Whose Voice Is Represented? A review of an FCed Session
The YouTube video “Finding My Voice” was sent to us by a reader who described it as a “pretty convincing” use of Spelling to Communicate (S2C). As with other videos I have reviewed, my focus is on Facilitated Communication (FC) as a technique, including the question of control over the typing sessions.. This review is not a criticism of the young man featured in the video who is being subjected to FC.
At 7:51 minutes into the video, the Facilitator holds the keyboard in the air. Movement is visible to the naked eye indicates cuing as letters are selected. (From “Finding My Voice,” 2022)
The format of the video follows a familiar pro-FC pattern 1) a bio describing a miraculous “new” communication technique that breaks a non-speaking individual out of a prison of silence; 2) a deliberately angled camera that minimizes the facilitator’s presence on screen, 3) propagandized language that demeans critics of the technique and portrays S2C as a legitimate from of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC).
S2C may be a new-ish name for FC, but the technique itself is neither new nor a miracle. Forms of FC were documented—and rejected—as early as the 1970s. Promoting S2C as “new” is a headline grabber that echoes United States newspaper headlines from as early as 1991.
Breaking the Silence; New technique lets nine-year-old with autism communicate for the first time in her life (The Ottawa Citizen, December 27, 1991)
By Typing, Son Spells Love a Letter at a Time. Typing Unlocks a Trapped Mind: ‘I Can Tell Mom I Love Her’ (The Salt Lake Tribune, December 25, 1991)
‘Miracle’ Technique Lets Teen Transcend Bonds of Autism (Richmond Times-Dispatch, December 2, 1991)
While viewers’ attention is focused on the keyboard, the facilitator supports the individual’s typing arm with her left arm. The back and forth movement corresponds with his outstretched finger when pointing to the keyboard. (From Finding My Voice, 2022).
The narration in pro-FC videos is an effective marketing tool employed to engage viewers emotionally and prime them to accept the story being told, even when facilitator cuing is evident during the typing sessions. Savvy film makers carefully manipulate the camera angle and focus viewers’ attention on specific areas of the screen. FC is strongly linked to the ideomotor phenomenon and automatic writing—both used for centuries by magicians and illusionists who understand the power of distraction to visually fool audiences during their magic tricks. In the case of pro-FC films, cameras are deliberately angled to focus people’s attention on the keyboard and away from the behaviors of facilitators.
Douglas Biklen, in his 1991 article Communication Unbound, skillfully laid the groundwork for facilitators’ belief in FC and these tropes are evident in the introduction to the video being reviewed today:
Isolation and frustration
Unexpected literacy skills and the miracle of facilitated typing
Autism as motor coordination and apraxia (FMI: See Katharine’s blog post)
Purported anxiety using FC in the presence of “doubters”
Presumed competence, avoidance of testing, and faith over evidence in the technique
The facilitator’s body is rigid and her eyes are directed to the keyboard. Her left hand, though hidden, appears to be supporting the young man’s arm as facilitation takes place. (From Finding My Voice, 2022).
In this video, there is very little in the FCed words that convince me they represent Vince’s individual and unique experiences. Instead, the content echoes the pro-FC party line already documented in this “Supported Typing” video, the pro-FC portions of “Prisoners of Silence”, and others. With an evangelistic bent, viewers are urged to “share [my] message with [your] loved ones so we can start making a difference for non-speakers together.” Further, despite Vince’s lack of training as a communication or autism specialist, treatment advice is offered to non-verbal individuals. In two separate instances, S2C is alluded to as a legitimate form of AAC. It is not. (See Systematic Reviews and Opposition Statements). To me, the video, taken as a whole, is not a representation of Vince’s life story, but an advertisement for FC.
Here are a few other things I noticed about the video:
The camera is positioned behind the presenter. It’s unusual to see the speaker’s back during a presentation, but this angle hides most of the facilitator (Rose) and her actions. Sometimes the video is cropped more tightly, further hiding the facilitator’s behavior from view. The audience, too, seems to be to Vince’s left, which, if true, effectively blocks the facilitator from the audience view.
It is not possible to know whether Vince is looking at the letter board during the typing sessions. The keyboard is too far away to know if the letter selections correspond with the letters called out by the facilitator.
When asked “Can you describe, in a sentence or two, what it was like being able to fully communicate for the first time?” the FCed response is almost exactly the same as the one typed by Jonathan Bryan and his two facilitators in a July 2018 YouTube video. Both, purportedly, felt like birds let out of a cage. Again, echoes of FC’s party line.
The facilitator uses verbal and physical cues to “support” (e.g. control) the typing sessions. These cues include holding Vince’s right arm with her left arm (largely hidden from view, but the movements of her bent elbow coincide with the pointing activity), changes in body position, over-attentiveness to the letter board, mouthing words (most of which are inaudible to the audience and not picked up by the microphone), nodding her head during letter selection, moving the board in the air, and controlling when the typing sessions begin and end by offering or taking away the letter board.
How is it that Vince was too anxious to type for family members (presumably the ones who questioned S2C and his unexpected literacy skills), but could endure a two hour talk in front of an audience? Something doesn’t add up.
At no time during the video did Vince initiate typing. His facilitator controlled the keyboard and provided visual and auditory cues. The FCed messages were little more than echoed ideas from previously published media. Further, when not engaged in typing (aka pointing on cue), Vince turned his body away from the facilitator. He picked at his face, played with the table edge, and fiddled with an object someone had given him to hold. He clapped, rocked back and forth, and vocalized in seeming increased agitation. As this agitation increased, the actual typing sessions shown on screen were edited down to 1-2 seconds. An FCed message alludes to Vince’s reluctance to being facilitated, but, as seen in other pro-FC films and videos, his verbal and non-verbal behavior are ignored by the facilitators.
During the Q and (facilitated) A, Vince is asked about typing on a stand independently. If this is and was a reasonable communication goal for Vince, then why wasn’t this option provided to him from the outset? Why waste time on a technique that is neither evidence-based nor recognized as a legitimate form of AAC? Proven, consumer-ready technology already exists that allows individuals access to typed communication without interference from the facilitator.
To some viewers, this video may appear as a “convincing” representation of S2C. However, in my opinion, this video does not demonstrate Vince’s ability to understand and use typed communication independently—that is without the control of his facilitator(s). Instead, this pro-FC film, like countless ones in the past, demonstrates evidence of facilitator cuing and control despite the film maker’s careful editing and deliberate camera angles. I understand facilitators’ desires to want FC to work, but it does not. It can not. FC, by design, builds dependence on the facilitator, not independence for the people being subjected to its use. Until proponents recognize this fact and stop using FC, individuals with disabilities won’t find their own voices, but instead, be subjugated by facilitators who proselytize FC’s party line.