“[Autism] was certainly nothing to be proud of.” Pg 41
I’m going to be raw for a second here: the first time I read this line (and this may sound insensitive), I thought “Wait, what? Society doesn’t view autism as something to be proud of.” This is coming from how parents react to the news that their kids have autism, specifically my cousins with their first child. Even on Autismspeaks.com, they say “It’s not easy to hear the news that your child has autism”. Silberman may have meant this a figure of speech but I found it odd that he wrote this after saying autism was believed to be caused by “a tragic form of childhood psychosis, akin to schizophrenia, caused by inadequate parenting.” Which is not any good at all.
After pondering about it, Silberman has the same views on the subject as Sack does; autism should not be viewed as a disability/liability/disease, which is why, I think, Silberman decides to use the word pride. He writes about this genius, one of the greatest scientist known to man, Henry Cavendish, and goes on to highlight his achievements and speaks his characteristics. However, despite his accomplishments, Cavendish was still seen a subject matter of curiosity. On page 32, Silberman writes “The extraordinary singularities of this solitary pioneer were a source of perpetual puzzlement and frustration to his colleagues.” It’s as if scientists were trying to figure out what was autism before it was discovered. Furthermore, it is as if Cavendish’s achievements in science were pushed to the side and even negated due to the structure and language of the text. The list went on and on and on (forever is what I felt) and it came to an abrupt stop.
I think you chose a good quote to pull out, Grace. To put it in a bit more context, that belief—that autism was nothing to be proud of—was what child psychiatrist Leo Kanner seemed to believe. I can’t speak for Sacks or Silberman, but I wasn’t sure if they necessarily thought autism should not be viewed as a disability/liability/disease, as you mentioned. The feeling that I got when reading the two authors was that having certain forms of neurodiversity can pose particular difficulties for some neurodivergent people in certain societies, but that these variations can also adapt and have certain characteristics that a given society may value (which is a bit more of a nuanced, wordier sentiment). I think you raise a good point about “pride,” and how that word/feeling is often used in opposition to negative commentary on any given subject. Personally, though, I’m a bit unsure about how people seem to use the word/sentiment of “pride” and whether or not it’s helpful for any person or cause.
Also, I just thought that the misattributions list that started on page 23 (e.g., “Ohm’s law rather than Cavendish’s law,” etc.) was hilarious. But that’s just coming from my own sense of humor.
Yeah, Michael’s right. Silberman is attributing that idea to Kanner. One point to add is that Kanner believed that autism was very rare and only diagnosed it in severe forms (as you see as you read on). So, he understood autism as a source of suffering, not a source of unique ways of thinking that might change the world. In 2016, autism is diagnosed very differently–on a spectrum. Also, Kanner’s severe cases, from our perspective, probably involved “co-morbid symptoms” that increased suffering and made development more difficult that it might be for people whose autism is not complicated by debilitating symptoms with other causes.
It’s amazing how parents react when they find out their kids is autistic. I remember while I was reading one of the mothers actually try to sit on top of daughter because she was so frustrated with the situation of her daughter. This negative behavior can cause the kid harmful effect. I know as a parent, it’s hard to face the reality, but parent’s need to understand what their kid is going through and it’s not in their hands to control. I think no one have come up with the right label to name these people who are autistic and at the same time is very hard to give them certain names because others don’t want to hurt them.
I read it in the context of the paragraph where the “it was certainly nothing to be proud of,” was still attached to the “To Kanner,” (41). However, the fact that he uses Kanner’s words puts into context what some psychologist thought of the “disorder” as it was being studied. He viewed it as a “tragic form of childhood psychosis.” Describing the childhood psychosis as “tragic” seemed a bit harsh as well.