Questions about “Wretches and Jabberers”

I am hearing that the movie “Wretches and Jabberers” is making the rounds again and, for those of you have not seen it, I thought I would offer a few tips on how to watch the movie.

 First and foremost, this is a promotional film for Facilitated Communication. The technique is used, unapologetically, throughout the film as if it is a legitimate form of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC). It is not. To qualify for AAC, a technique or method must allow individuals to interact with and communicate independently – that is, without the interference of an assistant or facilitator. Few, if any, of the individuals with disabilities featured in the movie type without their assistant holding onto a wrist, elbow, shoulder, shirt sleeve or shirt tail. Some of the facilitators appear camera-savvy and hide their hands below the table or away from the camera’s focal point, but watch carefully, frame by frame, and you can see them cueing their child or client subversively. I wonder why the secrecy? It’s as if the facilitators—and the producers--know that “fading” support to the shirt sleeve or shirt tail does nothing to prevent facilitator cuing but they don’t want the viewers to know it.

2010, the year the movie came out, was the same year Syracuse University changed the name of their “Facilitated Communication Institute” to the Institute on Communication and Inclusion to “fly under the radar” when FC failed to garner support in the scientific community and received bad press for a spate of false allegations of abuse cases. Here’s the quote from a 10/25/15 New York Times article called “The Strange Case of Anna Stubblefield” (emphasis mine):

“Meanwhile, because of past scandals, facilitated communication has been quietly rebranded. In 2010, the Facilitated Communication Institute in Syracuse changed its name to the Institute on Communication and Inclusion. “We need to do more on FC, but we can’t call it that,” said John Hussman, a major donor to the institute who runs a $6 billion mutual fund and whose son uses the technique. He had just given a talk on the neuroscience of what is now often termed ‘supported typing’. “We have to come up with some other name to fly under the radar and maintain credibility.” he said.

My guess is Syracuse needed a feel-good movie to divert attention away from the fact that FC has no scientific evidence to support its claims of independent communication.

 Many people viewing the movie get caught up in the story. As they should. It’s an interesting premise to feature individuals with disabilities experiencing cultures unfamiliar to their own. But, I would challenge you to turn off the emotionally charged sound track and notice the facilitators and their behavior as the movie progresses. You might want to ask yourself some questions:

1. Why is it that the facilitators are not encouraging those individuals in the movie with spoken language abilities to use those skills whenever possible? Surely, that is much more efficient than hauling out a letter board. And, why are the individuals with speaking abilities subjected to FC when they have the demonstrable ability to communicate independently?

2. Why is it facilitators still impose themselves on the typing activity when the individuals shown in the movie have no problem using utensils appropriately to feed themselves, painting with a paintbrush to make fine marks on the paper or canvas, shaving, making waffles, pouring coffee into a mug and carrying it across the room, taking photographs with a polaroid camera, and performing other gross and fine motor skills? Technology exists that allow adaptations for individuals lacking motor control (e.g., tremors, paralysis), but none of the individuals shown in the movie appear to have these specific problems.

3. How is it that facilitators allow individuals to type without looking at the keyboard? This goes against FC guidelines and beyond any facilitator rationalization of individuals being able to perform the task using peripheral vision. Some have their bodies turned away from the board and/or have their hands over their eyes. It is possible to type without frequently looking at the board when the typist uses 10 fingers and a home row as a baseline. The hunt-and-peck method used by every facilitated pair in the movie does not allow for this baseline. Watch as one “master trainer” allows his client to pull his hand 12 inches or more away from the keyboard each time he selects a letter. Try this at home, without looking at the keyboard, and see how accurate your spelling is.

4. How is it that some of the individuals type out messages while saying something completely different? (Hint: the facilitators’ gaze is almost constantly directed to the keyboard, while the people being facilitated may or may not be paying attention to what is being typed).

5. Some of the facilitators grip their client’s arm completely (instead of using a light touch) and, in one case, or use two hands to force the individual’s hand toward the keyboard. How can this possibly be construed as anything but facilitator control over they typing activity?

6. Why do facilitators completely ignore the individuals’ verbal and non-verbal behavior? The clients push and pull at their facilitators, engage in self-harming behavior (e.g., hitting themselves), break free and run into another room while the facilitators continue to insist they engage in FC. In one, prolonged scene, an individual does not want to take his shoes off to enter a temple, but his facilitators insist. This is a grown man saying he does not want to do something, but his protestations are ignored. He was saying no. His non-verbal behavior indicated he meant no, but his facilitators ignored him, then, through facilitation, blamed it on his autism. How is this encouraging independent communication?

7. Why isn’t the viewing audience told these individuals are using FC, that controlled studies consistently reveal facilitator influence far above the level of chance, and that most major health, education, and advocacy organizations have statements opposing its use.

These are just some of the questions the movie raises, but I will leave those for another day.

It’s a shame the producers of “Wretches and Jabberers” got caught up in the mythology of facilitated communication. They’ve missed a huge opportunity to portray individuals with complex communication needs as they are and not what the facilitators want them to be.

Recommended Reading:

Facilitated Communication: Bandwagon endorsements; It all feels good.