Autism: History and Discovery

The history of autism is not the story of a single discovery but of a word that traveled, a concept that widened, and a community that eventually spoke for itself. The term was coined in 1911 by the Swiss psychiatrist Eugen Bleuler to name a symptom of schizophrenia — not the condition we know today. The modern idea took shape decades later through Leo Kanner (1943) and Hans Asperger (1944), was reframed as a spectrum by Lorna Wing in the 1980s, survived a damaging and fraudulent vaccine scare in the 1990s, and was unified under one diagnosis in 2013. Throughout, this page uses respectful, non-stigmatizing language and gives weight to the perspective of autistic people themselves. Autism is described here as a form of neurological difference, not a tragedy to be cured.

Table of Contents

  1. Bleuler and the Birth of the Word (1911)
  2. Grunya Sukhareva: The Overlooked First Account (1925)
  3. Leo Kanner and "Early Infantile Autism" (1943)
  4. Hans Asperger and a Difficult Legacy (1944)
  5. The "Refrigerator Mother" Era and Its Refutation
  6. Lorna Wing and the Autism Spectrum (1981 onward)
  7. The Wakefield Vaccine Fraud and Its Retraction
  8. DSM-5 and the Single Spectrum (2013)
  9. Neurodiversity and the Autistic Voice
  10. Research Papers and References
  11. Connections

Bleuler and the Birth of the Word (1911)

The word autism was coined by the Swiss psychiatrist Eugen Bleuler (1857–1939), director of the Burghölzli asylum in Zurich. He built it from the Greek root autos, meaning “self,” to capture a particular kind of withdrawal — a turning inward, away from the shared world, into a private one. Bleuler first put the term into print around 1910 and developed it fully in his landmark 1911 monograph Dementia Praecox oder Gruppe der Schizophrenien (“Dementia Praecox, or the Group of Schizophrenias”), the same book in which he introduced the now-universal word schizophrenia.

It is essential to be precise about what Bleuler meant, because it differs sharply from today’s usage. For Bleuler, “autism” was one symptom among several within schizophrenia — the patient’s detachment from external reality and retreat into an inner life dominated by fantasy. He was not describing a distinct developmental condition, and certainly not the childhood condition the word now names. The modern diagnosis would not separate from the schizophrenia concept for another three decades.

This origin matters historically for two reasons. First, it explains a lasting source of confusion: for much of the twentieth century, autism in children was wrongly assumed to be an early form of schizophrenia, precisely because the words shared a root and a creator. Second, it is a clean example of how a clinical term can long predate the concept we attach to it. Bleuler named a symptom; others, later, would borrow his word for something he never described.

Back to Table of Contents

Grunya Sukhareva: The Overlooked First Account (1925)

Long before the names usually credited with “discovering” autism, a Soviet child psychiatrist had already described it in clinical detail. Grunya Efimovna Sukhareva (1891–1981), working in Moscow, published a careful account of six boys in 1925 in a Russian-language journal, followed by a German translation in 1926 titled Die schizoiden Psychopathien im Kindesalter (“Schizoid Psychopathies in Childhood”). Her descriptions — of social difference, restricted interests, and unusual patterns of attention and communication — map closely onto what would today be recognized as autism, and they predate Kanner’s and Asperger’s famous papers by nearly two decades.

Sukhareva’s priority is now well documented in the modern literature; a 2023 scholarly review in European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry credits her as the first to publish a clinical description of autistic traits. Notably, she later (in a 1959 Russian work) moved toward the term “autistic psychopathy” herself. Her work nonetheless remained largely unknown in the West for decades, in part because of language barriers and the limited circulation of Soviet psychiatric journals; an English translation of her German paper appeared only in 1996.

Her story is included here as a deliberate correction to the tidy “great men” narrative that long dominated autism history. Recognizing Sukhareva does not erase Kanner or Asperger, but it reminds us that the search for a single “first describer” can obscure real, earlier contributions — especially those by women and those writing outside the English- and German-language mainstream. The honest version of this history has more than one beginning.

Back to Table of Contents

Leo Kanner and "Early Infantile Autism" (1943)

The modern clinical concept of autism is most often dated to 1943, when Leo Kanner (1894–1981), an Austrian-American psychiatrist at the Henry Phipps Psychiatric Clinic at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, published the paper Autistic Disturbances of Affective Contact in the journal Nervous Child. Kanner, who established the first academic child-psychiatry service in the United States, described 11 children (eight boys and three girls) whose pattern of differences he found striking enough to name a new condition: early infantile autism.

Kanner borrowed Bleuler’s word but applied it to something genuinely new — a condition present from early childhood rather than a symptom of adult schizophrenia. He identified two core features that still echo through diagnostic criteria today: a profound preference for aloneness (what he called an “extreme autistic aloneness”) and an “anxiously obsessive desire for the maintenance of sameness” — distress at changes in routine and environment. He also noted differences in language and in relating to people versus objects. Most historians cite Kanner’s paper as the first description of autism as a distinct condition rather than a facet of schizophrenia.

Kanner’s legacy is genuinely mixed. His clinical observations were acute and durable, and they put autism on the map of medicine. But he also seeded two damaging ideas: he initially framed autism as rare, and his remarks about the cool, intellectual demeanor of some parents helped feed the “refrigerator mother” theory discussed below — a theory he did not single-handedly create but did help legitimize. Understanding Kanner means holding both halves of that record at once.

Back to Table of Contents

Hans Asperger and a Difficult Legacy (1944)

Independently of Kanner, and apparently without knowledge of his work, the Viennese pediatrician Hans Asperger (1906–1980) described a related group of children in a 1944 paper, having submitted the work as his postdoctoral thesis at the University of Vienna in 1942. He called the pattern autistische Psychopathie — “autistic psychopathy,” using “psychopathy” in the older sense of a personality condition, not in today’s sense of antisocial behavior. The children he described often had fluent speech and strong, narrow intellectual interests, and he is sometimes said to have spoken of them as “little professors.” His work received little international attention until the 1980s.

Asperger’s legacy is now the subject of serious and painful reassessment, and honesty requires confronting it directly. For decades he was portrayed as a humane protector of his patients who quietly resisted the Nazi regime. However, historical research published in 2018 — most prominently by the historian Herwig Czech in the journal Molecular Autism, alongside Edith Sheffer’s book Asperger’s Children — presented archival evidence that Asperger cooperated with the Nazi authorities in Vienna and referred children to the Am Spiegelgrund clinic, which was a site of the regime’s “child euthanasia” murders of disabled children. These findings are documented from period records, though some scholars have debated their interpretation.

This reassessment carries real weight for how his name is used. The very term “Asperger syndrome” became contested, and many autistic people now decline to use it, citing the Nazi-era history as well as a preference for the unified language of the spectrum. This page names Asperger because he is part of the historical record and his clinical descriptions were real, but it does so without celebration, and it presents the 2018 findings as the now-prevailing, evidence-based understanding rather than as mere rumor.

Back to Table of Contents

The "Refrigerator Mother" Era and Its Refutation

From the 1950s into the 1960s, much of psychiatry embraced a deeply harmful and now-discredited explanation for autism: the “refrigerator mother” theory, which blamed the condition on mothers who were supposedly cold, distant, and emotionally rejecting. Its most prominent and forceful advocate was the psychoanalyst Bruno Bettelheim, whose influential 1967 book The Empty Fortress compared the situation of autistic children to that of concentration-camp prisoners and laid the cause at the feet of their parents. The theory caused immense and undeserved guilt and grief for a generation of families.

The theory was wrong, and it was challenged most decisively by Bernard Rimland (1928–2006), a psychologist who was himself the parent of an autistic son. In his 1964 book Infantile Autism: The Syndrome and Its Implications for a Neural Theory of Behavior, Rimland argued from the evidence that autism was a biological, neurodevelopmental condition rather than a product of parenting. His work helped turn the field away from parent-blaming and toward the study of brain, development, and genetics.

Subsequent research confirmed Rimland’s position: studies found no meaningful difference in the warmth or personality of mothers of autistic versus non-autistic children, and modern science firmly locates autism’s origins in neurobiology and genetics, with environmental factors acting on a strongly heritable base. The refrigerator-mother theory is today universally regarded as discredited. It is included here as a cautionary chapter — a reminder of the human cost of confident but unfounded theories, and of why the evidentiary standard for any claim about autism’s causes must be high.

Back to Table of Contents

Lorna Wing and the Autism Spectrum (1981 onward)

The single most consequential reframing of autism came from the English psychiatrist Lorna Wing (1928–2014), a researcher at the Institute of Psychiatry in London, co-founder of the UK’s National Autistic Society, and herself the mother of an autistic daughter. In a 1981 paper in the journal Psychological Medicine, Wing introduced Hans Asperger’s work to the English-speaking medical world and proposed the label “Asperger’s syndrome” — deliberately choosing a neutral name to avoid the misleading connotations of “autistic psychopathy.”

Wing’s deeper and more lasting contribution was conceptual. Together with her colleague Judith Gould, and drawing on a population study in the London borough of Camberwell, she argued that autism was not a single, narrowly defined entity but a broad spectrum — a continuum of related differences varying widely in severity, language ability, and intellectual level, and persisting across the lifespan. She is also credited with reviving the concept of a triad of differences (in social interaction, communication, and imagination/flexibility) that organized clinical thinking for years.

The idea of an autism spectrum changed everything that followed. It made room for people whose differences were subtler than Kanner’s cases yet still real; it reframed autism as dimensional rather than all-or-nothing; and it laid the direct conceptual groundwork for the unified diagnostic category that would arrive in 2013. Much of how clinicians, families, and autistic people themselves talk about autism today — the very phrase “on the spectrum” — descends from Wing’s work.

Back to Table of Contents

The Wakefield Vaccine Fraud and Its Retraction

No episode in autism’s modern history did more public harm than a single fraudulent paper. In 1998, the British former gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield and co-authors published a study in The Lancet involving 12 children that suggested a link between the combined measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and the onset of autism. The claim ignited a worldwide vaccine scare, drove down immunization rates, and contributed to the resurgence of measles — a serious and sometimes deadly disease — in many countries.

The claim was false, and worse, it was fraudulent. Investigative reporting by the journalist Brian Deer, published in The Sunday Times and the BMJ, revealed that the data had been misrepresented: the children’s histories were altered, several reported diagnoses did not match the records, the patients had been recruited through anti-MMR campaigners, and Wakefield had undisclosed financial conflicts tied to litigation. In 2010 the UK’s General Medical Council found him guilty of serious professional misconduct, The Lancet formally retracted the paper on 2 February 2010, and Wakefield was struck off the medical register later that year.

The scientific verdict could not be clearer, and this page states it plainly: vaccines do not cause autism. Numerous large, rigorous studies involving millions of children across many countries have found no association between the MMR vaccine (or vaccines generally, or the former preservative thimerosal) and autism. The Wakefield paper is frequently cited as one of the most damaging cases of research fraud in modern medicine. The MMR scare is included in this history because its consequences — in eroded trust and preventable illness — are still with us, and because confronting the fraud honestly is part of protecting both children’s health and the autistic community from a stigmatizing myth.

Back to Table of Contents

DSM-5 and the Single Spectrum (2013)

For most of the late twentieth century, the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic manual divided autism into several separate labels grouped under “pervasive developmental disorders” — including autistic disorder, Asperger’s disorder, and the catch-all PDD-NOS (pervasive developmental disorder, not otherwise specified). In practice these boundaries proved unreliable: the same child could receive different labels from different clinics, and the distinctions were hard to apply consistently.

With the publication of the DSM-5 in 2013, these separate categories were dissolved into a single umbrella diagnosis: autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The change fulfilled, in diagnostic form, the spectrum vision Lorna Wing had advanced. It reorganized the criteria into two domains — differences in social communication, and restricted or repetitive behaviors and interests — and introduced severity levels and the formal recognition that sensory differences are part of the condition. The diagnosis “Asperger’s disorder” was retired as a separate label.

The change was not without controversy. Some people who had identified with the “Asperger’s” label felt a loss of identity, and there were concerns that narrower criteria might exclude some people from services. At the same time, many welcomed the unification as more scientifically honest and less hierarchical. The 2013 revision is the framework still in clinical use, and it represents the formal end of the long journey from Bleuler’s single symptom to a single, dimensional spectrum.

Back to Table of Contents

Neurodiversity and the Autistic Voice

Running alongside this clinical history is a second, equally important story: the emergence of autistic people as the authors of their own narrative. Beginning in the late twentieth century, autistic self-advocates pushed back against framing autism purely as a disorder or deficit, arguing instead that it is a natural form of human neurological variation — different rather than simply broken. This view, the neurodiversity perspective, holds that many of the difficulties autistic people face arise as much from an unaccommodating world as from autism itself, while still recognizing that autism can involve genuine challenges and high support needs for many.

The term neurodiversity entered wide use in the late 1990s and is usually credited to the Australian sociologist Judy Singer, who used it in her work around 1998–1999; in fairness, the precise origin and attribution of the term have themselves been debated by autistic scholars, and the idea clearly grew out of a broader online self-advocacy community rather than any one person. The journalist Steve Silberman’s 2015 book NeuroTribes later brought both the history and the neurodiversity framing to a large general audience.

This perspective increasingly shapes language and practice. Many autistic people prefer identity-first language (“autistic person”) over person-first language (“person with autism”), though preferences vary and should be respected individually. It also reframes the goal of support away from making autistic people appear non-autistic and toward acceptance, accommodation, communication, and well-being. A responsible history of autism cannot end with the clinicians who named it; it must give the final word to the recognition that autistic people are the foremost experts on their own lives.

Back to Table of Contents

Research Papers and References

The references below combine peer-reviewed historical scholarship — with real DOIs and PubMed identifiers where confirmed — and curated PubMed topic-search links into the broader literature. Several foundational documents (Bleuler’s 1911 monograph, Kanner’s 1943 paper in Nervous Child, Asperger’s 1944 thesis, Bettelheim’s and Rimland’s books) are named in the text as historical primary sources. Each link opens at its publisher or at PubMed (National Library of Medicine) in a new tab.

  1. Sher DA, Gibson JL. Pioneering, prodigious and perspicacious: Grunya Efimovna Sukhareva’s life and contribution to conceptualising autism and schizophrenia. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2023;32(3):475–490. — doi:10.1007/s00787-021-01875-7
  2. Wing L. Asperger’s syndrome: a clinical account. Psychological Medicine. 1981;11(1):115–129. — doi:10.1017/S0033291700053332 (PMID 7208735)
  3. Czech H. Hans Asperger, National Socialism, and “race hygiene” in Nazi-era Vienna. Molecular Autism. 2018;9:29. — doi:10.1186/s13229-018-0208-6
  4. Wakefield AJ, et al. RETRACTED: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet. 1998;351(9103):637–641. — doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0 (PMID 9500320)
  5. The Editors of The Lancet. Retraction — Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet. 2010;375(9713):445. — doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60175-4 (PMID 20137807)
  6. Kanner L. Autistic disturbances of affective contact (1943) — original paper and historical commentary — PubMed: Kanner 1943 autistic disturbances
  7. Eugen Bleuler, the coinage of “autism,” and the schizophrenia concept — PubMed: Bleuler autism schizophrenia history
  8. The history of the autism concept and the search for a “first describer” — PubMed: history of the autism concept
  9. The “refrigerator mother” theory and its refutation — PubMed: refrigerator mother autism history
  10. MMR vaccine and autism — large studies finding no association — PubMed: MMR vaccine and autism — no association
  11. DSM-5 and the consolidation into autism spectrum disorder (2013) — PubMed: DSM-5 autism spectrum disorder criteria
  12. Lorna Wing, the autism spectrum, and the triad of impairments — PubMed: Lorna Wing autism spectrum
  13. Neurodiversity, identity-first language, and autistic self-advocacy — PubMed: neurodiversity and autistic self-advocacy

External Authoritative Resources

Back to Table of Contents

Connections

Back to Table of Contents