This article advances transing the archive as a methodological intervention into how autism's canonical history became institutionally secured through archival processes operating within clinical and bureaucratic regimes, not simply through omission. Drawing on archival and digital ethnographic research, I trace how translation hierarchies, citation regimes, and diagnostic inscription consolidated particular clinicians and deficit framings while marginalizing more relational figures such as Grunya Sukhareva and Anni Weiss. I argue that these processes function as recognition infrastructures, shaping what becomes documentable, citable, and actionable across institutional systems. I analyze autistic digital counter-archives-hashtag recirculation, annotation, and diagnostic reinterpretation-as patterned historiographical work that intervenes by re-translating, re-citing, and re-inscribing medical knowledge. By reframing archives as contested infrastructures, this article extends medical anthropology's engagement with evidence, temporality, and epistemic authority.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jesica R. Bates (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: