Rejoinder To Murray's Article

A critique of the claim that an autistic child voiced his protest against being dehumanized and mechanized by a behavior modification procedure (See preceding abstract.). The child's "protest" takes the form of a single verbal response. Issue is taken with Murray's interpretation of the child's response; and concern expressed about the dangers of interpreting a response that is quite possibly an instance of psychotic speech as a conscious, meaningful statement. The danger lies in the fact that the child might be seen as less psychotic than he is, and therefore not receive the level of treatment he requires. It is suggested that Murray's procedures should not be called behavior modification because they are not those that a good behavior therapist would use. The child's statement is possibly an instance of delayed echolalia: this contention is supported by pointing to the typical patterns of autistic language. AA