Monday, December 1, 2008

Week 8 - Conclusion

The study of feral children has been described by psychologists as purely reliant on anecdotal data. While this is somewhat true, as all studies of feral children are case studies in nature, this does not diminish the importance of studying these children. A child being raised in a neglectful environment is still a prevalent occurrence today, and it is important to understand what happens, physically and emotionally, to these children, and to find ways to solve these problems. In a perfect world, feral and neglected children would not exist; however, they do, and we therefore must understand and help them.

The cases of Wild Peter, Kaspar Hauser, Memmie Le Blanc, Victor of Aveyron and other wild children of the past are not just entertaining stories, but are examples and precedents that should be remembered and used when viewing the neglected children of today. Neglected children need immediate help and care; we should not ignore them or view them as entertainment, as was the case of Wild Peter. Additionally, we must view the methods that were used when teaching these children and take them into consideration for our own methods of teaching.

If anyone wishes to aid in the recovery of neglected children, the Child Trauma Academy has a list of useful sites, organizations, and resources that may prove helpful.

Ryan

Sunday, November 30, 2008

Week 7 - Wild Peter: Soulless, or Nearest to God?


Peter the Wild Boy was first discovered in 1724 in the woods near Hameln in Hanover, Germany. He was completely naked, and could not speak or understand a word. He was estimated to be between twelve and fifteen years old. These are the few facts that are certain about Wild Peter's discovery; the rest of what is known about the mysterious wild child is uncertain and possibly untrue. The boy was said to be found in the summer, as well as around Christmas time; however, the Christmas timing may be false, as "children born at Christmas were popularly felt to be uncanny" (Newton, 27, 2002). In addition, he has been described as "sucking milk from a cow in the fields" (27), but it is also possible he was not. Peter lived in a time of satire, anecdotalism, and religious importance; it is difficult to determine what is fact and what is fiction.

What is known is that Peter was sent to live with King George I in St. James' Palace in 1726. George's wife, Caroline, was fascinated with the wild boy, and had him moved to Leicester House. It was here that Peter was put into the care of Dr. John Arbuthnot, a physician and close friend of Jonathan Swift. The doctor was "uncharacteristically strict" (32) with Peter, and would often strike the boy's legs "with a broad leather strap" (33). While Peter never did learn language, he did learn to act in a more socially acceptable way; he would bow for people, and would fetch objects.

In the beginning, Peter met enormous popularity; many pamphlets and books were written about him, including one by Daniel Defoe, the author of Robinson Crusoe. In this pamphlet, Defoe described Peter as "a body without a soul" (42). Defoe argued that Peter was "both child and beast in human shape" (43), and "a human being without any admixture of art or culture" (43). Without any language or understanding of the world, Peter is not truly human; thus, he cannot truly have a soul. He has no humanity within him, and he "exists without knowing that he does so" (44).

However, Defoe suddenly realizes that Peter's absence of language, his silence, brings him closer to God, "while our words remove us from direct contact with the divine" (48). Peter has lost the capacity to understand any form of language, be it spoken, sign language, or written; he lives "outside all schemes of communication" (48). According to Defoe, normal human beings live in a world where everything is named, and where "we are always talking to ourselves in the endless dialog of thought" (48); Peter, on the other hand, sees everything as new, unnamed - he "lives in a pre-Adamic world" (48).

As time went on, interest in Peter gradually faded away. Within a year, Arbuthnot had abandoned Peter's education and caretaking, and the wild boy was taken to Broadway Farm to live. Peter essentially fades from existence; however, in 1782, James Burnett (see week 6) paid a visit to the wild boy, now an old man in his seventies. He still had not truly acquired language, although he could say the words "Peter" and "King George" (52). He was a happy and gentle man, and he at one point sang for Burnett, albeit wordlessly. Peter passed away three years later, in 1785.

The question of whether or not Peter had a soul was an important question for the time period, and is still important today. Whether one is religious or not, it is intriguing to wonder if Peter was simply a beast lacking any human qualities, or whether he was, in fact, more human than any other, untainted by society, language, and culture. Does Peter represent a failure to learn, a failure to become human? Or does he represent a time capsule of sorts, a view of prehistoric man?

Ryan

References

Newton, M. (2002). Savage girls and wild boys: A history of feral children. London: Faber and Faber.

Week 6 - Memmie Le Blanc, the Savage Girl of Champagne

One of the most interesting stories in the realm of feral children is that of Marie-Angelique Memmie Le Blanc, or Memmie, a feral children discovered in France. Her case is so intriguing because it is shrouded in mystery; it is still not known for sure where Memmie truly came from. This once again presents the limitations of studying feral children; Memmie Le Blanc was discovered in 1731, a time far too long ago to have had the proper technology or scientific method to analyze feral children.

Memmie was first spotted in the woods surrounding the village of Songi in France. A small black girl, she appeared to be around ten years old; she slept in the trees of the countryside, and carried with her "a small club, thicker at one end than the other" (Newton, 53, 2002). The villagers devised a plan to catch her; they sent a woman with a child in her arms to the tree where the wild girl was resting. The woman acted kind and friendly to Memmie, and offered fish and vegetables. The wild girl began to crawl down from her tree, and the woman backed away; Memmie followed. After some time, men in wait leaped from their hiding places and snatched up the wild child.

The villagers and the Viscount d'Epinoy, who took special interest in the child, tried speaking to Memmie, "but she could not understand a word of French" (55). When given an unskinned rabbit, she "instantly stripped its skin and devoured it" (55). The little girl obviously had some skill and knowledge of living in the wild; however, she had no knowledge of language or communication. A pouch was wrapped around her body; inside of the pouch was "a small knife, inscribed with strange characters" (55). After washing the girl several times, the villagers discovered that she was not in fact black, but actually white; the blackness of her skin had been caused by dirt, and oddly enough, paint.

Her knowledge and skill of the wild became more prevalent and noticeable as her time in the village went on. She ran incredibly quickly with a galloping gait, "not at all putting one foot down and then the other, but skipping, jumping" (59). Her fingers and thumbs were larger than ordinary, as she had grasped many tree branches and limbs. She dug for roots in the garden, and imitated bird's songs in the trees. Her eyes moved and darted quickly.

Memmie was sent to St. Maur, a hospital in Chalons, a large town in the region of Champagne. Teaching began, and the girl began to speak French with not too much difficulty, leading others to believe that she already had some basic knowledge of French. Memmie was weaned off of eating raw meat, and instead was fed cooked food and wine; this had disastrous results. The girl began vomiting and became sick; when a physician bled her, claiming "it was necessary to get some French blood in her veins," (58), the sickness worsened. She was rushed off to the Roman Catholic Church, where she was baptized and named. While a doctor managed to nurse her back to health, she never permanently recovered.

Over the next ten years, little is known of what happened to Memmie Le Blanc. However, it is known that she became fluent in French, and lost many traces of her savage behavior. She moved from place to place, and was cared for by many, including the Queen of Poland. She met the famous scientist Charles-Marie La Condamine, and traveled to several convents, including a Parisian convent at Chaillot. It was here that a window fell on her, permanently sending her into bad health and destitution. She was cared for by Madame Hecquet, who eventually wrote Memmie Le Blanc's biography. It is said that Madame Hecquet was a pseudonym for La Condamine himself; it is unknown whether or not this is true.

James Burnett, or the Lord Monboddo, took great interest in Memmie Le Blanc and came to meet her. It was at this meeting that Memmie, fluent in French, told the story of how she had been "snatched away from her own country" (65) when she was only seven or eight years old. She had black painted on her, and was sent aboard "a great ship and carried off to a warm country" (65). The ship wrecked, and she and another black girl swam away to shore. The two helped each other survive, and traveled a great distance. They swam across a river, where Memmie found an abandoned chaplet; however, as she reached to pick it up, her companion "struck her outstretched hand as hard as she could with the club she carried" (67). Memmie struck back, and hit the girl in the head; however, she felt guilty for this, and covered the girl's wound with frog's skin. After this incident, the two went their separate ways, and Memmie ended up at the village of Songi.

Both Madame Hecquet and James Burnett sought to find the truth of Memmie's origins. Hecquet was convinced that Memmie was an Eskimo, as she loved raw meat, had pale white skin, and loved the water as well. She sought to prove this by allowing Memmie to play with a collection of dolls; "among them were an Eskimo and his wife carrying her baby" (78). As soon as Memmie saw the dolls, she grabbed the Eskimo couple, even though the other dolls were "more colorful and more interestingly adorned" (78). Hecquet became overjoyed; however, Memmie's connection to the dolls "grew weaker and weaker," (78) but Hecquet disregarded this. She was convinced that she had discovered the truth of Memmie's origin.

Burnett, on the other hand, did not believe that Memmie was an Eskimo for a moment. For one thing, Memmie did not, in fact, look like an Eskimo, as she was "fair-complexioned, smooth-skinned, her features soft as a European" (81). Burnett concluded that Memmie was a Huron, a member of a North American Indian tribe, as her weapons were "typical of the Huron tribe" (81), as was her lack of certain consonants. Her looks matched those of the Huron tribe as well. However, it is difficult to explain why Memmie instantly grabbed for the Eskimo doll. It is possible that she encountered Eskimos in her travels on the ship; or, perhaps she confused the Eskimo for another culture, perhaps even a Huron native.

By 1779, La Condamine had died, and Madame Hecquet had vanished (possibly because they were one and the same). In 1799, Burnett passed away. At this point, Memmie Le Blanc had already vanished from the world's sight. It is unknown what her final fate was. However, the mysterious tale she presents remains one of the most interesting in the study of feral children. If Memmie was in fact a Huron, how could she have learned French so easily? Even if she had been an Eskimo, she would not have learned French, a completely different language, with such relative ease. Memmie's case also shows how the environment and the actions you take can have a lasting effect on your physical being, as shown by the sickness caused by Memmie eating cooked meals.

Ryan

References

Newton, M. (2002). Savage girls and wild boys: A history of feral children. London: Faber and Faber.

Monday, November 24, 2008

Week 5 - Kaspar Hauser, the Child of Europe


One of the first documented cases of a child locked away in a sensory-deprived area for an extended period of time is that of Kaspar Hauser in 1828. Kaspar was locked away in, essentially, a dungeon for 13 years. The only company he received was from an unidentified visitor who brought Kaspar bread and water daily, but did not allow Kaspar to see him. The man taught Kaspar to write and speak a few phrases, but the child did not understand what he was writing or saying. Kaspar Hauser's case is important not only because it is one of the first, but also because it contradicts other cases of children raised in neglectful environments.

Kaspar Hauser was found wandering into Nuremberg, Germany, on May 26, 1828; he wore strange clothing, walked with a staggering and reeling gait, and carried with him a letter a "Captian of the 4th Squadron" (Newton, 2002). He constantly repeated the same three phrases: "I want to be a rider like my father is," "I would like to be such a one as my father is," and "I don't know." Additionally, the boy repeated the word "horse" over and over again; when a soldier gave the boy a wooden toy horse to play with, he reacted "with tears of joy," and "kept his eyes fixed on it" (Simon, 1978). For six weeks, Kaspar lived with Hiltel, a prison-keeper, in his tower; Hiltel's son, Julius, took special interest in the strange boy and began to teach Kaspar to speak. Afterwards, Kaspar was sent to live with Professor Georg Friedrich Daumer, where he was taught to read, write, and draw; additionally, he was studied intensely by Paul Johann Anselm Ritter von Feuerbach, a famous lawyer.

For many months, Kaspar learned to read and write with the help of Professor Daumer. In fact, in February of 1829, Kaspar had learned enough to write his own autobiography. The language contained within it is simple, and often incorrect; however, it follows the rules of grammar, and makes sense. Kaspar's autobiography even describes his 13 years of life in the dungeon; he describes how he "had two toy horses, and a toy dog, and such red ribbons with which I decorated the horses" (Newton, 2002). These toy horses are the reason Kaspar repeated the word "horse" over and over, and was overjoyed when he received a toy horse.

In December of 1831, Kaspar Hauser was officially adopted by Philip Henry, the Fourth Earl of Stanhope, who had become interested in Hauser and had visited him on several occasions. However, as stated aptly by Michael Newton, "what began as an infatuation would soon dwindle to indifference, and then lapse into hostile disenchantment" (Newton, 2002). Stanhope became convinced that Hauser was an impostor, and had come to Nuremberg "with the intention of receiving charity from the captain of cavalry." However, when people began to view Kaspar as a neglected child, Kaspar himself began to act out the role, "and the longer he acted this part the more difficult... to extricate himself from it".

Many have questioned whether the suddenly disenchanted Stanhope had any hand in Kaspar Hauser's unfortunate death. The event occurred on December 14th; Kaspar had gone to the gardens of Ansbach to meet a man who claimed to know of the young man's birth. The man stabbed Hauser in the chest, and then quickly ran off. Hauser managed to run home; however, he died within three days. His murderer was never identified, nor found. It is also unknown whether or not Stanhope was involved in the murder or not.

The case of Kaspar Hauser has set a precedent of sorts for other children raised in neglectful environments. After his unfortunate death, an autopsy was performed on Kaspar's body by Heidenreich in 1834; the brain was additionally examined. It was discovered that Hauser's liver was enlarged and quite soft, a characteristic of malnutrition. For the most part, the structures of Hauser's brain, such as the hippocampi, were intact and structurally normal. However, the brain's cerebral cortex had fewer gyri than normal, resulting in a shrunken appearance similar to the brain seen in week 3's blog (Simon, 1978). Additionally, when Kaspar first arrived in Nuremberg, he was only 4 feet 9 inches tall. This significant small stature caused by neglect is now known as the Kaspar Hauser Syndrome of psychosocial dwarfism.

However, Kaspar's remarkable ability to learn language even after spending 13 years in a dark room also shows the contradiction it poses to other similar cases. How is it that Kaspar spent such a prolonged period of time in a sensory deprived, neglectful environment, and yet retained the ability to learn language and grammar to the point of being able to write his own autobiography? It is possible that Hauser received sufficient stimulation and learning from the mysterious man who brought him bread and water; however, Hauser never understood what he was writing or saying, and he only knew three phrases. Kaspar's ability to learn language at such a late age after 13 years in a dark room seems to deny the existence of critical periods.

Ryan

References

Newton, M. (2002). Savage girls and wild boys: A history of feral children. London: Faber and Faber.

Simon, N. (1978). Kaspar Hauser's recovery and autopsy: a perspective on neurological and sociological requirements for language development. Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia, 8(2), 209-217.

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Week 4 - Can Feral Children Be Saved?

The previous blog entries show the truly detrimental effects that feral development can have on a child. Feral children have difficulty learning language and speech, as well as proper social skills. These effects are so profound that feral children are nearly identical to autistic children. Also, feral and neglectful development has been shown to have a severely deleterious effect on the child's neurology by decreasing the size of the brain and increasing the size of the ventricles (see image in week 3 blog). This essential downpour of negative effects begs the question: is there any hope for feral children?

Fortunately, there very well may be, as shown by several studies on the effects of neglect on children, as well as the effects of removing children from their deleterious environments. One such study, a clinical study led by Wayne Dennis, found that childrens' IQs were generally low (around 50) if they lived and matured in an orphanage, where they did not receive necessary stimulation and teaching (Dennis, 1973). However, when children were adopted at a young age, their IQs were found to be significantly higher (around 80-100). Additionally, the older a child was when adoption occurred, the lower their IQ would be. This study shows just how critical a nurturing environment at a young age can be.

Further studies by Dr. Bruce D. Perry at the Child Trauma Academy have shown that removal of a child from a neglectful environment can have positive effects on the child's neurology as well (Perry & Pollard, 1997). The study desribed below (week 3) showed that neglected children have vastly lower frontal-occipital circumferences, or brain sizes. However, Perry and Pollard found that when these children were removed from their environments and placed into foster care, their brain sizes and functions recovered to some extent. Once again, the age at which the children were removed from their neglectful environments had an impact on their recovery; at higher ages, the recovery was lessened (see figure below).



These studies exemplify two points. The first is that neglected and feral children are not hopeless; if they are removed from their environments, they can recover. The second point is that developmental effects in early childhood have a significant impact on the rest of the individual's life. In this case, neglectful environments in early childhood have a highly deleterious impact on the child's development. Therefore, for successful recovery to occur, the child must be rescued from the environment as soon as possible.

Ryan

References

Dennis, W., 1973: Children of the Creche, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.

Perry, B.D., and Pollard, R., 1997: Altered brain development following global neglect in early
childhood, Proceedings from the Society for Neuroscience Annual Meeting (New Orleans).

Perry, B.D. Childhood experience and the expression of genetic potential: what childhood neglect tells us about nature and nurture. Brain and Mind 3: 79-100, 2002.

Friday, November 7, 2008

Week 3 - Neurological Impact of Neglectful Development

An important question concerning feral and neglected children is whether or not neurological development, or development of the brain, is affected. Feral children who are deprived of social and sensory interaction certainly exhibit drastically different behavior than normally developed children. However, does a change in behavior necessarily mean a change in biology, especially that of the brain?

A behaviorist or learning theorist would answer that change in behavior does not at all mean change in biology. In fact, learning theory states that children acquire language, in fact just about all behaviors, through conditioning. Infants make sounds and babble spontaneously and randomly; when infants make sounds that parents find enjoyable or close to a word, such as "ma-ma", the parents will show happiness and enthusiasm towards the infant. Essentially, the infant is rewarded for the behavior, and he or she will repeat the behavior in order to be rewarded more often. This eventually cascades into the infant repeating words and sentences for reward. While this theory has its merits, in that it shows that development without the presence of social encouragement is detrimental, it fails to include genetic and biological input and impact, which we will now see has a great effect.

The Child Trauma Academy is an organization whose purpose is to improve and understand the lives of children who have suffered neglect, or are suffering neglect, through research and education. One of the chief researchers of this organization is Bruce D. Perry, a neuroscientist and clinical researcher. In 1997, in a paper presented at Society for Neuroscience Annual Meeting, New Orleans, Dr. Perry explained the effects of neglectful environments and parents on the neurological development of children.

The paper describes a study performed by Dr. Perry, in which 122 children raised in neglectful environments underwent neuroimaging, in which scans of the brain are acquired. The children were split into 4 groups, depending on the neglect they received: chaotic neglect (or neglect random in nature and not consistent), chaotic neglect with prenatal drug exposure, global neglect (or consistent neglect and sensory deprivation, such as that found in feral children), and global neglect with prenatal drug exposure. The 4 groups were compared across 3 variables: height, weight, and frontal-occipital circumference (brain size).

The results of the height and weight across the groups showed little difference; neglect appeared to have little effect on these variables. However, there was a phenomenal difference in frontal-occipital circumference between global neglect groups and chaotic neglect groups. Children in global neglect groups were found to have vastly lower brain sizes than children in chaotic neglect groups; additionally, prenatal drug exposure brought this number even lower. Prenatal drug exposure in chaotic neglect groups did not seem to have any effect. The results of this experiment can be seen graphically in the bar graph. An additional image comparing brains of a normal 3 year old and a globally neglected 3 year old has also been posted.

This experiment exemplifies the network of interactions of environment and biology. Children raised in neglectful environments, such as feral children, do not receive important sensory stimulation. This has detrimental effects on the child's brain, as can be seen in this experiment. These detrimental effects in turn have consequences on the behavior of the child. The child does not learn language and social interaction, and lacks the capacity to do so, as the brain has been developed incorrectly.























References

Perry, BD and Pollard, D. Altered brain development following global neglect in early childhood. Society For Neuroscience: Proceedings from Annual Meeting,New Orleans, 1997.

Friday, October 31, 2008

Week 2 - Victor of Aveyron, and the Limitations of Feral Analysis

One of the very first documented cases of feral children, if not the first, is the case of Victor of Aveyron, a child found in the wild of France in 1799. He was discovered at approximately age 12; he had no ability to speak, and elicited animal-like behaviors, such as biting and clawing. He was taken into the house of Jean Marc Gaspard Itard, a medical consultant to the National School of the Deaf, who took a great interest in Victor, and sought to teach him to speak and behave like a human being.

Itard performed many experiments and exercises in order to train Victor and assess his mental capacities. He trained Victor to eat with silverware, rather than with his hands. He would play musical instruments to Victor, such as a drum or a bell, and Victor eventually learned to play them back to Itard. Victor began to understand some words, and even learned to write a few words. Victor essentially learned to behave in a socially acceptable manner, but Itard failed in one aspect: Victor never learned to speak.

A comparison of Victor to other feral children shows the difficulty and limitations of studying feral development. For example, Genie, perhaps the most well-known feral child, developed differently than Victor. Genie was locked in her room and strapped to a potty chair for 13 years; she received little to no sensory input, and was never spoken to by her parents. However, after living with a team of scientists including Susan Curtiss for a few years, Genie learned to verbally speak. While she was not completely proficient at language, she did develop the ability, which Victor never did. Additionally, Itard hypothesized that having some social connection during development, even one without language, could greatly influence the child. This may be why Amala and Kamala learned to speak, as they grew up in contact with each other. For more comparisons, see Yvan Lebran's paper on Victor and other feral child cases.

This shows the complicated and problematic side of studying feral children. How is it that Genie, who was raised in captivity for 13 years, was able to learn basic language and verbal communication, yet Victor, raised in the wild for 12 years, was unable to speak for his entire life? There are so many possible factors involved that it is impossible to know; it could be that there is a significant difference between being raised in the wild and being raised in a dark room. Or, Victor may have actually been mentally retarded or autistic, whereas Genie was simply language deprived. As Victor's situation occurred over 200 years ago, there is now no way to ascertain the answer.

One of the most severe limitations of studying feral development is the fact that every case is a case study. There is no "standard" feral child; each and every feral child was raised in a different environment, with different genes, differing amounts of social interaction, and for different amounts of time. Even if two children were raised in the same environment, their differing genes and temperaments would contribute to their development. Therefore, there is no way we can determine causation in any of these cases.

In order to do so, we would need to set up an experiment, perhaps comparing feral children and autistic children. However, there are not enough feral children in the world to get an appropriate population size, and it is immoral and illegal to raise children in feral conditions just for an experiment. So, while these case studies do give us some insight on feral development, in truth it gives us more insight on the individual.

Next Week: Brain Development.

Ryan

References

Lebrun, Y. (1980). Victor of Aveyron: A reappraisal in light of more recent cases of feral speech. Language Sciences, 2(1), 32-43.

Friday, October 17, 2008

Week 1 - Feral Development, or Autism?

One of the most prevalent debates concerning the subject of feral development is whether these so-called "feral children" are developmentally scarred due to their environment, or they are simply autistic to begin with. This has proven to be a difficult question to answer, as studies on feral children and studies on autistic children have often yielded similar results in behavior. Additionally, many studies on feral children were done many years ago (Victor, for example), and thus it is nearly impossible to determine whether or not these children were autistic.

Perhaps the strongest supporter of the idea that feral children are autistic children was Bruno Bettelheim, a psychologist of the 1950s era famous for his studies with autistic children. In his essay Feral Children and Autistic Children (Bettelheim, 1990), Bettelheim compares a study performed by Reverend J.A.L. Singh on two "wolf girls", Amala and Kamala (Singh, 1940), who were supposedly raised by wolves, to his own studies performed on autistic children. Many of the comparisons he makes in this essay do seem to equate feral and autistic children.

In the essay, Bettelheim states that Amala and Kamala, as well as his autistic children, showed aloofness and shyness in the presence of another individual. Additionally, two of the autistic children began to speak their first words after about a year of care; this was the same period of time it took for Kamala to begin speaking. Kamala would often crouch in the corner in the room for hours, seemingly lost in thought; Bettelheim's autistic children often performed similar behaviors. The two groups were even similar in their eating habits, in that both were known to eat like dogs from a plate. Finally, both the feral children and the autistic children seemed unable to laugh, a characteristic that can only be described as inhuman.

While Bettelheim's comparisons do seem convincing, there are still reasons to believe that feral children do exist. One major reason is that Bruno Bettelheim's work in itself is flawed. After his death in 1990, it was discovered that many of Bettelheim's patients were misdiagnosed; in fact, it is possible that he abused children under his care. He may have even completely invented his supposed credentials. Therefore, it is possible that Bettelheim's "work" on patients with autism was invented as well, a conclusion that would severely impair his stance on feral and autistic children.

Yet even if Bettelheim's work was completely reliable and valid, there is still reason enough to believe that feral development is possible. This is exemplified by a case study performed by Lenore C. Terr, a psychiatrist specializing in children with PTSD, on a young girl name Cammie Brooks (Terr, 2003). Cammie was discovered at one year of age; she had been living with her father, who bit, shook, physically abused, and growled at Cammie, and had killed her 25 day old sister. Upon arriving at her foster home, she growled, bit, shook, and even sniffed at sexual organs. She was diagnosed as mentally retarded, and placed in the care of Lenore Terr.

The importance of this example is that Cammie is essentially a feral child; she developed in an abusive environment for an entire year, and exhibits many behaviors characteristic of feral children. Yet through many years of psychotherapy, Cammie learned to speak, interact, and stop shaking. In fact, by her 11th birthday, she was taken into her school's "GATE" program for gifted students, and was reading Harry Potter for fun. This recovery is uncharacteristic, in fact impossible, for an autistic child to accomplish.

There are, of course, some possible flaws in this reasoning as well. Cammie developed in her abusive environment for only a year, whereas Kamala was found at eight years old. Kamala may have missed many critical periods for learning and development, whereas Cammie may have still had time to recover. Additionally, Cammie was cared for by an experienced psychotherapist, while Kamala was not. Yet the fact still remains that if Cammie had been born autistic, there would have been very little that could have been done to restore her from this state.

So, perhaps there are cases in which autism is confused for feral development; perhaps some feral children are, in fact, autistic. Or, perhaps feral children exhibit very similar symptoms to autism. While these points may be true, it does not mean that we can automatically assume that all feral children are simply autistic.

Next week: Victor, the Wild Child of Aveyron.

Ryan

References

Bettelheim B (1990), Feral children and autistic children. In Freud's Vienna and Other Essays. New York: Knopf

Terr L (2003), "Wild Child": How Three Principles of Healing Organized 12 Years of Psychotherapy. J Am Acad Child Psychiatry 42:12 1401-1409

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Introductory First Post

Welcome to my blog.

My name is Ryan Hubbard. I'm a student at University of California, Davis majoring in psychology and minoring in neurology. I work as an intern at the M.I.N.D. Institute; I trace brain structures for volume measurements.

The purpose of this blog (in the beginning, in any case) is for a class I'm taking - Developmental Psychology, to be exact. As a research project, I will be examining and analyzing the effects of abusive and feral environments on the development of children. Feral development essentially means that the child is left to develop in the wild, in the company of animals, or without any human interaction. For anyone who wants more general information on feral children, the wikipedia article is useful.

My mission is to find relevant essays and published works on this subject, analyze them, and transfer their information to this blog. I will additionally compare/criticize these works (peer review is necessary in the world of psychology). I will update this blog every week with new information on the subject of feral development, including new essays, links, or analysis that I have accomplished.

However, a blog is a wonderful thing, and after this project has reached its completion (approximately 10 weeks), I will attempt to continue posting weekly blogs on the subject of psychology, neurology, and other interesting subjects. Not only does this allow me to transmit information to the world, it also allows me to collect my thoughts and stay active in the psychology network.

In any case, expect my first entry on the subject of feral children very soon (probably tomorrow).

Ryan