The Social Model of Dyslexia

To many, "the social model of dyslexia" is a big step forward from old, medicalised understandings of it. But no model is without its dangers. In this video, we discuss the possible pitfalls of using the social model of of #dyslexia, and ask whether it's actually unsuited to reality.
For other discussion topics, workshop ideas, and talking points, why not subscribe to our channel? You can find us at / @dyslexiabytes
For training, consultancy, and keynotes on dyslexia and related topics, please contact us here: dyslexiabytes....
And to join us on social media, we'd love to see you here:
/ dyslexiagram
x.com/BytesDys...
/ dyslexiabytes

[@jeremyprovence4942]

You are right. We must stop framing life as if we need a scapegoat to see ourselves as valid human beings. Shifting the " blame" isn't going to help anyone when there is no blame , rather just a state of being that we can learn to become at peace with, especially when we start to realize that our differences are our strengths. This is a deeply theological topic. Thank you.

[@DyslexiaBytes]

💜

[@ralphsnyder5351]

This is incredibly challenging. Some points seem spot on. Others more problematic I'm not exactly compos mentintis; but maybe tomorrow, I'll be able to explain in detail.

[@DyslexiaBytes]

Looking forward to it Ralph. Sleep well and I'm looking forward to your thoughts, thank you. 🙏

[@stephaniedegange2737]

As a certified dyslexia tutor, dyslexia is usually an inherited disease. Not always from, parents, but maybe distant relatives. Dyslexics are unbelievably bright but their auditory processing disorder. You would be absolutely amazed at the self-confidence a dyslexic student feels when he or she learns using a method that is able to catch up to their grade level and well beyond. Most of my students are honor students and eventually graduate college. For an analogy, I cannot read anything without the reading glasses. But with them, I can see perfect. I am the same person with or without my glasses. So teaching the dyslexic is helping him find the right "glasses".

[@DyslexiaBytes]

Love this analogy. Finding the right glasses. Excellent! 💚👓💚

[@willsoward]

I enjoyed the way you've proposed this idea! It's something I've been thinking about but fail to articulate so well. It does seam we're in an a state of "social discovery", maybe even "cultural induction" for Dyslexia and other nuerotypes. I appreciate the positive spin on nurodiversity being a "super power" but, at the same time, there's nothing supernatural about spilling boiling water over yourself (to use your analogy) once every couple of weeks. @Dyslexia Bytes, my question to you is, do you think with the growing social awareness of dyslexia and the positive adoption of it's strengths in the workplace, lead to open the door for other nuerotypes being regraded as assets and... (this is my hope) in the future be regraded socially as a nothing more than a variation of human cognition instead of "x nuerotype"? Loving the channel and the thinking behind it!

[@DyslexiaBytes]

Thankyou Will, I really do appreciate that. You asked: "do you think other nuerotypes will in the future be regraded as nothing more than a variation of human cognition instead of "x nuerotype"?". In answer to your question, I'd say yes, and this will probably be part of a journey. I'll explain what I mean (and I'm prepared to be totally wrong, of course). - I think, ultimately, this is starting to happen, albeit slowly, and in different ways in different parts of the world. I can see it progressing. "Neurodivergent" will become "another form of human cognition". People such as Kate Griggs are pushing this narrative (although they might be pushing it a bit too far). We are, in the end, simply different from that which is typical. - But I also think it's part of a journey. I think that there'll come a point, perhaps not too far in the future, when we realise firstly that almost no one is "simply dyslexic", or "simply ADHD"; we're a complex intersection of neurotypes (Amanda Kirby has done some work on this). Once we see this, it may be that we'll stop referring to people as "dyslexic", because that doesn't really cover what any individual is. We're all far more complex than that. And then, as Joe Elliott argues (I'll be releasing an interview I did with him shortly, so please watch this space), perhaps we'll realise that a diagnostic assessment of "dyslexia" doesn't in itself carry much content, it's far more useful to talk about a person's presentations (manifestations / needs / advantages / etc). That'll be more useful in getting the accommodations required, and it'll also open the door for those who can't afford an assessment to also get accommodations. I'm not sure what direction things are going to take, but we might even see words like "dyslexic" and "autistic" someday as being as offensive as... well, you know and remember those words we used to use about certain groups when we were children. We don't talk like that about people these days. I think that because diagnostic assessments of dyslexia (etc) differ from place to place; and as people's dyslexic manifestations are different from individual to individual; and as we realise that no one is simply one neurotype but a complex overlapping of different neurotypes; and as we see that one label doesn't always explain any individual's needs without having to have further explanation on top of that label; and as language changes and social attitudes towards language evolves;... that maybe one day we'll drop the dyslexia label altogether. *It may be - it may be! - that words such as "dyslexia" are vehicles that get us so far in a necessary journey, and have to be discarded as we find more suitable vehicles that'll get us up different mountains.* I don't know what's going to happen in the future, but I'd be mightily surprised if, in fifty years' time, we're still referring to people as dyslexic or autistic or ADHD in the same way that we currently do, expecting the same responses (at least, in Britain and America. It's harder to predict what might happen internationally). I'd love to know what you think about this.

[@willsoward]

@@DyslexiaBytes I like to lean into the optimistic side as much as I can without being overly so. It is funny to me how terms such as "dyslexic" and "autistic" have gone from misunderstood scientific terminology to words of insult and discrimination, and now today regraded as to proud terms of self identification. It seams even the most derogatory terms used to describe neurodivergent people these days are less acidic than they used to be. Honestly, I'm enjoying watching how this is all developing. I look forward to listening to your conversation with Joe. Apologies for the late response :-)

[@ronanwatters6596]

The social model of Dyslexia is based on the social model of disability. It may be useful to look at some of the writing that expands on that social model critiquing its limitations while trying to keep the positive element. Liz Crow who writes from the perspective of acknowledging that some of the limitations of disability are not social constructs, but real limitations. "liz crow incuding all our lives renewing the social model of disability". Also Tom Shakespeare writing, "The social model of Disability an outdated ideology?" I think these ideas if they were incorporated into the social model of dyslexia would resolve some of your concerns

[@DyslexiaBytes]

Exactly this, Ronan, thank you. First, thanks for pointing me towards Tom Shakespeare. I should admit, I've heard of him but not read him - something I think I should do. But yes, I think it has both positive and negative sides, and we should speak about both of those. Great points. 🙏👏

[@ralphsnyder5351]

I don't have a lot of expertise on this subject, and in the light of @ronanwatters comments, I am reluctant to too much. But I will pick up on a couple points. First, the observation that we don't talk too much about the problem of whiteness or the problem of masculinity. I have to disagree. There is in fact quite a large literature and active conversation about both. True, both are regarded as "the norm," or the "default," but the consequences of that are under increasing scrutiny -- both as to their adverse effects on non-white and non-male people but also on men and white people. That is, the emotional stress put on men live up to an unrealistic ideal of masculinity and on white people to live up to an entirely imaginary idea of whiteness. I wonder if a similar critique of neuronormativity that embraces the harm to neurodivergents and neuronormatives might be of some value. Second, sure the social model of dyslexia is flawed: all models are wrong, as the saying goes, but some are useful. There's no doubt that sometimes it is social, educational, work structures that cause the problem. But equally some of our problems are our problems and not socially caused. Is this, I wonder, not an example of the fundamental conundrum we face as human beings? We are individuals; we are ourselves. But we also exist in a society (and in a world). We are, to some extent, the result of our experiences and our relationships. Isn't life largely about the negotiation (some would say conflict) between ourselves as ourselves and ourselves as members of a community, and ourselves as creatures in a world? In the medical model, we are the problem. In the social model, society is the problem. In the tension between the two, there is something I cannot quite fathom.

[@DyslexiaBytes]

These are great points Ralph, and yes, there's a huge tension between different models. I suspect (and I think that this is a big reason behind making the video) that much of my problem with "the social model as the only and complete explanation" is that I see it, and the medical model (and the functional model, etc) as imperfect and incomplete constructs, and that we might need to throw them out with the bathwater at some point. Ether was a great way of understanding our place in the cosmos for a good few hundred years; but once we created better constructs, we breathed a sigh of relief and found that we could explain and predict the universe much better without it. What makes me uncomfortable is the feeling that many people see "the medical model" and "the social model" as (the only available) mutually exclusive opposites, and that doesn't sit well with me. Your point of how we're complex individuals is a great one. And again, perhaps you've put your finger on something I *could* have mentioned but didn't think to: because we're so complex, it feels uncomfortable blanketing everyone with the same model. The people are being asked to fit the model, rather than the model being stress tested to see whether it accommodates the people. In a way, it's the problem with traditional monolithic views of national cultures. In truth, they're little more than racism dressed up as intellect. People are complex, organic, and overlapping (and mutually influential) intersections of so many influences. Static models of culture don't capture that; and I suspect, nor do static models of dyslexia. Regarding your earlier point, though, I should clarify: when I said that people don't talk about the problems of whiteness, I should have been clearer: what I meant was that where white people don't feel that being white is a problem (and some do, I understand that), or where men don't feel that being male is a problem, they don't feel the need to create "a social model of whiteness", or "a social model of masculinity". It's *only* where we see something as a problem that we construct a social model to explain it away societally. Non-white, non-male observers may well see white masculinity as a problem, and they may actually construct very good social models where white males are the structural barriers. I agree with you. I think my point was that where we have things that aren't initially problematic (such as maleness for many men, or whiteness for many white people), we don't construct social models to explain them societally; and so, where we do construct social models to explain problems away, the thought is that people see them as problematic in the first place. Does that make sense? Perhaps if I put it like this (please forgive me, I'm trying not to trip up over my own explanations)... 1. there are white men who don't have a problem being white men; 2. so they don't feel the need to construct a social model of white manliness to explain their predicaments; 3. but there are (let's say) non-white women who feel they have a rough deal in the world; 4. so these women feel it's natural to create a "social model" to explain this (=> white men have created a predominantly white male society that disadvantages them); 5. therefore, those who create a social model of dyslexia are saying, from the off, that being dyslexic is a problem that needs a societal explanation. I'm completely unable to say "6. therefore, those who talk about the social model of dyslexia are saying dyslexia is a problem", which I think is my worry; but it's really where I was coming from. I worry (invalidly, I know, but still...) that using the social model is inadvertently smuggling in a negative perception of being dyslexic through the back door. I also get it: there's "nothing wrong" with being a non-white woman here either. I'm not 100% sure where I'm going with it. Perhaps I worry that while there's nothing wrong with being a non-white woman, as a dyslexic man I feel that having to construct a social model to explain stuff away somehow implies that there's something about me (rather than my situation) that has to be explained kindly away, and that feels a little insulting. I may be going round in circles. I may have hit upon something. I can't quite decide. But I hope you understand that what I was opaquely saying was trying to be non-negative about dyslexic people and our situation, rather than (clumsily perhaps) implying that the world doesn't talk about "the problems of masculinity or whiteness".