• Replies 193 replies
  • Subscribers 93 subscribers
  • Views 82194 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

Hans Asperger

Senor

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/19/hans-asperger-aided-and-supported-nazi-programme-study-says

I have to say that since I first read Steve Silbermann's book 'Neurotribes' about a year plus ago, I have been wondering if it was entirely the case that Asperger tried to keep his subjects away from the Nazi euthanasia programme. This morning's headline is thus no great surprise. And as Sachs-Cohen and Silbermann have already indicated their belief in the emerging facts, I'm not about to get too emotive about it. Regardless of DSM-5, my diagnostician decided it was still a valid term for an older adult who had lived for some years with some knowledge of that label. And I'm not about to avoid that label, myself. I suppose I might as well be the first person on the forum to ask what happens next, because I would guess that not everyone will be quite so philosophical about it as me. I have to admit, I have never really taken very kindly to 'aspie'. I find it a bit patronising; but I'm now wondering if some of that discomfort is down to the fact that I have sort of half expected that the hero thing was not quite the full story. And Kanner, for all his input, wasn't beyond criticism either.

''Carol Povey, director at the National Autistic Society in the UK’s Centre for Autism, said: “We expect these findings to spark a big conversation among autistic people and their family members, particularly those who identify with the term ‘Asperger’. Obviously no one with a diagnosis of Asperger syndrome should feel in any way tainted by this very troubling history.” 

Parents

  • I've only skimmed Czech's paper and read the conclusion, and then the commentary.  My verdict so far would be that it's looked at Asperger's writings in detail, but not found any strong unambiguous evidence of enthusiasm for Nazi ideology.  There's much conjecture still and 'scant direct evidence'.  I don't think NeuroTribes 'pushed the narrative of Asperger as an Oskar Schindler-like protector of children with autism' as Czech claimed, although the tendency to oversimplify and polarise is always there, and Silberman may revise his position, and even his book, a little.

    Of course psychiatry was used as a tool of oppression by the state, as it was elsewhere, and people in junior roles or on the fringes of the party tried to justify themselves after the war, just as they condemned the sick atrocities their country had been involved in.  Steve Silberman may not have the historiographic credentials of Czech or have dug as deeply into files he didn't realise exist, but gave wider context  Given the worldwide enthusiasm for eugenics at the time, and industrial extermination of classes of human beings by the ***, condemning relatively few children to incarceration (fewer than Leo Kanner?) or possibly knowingly worse (I haven't found this in the paper), is awful but should be seen in proportion.  I recall a debate at the Maudsley concluding that psychiatry was 'irretrievably racist', and the tendency to classify and categorise people is much of what it does.  I worry that the Guardian is becoming more sensationalist since Rusbridger left.

    I don't mostly identify as 'Aspie' myself (I'd prefer 'autistic' already), but suspect this will only slightly influence people I know who do.  Maybe there could be some backup term based on 'Frankl-Weiss' ('Franklie'?). 'Syndrome' was always a misnomer.

Reply

  • I've only skimmed Czech's paper and read the conclusion, and then the commentary.  My verdict so far would be that it's looked at Asperger's writings in detail, but not found any strong unambiguous evidence of enthusiasm for Nazi ideology.  There's much conjecture still and 'scant direct evidence'.  I don't think NeuroTribes 'pushed the narrative of Asperger as an Oskar Schindler-like protector of children with autism' as Czech claimed, although the tendency to oversimplify and polarise is always there, and Silberman may revise his position, and even his book, a little.

    Of course psychiatry was used as a tool of oppression by the state, as it was elsewhere, and people in junior roles or on the fringes of the party tried to justify themselves after the war, just as they condemned the sick atrocities their country had been involved in.  Steve Silberman may not have the historiographic credentials of Czech or have dug as deeply into files he didn't realise exist, but gave wider context  Given the worldwide enthusiasm for eugenics at the time, and industrial extermination of classes of human beings by the ***, condemning relatively few children to incarceration (fewer than Leo Kanner?) or possibly knowingly worse (I haven't found this in the paper), is awful but should be seen in proportion.  I recall a debate at the Maudsley concluding that psychiatry was 'irretrievably racist', and the tendency to classify and categorise people is much of what it does.  I worry that the Guardian is becoming more sensationalist since Rusbridger left.

    I don't mostly identify as 'Aspie' myself (I'd prefer 'autistic' already), but suspect this will only slightly influence people I know who do.  Maybe there could be some backup term based on 'Frankl-Weiss' ('Franklie'?). 'Syndrome' was always a misnomer.

Children
No Data