You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Since Kanner (1946) first discussed childhood autism as a distinct syndrome, there have been widely divergent conceptualizations regarding the etiology and treatment of children with autism. While psychoanalytic theories were prevalent in the ‘50s and ‘60s, more recently the trend, particularly in the United States, has been towards looking for the cause of autism in the genetic, neurological, and biochemical endowment of the child (Sanua, 1986a). Treatment has focused on ameliorating or eliminating symptoms chemically or through behavioral interventions. However, despite recent advances in these areas, autism remains a mystery to both parents and professionals (Phelps & Grabowski, 1991). Thus it may prove useful to reexamine psychoanalytic theory as a tool for helping us to understand the autistic child from a rounded perspective.
Psychoanalytic thinking on autism has been criticized or discounted for primarily two reasons. The first relates to etiology, and the association made between psychoanalytic thinking and the view that parents are to blame for the disorder. The second concerns the nature of treatment, where psychoanalytically oriented treatment of autistic children has been associated with a narrow view of play therapy.
In this paper, I review and critically examine the theories of the major psychoanalytically oriented thinkers on childhood autism. In so doing, it becomes apparent that such theorizing about autism does not necessarily mean blaming the parents for the child's disorder and that it thus does not by definition clash with other views on etiology. Also, within that context the place for psychoanalytically informed treatment, flexibly and carefully adjusted to fit the needs of these children also becomes apparent. Thus, the general purpose