of tactics stutterers develop, and by implication the limits they place on their involvement in social life, depend on the importance they attach to these objectives. REFERENCES Becker,HowardS. New York:The FreePress. 1963 Outsiders. Bloodstein,Oliver 1981 A Handbookon Stuttering. Chicago:NationalEasterSeal Society. Blum, Alan, and PeterMcHugh 1971 "Thesocial ascriptionof motives."AmericanSociologicalReview36 (February):98-109. Campbell,Patrick 1967 My Life and Easy Times.London:AnthonyBlond. Clifford,S. in South DakotaIndians." CentralStatesSpeechAssociationJournal26 (February): 1965 "Stuttering
59-60.

Davis, Fred Social The management of strained interaction disavowal: 1961 "Deviance by the visiblyhandicapped." Problems9 (Fall):120-132. Douglass,Ernest,and BruceQuarrington Journalof Speechand of interiorized and exteriorized 1952 "Differentiation secondarystuttering." HearingDisorders17 (December):377-385. Emerson,Joan unusualis happening." 1970 "Nothing (ed.),HumanNatureand ColPp. 208-223in ThomasShibutani lectiveBehavior. EnglewoodCliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Freidson,Elliot as socialdeviance." 1965 "Disability Pp. 71-99 in MarvinSussman(ed.), Sociologyand Rehabilitation. D.C.:AmericanSociologicalAssociation. Washington, Goffman,Erving 1963 Stigma.EnglewoodCliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Ritual.GardenCity,N.Y.:Doubleday-Anchor. 1967 Interaction Carl Gustavson, Journalof Speech30(1):465-471. 1944 "A talismanand a convalescence." Quarterly Higgins,Paul C. back in."SymbolicInterdisabled:Bringingthe impairment 1980 "Socialreactionand the physically action 3 (Spring):139-156.

Stuttering

137

Himelfarb, Alex, and John Evans A study of obesity."Pp. 221-232 in Jack Haas disavowaland stigmamanagement: 1974 "Deviance and Stewart. and Bill Shaffir(eds.), Decencyand Deviance.Toronto: McClelland Johnson,Wendell in children." 1944a "TheIndianhas no wordfor it: Part 1, Stuttering Journalof Speech30 Quarterly (October):330-337. in adults."Quarterly Journalof Speech30 1944b "The Indianhas no word for it: Part 2, Stuttering (December):456-465. of Minneapolis Press. 1959 The Onset of Stuttering. University Minneapolis: Katz, Jack behavior." 1972 "Deviance, Social Problems20(2):186-202. charisma,and rule-defined Katz, Murray Journalof the Councilof Adult Stutterers 1968 "Stuttering power." (January):5. Kazin,Alfred 1978 New YorkJew.New York:RandomHouse. Kitsuse,John I. 1980 "Coming out all over:Deviants 28 (October): andthe politicsof socialproblems." SocialProblems 1-13. Elenore Lambidakis, 1972 "Stutterers' lib."Journalof the Councilof Adult Stutterers (Winter):4-6. Lemert,Edwin 1967 HumanDeviance,Social Problemsand Social Control.EnglewoodCliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Mills, C. Wright 1940 "Situatedaction and vocabulariesof motives."AmericanSociologicalReview5 (December): 904-913. Mishima,Yukio 1959 The Templeof the GoldenPavilion.New York:A.A. Knopf. Perkins,William 1979 "From to discoordination." About psychoanalysis Pp. 97-129in HugoGregory (ed.),Controversies Park Press. Baltimore: Stuttering Therapy. University Petrunik,Michael 1974 "Thequest for fluency:Fluencyvariations and the identityproblems and management strategies of stutterers." Pp. 201-220in Jack Haas and Bill Shaffir(eds.),Decencyand Deviance.Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. 1977 "Thequestfor fluency:A studyof the identityproblems and management of adultstutstrategies terers and somesuggestions for an approach to deviance Ph.D. dissermanagement." Unpublished of Toronto. tation, University 1980 "Stutterers to non-avoidance deviancetheoryas a proadaptations therapy:Primary/secondary fessional treatmentideology."Paper presentedat the annual meetingsof the Society for the Study of Social Problems,New York, August. 1982 "Telephone troubles: and its management Interactional breakdown and theirlisteners." by stutterers 5 (Fall):299-310. SymbolicInteraction A critique 1983 "Being deviant: of the neglectof the experiential in sociological dimension constructions of deviance." Paper presentedat the annual meetingsof the Society for the Study of Social Problems,Detroit,August. Constantina Safilios-Rothschild, 1970 The Sociologyand SocialPsychology of Disability and Rehabilitation. NewYork: Random House. Sapir,Edward 1915 Abnormal Memoir62, Anthropological Typesof Speechin Nootka. Canadian GeologicalSurvey, SeriesNo. 5. Ottawa:Government PrintingBureau. Schneider, JosephW., and PeterConrad 1980 "Inthe closet with illness:Epilepsy,stigmapotential,and information control." Social Problems 28 (October):32-44. Scott, MarvinB., and StanfordLyman AmericanSociologicalReview33 (February):44-62. 1968 "Accounts." Sheehan,Joseph issueson stuttering 1979 "Current About recovery." Pp. 175-209in Hugo Gregory (ed.), Controversies Baltimore: Park Press. Stuttering University Therapy. 1983 "Invitation to relapse." The Journal,NationalCouncilon Stuttering (Summer):16-20. Shenker,Israel becomesfashionable." 1970 "Stammer Globe and Mail (Toronto), November12:12. Snidecor,John 1947 "Whythe Indiandoes not stutter." Journalof Speech33 (December):493-495. Quarterly

138

MILLER

Stewart,Joseph in certainNorth Americansocieties.Journalof Speechand Hearing 1959 "Theproblemof stuttering Disorders(Monograph Supplement 6):1-87. Van Riper,Charles 1946 "Speechdefects among the Kalabash." MarquetteCounty Historical Society 8 (December): 308-322. 1971 The Natureof Stuttering. EnglewoodCliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Ronald Webster, for Stutterers. 1975 ThePrecision Roanoke, Virginia: Fluency Shaping Program: SpeechReconstruction Communication Development Corporation.