Kirby Philip
St John's College, Oxford, UK.
Oxf Rev Educ. 2020 Aug 13;46(4):472-486. doi: 10.1080/03054985.2020.1747418.
The 'dyslexia debate' is resilient. In the media, a key component of the debate is the notion that dyslexia does not exist, popularised by a series of vociferous commentators. For them, dyslexia is an invention of overly-concerned parents, supported by a clique of private educational psychologists willing to offer a diagnosis - for a fee - even where no condition exists. In academic circles, especially psychology, dyslexia critiques are also present. In these, the principal argument is that the term 'dyslexia' is unhelpful - more an emotive word designed to attract funding, than a clearly defined scientific condition. Such arguments stand against other research in psychology, and discussion has become contentious. Largely missing from both sides of the debate, however, is a historical perspective. In this article, the origins of the dyslexia debate are traced, showing how queries about the term's efficacy have marked dyslexia's history since it was first identified in the 1870s. Through this tracing, this account seeks to move discussion beyond the existing either/or binary of dyslexia's existence.
“阅读障碍症之争”经久不息。在媒体上,这场争论的一个关键要素是认为阅读障碍症并不存在的观点,这一观点由一系列言辞激烈的评论家传播开来。对他们而言,阅读障碍症是过度担忧的家长的臆造,背后有一群私立教育心理学家在推波助澜,这些心理学家即便在没有病症的情况下也愿意收费提供诊断。在学术圈,尤其是心理学领域,也存在对阅读障碍症的批评。在这些批评中,主要论点是“阅读障碍症”这个术语并无助益——它更多是一个为吸引资金而造的情绪化词汇,而非一个定义明确的科学病症。此类论点与心理学的其他研究相悖,讨论也变得颇具争议性。然而,这场争论的双方大体上都缺乏历史视角。在本文中,将追溯阅读障碍症争论的起源,展示自19世纪70年代首次被确认以来,对该术语有效性的质疑如何贯穿了阅读障碍症的历史。通过这一追溯,本文旨在推动讨论超越关于阅读障碍症是否存在的现有非此即彼的二元对立。