As you may be aware, a report has recently surfaced regarding Hans Asperger, sometimes known as the father of modern autism. From his work, and that of Lorna Wing, Georg Frankl, and Anni Weiss, came our modern understanding of autism, not as merely a disability or a death sentence, but as a condition that distinguishes us, but also makes us remarkable-and fully human- people.
These people and their life's work laid the groundwork for autistic people to be integrated into the wider world, to be accepted as people rather than "damaged goods" or "soulless husks," as the previous understanding made us.
Our previous understanding of Asperger was very much a positive one. As a scientist in Nazi Germany's territory, he was subject to pressures and decisions regarding his subjects. He worked with people with disabilities, who were pretty much invariably not up to the Aryan ideal. Previous reviews of his papers and correspondences suggested that he tried to shield his subjects from death at Nazi hands by suggesting their unique talents and abilities were a necessity for brilliance in the arts and sciences. As such, Hans Asperger has been held up as a paragon, a humanitarian and hero in the face of the evil eugenics program that resulted in so many dead Jews, gay people, unionists, and other "undesirables." His name was given to the diagnosis "Asperger Syndrome," which was my original diagnosis, and the word for "autistic people who function acceptably in society, but still have definite problems and disabilities in some areas."
This report, written by a medical historian, suggests rather strongly that the case wasn't so clear-cut. In analysis of his medical papers, correspondences, and other written records, it seems likely that his personal beliefs were very similar to that of the Nazis on several fronts, and that his career very much profited from the removal of the Jewish scientists and doctors from the medical clinics and universities of Austria. And while Asperger himself did not ever join the Nazi party, he did join a number of other Nazi organizations. Most damningly, it's clear from the report that Asperger did personally and indirectly refer children to a facility called Am Spiegelgrund, which was known in his circles to be a euthanasia facility. Effectively, he sent them to die.
The report is a lengthy one, and goes into excruciating detail, complete with pictures of people and old documents and quotes from correspondences. (If you don't have time to read the article, consider checking this summary out instead.) Having read it, I have little doubt that the glowing picture of Asperger we've been given is inaccurate.
That said, I am not terribly surprised by this revelation, either. In the course of my schooling, I studied the Holocaust and the rise and fall of Nazi Germany at least three times, starting in 6th grade (or roughly when I was 11). These were not fun sections, suffice it to say. I am of Austrian descent, and that line was Jewish at the time of World War II. Needless to say, that was not to their benefit. My grandfather escaped the attentions of the Nazis by getting out early (and looking sufficiently Aryan that he wasn't questioned much). So every time pictures of the Nazis' victims cropped up, I always kind of wondered whether I wasn't looking at long-dead relatives.
Obviously, I bitterly resent any hint of eugenics in modern society, whether that's against disabled people or against a racial minority. Between my family history and my status as a nonconforming autistic person with disabilities, I think the idea should be relegated to the purview of the Nazis, who are at this point accepted as one of the purest forms of evil humanity has ever put into practice.
Because of those personal connections, I tended to pay more attention to the Holocaust units that I might've otherwise... and in all honesty, given the circumstances in which Asperger found himself, I'm... not overly surprised this information paints a remarkably less heroic and infinitely more complicated version than what we've been assuming.
The era in which Asperger lived was a complicated and dangerous one. If one didn't show a certain level of compliance with the reigning power, one tended to disappear. Had Hans Asperger truly tried to protect his subjects in the modern era understanding, that all life truly does have value and severely disabled people are still people, he would have been killed along with his subjects. We would not know his name, because he would never have risen to prominence. Such a policy would be so far opposed to the "race hygiene" order of the culture and government, that it simply wouldn't have been allowed to stand. Asperger, then, was likely more pragmatic than heroic. With his Jewish colleagues out of the way, and connections in the Nazi government to protect him, his career soared. He became reputable and influential far faster than he would have otherwise.
As a result, we have his work... and that of his colleagues Lorna Wing, Georg Frankel, and Anni Weiss. Work which made it possible to give people like me a better idea of why we're so different, and the cultural idea that autistic people can work, have lives, and be... ourselves. And from that, too, the basic respect for human life, and the idea that even people with significant challenges should be able to live as full of lives as they can.
By the report, much of this is remarkably counter to what Asperger's ideas actually were. Does that negate the existence of those cultural ideas? I don't think it does. In fact, I think it makes the ideas even more rich and excellent, because they are the best parts of what Asperger wrote, with all the disgusting eugenics and able-ism stripped from them. Such delicious irony, that things written in such inhumane times should turn out to be the foundation of greater human good and decency!
I am not, by the way, excusing Hans Asperger for his actions. He sent children to die (never mind all the other things I listed above), and if that's not a good reason to revile a person, I don't know what is. But like most of these stories we tell about historical people, the truth is likely that he was neither a paragon of humanitarianism nor an evil murderer. He was a man in an evil culture, and chose to do both evil and good things to advance himself and science. His circumstances were exceptionally steeped in evil, and that very much limits your options. But it's not like he didn't have options. There were those in Nazi Germany and its territories that did work to save people from "race hygiene" and eugenics. It seems, now, that Asperger was not one of those eternally heroic souls. I am disappointed with him, as I often am when people choose to be merely people and not good people.
In the end, Hans Asperger was just a man in a very evil situation, acting mainly for self-preservation and selfishness. That is very human, though not commendable. Like most legends and heroes, the truth ends up showing that he was only human, and not the shining example of humanitarianism we had hoped he was.
However, the good effects remain. The fact that the "father of modern autism" was no father at all, but in fact was just a man, does not invalidate our modern understanding of autism. This blog is here, after all, and you are reading it rather than saying, "She's autistic and needs to be institutionalized." The good that Lorna Wing, Georg Frankel, and Anni Weiss did with their own work remains.
I shed my use of "Asperger's Syndrome" when the official diagnostic manual eliminated the diagnosis as separate from autism itself some years ago. I approved of the idea that autistic people should be seen together, each of us so different, but that someone like me could give hope for someone else who is very heavily challenged by neurology and biological difficulties. So it doesn't hurt me to leave that label behind entirely. I'm more inclined, at this point, to snarkily tell the man that his legacy flew directly in the face of his life's work and personal beliefs.
For further reading on the autistic community's reaction to this subject, please check out this conversation between Maxfield Sparrow (autistic) and Steve Silberman (advocate and author).
These people and their life's work laid the groundwork for autistic people to be integrated into the wider world, to be accepted as people rather than "damaged goods" or "soulless husks," as the previous understanding made us.
Our previous understanding of Asperger was very much a positive one. As a scientist in Nazi Germany's territory, he was subject to pressures and decisions regarding his subjects. He worked with people with disabilities, who were pretty much invariably not up to the Aryan ideal. Previous reviews of his papers and correspondences suggested that he tried to shield his subjects from death at Nazi hands by suggesting their unique talents and abilities were a necessity for brilliance in the arts and sciences. As such, Hans Asperger has been held up as a paragon, a humanitarian and hero in the face of the evil eugenics program that resulted in so many dead Jews, gay people, unionists, and other "undesirables." His name was given to the diagnosis "Asperger Syndrome," which was my original diagnosis, and the word for "autistic people who function acceptably in society, but still have definite problems and disabilities in some areas."
This report, written by a medical historian, suggests rather strongly that the case wasn't so clear-cut. In analysis of his medical papers, correspondences, and other written records, it seems likely that his personal beliefs were very similar to that of the Nazis on several fronts, and that his career very much profited from the removal of the Jewish scientists and doctors from the medical clinics and universities of Austria. And while Asperger himself did not ever join the Nazi party, he did join a number of other Nazi organizations. Most damningly, it's clear from the report that Asperger did personally and indirectly refer children to a facility called Am Spiegelgrund, which was known in his circles to be a euthanasia facility. Effectively, he sent them to die.
The report is a lengthy one, and goes into excruciating detail, complete with pictures of people and old documents and quotes from correspondences. (If you don't have time to read the article, consider checking this summary out instead.) Having read it, I have little doubt that the glowing picture of Asperger we've been given is inaccurate.
That said, I am not terribly surprised by this revelation, either. In the course of my schooling, I studied the Holocaust and the rise and fall of Nazi Germany at least three times, starting in 6th grade (or roughly when I was 11). These were not fun sections, suffice it to say. I am of Austrian descent, and that line was Jewish at the time of World War II. Needless to say, that was not to their benefit. My grandfather escaped the attentions of the Nazis by getting out early (and looking sufficiently Aryan that he wasn't questioned much). So every time pictures of the Nazis' victims cropped up, I always kind of wondered whether I wasn't looking at long-dead relatives.
Obviously, I bitterly resent any hint of eugenics in modern society, whether that's against disabled people or against a racial minority. Between my family history and my status as a nonconforming autistic person with disabilities, I think the idea should be relegated to the purview of the Nazis, who are at this point accepted as one of the purest forms of evil humanity has ever put into practice.
Because of those personal connections, I tended to pay more attention to the Holocaust units that I might've otherwise... and in all honesty, given the circumstances in which Asperger found himself, I'm... not overly surprised this information paints a remarkably less heroic and infinitely more complicated version than what we've been assuming.
The era in which Asperger lived was a complicated and dangerous one. If one didn't show a certain level of compliance with the reigning power, one tended to disappear. Had Hans Asperger truly tried to protect his subjects in the modern era understanding, that all life truly does have value and severely disabled people are still people, he would have been killed along with his subjects. We would not know his name, because he would never have risen to prominence. Such a policy would be so far opposed to the "race hygiene" order of the culture and government, that it simply wouldn't have been allowed to stand. Asperger, then, was likely more pragmatic than heroic. With his Jewish colleagues out of the way, and connections in the Nazi government to protect him, his career soared. He became reputable and influential far faster than he would have otherwise.
As a result, we have his work... and that of his colleagues Lorna Wing, Georg Frankel, and Anni Weiss. Work which made it possible to give people like me a better idea of why we're so different, and the cultural idea that autistic people can work, have lives, and be... ourselves. And from that, too, the basic respect for human life, and the idea that even people with significant challenges should be able to live as full of lives as they can.
By the report, much of this is remarkably counter to what Asperger's ideas actually were. Does that negate the existence of those cultural ideas? I don't think it does. In fact, I think it makes the ideas even more rich and excellent, because they are the best parts of what Asperger wrote, with all the disgusting eugenics and able-ism stripped from them. Such delicious irony, that things written in such inhumane times should turn out to be the foundation of greater human good and decency!
I am not, by the way, excusing Hans Asperger for his actions. He sent children to die (never mind all the other things I listed above), and if that's not a good reason to revile a person, I don't know what is. But like most of these stories we tell about historical people, the truth is likely that he was neither a paragon of humanitarianism nor an evil murderer. He was a man in an evil culture, and chose to do both evil and good things to advance himself and science. His circumstances were exceptionally steeped in evil, and that very much limits your options. But it's not like he didn't have options. There were those in Nazi Germany and its territories that did work to save people from "race hygiene" and eugenics. It seems, now, that Asperger was not one of those eternally heroic souls. I am disappointed with him, as I often am when people choose to be merely people and not good people.
In the end, Hans Asperger was just a man in a very evil situation, acting mainly for self-preservation and selfishness. That is very human, though not commendable. Like most legends and heroes, the truth ends up showing that he was only human, and not the shining example of humanitarianism we had hoped he was.
However, the good effects remain. The fact that the "father of modern autism" was no father at all, but in fact was just a man, does not invalidate our modern understanding of autism. This blog is here, after all, and you are reading it rather than saying, "She's autistic and needs to be institutionalized." The good that Lorna Wing, Georg Frankel, and Anni Weiss did with their own work remains.
I shed my use of "Asperger's Syndrome" when the official diagnostic manual eliminated the diagnosis as separate from autism itself some years ago. I approved of the idea that autistic people should be seen together, each of us so different, but that someone like me could give hope for someone else who is very heavily challenged by neurology and biological difficulties. So it doesn't hurt me to leave that label behind entirely. I'm more inclined, at this point, to snarkily tell the man that his legacy flew directly in the face of his life's work and personal beliefs.
For further reading on the autistic community's reaction to this subject, please check out this conversation between Maxfield Sparrow (autistic) and Steve Silberman (advocate and author).
No comments:
Post a Comment