Autism, Recovery (To Normalcy) ,'' and The Politics of Hope

INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES VOLUME 47, NUMBER 4: 263–281 | AUGUST 2009
Autism, ‘‘Recovery (to Normalcy),’’ and the Politics of Hope

Alicia A. Broderick
Abstract
Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/idd/article-pdf/47/4/263/2039410/1934-9556-47_4_263.pdf by guest on 21 March 2024

This article draws on the traditions of critical discourse analysis (N. Fairclough, 1995, 2001; M.
Foucault, 1972, 1980; J. P. Gee, 1999) in critically examining the discursive formation of ‘‘recovery’’
from autism in applied behavioral analysis (ABA) discourse and its relationship to constructs of hope.
Constituted principally in the work of O. I. Lovaas (1987) and C. Maurice (1993), and central to
ABA discourse on recovery, has been the construction of a particular vision of hope that has at least 2
integral conceptual elements: (a) Hope for recovery within ABA discourse is constructed in binary
opposition to hopelessness, and (b) recovery within ABA discourse is discursively constructed as
‘‘recovery (to normalcy).’’ The author analyzes these 2 pivotal ABA texts within the context of an
analysis of other uses of the term recovery in broader bodies of literature: (a) within prior autism-
related literature, particularly autobiography, and (b) within literature emanating from the psychiatric
survivors’ movement. If, indeed, visions of hope inform educational policy and decision making, this
analysis addresses S. Danforth’s (1997) cogent query, ‘‘On what basis hope?’’, and asserts that moral
and political commitments should be central sources of visions of hope and, therefore, inform
educational policy and decision making for young children with labels of autism.
DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-47.4.263
A central feature of applied behavioral analysis (Broderick, 2004) that involved both critical
(ABA) discourse on autism from 1987 to the discourse analysis (CDA; Fairclough, 1995, 2001;
present has been the construct of ‘‘recovery’’ from Foucault, 1972, 1980; Gee, 1999) of texts as well as
autism. This issue has been addressed in many in-depth interviews with parents of young children
spheres—from academic literature in the disciplines labeled with autism. During the course of the
of education, psychology, and law (Cohen, 1998; broader study, when I asked one parent, Carmen [a
Gresham & MacMillan, 1997; Jacobson, Mulick, & pseudonym], why she was using ABA interventions
Green, 1998; Kotler, 1994; Mulick, 1999), to with her young son, she looked at me rather
parent and autobiographical narratives (Baron & quizzically and replied, ‘‘It’s the only thing that’s
Baron, 1992; Grandin & Scariano, 1986; Johnson been scientifically proven to work in recovering
& Crowder, 1994; Kaufman, 1994; Maurice, 1993; kids with autism—why would we do anything else?’’
Stehli, 1991), to popular and electronic media (p. 1). I was and I remain compelled by her query.
(Fanlight Productions, 1998; Kirkus Reviews, 1993; When I asked her what her goals were for her son,
Kirsch, 1993; Sege, 1993; van den Nieuwenhof, Carmen replied, ‘‘I don’t want him to be handi-
1996; Weizel, 1995; Wolfe, 1993), to the kitchen capped—abnormal. I guess my goal for him is
table and listserv conversations of parents of young recovery, or at least partial recovery’’ (p. 131).
children labeled with autism. Recovery is a powerful This construct of recovery holds a significant
construct, one that is intimately connected to place in ABA discourse around autism, and I argue
conceptualization of hope and one that many that its relationship to constructs of hope is integral
parents draw on in articulating their hopes for to the present popularity of behavioral intervention
their own young child labeled with autism. as a method of early intervention. As Cohen
In this analysis, I report on a portion of a larger (1998) and others have acknowledged, the param-
study of the notion of recovery in autism discourse eters of the institutional discourse around ABA and
’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 263

Autism, ‘‘recovery (to normalcy)’’ A. A. Broderick
hope for recovery from autism have been largely

Method
constituted by the writings of O. Ivar Lovaas (1987)
and Catherine Maurice (1993) in her autobio- The analysis presented herein is part of a larger
graphical account of her own children’s so-called study exploring the visions of hope that are held by
recovery using Lovaas’s methods. Though Lovaas parents for their young children with the label of
set the stage by introducing the construct of autism and the ways in which those visions might
recovery to ABA discourse in his treatment effect inform the process of educational decision making
study, the construct was popularized with parents (both for individual students as well as for
and inextricably linked with hope by Maurice’s text educational policy; Broderick, 2004). This study is
and the frenetic public discourse that ensued conducted in the qualitative tradition of inquiry in
the social sciences (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Denzin

following the publication of her autobiographical
account of the recovery of her two young children & Lincoln, 2000a; Taylor & Bogdan, 1998) and is
from autism. conceived from a critical disability studies perspec-
It is not difficult to imagine that an interven- tive (Gabel, 2005). The analysis draws on the
theories and methods of CDA (Fairclough, 1995,
tion discourse so clearly predicated on a bold
2001; Foucault, 1977/1995, 1980; Gee, 1999;
rhetorical vision of hope might be highly attractive
Rogers, 2003, 2004). According to Rogers (2004),
to parents of young children labeled with autism,
standing as it would in such stark contrast to the A critical discourse analyst’s goal is to study the relationships
relative sense of hopelessness that has historically between language form and function and explain why and how
characterized much of the discourse around autism certain patterns are privileged over others. In the sense that all
systems of meaning are linked to socially defined practices that
over the past half a century. Indeed, I argue that the
carry more or less privilege and value in society, such exploration
intensity of this most current interest in the is also an exploration into power and language. (p. 4)
behavioral discourse around autism may be at least
partially understood by examining its active Although there are a variety of forms of traditions
engagement with a particularly bold and compel- of CDA (see Rogers, 2003, for a cogent discussion
ling vision of hope—the construct of recovery from of the various traditions of CDA), according to Gee
autism—and the powerful resonance that concept (1999), ‘‘[W]hat is important is that the discourse
may have with parents’ hopes for their children. analyst looks for patterns and links within and
Danforth (1997) published a seminal piece across utterances in order to form hypotheses about
entitled ‘‘On What Basis Hope? Modern Progress how meaning is being constructed and analyzed’’
and Postmodern Possibilities’’ in which he explored (p. 99).
the ‘‘powerful and assumed role of hope in special In this analysis, I treat the discourse on
education’’ (p. 93), a role that he characterized as recovery that circulates through these data sources
largely ‘‘unexamined’’ (p. 93). His analysis of in a Foucauldian sense as being constitutive of a
modern and postmodern bases of hope and of truth discursive ‘‘regime’’ (Foucault, 1980, p. 133) that
claims is of obvious relevance to this one: may effectively ‘‘discipline’’ (Foucault, 1977/1995,
p. 138) the ways that parents of young children
From this [modernist] perspective, hope lies in the gradual, with labels of autism (and educators, policymakers,
scientific production of improved approximations of ‘‘truth’’ and etc.) represent and make sense of their own
the development of intervention technologies, practices, pro-
grams, and instruments ‘‘that work’’ according to the truth-
experiences. According to Foucault (1977/1995),
clarifying research….Postmodernists find the historical myth of
‘‘Discipline’’ may be identified neither with an institution nor
scientific progress to be a socially constructed story of uncertain
with an apparatus; it is a type of power, a modality for its
truth value.…[P]ostmodern scholars critique the sociopolitical exercise, comprising a whole set of instruments, techniques,
effects of that narrative. (p. 94) procedures, levels of application, targets; it is a ‘‘physics’’ or an
‘‘anatomy’’ of power, a technology. (p. 215)
I concur with Danforth’s assertion that hope plays a
pivotal, though largely unexamined, role in deci- Foucault’s notion of discipline may be under-
sion making for students with identified disabilities. stood to be roughly analogous to Fairclough’s
This analysis examines the narrative and discursive (2001) notion of ‘‘rule by consent’’: ‘‘Ideology is
practices that seek to constitute a particular ‘‘truth’’ the key mechanism of rule by consent, and because
as a basis for hope in the discourse around recovery it is the favoured vehicle of ideology, discourse is of
for young children with labels of autism. considerable social significance in this connection’’
264 ’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

(p. 28). Thus, I explore and analyze the discourse Maurice book?,’’ ‘‘You’ve heard of Lovaas’s study,
around recovery from autism in an attempt to right?,’’ or ‘‘So do you believe recovery is possible?’’
understand the ways in which particular discourses I treated these references to Maurice, Lovaas, and
operate with ideological and disciplinary power to recovery as examples of Garfinkel’s (1967) ‘‘index-
constitute and sustain particular truths in the ical expressions’’ (p. 5), as
political economies of knowledge, truth, and
Expressions whose sense cannot be decided by an auditor without
cultural power. I hope that this exploration of the
his necessarily knowing or assuming something about the
discursive regime of truth around recovery from biography and the purposes of the user of the expression, the
autism illustrates the complex dynamics of the circumstances of the utterance, the previous course of the
production of knowledge and, therefore, power conversation, or the particular lreationship of the actual or

through discourse (Foucault, 1980). Indeed, I share potential interaction that exists between the expressor and the
autidor. (p. 4)
Foucault’s concern with explicating ‘‘regime[s] of
truth’’ and what he calls the ‘‘‘political economy’ of The ways that parents constructed and constituted
truth’’ (1980, p. 131). According to Foucault: ABA and the construct of recovery in their own
There is a battle ‘‘for truth,’’ or at least ‘‘around truth’’—it being
talk was, thus, integrally related to and informed by
understood once again that by truth I…mean…‘‘the ensemble of the ways in which particular concepts had been
rules according to which the true and the false are separated and constructed and constituted in ABA texts and in
specific effects of power attached to the true,’’ it being the popular media; it is these texts and their
understood also that it’s not a matter of a battle ‘‘on behalf’’ of discourses that I treat as qualitative data in this
the truth, but of a battle about the status of truth and the
economic and political role it plays….‘‘Truth’’ is linked in a
analysis.
circular relation with systems of power which produce and
sustain it, and to effects of power which it induces and which Recovery and Positivism—Framing
extend it. A ‘‘regime’’ of truth. (Foucault, 1980, pp. 132–133)
Prior Inquiry
Thus, in exploring the ‘‘systems of power’’ that Maurice (1993), when first encountering the
‘‘produce and sustain’’ truth through discourse, the construct of recovery from autism, asked herself,
Foucauldian task becomes one of analyzing the ‘‘Could this be true?…But were they truly recov-
performance of discursive practice. In considering ered?’’ (pp. 61–62). Similarly, Cohen (1998) asked,
the ways in which the particular discursive ‘‘Is recovery from autism really possible?’’ (p. 79).
formation of recovery from autism has emerged in Indeed, in Lovaas’s (1987) article, the author
the current historic and material circumstances, I pointed out that he used the term normal functioning
consider not only those aspects of this discursive to describe ‘‘children who successfully passed
formation that emerge as dominant or as constitu- normal first grade and achieved an average IQ on
tive of a ‘‘regime of truth,’’ but also those aspects of the WISC-R [Weschler Intelligence Scale for
discourse that Foucault (1980) described as ‘‘subju- Children—Revised; Weschler, 1974]’’ (p. 8). Lo-
gated,’’ ‘‘disqualified,’’ or ‘‘excluded.’’ It is not a vaas then stated that ‘‘questions can be asked about
matter of discerning or declaring an absolute truth whether these children truly recovered from
in an objectivist or realist ontological sense (nor of autism’’ (p. 8). Cohen (1998) has also suggested
replacing one truth with another); it is, rather, that ‘‘before the question of recovery can be
about discerning the physics or anatomy of power in examined productively, an operational definition
the process of truth production. has to be specified’’ (p. 160). Thus, much of the
In the process of conducting in-depth inter- discussion and dissent around the construct of
views with parents who agreed to participate in the recovery from autism in the literature throughout
original study, I quickly realized that most of the the 1990s and much of the first decade of this
parents drew on a common set of ABA-related century have been framed in these terms, suggesting
constructs (a discourse) in their descriptions of that the significance of the construct lies in the
their experiences and that parents regarded and expert determination as to whether recovery from
presented these constructs as if they were merely autism in general is really, truly, verifiably,
mirroring some objective and taken-for-granted objectively possible or whether particular individ-
aspect of the world. Each of the parents referred uals might really, truly, validly be classified as
to the texts selected for inclusion in this analysis by recovered. The assumptions underlying the framing
asking me questions such as, ‘‘Have you read the of such questions would suggest that the ‘‘question

of recovery’’ is one that can be instrumentally ABA discourse community. A brief analysis of this
addressed by specifying operationally what is context will help to illustrate the ways in which the
‘‘really’’ meant by the term and by judging the meanings of this unstable linguistic construct of
goodness of fit between the operational definition recovery—though bound by a common lexical
and the observed empirical phenomenon in refer- marker—continue to shift.
ence.
These questions have thus been conceptualized Recovery and Successful Participation
from within a positivist worldview. They are framed The term recovery has been invoked from time
largely as objectivist questions of whether the to time over the past several decades in the broader
language—the specific term recovery—accurately, literature on autism to describe, represent, and

objectively, and verifiably reflects the essence and constitute the experiences of individuals who had
the reality of the phenomenon being observed. For been labeled with autism as children and had been
example, Cohen (1998) asked, ‘‘Are these individ- considered to be significantly disabled, yet who
uals recovered, or are they autistics with near- emerged into adolescents and adults who led
normal functioning?’’ (p. 170), with the implicit relatively ordinary lives, people for whom autism
assumption that there is a meaningful, real was no longer a profoundly disabling condition
distinction between recovered individuals and (Baron & Baron, 1992; Grandin & Scariano, 1986;
‘‘autistics with near-normal functioning’’ and that Kaufman, 1994; Stehli, 1991). One of the earliest
only one of these two ways of talking about these engagements with the construct of recovery from
referenced individuals accurately reflects and rep-
autism was made by Rimland (1986), in describing
resents an empirical reality.
Temple Grandin:
Absent from this conversation are discourses
that may conceptualize autism as an identity, for She explained that she was a recovered autistic person and was
example, or as a way of experiencing the world that now in college majoring in psychology….Only about one-fourth
may be better understood through first-hand of the people who tell me that they are recovered autistics seem
to me to be probably correct. In Temple’s case, her voice and her
accounts of that experience than through outsider unusually direct manner persuaded me that she was a recovered
observations. Also absent from this conversation (or recovering) autistic. (p. 5)
are broader cultural questions about the meaning of
the constructs of ability and disability—what does Rimland also said of Grandin’s autobiography
it mean when young children with labels of autism (Grandin & Scariano, 1986), ‘‘To my knowledge,
develop and demonstrate social, linguistic, and this is the first book written by a recovered autistic
cognitive skills that are far more complex than had individual’’ (Rimland, p. 7). Though he described
been expected based on the dominant, deficit- her as recovered, he also hinted at the somewhat
driven cultural and professional presumptions liminal nature of Grandin’s membership or status as
underlying the label of autism? How might recovered by also describing her as a ‘‘recovered (or
educators, parents, researchers, and policymakers recovering)’’ autistic individual.
respond to such circumstances: by seeking to refine After declaring her book to be the first he
and hone diagnostic tools to more carefully and knew of authored by a ‘‘recovered autistic individ-
exactly assess and determine who really has autism ual,’’ Rimland (1986) then described Grandin as
and who does not, while keeping the demarcation ‘‘growing from an extremely handicapped child who
line largely intact? Or by engaging in the much appeared to be destined for permanent institution-
more complex and political process of interrogating alization to a vigorous, productive, and respected
and deconstructing the categories themselves and adult who is a world-authority in her field’’ (p. 7).
the lines that divide them? The answers to these Thus, the meaning of Rimland’s descriptor of
questions are not self-evident and depend on the Grandin as recovered is one that was constructed
political, philosophical, and ideological positioning within the context of a very particular personal
of the persons posing and addressing the questions. history (‘‘an extremely handicapped child’’) with a
I turn now to a brief history of the discursive particular expected vision of the future (‘‘appeared
formation of the construct of recovery from autism to be destined for permanent institutionalization’’).
within the broader autism discourse community, a It is against this background that one understands
construct that is qualitatively different in meaning and makes sense of Grandin’s adult accomplish-
from the construct of recovery from autism in the ments (as a ‘‘vigorous, productive, and respected

adult who is a world-authority in her field’’). In a and recovered. Each is both descriptive of, and
sense then, it is as though Grandin was not merely constitutive of, her own experience and identity,
described as recovered but was actually constituted and the two terms appear not to constitute mutual
as such through the discursive act itself, an act that exclusivity.
derived its particular meaning in part from the Recovery as it is constructed by Rimland
recognition that her life turned out very differently (1986), Grandin and Scariano (1986), and Sacks
than had been expected of her, given her label of (1995) in these particular speech and textual acts
autism. Her vigorous, productive life as a respected seems to describe a certain unforeseen or unex-
adult and professional authority was incongruous pected success in Temple’s life—in her academic
with the dominant expectations of outcomes for career as a student, in her professional academic

one who was labeled autistic. Thus, rather than career as a professor of animal sciences, and as a
adjust our (evidently erroneous) expectations of leading designer of livestock handling facilities.
people labeled with autism or our visions of what is These successes may be regarded as unexpected
possible and to be hoped for in their lives, the within the context of dominant professional
successful individual labeled with autism is discur- assumptions about autism regarding the presumed
sively reconstituted as a recovered individual likelihood of intellectual disability and the history
labeled with autism. of institutional incarceration shared by so many
Rimland (1986) then commented, ‘‘On speak- with that label. The meaning of her recovery can
ing with Temple again recently, after a lapse of only be understood in the particular context of her
several years, I was impressed with how much less own history as ‘‘an extremely handicapped child
autistic-sounding she is today than she was when I who appeared to be destined for permanent
first met her. She has continued to grow and institutionalization’’ (Rimland, 1986, p. 7).
develop’’ (p. 7). Even though he reported having Other adults with childhood histories similar to
been ‘‘persuaded…that she was a recovered (or Grandin’s have used the term recovered to describe
recovering) autistic’’ on first meeting Grandin, he themselves or have alternately been identified as
also had described her at their first meeting as recovered by others. Sean Barron (Barron &
‘‘autistic-sounding,’’ describing her ‘‘loud, unmodu- Barron, 1992) coauthored an autobiography with
lated voice (very characteristic of autistic persons)’’ his mother, Judy, in which each shared his or her
(p. 6). Although Rimland described Grandin as own perspective on what it was like to be, and to
recovered, he continued nevertheless to represent rear, a child with a label of autism. Barron described
her using the adjective autistic, as a person who is himself as ‘‘overcoming autism’’ (p. 255), although
autist-ic, occasionally even using the noun form he is described on the book cover as a young man
‘‘a[n]…autistic’’ to refer to her and continuing to who ‘‘continues his recovery from autism.’’ Al-
connote that she was autistic, that autism was though he lived unassisted in his own apartment,
integral and central to the identity ascribed to her. had a job, a girlfriend, friends, and had graduated
Grandin, too, referred to and represented from college, Barron nevertheless wrote, ‘‘I know
herself as both recovered and autistic. For example, quite well that my autism will always be part of me,
Grandin first represented herself to Rimland (1986) that it isn’t something I can expect to be ‘cured’’’
as ‘‘a recovered autistic person’’ (p. 5), and she (p. 254). Thus, his successful, full participation in
offered readers ‘‘teaching tips from a recovered what is in many ways a very ordinary life was
autistic’’ (Grandin, 1988, p. 1) in one of many represented as an ongoing process of ‘‘overcoming’’
articles she authored on her experiences with or ‘‘recovering from’’ autism, without expectation
autism. She commented in her autobiography of being ‘‘cured’’ of, or otherwise without, autism as
(Grandin & Scariano, 1986) that ‘‘I recovered an eventual outcome or identity.
because my mother, Aunt Ann, and Bill Carlock Raun Kaufman is another young man with a
cared enough about me to work with me’’ (p. 184). childhood label of autism whose early experiences
However, Grandin also continued to identify have become well known through his father’s
herself as autistic, saying, ‘‘If I could snap my books, Son Rise (Kaufman, 1976) and Son Rise:
fingers and be nonautistic, I would not—because The Miracle Continues (Kaufman, 1994), and the
then I wouldn’t be me. Autism is part of who I am’’ 1979 television movie based on the book Son Rise.
(as cited in Sacks, 1995, p. 291). Thus, Grandin His father, Barry Kaufman (1994) described what
described and represented herself as both autistic he called ‘‘Raun’s emergence from autism’’ (p. 195).

Raun wrote the foreword to the 1994 edition of Son smoothly into settings of normal people, and
Rise: The Miracle Continues, and in it he wrote: Annabel claimed her daughter was doing just that’’
(p. 223). Thus, in this context, recovery for
It was not my recovery that made the event of my autism
Rimland signified ‘‘fitting smoothly into settings
amazing and meaningful (though, needless to say, I’m very happy
with the outcome); it was my parents’ open-minded attitude in of normal people,’’ a use of the term that is fairly
the face of my condition and their desire to find meaning in it consistent with his earlier description of Grandin’s
regardless of how I turned out in the end. (p. xiii) recovery. Indeed, Georgiana is now a married
woman with a successful career as an illustrator,
The Kaufmans have consistently deflected atten-
though she has acknowledged that she still has
tion away from Raun’s recovery as the most
some ‘‘autistic characteristics’’ (Cohen, 1998,
‘‘amazing and meaningful’’ aspect of his life being

p. 170).
labeled with autism and have maintained that the
In each of these examples, as in the example of
most important aspect of their life with Raun was
Grandin illustrated earlier (Grandin & Scariano,
their unconditional acceptance of and joy in Raun
1986; Rimland, 1986; Sacks, 1995), the term
throughout his life, ‘‘regardless of how [he] turned
recovery appears to be discursively constructed to
out in the end.’’ If other parents of young children
describe a particular level of participation in
labeled with autism are to look at Raun and see a
ordinary life (e.g., jobs, college, friends, marriage)
vision of hope for their child, the Kaufmans might
without necessitating a disavowal of identifying
hope that that vision not be centered on Raun’s
one’s experiences and one’s self with autism.
outcome but on the process of loving and
Indeed, the term recovered has also been used
appreciating their child unconditionally while both
rather loosely to describe individuals with labels of
expecting and supporting his or her continued
autism who have led what others have deemed
learning and growth. The Kaufmans held the latter
successful adult lives (Kirkus Reviews, 1993), even
as a vision of hope for their son, and they held it
though those individuals so described may strongly
out to other parents as well:
identify themselves as autistic, or even an autistic
Psychologists and special education teachers have accused my (e.g., Williams, 1992). The experiences of each of
wife and me of giving other parents false hope. These experts these individuals have made significant contribu-
claim with great authority that they could know the outcome of tions to the autism literature in the form of
a child’s life at only two or three years old. Hogwash!…[D]on’t autobiography or case study, and although some
ever give up your hope!…Hope has little to do with outcome.
(p. 196)
have credited these successful experiences to
particular forms of intervention (Kaufman, 1994;
Thus, although the Kaufmans and others have Stehli, 1991), others have not (Barron & Barron,
identified Raun as recovered, the vision of hope 1992; Grandin & Scariano, 1986), citing a variety
that they construct around Raun’s recovery has of elements in their lives, including supportive and
‘‘little to do with outcome’’ but centers on the loving families, consistently high expectations of
process through which Raun ‘‘emerged’’ from his them, and rigorous curricula in their schooling.
autism and into greater participation with the Rather than being exclusively and causally tied to
world. particular forms of intervention discourse, the
Georgiana Stehli is a young woman whose preceding examples of recoveries stand in the
recovery from autism has become widely known literature largely as examples of particular individ-
through a book her mother wrote chronicling her uals labeled with autism who, through a variety of
experiences. Annabel Stehli (1991) referred ways and means, grew into happy, successful adults
throughout her text to Georgie’s ‘‘recovery’’ from who participated fully in most aspects of ordinary
autism. She wrote of ‘‘the key to her recovery’’ life, outcomes that many parents hope their own
(p. 153), chronicled events as occurring ‘‘since her children may someday share.
recovery’’ (pp. 203, 207), referred to ‘‘another mark However, the construct of recovery from
of Georgie’s recovery’’ (p. 204), and pointed to a autism has also been heavily drawn on in the
particular intervention as ‘‘the pivotal factor in her discourse surrounding ABA for young children with
recovery’’ (p. 220). Indeed, Rimland (1991) au- autism, and the meanings that have evolved around
thored the afterword of Stehli’s text, and in it he it in this particular discourse community appear to
wrote, ‘‘Almost never do I get a letter saying an be qualitatively different from the meanings and
autistic child has recovered to the point of fitting significances of the term recovery described thus

far. I turn now to an analysis of the ways that the first account in which diagnosis, therapy, and authentic recovery
term recovery has been constructed in ABA are fully documented….Diagnosis: autism. Prognosis: incurable.
We follow their frantic search for anyone who might offer
discourse and its relationship to hope for parents hope—a search that leads…finally, [to] their providential
of young children with labels of autism. discovery of the work of O. Ivar Lovaas, who, using intensive
behavioral therapy with very young children, had achieved a
documented recovery rate of 47 percent—children who are now
Recovery and Hope in ABA Discourse teenagers and are cognitively and socially normal.
Maurice’s (1993) Let Me Hear Your Voice, a
Many parents who have pursued ABA-based
New York Times bestseller, has been widely read and
treatment interventions with their young children
critically acclaimed for its contribution to the
have reported that Maurice’s (1993) book was one

current literature on early intervention for young
of the most influential texts they read after being
children labeled with autism and more, in partic-
given a diagnosis of autism for their child, one that
ular, to the popular literature on ABA as an
prompted them to seek out similar interventions for
intervention method. When the book was pub-
their own children. In a 1998 Canadian Broadcast-
lished, reviewers were largely positive in their
ing Company documentary entitled Behind the Glass
reviews, enticing readers with promises of:
Door: Hannah’s Story (Fanlight Productions, 1998),
A vivid and uplifting story of how a family pulled not one but a grandmother of a young child labeled with autism
two children out of the torments of autism—and into a normal described how Maurice’s book led her family to seek
life…this [book] offers not only hope but a road map….Maurice out ABA intervention for her granddaughter:
offers new strength to parents who refuse to give up on their
autistic children. (Kirkus Reviews, 1993, page number not I found the book, Let Me Hear Your Voice—I think I got it out of
available) the library. And I read it, and the more I read, the more
encouraged I got, and I thought, ‘‘this lady has really worked
Another reviewer wrote: with her child,’’ and this can happen, this can happen for
Hannah.
A word seldom heard in discussions of autistic children is
‘‘hope.’’ A word even more rare is ‘‘recovery.’’ Both are possible,
Hannah’s mother, Karen Shepherd, said of reading
however, if children receive early ‘‘behavior modification’’
treatment from therapists and patient, persistent training from Maurice’s book, ‘‘It was like hope was reborn.’’
parents, argues Catherine Maurice….Finally, Maurice learned of Shepherd describes in the video how she came to
one area of research offering real hope. (Wolfe, 1993, p. 14a) pursue for her daughter the ABA intervention that
was described in Maurice’s book:
Yet another reviewer lauded Maurice’s text as a
‘‘universal tale of hope, dogged parental love, hard I heard about Durham Behavior Management, and I heard that
work and ultimate triumph’’ (Sege, 1993, p. 27). they would help people with autistic children. And I can
Acknowledging some of the controversy sur- remember with fear and trembling, I had this book in my hand,
and I walked into their office and made an appointment, and I
rounding debates over treatment approaches for
said, ‘‘Have you read this book? I want to do this with my
young children with labels of autism, another daughter—will you help me?’’
reviewer presented Maurice’s (1993) endorsement
of ABA as ‘‘a convincing argument,’’ and asked Listening to parents describe the tedious and
readers, ‘‘after all, who is a more credible advocate often disheartening process of sifting through vast
than a mother whose children were redeemed from amounts of information on autism and interven-
the ‘death in life’ that is autism?’’ (Kirsch, 1993). tion, their descriptions of Maurice’s (1993) text are
The Maurices’ (1993) story was, thus, described often strikingly similar in that many parents
as a ‘‘universal tale of hope’’ in which ‘‘both [hope described this book as providing a much-needed
and recovery] are possible.’’ In addition, the family sense of hope for their child:
was described as having found ‘‘real hope,’’ in
The Pagonis say they don’t feel helpless anymore. They gained
implied contradistinction to unrealistic or false
hope after reading a book by another Connecticut woman, who
hope. Perhaps most eye catching to a parental wrote under the pseudonym Catherine Maurice, that chronicles
audience reviewing this text was the offering of what she describes as the recovery from autism of her two young
‘‘not only hope but a road map.’’ The inside front daughters [sic] after treatment with an intensive behavioral
cover of Maurice’s book reads, in part: method. (Weizel, 1995, p. 15)
This is the profoundly moving story, told by their mother, of how Other parents have echoed similar sentiments in
two children were rescued from the tragedy of autism—and the sharing their stories:

What the Taylors found most distressing was that they were not particularly hopeful, as these discourses typically
offered any hope for their son. Rather, they faced the prospect of maintain that 50%–75% of people with labels of
him never being able to lead an independent life. Then a friend
discovered an article about a woman who had apparently helped
autism are intellectually disabled (Freeman, 1997;
her autistic daughter to make a full recovery by using the Lovaas Rapin, 1997; Rutter, 1978, 1983) and that potential
method of healing….[T]o the Taylors, it represented their only futures for these individuals often include the
hope of bringing their son back from the mysterious world into possibility of institutionalization (Lovaas, 1987,
which he had retreated…. ‘‘We felt we owed it to Oliver to try 1988; Ornitz & Ritvo, 1976; Rutter, 1970). In Let
absolutely anything that offered him a chance of recovery.’’ (van
Me Hear Your Voice, Maurice (1993) described her
den Nieuwenhof, 1996, page number not available)
encounters with these traditional professional
In many ways, Maurice’s (1993) text, thus, set discourses, pointing out that ‘‘everything I read

the stage for popular discourse around hope for [about autism] was so appalling, and spelled such
recovery from autism. Central to this discussion has hopelessness’’ (p. 22). Shortly after being given a
been the construction of a very particular vision of diagnosis of autism for her daughter and having
hope that has at least two integral conceptual read what information she could find on the
elements, each of which is analyzed more fully subject, Maurice said, ‘‘What we already knew,
below: (a) Hope for recovery within ABA discourse sitting in Dr. DeCarlo’s office, was that autism was
is constructed in binary opposition to hopelessness, considered to be a permanent handicap, and that
and (b) recovery within ABA discourse is discur- our daughter, according to prevailing medical
sively constructed as ‘‘recovery (to normalcy).’’ opinion, would never talk, or act, or love in any
normal way’’ (p. 26). Thus, Maurice’s understand-
ing of autism at that point was constructed as
Hope for Recovery Versus Hopelessness similar to permanent exclusion from normal
In this popular ABA discourse, hope for
participation in talking, loving, and other actions
recovery is discursively constructed in binary
and aspects of everyday life.
opposition to hopelessness: One is presented with
The inside cover of Maurice’s (1993) text sums
a perceived choice between hope and despair. This up a common popular and professional perception
discursive opposition of hope and despair disci- of the relationship between the label of autism and
plines, in a Foucauldian sense, the hopes of parents, the possibility of hope: ‘‘Diagnosis: autism. Progno-
educators, and policymakers in envisioning and sis: incurable.’’ Many other parents have reported
enacting possible futures for young children with similar prognoses of doom over the decades; for
labels of autism. I argue that three interrelated example, Kaufman (1994) shared the story of the
conceptual elements of this discursive opposition of prognosis offered for his son that, unfortunately,
hope versus hopelessness contribute to the disci- would be all too familiar to many parents:
plinary power of this conceptual binary and to the
ways that it operates as if natural, neutral, and The clinician now looked at us rather sadly and tried to convince
practical. This binary conceptualization of hope us of the unfortunate prognosis for this condition. His associate
suggested that we were lucky to have two normal children. In
versus hopelessness disciplines the conversation effect, he said, we should focus our attention on them and
around hope and recovery by (a) discursively consider eventual institutionalization for our son. Never, ever,
reproducing and representing autism (specifically) did we want to see our child through their eyes….We decided to
and disability (generally) as inherently tragic, be hopeful even if others called such a perspective unrealistic.
Without hope, we had no reason to go on. (pp. 24–25)
catastrophic, and hopeless; (b) representing hope
for recovery not as a vision of hope but as the only This common popular and professional con-
vision of hope for a young child labeled with ceptualization of autism as equivalent to hopeless-
autism, the desired ‘‘end’’; and (c) inextricably ness is not unique to the ABA discourse on autism,
linking this ‘‘only’’ hope (for recovery, the desired nor is it a concept that may safely be described as
end) with a specific intervention methodology, outdated. It is within the context of this broader
ABA, as the means necessary to attain that end. I construction of hopelessness associated with autism
illustrate each of these elements in greater detail that the construct of recovery from autism as a form
below. of hope has emerged, and the meaning of this
Autism–disability as tragic, catastrophic, and particular construction of hope seems to be
hopeless. It would be difficult to characterize embedded within and defined by its contrast to
traditional professional discourses on autism as this widespread sense of hopelessness.

Central to this construction of recovery as Hope for recovery as the only vision of hope. A
hope in opposition to despair is the understanding second conceptual element of this binary construc-
and representation of autism as utterly and totally tion of hope versus hopelessness is the representa-
catastrophic, a tragic condition devoid of hope by tion of hope for recovery not as a vision of hope for
its very essence. Maurice (1993) described the young children labeled with autism but as the only
despair that autism represented to her: vision of hope for children so labeled. In the
context of the ongoing reproduction in ABA
There is something about autism that to me gave meaning to the
discourse of the first element of this conceptual
phrase ‘‘death in life.’’ Autism is an impossible condition of being
there and not being there; a person without a self; a life without a dichotomy—the representation of autism as inher-
soul. (p. 57) ently tragic, catastrophic, and hopeless—the con-

cept of hope for recovery stands in stark contrast to
Reviewers similarly construct this impossible con- this dominant picture of hopelessness and despair
dition as tragic when they described Maurice and is presented as the only hopeful vision
pulling her children ‘‘out of the torments of autism’’ available, or at least, as the only real hope.
(Kirkus Reviews, 1993, page number not available), Recovery thus becomes almost synonymous with
and of their being ‘‘rescued from the tragedy of hope itself—in the apparent absence of other
autism.’’ Maurice recounted the dominant profes- visions of hope, hope for recovery may be welcomed
sional vision of autism as a tragic disability with a dire by those who insist on embracing hopeful visions of
prognosis when she reported to her readers what she futures for young children labeled with autism in
had learned from her own reading on the subject: spite of the dire prognoses traditionally offered.
As to prognosis, over half the children had a ‘‘uniformly poor
The experience of the Taylor family described
prognosis’’ and only about a quarter of them could do earlier testifies that what was most distressing for
‘‘moderately well,’’ whatever that means. Any mention of ‘‘cure’’ them was that ‘‘they were not offered any hope for
or ‘‘recovery’’ was conspicuously, ominously, absent. (p. 17) their son. Rather, they faced the prospect of him
never being able to lead an independent life’’ (van
Lovaas (1987) also contributed to this con-
den Nieuwenhof, 1996, page number not avail-
struction of autism as a disability with little room
able). After learning of Maurice’s (1993) experi-
for hopeful visions of a child’s future:
ence, who had ‘‘apparently helped her autistic
Autism is a serious psychological disorder with onset in early daughter to make a full recovery by using the
childhood.…The prognosis is very poor.…The majority [of Lovaas (1987) method of healing’’ (van den
individuals in Rutter’s, 1970, follow-up study] (more than 60%) Nieuwenhof, 1996, page number not available),
remained severely handicapped and were living in hospitals for
they, too, began an ABA program modeled after
mentally retarded or psychotic individuals or in other protective
settings. (p. 3)
Lovaas’s program, because, ‘‘to the Taylors, it
represented their only hope of bringing their son
Lovaas (1987) continued to construct the hope back’’ (van den Nieuwenhof, 1996, page number
for recovery offered by his behavioral treatment not available). This family felt that they were not
program in opposition to visions of hopelessness offered any hope for their son, and in this relative
and despair. Lovaas concluded his article by absence of hope of any kind, the possibility of
introducing a cost–benefit analysis of the potential recovery through ‘‘the Lovaas method of healing’’
outcomes of using versus not using behavioral therefore represented to them their only hope for
treatment: ‘‘The assignment of one full-time their son.
special-education teacher for 2 years would cost Maurice (1993) spoke of adjusting to hope
an estimated $40,000, in contrast to the nearly $2 following the diagnosis of autism for her daughter
million incurred (in direct costs alone) by each and the accompanying guarded prognosis she had
client requiring life-long institutionalization’’ been offered: ‘‘And once we had adjusted to hope,
(p. 9). Lovaas thus discursively presented his there was no turning back…the goal was there…
construction of the possibility of hope for recovery Anne-Marie would be whole and normal. She
through behavioral intervention against the back- would talk and smile and grow and love. She would
ground of the possibility (or even probability) of recover’’ (p. 67). For the Maurices, as for the
‘‘life-long institutionalization’’ of one’s child, a Taylors, hope was something they had not had
prospect that may indeed epitomize hopelessness much of following their daughter’s diagnosis, and it
for many parents. required a shift in their thinking, an adjustment, to

dare to hope for their daughter. As Maurice Recovery (to Normalcy)

embraced the idea of entertaining hope—any If the first element of this conceptualization of
hope—for her daughter, that hope was very clearly hope for recovery in ABA discourse has been its
linked to a particular vision, a particular goal—that construction in binary opposition to hopelessness
she would recover. In this way, hope for young and despair, a second integral conceptual element
children labeled with autism becomes inextricably of this conceptualization of hope has been its
linked with hope for recovery in popular ABA construction of recovery as recovery (to normalcy).
discourse. Within the disciplinary confines of this The discourse around recovery from autism as
discourse, if one is to embrace hope for one’s child previously illustrated through the biographies and
at all, recovery is constructed as the only possible autobiographies of adults who have been labeled

basis for that hope and, thus, becomes the desired with autism has centered on the process of
end, the goal—the vision that is held out, hoped increasing participation and success in many
for, and worked toward. ordinary spheres of life, and those individuals that
Linking of only hope with ABA. A third have been described as recovered may be consid-
conceptual element of this binary construction of ered to be those for whom the effects of autism are
hope versus hopelessness is the linking of this only no longer disabling in any significant or substan-
vision of hope with a particular intervention tially limiting way. However, the construct of
method, ABA. When recovery is constructed in a recovery from autism within ABA discourse is a
professional discourse as the singular vision of hope
qualitatively different one, one that may appear at
for young children labeled with autism, a vision
first to challenge the relevance of the dichotomous
that is discursively constructed in binary opposition
constructs of abled–disabled, autistic–recovered, or
to institutionalization and despair, one cannot help
normal–abnormal, but that, I argue, ultimately
but wonder what parent would not choose to
reinscribes these dichotomous categories in a
embrace recovery as their hope for their young
profoundly conservative way.
child? As Carmen eloquently asked me, ‘‘It’s the
Lovaas and his colleagues (Lovaas, 1971, 1993;
only thing that’s been scientifically proven to work
Lovaas & Smith, 1989; McEachin, Smith, &
in recovering kids with autism—why would we do
Lovaas, 1993) have repeatedly questioned the
anything else?’’ It appears to be a self-evident,
neutral, commonsense, and straightforward choice validity and the usefulness of the construct of
—of course one would choose hope over despair, autism. He wrote that ‘‘the existence of an entity
the possibility of recovery over the likelihood of called ‘autism’ is a hypothesis (Rutter, 1987)—an
institutionalization. It is hardly surprising that attempt to organize data and direct research—
parents who articulate and embrace this particular rather than a proven fact’’ (Lovaas & Smith, 1989,
vision of hope, of recovery, for their son or daughter p. 19). ‘‘Autism is a construct that may facilitate
also often embrace the intervention method, ABA, research or may prematurely freeze or misdirect
that is explicitly linked to claims of recovery in this inquiry into helping children to whom the term is
discourse. Indeed, if one embraces recovery as the applied (Lovaas, 1971)’’ (Lovaas & Smith, 1989,
hoped-for goal for one’s child, and if ‘‘it’s [ABA’s] p. 20). He wrote of the University of California,
the only thing that’s been scientifically proven to Los Angeles (UCLA), Young Autism Project, ‘‘An
work in recovering kids with autism,’’ then ‘‘why observation on the commonly used constructs of
would we do anything else?’’ (Broderick, 2004, intelligence and autism may be relevant here. Our
p. 1). Why, indeed? Within the context of this treatment was not directed at modifying either
discourse, it seems the most logical and common- construct….The success of behavioral treatment
sensical decision to pursue ABA intervention if one seems to make the constructs of intelligence and
chooses to embrace hope for one’s child over autism superfluous’’ (McEachin et al., 1993,
despair. However, I would argue that the assump- p. 625).
tions underlying this apparently commonsense However, rather than challenging the rele-
assertion are ideological and political in nature, vance of these constructs and the dichotomous
and I turn now to the task of deconstructing the categories of ability–disability and normal intelli-
self-evidence, neutrality, or ‘‘naturalness’’ of the gence–intellectual disability in which they are
assumptions in which these discursive practices are grounded, the ABA discourse around recovery
grounded. seeks to challenge the position, the permeability,

and indeed the permanence, of the line that Although Lovaas never explicitly equated his use of
delimits one category from the other while the phrase ‘‘normal educational and intellectual
maintaining a commitment to the usefulness and functioning’’ (p. 3) with his use of the term
veracity of the binary categories themselves. Rather recovery, the two examples noted above coupled
than critiquing or deconstructing the constructs of with his careful use of the term throughout the rest
ability–disability and autism–normalcy, I argue that of the article make that clear implication. In the
the discursive practices around recovery from abstract to Lovaas’s (1987) study, he stated that
autism in the ABA literature serve to reinscribe
Follow-up data…showed that 47% achieved normal intellectual
the legitimacy and apparent neutrality of these
and educational functioning, with normal-range IQ scores and
categories, relying as they do on a conservative successful first grade performance in public schools. Another

ideological privileging of normalcy, as illustrated 40% were mildly retarded and assigned to special classes for the
below. Cohen (1998) pointed to the crux of this language delayed, and only 10% were profoundly retarded and
difference when she cogently observed, assigned to classes for the autistic/retarded. (p. 3)
That word ‘‘recovery,’’ the rallying cry of parents of young Thus, although Lovaas was later to suggest that the
children with autism who believe in Lovaas and Catherine results of this study may have made the constructs
Maurice, a word otherwise unheard in relation to autism, is a of autism and intelligence superfluous, he never-
word with an implied promise: normalcy. Your child can be theless relied heavily on traditional psychological
normal. (pp. 158–159)
constructs of intelligence in describing the results
Recovery, within the ABA discourse commu- of this study. Lovaas carefully used the behavioral
nity, is not about ‘‘fitting smoothly into settings of terminology of ‘‘normal functioning’’ to describe
normal people’’ (Rimland, 1991, p. 223), as Rim- the group of children who achieved best outcome,
land suggested, a construct that similarly relied on yet he alternately referred to this best-outcome
the maintenance of a fundamental division be- group of children as recovered, thus repeatedly
tween normal and abnormal. It is, rather, as Cohen making an implicit semantic link between his use of
(1998) suggested, constructed as being about the construct recovery and the construct of
‘‘be[ing] normal’’ (italics added, p. 159). Thus, in normalcy.
these discourses-in-practice, the construct of recov- Interestingly, Lovaas (1987) used no such
ery seems to carry the implicit object of recovery caution in referring to the remaining 50% of
(to normalcy) as a basis of hope for young children children who did not achieve best outcome. These
labeled with autism. Yet, how did the construct of children were not cautiously described as ‘‘func-
recovery come to be so closely linked with the tioning as mentally retarded;’’ rather, they were
construct of normalcy in ABA discourse? I turn described as being ‘‘mentally retarded.’’ The meta-
now to an analysis of Lovaas’s (1987) original use of phoric label of ‘‘mental retardation’’ (Biklen, 2000)
the term recovery and the ways that he discursively was applied to this group of children as if it
constructed the term in the article reporting on his described a defining feature of their identity.
treatment-effect study. Similarly, by sliding from the use of the careful
Lovaas’s (1987) use of the term recovery. The terminology of normal functioning to the more
discourse around recovery from autism popularized provocative use of the term recovered, Lovaas
by Maurice’s (1993) text is rooted in the rhetorical semantically moved from an operational term to
construct put forth by Lovaas (1987) in reporting one that also seemed to describe a defining feature
outcomes for the UCLA Young Autism Project. of the children’s identities. Thus, an equation is
Lovaas used the term recovery several times discursively constructed between functioning nor-
throughout the article, but he never explicitly mally and being recovered. To function normally is
defined its meaning as he used it. Twice, Lovaas to be recovered; to be recovered is to be normal.
directly referred to those children from the One might argue that this is something of a
experimental group who achieved positive out- semantic leap, although I contend it is a small
comes as recovered (‘‘the recovered children,’’ p. 8; one if at all, particularly given the similar leap that
and ‘‘recovered’’ as a column heading representing Lovaas himself glossed through in his descriptions
the 47% ‘‘best outcome’’ children in Table 3, p. 7), of the children who were not in the best-outcome
and it is in this article that we can see the rhetorical group. The children who scored, that is, functioned,
roots of the association of recovery with normalcy. in the range ascribed to ‘‘mental retardation’’ were

not represented as functioning as ‘‘mentally retard- improvement shown each year but with only one subject
ed’’ but were represented as being ‘‘mentally recovering. (p. 5)
retarded.’’ This would appear then, to be a semantic By referring to ‘‘subjects who did not recover’’ as
leap that Lovaas himself felt comfortable in opposed to reporting on ‘‘all subjects who went on
making. If the children who functioned in the to a normal first grade,’’ Lovaas again implied that
range of ‘‘mental retardation’’ were ‘‘mentally the children who went on to a normal first grade
retarded,’’ then one might reasonably infer that were recovered, without explicitly making that
the children who functioned in the range of statement or defining his use of the term, recover.
normalcy were ‘‘normal.’’ This was the third time in the article that this
Lovaas (1987) began his article by summarizing provocative term was used without what behavioral

the positive and negative points of experimental researchers would call an operational definition. I
behavioral research on children labeled with do not mean to suggest, as Cohen (1998) has, that
autism. In summarizing the negative points of an operational definition of recovery needs to be
empirical research conducted prior to his present established. However, given the epistemological
study, he stated, ‘‘Treatment gains have been (positivist), methodological (quantitative, experi-
specific to the particular environment in which mental, treatment–effect design), and theoretical
the client was treated, substantial relapse has been
(operant behaviorism) grounding of Lovaas’s re-
observed at follow-up, and no client has been
search, it seems unlikely that a behavioral research-
reported as recovered’’ (p. 3). The Young Autism
er would fail to provide an operational definition
Project was specifically designed to address these
for such a provocative description of an outcome.
shortcomings of clinical behavioral research. By
This omission suggests that perhaps the power of
specifically identifying those three shortcomings in
the term recovery lies in its rhetorical, rather than
the introduction, the author rhetorically implied an
its operational, use. Thus, the term did not
intent to illustrate that his research differed from
neutrally describe an observed outcome; rather, it
prior research in three significant ways: (a) that
constructed the framework through which we
participants’ treatment gains were maintained
understand and constitute our own perceptions of
across environments because they were taught
outcome for young children labeled with autism
across environments (p. 3); (b) that ‘‘the achieve-
within the discursive practices associated with
ments of experimental group subjects have re-
ABA.
mained stable’’ (pp. 6–7); and (c) that some of his
Lovaas (1987) did acknowledge the potentially
participants were recovered. Indeed, the first two
claims were explicitly made in the article, whereas problematic usage of the term recovery, stating
the third was made only obliquely, and addressed that, ‘‘The term normal functioning has been used to
implicitly, throughout the article. It is this subtext describe children who successfully passed normal
around recovery and normalcy that has been taken first grade and achieved an average IQ on the
up so powerfully in the discourse around ABA since WISC-R. But questions can be asked about whether
the publication of Lovaas’s (1987) study. these children truly recovered from autism’’ (p. 8,
Rather than explicitly defining those children italics in original). Lovaas (1987) pointed out that
who achieved positive outcomes as recovered, ‘‘certain residual deficits may remain in the normal
Lovaas (1987) referred to the remainder of the functioning group that cannot be detected by
experimental group as ‘‘subjects who did not teachers and parents and can only be isolated on
recover’’ (p. 5), thus strengthening his implied closer psychological assessment, particularly as
equation of best outcome with recovery. In these children grow older’’ (p. 8). Thus, the stated
describing the culmination and eventual termina- basis for Lovaas’s reservation about the use of the
tion of treatment procedures for the children term recovery was the possibility of residual deficits
involved in the study, Lovaas stated, that may be detected as the children grew older.
However, McEachin et al.’s (1993) follow-up study
All subjects who went on to a normal first grade were reduced in reported that 8 of the best-outcome children ‘‘were
treatment from the 40 hr per week characteristic of the first 2 indistinguishable from average children on tests of
years to 10 hr or less per week during kindergarten….Subjects
who did not recover in the experimental group received 40 hr or
intelligence and adaptive behavior’’ (p. 359). Thus,
more per week of one-to-one treatment for more than 6 years the stated source of Lovaas’s hesitancy in applying
(more than 14,000 hr of one-to-one treatment) with some the term recovered to these children seems to be

rectified, and these findings would seem to confirm strand, & Lovaas, 1997; Smith & Lovaas, 1998),
his original implication that the best-outcome although he continued to use it in non–peer-
children were recovered. reviewed publications, with parents as a likely
Other authors have critiqued Lovaas and his audience (and others have continued to draw on
colleagues on empirical grounds for their use of the the construct of recovery [cf. Kotler, 1994; Mulick,
term recovery with its connotative relationship to 1999]). For example, Lovaas wrote, in a foreword to
the concept of ‘‘cure’’ (e.g., Gresham & MacMillan, an autobiographical narrative with a likely audi-
1997). Lovaas et al. responded by backpedaling ence of parents, rather than professionals (Johnson
somewhat on the use of the specific term recovery. & Crowder, 1994): ‘‘Over the last few years, there is
In their reply to Gresham and MacMillan, Smith evidence that some children can be helped to

and Lovaas (1997) stated, recover’’ (Lovaas, 1994, p. 7). An additional
example is Lovaas’s (2002) training manual entitled
We wrote that it was unclear whether recovery was an Teaching Individuals with Developmental Delays: Basic
appropriate term to apply to the participants in our project
Intervention Techniques, wherein he wrote:
(Lovaas, 1987, p. 8), and we have never even considered cure as
a possibility….The use of cure would certainly be unethical Most parents have gained some information about early and
because it would imply falsely that we had identified the cause of intensive behavioral intervention and may have been led to
the autism displayed by children in the study, and then removed believe that 47% of all the children treated with this
this cause….Instead of ‘‘recovery’’ or ‘‘cure,’’ we have used either intervention reach normal educational, emotional, and social
‘‘normal functioning’’ (referring to performance in the average functioning. However, this statistic has been obtained only
range across outcome measures) or ‘‘best outcome’’ (referring to a under the most optimal clinic-based treatment conditions.
subgroup that appeared to have a much ore favorable treatment Workshop-based treatment is estimated to yield a recovery rate
response than other intensively treated children)….On one between 10% and 20% provided the workshop leader is qualified.
occasion, we used ‘‘recovered’’ as a column header in a table The recovery outcome for workshops led by persons who are not
(Lovaas, 1987, Table 3). In retrospect, this may have caused qualified may not exceed 5%. (Lovaas, 2002, p. 25)
unnecessary confusion (which we regret), but we did not claim
recovery or cure. (pp. 203–204, italics in original) The salient issue is that engagement with this
discursive construct of recovery relies on and
Smith and Lovaas (1997) also asserted that reinscribes particular ideological beliefs about the
Gresham and MacMillan’s (1997) statement that nature of disability and the constructs of normal
the UCLA program ‘‘claims to produce ‘recovery’’’ and abnormal. Autism is constructed as a disability,
(p. 186) ‘‘verges on slander’’ (Smith & Lovaas, certainly, but one from which one may recover and
p. 203), due to the unethical nature of such a claim. gain (or regain) the invisible privilege of the status
However, in Lovaas’s (1987) concluding discussion, of normalcy.
he remarked, Maurice (1993): Recovery and normalcy. If
On the basis of testing to date, the recovered children show no Lovaas’s use of the construct of normalcy in
permanent intellectual or behavioral deficits and their language professional publication created an implied notion
appears normal, contrary to the position that many have of recovery (to normalcy), we can easily see how
postulated (Rutter, 1974; Churchill, 1978) but consistent with this powerful notion was taken up and further
Kanner’s (1943) position that autistic children possess poten- reified in Maurice’s (1993) autobiographical text.
tially normal or superior intelligence. (p. 8)
She described her transition from thinking of her
Following the allusions and rhetorical implications own child as normal to thinking of her as autistic:
made throughout the rest of the article, the best-
Anne-Marie was different, not only from other children but from
outcome children were finally referred to directly, the little girl we thought we knew. Whom had we known? We
and unproblematically, as the recovered children, had been thinking of her, in spite of our worries, as a normal
language that is indeed tantamount to a claim of child, filled with the needs and desires and even the pastimes of a
recovery. normal child….Stripped of our illusions, we found Anne-Marie
to be suddenly alien. (p. 31)
However, the salient issue is not whether
Lovaas or other behavioral researchers use the term The problem was that now ‘‘it’’ was her, it was who she was. She
recovery. Indeed, in wake of several critiques of his ‘‘was’’ autistic, as someone ‘‘is’’ a man, or a woman, or short or
tall….She did not ‘‘have’’ autism; she was autistic….[N]o longer
use of the term recovery (Baer, 1993; Gresham &
could we find a self in her. (pp. 45–46)
MacMillan, 1997; Mundy, 1993), Lovaas refrained
from using such terminology in subsequent peer- Maurice described that she ‘‘had been thinking
reviewed publications (see Smith, Eikeseth, Klev- of her…as a normal child,’’ but after having a label

of autism applied to her daughter, she began instead case, the implication is to regain the status of
to think of and construct Anne-Marie within the normalcy previously possessed or accorded that was
context of that disability label. Within that somehow lost in the onset and labeling of autism in a
framework, she came to understand her prior young child. This tacit understanding and use of the
perception of Anne-Marie as a normal child as an term recovery (to normalcy) have gone largely
illusion. Although Anne-Marie may at first have unquestioned and unexamined in the ABA litera-
been constructed by her parents as normal, she ture, except for a few ventures into the aforemen-
now, understood through the framework of the tioned positivist queries regarding whether it is
construct of autism, was not. Autism became who possible to be, and whether particular children are,
she was, and the identity ascribed to her shifted empirically, objectively, verifiably recovered. How-

from normal to autistic—disabled, abnormal. ever, Kephart (1998), herself a parent of a young
Maurice further reflected on this transition: child labeled with autism, theorized around her own
experiences with her son’s labeling and educational
One issue that was particularly confusing and distressing for us interventions by deftly posing the critical questions
concerned Anne-Marie’s earlier, seemingly normal period of
that others have not:
development. She had had words. Why had she lost them?
Where had they gone? How could she have been normal and What, in the end, are you fighting for: Normal? Is normal
now be abnormal? Didn’t the presence of some language in the possible? Can it be defined? Is it best achieved by holing up in
past mean that at least the potential to speak was still there? the offices of therapists, in special classrooms, in isolated
(p. 50) exercises, in simulating living, while everyday ‘‘normal’’ happens
casually on the other side of the wall? And is normal superior to
Although not explicitly stated, this particular what the child inherently is, to what he aspires to, fights to
passage in Maurice’s text elicits a query in the become, every second of his day? (p. 11)
reader’s mind: Anne-Marie ‘‘had had words,’’ but
she had ‘‘lost them;’’ she had ‘‘been normal,’’ but In effect, Kephart named the invisible ideological
now was ‘‘abnormal.’’ In considering the question, position of privilege on which the construct of
recovery (to normalcy) tacitly rests, a position that
‘‘Didn’t the presence of some language in the past
Thomson (1997) designated ‘‘the normate’’ (p. 8):
mean that at least the potential to speak was still
there?,’’ the reader is left to infer a second, This neologism names the veiled subject position of cultural self,
analogous question: ‘‘Didn’t the presence of nor- the figure outlined by the array of deviant others whose marked
malcy in the past mean that at least the potential bodies shore up the normate’s boundaries. The term normate
usefully designates the social figure through which people can
for normalcy was still there?’’ This is a provocative
represent themselves as definitive human beings. Normate, then,
consideration, and Maurice alluded to the powerful is the constructed identity of those who, by way of the bodily
nature of the construct of normalcy when she configurations and cultural capital they assume, can step into a
admitted that ‘‘the idea of ‘normalcy,’ the param- position of authority and wield the power it grants them. (p. 8,
eters of what was considered normal development italics in original)
and behavior, began to obsess me’’ (p. 14). Although Thomson limited her theoretical analysis
Indeed, the notion of recovery to normalcy may to physical disability, as culturally inscribed on the
be perceived to be particularly appealing and ‘‘extraordinary bodies’’ of individuals who are
practical when applied to young children labeled physically disabled, her analysis is relevant here
with autism, many of whom may have already and is easily expanded to account for the particular
enjoyed the status accorded to ‘‘normal’’ children example of autism.
and for whom the emergence of particular actions Although autism is not generally understood to
and characteristics resulted in the subsequent acqui- be a physical disability, it is nevertheless inscribed
sition of a label of autism and a status of disability, of in and on unusual bodies, bodies that move and
abnormality. Thus, given that many children are not posture and respond and act in extraordinary ways.
labeled with autism until they are 2, 3, or even 4 years Although now understood to be a complex
of age, the notion of recovery to normalcy in young neurological difference, or manifestation of human
children labeled with autism in many ways may neurological diversity (Broderick & Ne’eman,
resonate with the common experience of many 2008), autism continues to be largely a behaviorally
parents that their child used to ‘‘be normal’’ and defined syndrome; therefore, by definition, one has
now somehow, suddenly, is not. By definition, to autism when one is observed to move, act, respond,
recover is to regain possession of something; in this behave in particular ways, ways that have been

designated by the American Psychiatric Associa- normal–abnormal. Gould (1996) referred to this
tion as disordered (APA, 1994). Thus, children phenomenon as ‘‘dichotomization, or our desire to
whose bodies appeared to be normal from birth, parse complex and continuous reality into divisions
with none of the visible physical, culturally by two (smart and stupid, black and white)’’ (p. 27)
stigmatized differences often associated with the and listed it, along with its companion phenomena
bodies of children with other developmental of reductionism, reification, and hierarchy, as
disabilities (i.e., Down syndrome or cerebral palsy), ‘‘some of the oldest issues and errors of our
become disabled when their difference becomes philosophical tradition’’ (p. 27). The tradition to
embodied through their actions. Thus, the bodies of which Gould referred is, of course, the philosoph-
these children become marked as deviant when ical heritage of positivism, and it is these deeply

they begin to twirl their fingers incessantly before embedded and largely invisible assumptions of the
their eyes, when their primary eye gaze is oblique culture of positivism that shape our cultural
rather than direct, when they walk on their toes, expectations that a child cannot have been normal
when their bodies’ postures hyperextend and stiffen and now be abnormal without some precipitating
on being touched, when they move their bodies and event to account for this radical shift from a
act in unexpected or repetitive ways, and so on. position of cultural privilege to a position of
From the inception of the construct of autism, cultural stigmatization.
it has been repeatedly noted that young children so Kephart’s (1998) question, ‘‘What, in the end,
labeled ‘‘look normal,’’ contrary to cultural expec- are you fighting for? Normal?’’ (p. 11), exposed and
tations that disability will be accompanied by destabilized the ideological assumption that nor-
physical markers on the body. Kanner (1943) first malcy is the presumed end that we are ‘‘fighting
remarked that the group of children he studied had for,’’ and the corollary presumption that normal is
‘‘strikingly intelligent physiognomies’’ (p. 247). ‘‘superior to what the child inherently is, to what he
Children labeled with autism are also often aspires to, fights to become, every second of his
constructed as strikingly beautiful; indeed, Frith day’’ (p. 11). In so doing, Kephart disrupted the
(1989) opened her text on autism with the discourse in practice around recovery (to normalcy)
following passage: in ABA discourse and created spaces for engage-
ment with alternative conceptualizations of hope
‘‘She was so pretty—hazel eyes with long curling eyelashes and
finely tapered eyebrows, flaxen coloured curls and such a sweet, for young children labeled with autism, embedded
far-away expression.…’’ The typical image of the child suffering in alternative ideologies, alternative discourses, and
from ‘‘Autism’’ is most surprising. Those familiar with images of alternative practices.
children who suffer from other serious developmental disorders
know that these children look handicapped. In contrast, more
often than not, the young autistic child strikes the observer with Alternative Visions of Hope:
a haunting and somehow other-worldly beauty. (p. 1, italics in
original)
Postmodern Possibilities
It may be instructive at this point to briefly
And Maurice (1993), on first suspecting some explore the use and connotations of the meaning of
differences in her young daughter’s development, the term recovery in another disability-related
reassured herself by remarking, ‘‘We didn’t know discourse community—specifically, the use of the
what her IQ was, but she looked intelligent term in the literature on and by survivors of
enough’’ (p. 18). psychiatric illness, which is qualitatively different
Thus, children are often constructed as looking from the use of the term recovery (to normalcy)
intelligent and looking beautiful, two very powerful within the ABA discourse community. For exam-
facets of the privileged cultural position of normal- ple, according to Davidson, with O’Connell, Sells,
cy, facets that may appear to be incongruent with and Staeheli (2003):
the stigmatized status of tragic disability that is
associated with autism. Maurice (1993) pointed to At its most basic level, the recovery model argues that
this incongruence when she asked herself, ‘‘How psychiatric disability is only one aspect of the whole person
(Corrigan and Penn, 1998) and that recovery from psychiatric
could she have been normal and now be abnor-
disorder does not require remission of symptoms or other deficits.
mal?’’ (p. 50). However, this conceptual incongru- In other words, and unlike in most physical illnesses, people may
ence can be understood as an artifact of the binary consider themselves to be ‘‘in recovery’’ from a psychiatric
opposition of the constructs of ability–disability and disorder while continuing to have, and be affected by, the

disorder. What recovery seems to entail is that people overcome Certainly it has been the case for much of the past two hundred
the effects of being a mental patient—including rejection from years that we have practiced as if recovery was a precondition of
society, poverty, substandard housing, social isolation, unem- citizenship, in that people had to show improvement prior to
ployment, loss of valued social roles and identity, and loss of being released from the hospital, returning to work, living
sense of self and purpose in live—in order to retain, or resume, independently, etc. (Davidson et al., 2001). Perhaps what we are
some degree of control over their own lives (Anthonly, 1993; learning now, however, is that citizenship needs to be viewed as
Deegan, 1996a, 1996b). (p. 38) much as a precondition for recovery as one of its consequences.
(p. 79, italics in original)
Thus, within the psychiatric survivor discourse,
recovery is not fundamentally or primarily about In extrapolating from their analysis of the construct
reduction or remission of symptoms or other of recovery in the psychiatric survivors’ movement,
perceived deficits to more closely approximate or we may make an analogous claim in relation to the

regain a status of behavioral or psychiatric normal- construct of recovery in autism discourse: Within
cy. Instead, this notion of recovery acknowledges the discursive formation of the construct of
the discriminatory and disabling circumstances that recovery (to normalcy) that has emerged within
one often experiences in relation to the cultural the ABA discourse community in the past 2
stigma and concurrent loss of cultural capital decades, a return to or an approximation of cultural
associated with one’s identity as a psychiatric markers of normalcy have been constituted as
patient. This focus on the social contexts of preconditions for the designation of recovery and,
recovery is not in place of a focus on symptom hence, for one’s participation in and access to, for
reduction but is the undeniable and central context example, inclusive academic schooling. Indeed, in
within which one’s efforts toward symptom reduc- Lovaas’s (1987) study, children were identified as
tion are couched. Thus, according to Mezzina et al. recovered by virtue of their ‘‘normal-range IQ
(2006): scores’’ (p. 3) and their placement in general
education, first-grade classrooms. Students’ educa-
Recovery, therefore, has also to do—in addition to symptom tional outcomes (i.e., the nature of their educa-
reduction and illness management—with restitution of the
tional placement) were determined by their ap-
person’s rights to citizenship, including the right to social
inclusion. As a result, the recovery process cannot take place proximations of normalcy as evidenced by their
outside of or apart from the social contexts in which the performances on standardized measures of intelli-
person lives, especially as one of its main aims is to restore to gence. That is, there were no students who
the person the possibility of accessing those normal social continued to experience symptoms of autism that
settings from which he or she has been extruded by virtue of
might have significantly impaired their ability to
his or her illness and/or societal stigma. (p. 72)
perform successfully on a standardized assessment
Indeed, it seems that this use of the term measure (e.g., experiencing significant impairment
recovery within the psychiatric survivors’ literature in expressive verbal language) who were afforded
agrees more with the earliest uses of the term the opportunity to participate in general education
recovery in autism literature discussed above, a classrooms. Such children were, rather, ‘‘assigned to
discourse in which being recovered or recovering special classes for the language delayed…[or] to
are not mutually exclusive with being autistic and classes for the autistic/retarded’’ (p. 3). In this way,
in which the focus of the construct is on one’s we can say that within ABA discourse the construct
successful reentry to and participation in social of recovery (to normalcy) informs educational
contexts and relationships from which one may practice in particular ways that proceed as if
have been excluded. Exclusion could have been recovery were a precondition to full citizenship
due, in part, to experiences of autism symptoms and full academic participation.
that might have presented barriers to active I am compelled to return to Danforth’s (1997)
participation (e.g., significant communication im- cogent query: ‘‘On what basis hope?’’ If particular
pairments) and/or to opportunities for such partic- visions of hope inform educational decision making
ipation being limited because of the cultural stigma for young children with labels of autism, then what
associated with being an autistic individual (e.g., should the basis of these hopes be? In posing such
being placed in a segregated autism program in questions in a postmodern age, Danforth reminded
school rather than having had access to inclusive us that ‘‘the scientific goal of progressively finding
academic schooling, due to the autism label). and describing truth is thus replaced by the moral
Significantly, Mezzina et al. (2006) noted, and political goals of supporting human freedom

and community’’ (p. 100). If we are to center the Broderick, A., & Ne’eman, A. (2008). Autism as
‘‘moral and political goals of supporting human metaphor: Narrative and counter-narrative.
freedom and community,’’ a question I ask, then, is, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 12,
What might the educational experiences of young 459–476.
children labeled with autism look like if citizenship Cohen, S. (1998). Targeting autism: What we know,
were viewed as a precondition for recovery (in the don’t know, and can do to help young children with
sense of recovering from disablement and social autism and related disorders. Berkeley: University
stigma and discrimination) rather than as one of its of California Press.
outcomes? It is clear that hope plays a significant Danforth, S. (1997). On what basis hope? Modern
role in educational decision making. To envision progress and postmodern possibility. Mental

hopes for a future wherein students with labels of Retardation, 35, 93–106.
autism and other disabilities are presumed to be Davidson, L., with O’Connell, M., Sells, D., &
competent, where they are provided with the Staeheli, M. (2003). Is there an outside to
supports to communicate and to participate in mental illness? In L. Davidson, Living outside
meaningful ways, and where they are understood to mental illness: Qualitative studies of recovery in
be valuable and reciprocating members of a public schizophrenia (pp. 31–60). New York: New York
citizenry is to envision moral goals. To create the University Press.
conditions necessary to realize these possibilities Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2000a).
and to facilitate this recovery are to engage in Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.).
radical political praxis. Toward that end, I advocate Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
for envisioning and enacting these alternative Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000b). Introduc-
visions of hope for young children labeled with tion: The discipline and practice of qualitative
autism, and for claiming the moral and political research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
legitimacy of this project. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.,
pp. 1–28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis:
The critical study of language. Harlow, England:
References Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power (2nd
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diag-
ed.). Harlow, England: Longman.
nostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
Fanlight Productions (production company). (1998).
(4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Behind the glass door: Hannah’s story [television
Baer, D. (1993). Quasi-random assignment can be broadcast]. Toronto, Ontario: Canadian Broad-
as convincing as random assignment. American casting Corporation. ISBN 1-57295-291-1.
Journal on Mental Retardation, 97, 373–375. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge
Baggs, A. (n.d.). In my language. Retrieved and the discourse on language. New York:
February 23, 2007, from http://www.youtube. Pantheon Books.
com/watch?v5Jny1M1hI2jc Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected
Barron, J., & Barron, S. (1992). There’s a boy in interviews and other writings. New York: Pan-
here: A mother and her son tell the story of his theon Books.
emergence from autism. New York: Simon & Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth
Schuster. of the prison. New York: Vintage Books.
Biklen, D. (2000). Lessons from the margins, (Original work published in 1977)
narrating mental retardation: A review essay. Freeman, B. J. (1997). Guidelines for evaluating
Mental Retardation, 38, 444–456. intervention programs for children with au-
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (2007). Qualitative tism. Journal of Autism and Developmental
research in education: An introduction to theories Disorders, 27, 641–651.
and methods (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Frith, U. (1989). Autism: Explaining the enigma.
Broderick, A. (2004). ‘‘Recovery,’’ ‘‘science,’’ and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
the politics of hope: A critical discourse analysis of Gabel, S. (Ed.). (2005). Disability studies in educa-
applied behavior analysis for young children labeled tion: Readings in theory and method. New York:
with autism. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest. Peter Lang.

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Lovaas, O. I. (1993). The development of a

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. treatment-research project for developmentally
Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse disabled and autistic children. Journal of
analysis: Theory and method. London: Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 617–630.
Routledge. Lovaas, O. I. (1994). [Foreword]. in C. Johnson and
Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man, revised J. Crowder (Eds.), Autism: From tragedy to
and expanded edition. New York: Norton. triumph (pp. 4–12). Boston: Branden.
Grandin, T. (1988). Teaching tips from a recovered Lovaas, O. I. (2002). Teaching individuals with
autistic. Focus on Autistic Behavior, 3, 1–8. developmental delays: Basic intervention tech-
Grandin, T., & Scariano, M. N. (1986). Emergence: niques. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Labeled autistic. Novato, CA: Arena Press. Lovaas, O. I., & Smith, T. (1989). A comprehen-
Gresham, F., & MacMillan, D. (1997). Autistic sive behavioral theory of autistic children:
recovery? An analysis and critique of the Paradigm for research and treatment. Journal of
empirical evidence on the early intervention Behavioral Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry,
project. Behavioral Disorders, 22, 185–201. 20, 17–29.
Jacobson, J. W., Mulick, J. A., & Green, G. (1998). Maurice, C. (1993). Let me hear your voice. New
Cost-benefit estimates for early intensive York: Knopf.
behavioral intervention for young children McEachin, J., Smith, T., & Lovaas, O. I. (1993).
with autism—General model and single state Long-term outcome for children with autism
case. Behavioral Interventions, 13, 201–226. who received early intensive behavioral treat-
Johnson, C., & Crowder, J. (1994). Autism: From ment. American Journal on Mental Retardation,
tragedy to triumph. Boston: Branden. 97, 359–372.
Kanner, L. (1943). Autistic disturbances of affec- Mezzina, R., Davidson, L., Borg, M., Marin, I.,
tive contact. Nervous Child, 2, 217–250. Topor, A., & Sells, D. (2006). The social
Kaufman, B. N. (1976). Son rise. New York: Warner nature of recovery: Discussion and implications
Books. for practice. American Journal of Psychiatric
Kaufman, B. N. (1994). Son rise: The miracle Rehabilitation, 9, 63–80.
continues. Tiburon, CA: Kramer. Mulick, J. A. (1999, November). Cost benefit
Kephart, B. (1998). A slant of sun: One child’s analysis of early intensive behavioral treatment
courage. New York: Norton. of autism. PowerPoint presentation to the
Kirkus Reviews. (1993, May 1). Review of the book National Institutes of Health Autism Co-
Let me hear your voice: A family’s triumph ordinating Committee meeting, Treatments
over autism. New York: Author. for People With Autism and Other Perva-
Kirsch, J. (1993, June 9). Review of the book Let sive Developmental Disorders, Rockville,
me hear your voice: A family’s triumph over MD.
autism. The Los Angeles Times. Mundy, P. (1993). Normal versus high-functioning
Kotler, M. (1994). The Individuals With Disabil- status in children with autism. American Journal
ities Education Act: A parent’s perspective and on Mental Retardation, 97, 381–384.
proposal for change. University of Michigan Ornitz, E. M., & Ritvo, E. R. (1976). Medical
Journal of Law Reform, 27, 331–397. assessment. In E. R. Ritvo, B. J. Freeman, E. M.
Lovaas, O. I. (1971). Certain comparisons between Ornitz, & P. E. Tanguay (Eds.), Autism:
psychodynamic and behavioristic approaches Diagnosis, current research, and management
to treatment. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, (pp. 7–23). New York: Spectrum.
and Practice, 8, 175–178. Rapin, I. (1997). Current concepts of autism. New
Lovaas, O. I. (1987). Behavioral treatment and England Journal of Medicine, 337, 97–104.
normal educational and intellectual function- Rimland, B. (1986). Foreword. In T. Grandin & M.
ing in young autistic children. Journal of M. Scariano (Eds.), Emergence: Labeled autistic
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 3–9. (pp. 5–8). Novato, CA: Arena.
Lovaas, O. I. (Executive Producer). (1988). Behav- Rimland, B. (1991). Afterword. In A. Stehli (Ed.),
ioral treatment of young autistic children [45-min The sound of a miracle: A child’s triumph over
film]. New York: Focus International. autism. Westport, CT: Georgiana Institute.

Rogers, R. (2003). A critical discourse analysis of Stehli, A. (1991). The sound of a miracle: A child’s
family literacy practices: Power in and out of print. triumph over autism. Garden City, NY: Double-
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. day.
Rogers, R. (Ed.). (2004). An introduction to critical Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1998). Introduction to
discourse analysis in education. Mahwah, NJ: qualitative research methods (3rd ed.). New York:
Erlbaum. Wiley.
Rutter, M. (1970). Autistic children: Infancy to Thomson, R. G. (1997). Extraordinary bodies:
adulthood. Seminal Psychiatry, 2, 435–450. Figuring physical disability in American culture
Rutter, M. (1978). Etiology and treatment: Cause and literature. New York: Columbia University
and cure. In M. Rutter & E. Schopler (Eds.), Press.

Autism (pp. 327–335). New York: Plenum. Van den Nieuwenhof, L. (1996, July 18). He
Rutter, M. (1983). Cognitive deficits in the threw terrible tantrums, lost the capacity for
pathologies of autism. Journal of Child Psychol- speech and didn’t respond to his name. The
ogy and Psychiatrics, 24, 513–531. Times, ‘‘Features’’ section.
Sacks, O. (1995). An anthropologist on Mars: Seven Weizel, R. (1995, January 29). Escape from the
paradoxical tales. New York: Knopf. closed world of autism. The New York Times,
Sege, I. (1993, July 17). One mother’s hard-won Section 13CN, p. 15.
victory over autism [Review of the book Let me Weschler, D. (1974). Weschler Intelligence Scale for
hear your voice: A family’s triumph over autism]. Children—Revised. San Antonio, TX: The
The Boston Globe, ‘‘Living’’ section, p. 27. Psychological Corporation.
Smith, T. (1999). Outcome of early intervention
Williams, D. (1992). Nobody nowhere: The extraor-
for children with autism. Clinical Psychology:
dinary biography of an autistic. New York: Avon.
Science and Practice, 6, 33–49.
Wolfe, B. (1993, November 20). Triumph over
Smith, T., Eikeseth, S., Klevstrand, M., & Lovaas,
autism [Review of the book Let me hear your
O. I. (1997). Intensive behavioral treatment
voice: A family’s triumph over autism]. The
for preschoolers with severe mental retardation
Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY), p. 14A.
and pervasive developmental disorder. Ameri-
can Journal on Mental Retardation, 102, 238–
249.
Received 5/1/07, first decision 11/16/07, accepted
Smith, T., & Lovaas, O. I. (1988). Intensive
10/23/08.
behavioral treatment for young autistic chil-
dren. Advances in Clinical Child Psychology, 11, Editor-in-Charge: Christopher Kliewer
285–324.
Smith, T., & Lovaas, O. I. (1997). The UCLA
young autism project: A reply to Gresham and Author:
MacMillan. Behavioral Disorders, 22, 202–218. Alicia A. Broderick, PhD (E-mail: broderick@tc.
Smith, T., & Lovaas, O. I. (1998). Intensive and edu), Assistant Professor of Education, Teachers
early behavioral intervention with autism: The College, Columbia University, Department of
UCLA Young Autism Project. Infants and Curriculum & Teaching, Box 31, 525 West 120th
Young Children, 10, 67–78. St., New York, NY 10027.

Autism, Recovery (To Normalcy) ,'' and The Politics of Hope

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Autism, Recovery (To Normalcy) ,'' and The Politics of Hope

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES VOLUME 47, NUMBER 4: 263–281 | AUGUST 2009

Autism, ‘‘Recovery (to Normalcy),’’ and the Politics of Hope

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/idd/article-pdf/47/4/263/2039410/1934-9556-47_4_263.pdf by guest on 21 March 2024

’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 263

hope for recovery from autism have been largely

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/idd/article-pdf/47/4/263/2039410/1934-9556-47_4_263.pdf by guest on 21 March 2024

264 ’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/idd/article-pdf/47/4/263/2039410/1934-9556-47_4_263.pdf by guest on 21 March 2024

’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 265

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/idd/article-pdf/47/4/263/2039410/1934-9556-47_4_263.pdf by guest on 21 March 2024

266 ’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/idd/article-pdf/47/4/263/2039410/1934-9556-47_4_263.pdf by guest on 21 March 2024

’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 267

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/idd/article-pdf/47/4/263/2039410/1934-9556-47_4_263.pdf by guest on 21 March 2024

268 ’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/idd/article-pdf/47/4/263/2039410/1934-9556-47_4_263.pdf by guest on 21 March 2024

’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 269

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/idd/article-pdf/47/4/263/2039410/1934-9556-47_4_263.pdf by guest on 21 March 2024

270 ’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/idd/article-pdf/47/4/263/2039410/1934-9556-47_4_263.pdf by guest on 21 March 2024

’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 271

dare to hope for their daughter. As Maurice Recovery (to Normalcy)

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/idd/article-pdf/47/4/263/2039410/1934-9556-47_4_263.pdf by guest on 21 March 2024

272 ’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/idd/article-pdf/47/4/263/2039410/1934-9556-47_4_263.pdf by guest on 21 March 2024

’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 273

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/idd/article-pdf/47/4/263/2039410/1934-9556-47_4_263.pdf by guest on 21 March 2024

274 ’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/idd/article-pdf/47/4/263/2039410/1934-9556-47_4_263.pdf by guest on 21 March 2024

’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 275

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/idd/article-pdf/47/4/263/2039410/1934-9556-47_4_263.pdf by guest on 21 March 2024

276 ’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/idd/article-pdf/47/4/263/2039410/1934-9556-47_4_263.pdf by guest on 21 March 2024

’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 277

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/idd/article-pdf/47/4/263/2039410/1934-9556-47_4_263.pdf by guest on 21 March 2024

278 ’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/idd/article-pdf/47/4/263/2039410/1934-9556-47_4_263.pdf by guest on 21 March 2024

’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 279

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Lovaas, O. I. (1993). The development of a

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/idd/article-pdf/47/4/263/2039410/1934-9556-47_4_263.pdf by guest on 21 March 2024

280 ’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/idd/article-pdf/47/4/263/2039410/1934-9556-47_4_263.pdf by guest on 21 March 2024

’American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 281

You might also like