"Autism" definition wars thread

Post Reply New Topic

Several recent threads have turned into debates about the definition of "autism" (and the definition of related terms like "Asperger's syndrome"). In some cases these debates have been on-topic for the thread, while in other threads they have been a digression.

So, to cut down on repetitious debates, I figure it might be a good idea to have one easy-to-find thread here in the "Autism Politics, Activism, and Media Representation" sub-forum devoted just to debates over the definition of "autism" and related terms, to which thread such debates in other threads can be diverted when they pop up.

In the separate thread What is autism? How the term became too broad to have meanin in the "General Autism Discussion" sub-forum, I already discussed some common confusions regarding the DSM IV definitions of "Asperger's disorder" and "autistic disorder."

Below, I'll now address another question: the origin of the terms "autism" and "autistic." At least one person here has claimed that these terms have separate origins, with separate meanings.

The term "autism" was "coined in 1911 by the German psychiatrist Eugen Bleuler to describe a symptom of the most severe cases of schizophrenia, a concept he had also created," according to How autism became autism by Bonnie Evans, Hist Human Sci. 2013;26(3):3–31. Numerous other online sources agree. For example, the Wikipedia article about Paul Eugen Bleuler credits him with coining the word "autism" with a footnote referring to the following book: Peter Gay, Freud: A Life for Our Time (1989) p. 198. I also found this page which says that the word Bleuler actually used was the Latin form "autismus" rather than just "autism". (I hope everyone will agree that that's a trivial difference.)

This article about Paul Eugen Bleuler (1857–1939) lists the following books of his:

- Bleuler, Eugen, and Carl Gustav Jung. “Komplexe und Krankheitsursachen bei Dementia praecox.” Zentralblatt fur Nervenheilkunde und Psychiatrie (1908): 220–227.
- Bleuler, Eugen. Dementia Praecox, oder, Gruppe der Schizophrenien. Leipzig: Franz Deuticke, 1911. https://archive.org/details/b21296157 (Accessed March 28, 2016).
- Bleuler, Eugen. Lehrbuch der Psychiatrie. Berlin: Verlag von Julius Springer, 1916. https://archive.org/details/Bleuler_1916_Lehrbuch (Accessed April 16, 2016).
- Bleuler, Eugen. The Textbook of Psychiatry. Trans. Abraham Arden Brill. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1934. https://archive.org/stream/textbookofps ... e/n5/mode/ 2up (Accessed April 16, 2016).
- Bleuler, Eugen. Dementia Praecox or the Group of Schizophrenias. Trans. Joseph Zinkin. New York: International Universities Press, 1950.

In online copies of Bleuler's 1911 and 1916 works themselves, I found not only the word "autismus" but also "autistische" and "autistischen," both of which, apparently, are German forms of the word "autistic." So Bleuler used the latter term too.

Today's concept of autism is derived from the later idea of "infantile autism," which was initially assumed to be a form of childhood schizophrenia but was eventually recognized to be something else entirely.

the absolute definition of autism is unclear and still evolving at this point.just like they were wrong about refridgerater mothers and so on.they were wrong in thinking autism was a branch of severe childhood schizophrenia.

who knows what were wrong about today

pre-1994 (DSM-IV) autism is very different from post-1994 autism.

Before 1994, there was very little notion of autism being a "spectrum."

Rightly or wrongly, the concept of "autism" as promulgated by Leo Kanner is the foundation stone of our overall notion of "autism."

Kanner didn't use the word "spectrum," but, if you look at his original paper (PDF), the kids he described vary quite a bit in both intellectual ability and the age at which they learned to talk (some had significant speech delays, others not). Indeed the first child he described, Donald, seems to have been very intelligent.

That's absolutely true.

But would you agree that clinicians, who made use of Kanner's work subsequently, had applied the term "autistic" to the ones who were nonverbal, primarily?

Temple Grandin was diagnosed in the 1950's

Autism is simply a name given to neurologic deficits seen first in childhood. Thats it.

If the brain was a huge building with many rooms, each one with a function, i.e speech, then some of those rooms would be unbuilt.

In fact theres probably thousands of rooms and most people have some unbuilt, so few with minor functions as to be unnoticable.

In autism theres many with most having important functions. The difference between severe autism and mild aspergers / BAP is simply the number and type missing.

Autism is neurodevelopmental. There are relatively "pure" neurologic elements in it--sometimes.

For me the best definition is one that gets as many people as possible the help and support they need .

I meant to type neurological but it got cut off on my phone small screen.

Its only referred to as neurodevelopmental" as the "developmental" bit refers to the fact thats its usually diagnosed in early childhood.

The big question is are these rooms unbuilt or simply blocked off. The answer maybe both if you factor in missing genes in some caes, but if some are simply blocked off then the question of potential future treatment for the most disabling features of autism comes up.

Many times, autistic people don't have actual, blatant "neurological" problems.

But there are often more subtle neurological manifestations. And they affect development. Hence, "neurodevelopmental."

In its "purest" form, autism is more a developmental, caused by subtle neurological "differences," rather than a primarily neurological problem.

In 1987 my online friend was found to not be autistic but had ADHD instead. The only problem, that diagnoses didn't fit and he still didn't receive proper support in school.

In 2004, he was found to be autistic which was Asperger's then. He totally understands why his diagnoses was missed and his parents did the best they can and AS wasn't known then. Of course his dad felt guilty because he thought he was too hard on him so I told my friend he should tell him it was good they didn't know then or else they wouldn't have known what he could control than assuming he couldn't help it. Today I think too many kids with disabilities get away with things because their parents assume they have no control over it. You don't know unless you try and then figuring out a way to teach them. Maybe his parents feel they could have done things differently. But he isn't mad at them and he knows they did their best and didn't know then.