Formulating autism systemically: Part 1 - A review of the published literature and case assessments

Autism is a psychiatric disorder of unknown aetiology. In this article, the literature on genetic, neurological, psychological, relational and cultural causes of autism is reviewed, beginning with the 2014 review of Crittenden, Dallos, Landini et al. (pp. 64-70) up to and including recent publications in 2017. Some of the findings were unexpected; others led to new questions. The unexpected findings were the minimal contribution of genes to autism, the extremely evident neurological differences, the interpersonal quality of the psychological findings (that lacked evidence of parents' behaviour), the relational evidence that mothers' childhood trauma, perinatal stress and marital stress increased the risk of autism, and the reciprocal relation between funding for treatment of autism and diagnoses of autism. Notably, there was an abundance of genetic studies, numerous neurological studies and only scattered psychological, relational and cultural studies, thus rendering those findings speculative. The new questions included whether mothers used postural/gestural signs to signal their children to maintain distance and whether mothers experienced wariness of males as a result of childhood trauma, with their sons possibly experiencing gender confusion. Following the literature review, a small archival set of video-recorded and transcribed assessments of attachment of cases of autism were examined for evidence to corroborate or refute the psychological and relational findings of the literature review. The findings were striking in their support of mothers' use of postural/gestural communication regarding distance, children's close attention to mothers' bodily signals, without looking at mothers' face, mothers' greater comfort when they approached their sons than when their sons approached them, one boy's lack of verbal self-representation and mothers' childhood triangulation. These became hypotheses regarding what to look for in Part 2 of this article, a prospective, 12-year case study.