An open letter to America's Got Talent: It's time to normalize stuttering instead of praising the stigma

When I first saw Amanda Mammana on America’s Got Talent, I was hooked. As a person who stutters, and blocks in a similar way as Amanda, it was surreal seeing someone on national television (and now a viral video) talking the way I do. At the same time, I had a sickening feeling in my stomach. I felt used, abused, misunderstood, and pitied.

Here’s why:  

Problem #1: The title of the video

The YouTube clip is titled, “Singer With Speech Impediment Moves the Judges to Tears”

Stuttering is a difference, not an impediment. Yes, it’s hard to stutter, and for some it can certainly feel like an impediment, but that doesn’t give society the right to call it an impediment. This slight change of semantics actually makes a big difference. Impediment is defined as "a hinderance or obstruction in doing something." Stuttering influences talking and the avoidances associated with it might become a hinderance as the person who stutters avoids situations, changes words, and subsequently has a negative life impact associated with stuttering. The stuttering itself only becomes a hinderance because society makes it that way. Words like impediment only perpetuate the stigma and keep the vicious cycle moving forward. Stuttering is one of the few differences that still seems to be okay to patronize. Why can’t we just use the word stutter? Or why even point it out at all? 

Let’s substitute speech impediment with some other phrases:

“Singer With Depression Moves the Judges to Tears”

“Overweight Singer Moves the Judges to Tears”

“Short Singer Moves the Judges to Tears”

“Singer With Deformed Face Moves the Judges to Tears”

“Immigrant Singer Moves the Judges to Tears”

“Singer with One Leg Moves the Judges to Tears”

I ask you – why is it necessary to point out that part of the person? Is it really relevant? 

The answer is no, it’s not relevant at all. 

Problem #2: Speaking and singing are two different tasks 

My friend and stuttering advocate, Marc Winski, compared the title to the following: “Man with terrible limp brings the judges to tears when he types at his computer.” That doesn’t make sense, I thought. Those are two completely different skills – why would that move the judges to tears?

Then I literally laughed out loud.

That is exactly what's happening here. Singing and speaking are two completely different tasks. Yes, people who stutter don’t stutter when they sing¹. Period. No overcoming, no hard work, just a cold, hard scientific fact. 

When Amanda shares, “I don’t stutter when I sing” everyone cheers. Of course you don’t stutter when you sing, just like a limp in your leg doesn’t impact your ability to type on a computer. 

The line gets blurred because speaking and singing both come from the voice. But stuttering is actually not a voice or speech motor disorder. It’s a complicated, intertwining of motor, cognitive, psychological, and temperamental factors². Stuttering is variable³. It’s not consistent. Sometimes we’re fluent and sometimes we’re not.

AGT chooses to call it a speech impediment, not a singing impediment, for good reason. Amanda does not have any impediment in singing that she suddenly overcame by coming on AGT.

Problem #3: The microaggressions

A microaggression is defined⁴ as “the everyday slights, indignities, put downs and insults that people of color, women, LGBT populations or those who are marginalized experience in their day-today interactions with people.” This is a great video describing the concept in more detail. Even well-intended compliments can be microaggressions and they can significantly impact mental health. 

Examples of microggressions in Amanda's AGT video include: 

• The body language of the judges and audience (jaw drops, eyes bulging, crying, shocked face). What exactly were they reacting to? Because she only sang a few notes by the time these reactions occurred, it’s safe to assume that they were reacting to the transition from stuttered and struggled speech to fluent and "beautiful" singing. 

• Expressions such as “Oh my gosh that’s incredible!” What’s incredible? If you truly thought that her songwriting and singing ability warrant the word “incredible", great. I’m not referring to you. But if like me, you thought she was a terrific singer and talented songwriter, but you’ve heard better singer songwriters, why are we using the word incredible? 

At the end of the clip, we have two different experiences happening simultaneously. Amanda is crying for what to me seems like pride and accomplishment. She got the opportunity to do something she never thought she could do – share her talent with a national audience. The audience seems to be reacting to the “inspiring” way she found to “overcome” her stuttering (singing). 

Microaggressions disguised as compliments abound in the YouTube comments: 

“It’s absolutely remarkable how she escaped her impediment when singing”

“Don’t talk for the rest of your life. Sing for the rest of your life”

“She reminds me that we all have the ability to overcome adversities. And, we are not defined or governed by conditions that try to limit us. She embodies courage. What an inspiration.”

Representation is good, but if it’s not portrayed in the right way, it can backfire... hard. 

Bravery is defined as “ready to face and endure danger or pain.” We who stutter have to be brave because stuttering in our society can have negative consequences. Amanda is brave for showing up, stuttering openly, and introducing herself as a person who stutters without knowing how others would react. She is not brave or courageous for being fluent when she sings. 

Society makes stuttering brave.

But stuttering shouldn't be considered brave, just like any other way of talking or walking or being shouldn't be considered brave. We have little control over whether we stutter a lot or are completely fluent. It’s just a different way of talking. It doesn't warrant praise. 

Problem #4: The portrayal of stuttering in the media still sucks 

The overcome narrative is all over the place. Stella Young, who coined the term inspiration porn, titled her TED talk, "I'm not your inspiration, thank you very much." She describes herself as "a comedian and journalist who happens to go about her day in a wheelchair — a fact that doesn't, automatically turn me into a noble inspiration to all humanity." She refers to inspiration porn as "the objectification of people with disabilities in media, which serves the purpose of making the consumers, people without disabilities, feel good." One type of inspiration porn is when a person with a disability "overcomes" their disability in order to participate in a particular activity. In this case, it's Amanda "overcoming" her stuttering in order to sing. AbleSC describes it nicely - "it makes us feel extra special, when we just want to be considered normal." 

The problem is, inspiration porn sells. People want to see others overcome their struggle. So the narrative persists. 

Bridgerton is a good example of how this narrative sells. Simon, the main character, is characterized on the show as a man who had overcome his childhood stutter with hard work. In the book, Simon's stutter returns intermittently and he must either change his words, avoid talking, or pretend to clear his throat to avoid “tripping over his words” and maintain his status in society. 

I want to get to a place where stuttering is normalized in the media. Where we can have a character who is both handsome, confident, AND stutters. You do not have to overcome your stuttering to be beautiful. 

But until we stop equating stuttering with sadness, pity, less-than, or not confident, we will not be able to get past this narrative. 

I’ve always found it interesting to compare stuttering with weight. There are many differences between the two, but I keep coming back to this analogy because we can learn a lot from how this narrative has changed over time. We have a long way to go, but we are starting to accept that women can be both overweight and beautiful. The message we got for so long was "you can do it"! "You can lose the weight and then you will be sexy and desirable"! With the help of role models like Lizzo, there is increasing representation that weight is just a cultural construct - you don't have to be skinny to be beautiful. 

In the same vein, you do not have to be fluent to be beautiful. But yet, stuttering is still portrayed as something that when is overcome, is truly inspirational. This message is communicated loud and clear in Amanda’s video, when the pity and tears turn to shock and inspiration when she starts to sing. 

Back to the title – Amanda is referred to as a “singer with a speech impediment” because that is the part that is inspirational. That’s the happy story. If we were truly inspired by her song writing or singing ability there would be no reason to title this video as such. Did you even hear her lyrics? Listen to her voice? Or were you just in awe of how fluent she was when she sang? We don’t want to just be listened to, we want to be heard. 

As I was scrolling through the comments on the YouTube video, this one jumped out at me: 

“The emotional and moving aspect almost makes us overlook that she’s also an outstanding songwriter, singer and performer.”

Why can't stuttering be beautiful? Why is it only beautiful when it’s overcome?

It's time to normalize stuttering instead of praising the stigma.

 

References:

1. Andrews, G., Howie, P. M., Dozsa, M., & Guitar, B. E. (1982). Stuttering: Speech pattern characteristics under fluency-enhancing conditions. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 25(2), 208-216.

2. Smith, A. & Weber, C. (2017). How stuttering develops: The multifactorial dynamic pathways model. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60(9), 2483-2505. 

3. Tichenor, S. E. & Yaruss, J. S. (2021). Variability of stuttering: Behavior and impact. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 30(1), 75-88. 

4. Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M., Nadal, K. L., Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice, American Psychologist, 62(4), 271-286.