Wilhelm Reich & the Frankfurt School?
Håvard Nilsen
havard.nilsen at hi.uio.no
Thu, 24 Apr 2003 15:16:20 +0200
--=====================_1141711907==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This message comes a bit late, but I think some of these points should be=20
cleared up when discussing Reich, Fromm and the Frankfurt school.
To Ralph's question, Adorno used insights from Reich's Character Analysis=20
and his Massenpsychologie des faschismus in the study of the authoritarian=
=20
personality, a work that originally had the working title The Authoritarian=
=20
Character. His remarks concerning Reich vs. Fromm can be found in a letter=
=20
to Horkheimer in 1934, discussing what would eventually become this work.
I would like to add a couple of remarks to Neil's fine contribution on=20
Reich and Fromm: I think that when interpreting the differences between=20
Fromm and Reich, one should think not only in terms of theory, but also in=
=20
terms of organisational sociology. It is important to see that Reich in=20
those early years had a high stature in the psychoanalytic environment, and=
=20
that he was more of an insider in the world of psychoanalysis than any of=20
the other Frankfurters. Furthermore, he was a medical doctor, which Fromm=20
wasn't, (a lack that added to the troubles Fromm later had in the=20
International Psychoanalytic Association. (See Paul Roazen's article: The=20
exclusion of Erich Fromm from the IPA, (2002). As a card-carrying active=20
member of the Communist Party, Reich's theoretical discussions on MArx and=
=20
Freud were meant to influence the official party view on these issues.=20
Whatever their shortcomings, Reich's works were important since they=20
carried a certain official weight both in the world of psychoanalysis and=20
that of Communist political theory.
I do not see Escape from Freedom as a critique of Reich. On the contrary,=20
Reich felt, with some justification, that in Escape from Freedom, Fromm=20
stole his ideas without acknowledging the source. To be sure, if one reads=
=20
the original edition of Massenpsychologie des faschismus, the conclusion of=
=20
the work deals with 'the unpolitical attitude' of the masses, which was an=
=20
attitude that easily led to a sympathy for fascism. Reich held that this=20
attitude is not a passive attitude, but a highly active one, a resistance=20
to liberating politics parallell to the analysand's resistance during=20
therapy. In the first edition, this point stands out much more accentuated=
=20
than in later ones. This was an analytic reply to standard marxist=20
interpretations of 'false consciousness'. According to Reich, the masses=20
desired authority, and resisted liberation and independence. The=20
investigation of resistance was one of Reich's major themes in=20
psychoanalysis, a phenomenon he understood as, precisely, a 'fear of=
freedom'.
The psychoanalyst Otto Fenichel later detected the Reichian influence in=20
Fromm's work and wrote to Fromm about it, asking why Reich wasn't cited.=20
Fromm answered that he was fed up with Reich's 'messianic attitude', an=20
answer Fenichel could sympathize with. But part of the reason may also have=
=20
been that Reich at that time was persona non grata in the analytic=20
association. Reichian citations would have been a bad investment for Fromm,=
=20
whose own membership was precarious. But the early Reich's influence on=20
Fromm was much greater than I have ever seen acknowledged, and I think it=20
was a lasting one--for instance, one should not neglect the fact that Fromm=
=20
consistently used character analysis in his psychoanalytic thought, as can=
=20
be seen from his study on The Anatomy of Destruction. Not that Fromm is=20
altogether dismissive of Reich in his published works, he acknowledges=20
Reich's significant contributions concerning the importance of the body in=
=20
analysis, as well as interpreting resistance.(See e.g. Fromm: The Art of=20
Listening, 115, 175)
There are other links to the Frankfurters as well, Walter Benjamin planned=
=20
a journal with Bertolt Brecht where Reich was one of the few proposed=20
contributors.
However, I was not aware that there exist some published Reich-Fromm=20
letters, could you provide me with a reference on those, Neil? Thanks.
Best,
H=E5vard Nilsen
At 05:18 PM 4/10/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>Fromm, of course, knew Reich at the Berlin Institute of Psychoanalysis. Not
>well, and Reich was senoir to Fromm in psychoanalysis at that time. As
>Fromm broke with orthodox psychoanalysis, he came to be skeptical of the
>core theoretical orientation of the early Reich. And certainly Fromm=
agreed
>with the spirit of Ralph's critique of the later Reich.
>There is a series of letters between Reich and Fromm, from 1932. They
>certainly knew each other personally.
>And Fromm wrote the introduction to Summerhill, the celebrated book on free
>education. Neill was a strong Reichian, and Fromm disagreed with that
>element of Summerhill. Fromm comments on Reich throughout his work, not
>always with a generous spirit...
>The Greatness and Limitations of Freud's thought (1980) and The Crisis of
>Psychoanalysis and Other Essays (1973) would be the key place to find such
>comments. In some ways, Fromm's Escape from Freedom (1941) was a critique=
of
>Reich, just as Paul Roazen has pointed out that Civilization and its
>Discontents was, in good measure, a response to Reich...
>I have written about Escape from Freedom in Sociological Theory, fall 1996,
>in an essay that makes clear the differences between Fromm and Reich's The
>Mass Psychology of Fascism. As for the relation of the other critical,
>theorists to Reich - I have no idea...
>
>Neil McLaughlin
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ralph Dumain" <rdumain@igc.org>
>To: <frankfurt-school@lists.village.virginia.edu>
>Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 5:03 PM
>Subject: Re: Wilhelm Reich & the Frankfurt School?
>
>
> > I didn't think extended discussion of Reich's ideas would be appropriate
> > for this list, apart from any intersection they may have with the
> > Frankfurters. But indeed, given time, I could provide a very detailed
> > analysis of Reich's later works, which I suggest unequivocally represent=
a
> > deterioration from his earlier ones. First, his "scientific" writings=
on
> > orgonomy, physics, cloudbusting, etc., are pure nonsense. Much more
> > interesting are his philosophical statements, in which he attempts to
> > distinguish the orgonomic perspective from both mechanism and mysticism,
> > which he considers the twin ideological diseases of the human race. He
> > attempts to provide a natural scientific translation for mystical
>concepts,
> > which at the same time is very clever but in the end irrational and
> > obsessive. I think Reich's fate as desperate paranoid in Cold War=
America
> > (as an exile from fascist Europe) presents yet another object lesson for
> > the inability of bourgeois society to mediate the dichotomy between
> > positivism and life-philosophy (scientism and Romanticism). So yeah, I
>can
> > provide as firm a foundation as you need, but I can't do it in one or=
two
> > paragraphs. At least I am contributing something to this list; I see
> > little productive thought going on here otherwise. Care to offer some
> > thoughts of your own on any subject of your choosing?
> >
> > At 04:40 PM 4/10/2003 -0400, malgosia askanas wrote:
> > > > Reich's later deterioration into crackpot vitalism is
> > > > interesting for the lessons it unintentionally teaches, even though=
it
> > > > doesn't have the positive features of his early work.
> > >
> > >Does this sentence have any firm foundation? What is your definition=
of
> > >"vitalism" and "crackpot"? And what have you studied of Reich's works?
> > >
> > >-m
> >
> >
____________________________________
H=E5vard Nilsen
Research Fellow
Dept.of History
University of Oslo
P.O.Box 1008 Blindern
N-0315 Norway
Phone: + 47 22 85 49 87
Fax: + 47 22 85 52 78
--=====================_1141711907==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
This message comes a bit late, but I think some of these points should be
cleared up when discussing Reich, Fromm and the Frankfurt
school.<br><br>
To Ralph's question, Adorno used insights from Reich's Character Analysis
and his Massenpsychologie des faschismus in the study of the
authoritarian personality, a work that originally had the working title
The Authoritarian Character. His remarks concerning Reich vs. Fromm can
be found in a letter to Horkheimer in 1934, discussing what would
eventually become this work.<br><br>
I would like to add a couple of remarks to Neil's fine contribution on
Reich and Fromm: I think that when interpreting the differences between
Fromm and Reich, one should think not only in terms of theory, but also
in terms of organisational sociology. It is important to see that
Reich in those early years had a high stature in the psychoanalytic
environment, and that he was more of an insider in the world of
psychoanalysis than any of the other Frankfurters. Furthermore, he was a
medical doctor, which Fromm wasn't, (a lack that added to the troubles
Fromm later had in the International Psychoanalytic Association. (See
Paul Roazen's article: The exclusion of Erich Fromm from the IPA, (2002).
As a card-carrying active member of the Communist Party, Reich's
theoretical discussions on MArx and Freud were meant to influence the
official party view on these issues. Whatever their shortcomings, Reich's
works were important since they carried a certain official weight
both in the world of psychoanalysis and that of Communist political
theory.<br><br>
I do not see Escape from Freedom as a critique of Reich. On the contrary,
Reich felt, with some justification, that in Escape from Freedom, Fromm
stole his ideas without acknowledging the source. To be sure, if one
reads the original edition of Massenpsychologie des faschismus, the
conclusion of the work deals with 'the unpolitical attitude' of the
masses, which was an attitude that easily led to a sympathy for fascism.
Reich held that this attitude is not a passive attitude, but a highly
active one, a resistance to liberating politics parallell to the
analysand's resistance during therapy. In the first edition, this point
stands out much more accentuated than in later ones. This was an analytic
reply to standard marxist interpretations of 'false consciousness'.
According to Reich, the masses <u>desired </u>authority, and resisted
liberation and independence. The investigation of resistance was one of
Reich's major themes in psychoanalysis, a phenomenon he understood as,
precisely, a 'fear of freedom'. <br>
The psychoanalyst Otto Fenichel later detected the Reichian influence in
Fromm's work and wrote to Fromm about it, asking why Reich wasn't cited.
Fromm answered that he was fed up with Reich's 'messianic attitude', an
answer Fenichel could sympathize with. But part of the reason may also
have been that Reich at that time was persona non grata in the analytic
association. Reichian citations would have been a bad investment for
Fromm, whose own membership was precarious. But the early Reich's
influence on Fromm was much greater than I have ever seen acknowledged,
and I think it was a lasting one--for instance, one should not neglect
the fact that Fromm consistently used character analysis in his
psychoanalytic thought, as can be seen from his study on The Anatomy of
Destruction. Not that Fromm is altogether dismissive of Reich in his
published works, he acknowledges Reich's significant contributions
concerning the importance of the body in analysis, as well as
interpreting resistance.(See e.g. Fromm: The Art of Listening, 115,
175)<br><br>
There are other links to the Frankfurters as well, Walter Benjamin
planned a journal with Bertolt Brecht where Reich was one of the few
proposed contributors.<br><br>
However, I was not aware that there exist some published Reich-Fromm
letters, could you provide me with a reference on those, Neil?
Thanks.<br><br>
Best,<br><br>
H=E5vard Nilsen<br><br>
At 05:18 PM 4/10/2003 -0400, you wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite>Fromm, of course, knew Reich at th=
e
Berlin Institute of Psychoanalysis. Not<br>
well, and Reich was senoir to Fromm in psychoanalysis at that time.
As<br>
Fromm broke with orthodox psychoanalysis, he came to be skeptical of
the<br>
core theoretical orientation of the early Reich. And certainly
Fromm agreed<br>
with the spirit of Ralph's critique of the later Reich.<br>
There is a series of letters between Reich and Fromm, from 1932.
They<br>
certainly knew each other personally.<br>
And Fromm wrote the introduction to Summerhill, the celebrated book on
free<br>
education. Neill was a strong Reichian, and Fromm disagreed with
that<br>
element of Summerhill. Fromm comments on Reich throughout his work,
not<br>
always with a generous spirit...<br>
The Greatness and Limitations of Freud's thought (1980) and The Crisis
of<br>
Psychoanalysis and Other Essays (1973) would be the key place to find
such<br>
comments. In some ways, Fromm's Escape from Freedom (1941) was a critique
of<br>
Reich, just as Paul Roazen has pointed out that Civilization and=20
its<br>
Discontents was, in good measure, a response to Reich...<br>
I have written about Escape from Freedom in Sociological Theory, fall
1996,<br>
in an essay that makes clear the differences between Fromm and Reich's
The<br>
Mass Psychology of Fascism. As for the relation of the other
critical,<br>
theorists to Reich - I have no idea...<br><br>
Neil McLaughlin<br><br>
<br>
----- Original Message -----<br>
From: "Ralph Dumain" <rdumain@igc.org><br>
To: <frankfurt-school@lists.village.virginia.edu><br>
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 5:03 PM<br>
Subject: Re: Wilhelm Reich & the Frankfurt School?<br><br>
<br>
> I didn't think extended discussion of Reich's ideas would be
appropriate<br>
> for this list, apart from any intersection they may have with
the<br>
> Frankfurters. But indeed, given time, I could provide a very
detailed<br>
> analysis of Reich's later works, which I suggest unequivocally
represent a<br>
> deterioration from his earlier ones. First, his
"scientific" writings on<br>
> orgonomy, physics, cloudbusting, etc., are pure nonsense. Much
more<br>
> interesting are his philosophical statements, in which he attempts
to<br>
> distinguish the orgonomic perspective from both mechanism and
mysticism,<br>
> which he considers the twin ideological diseases of the human
race. He<br>
> attempts to provide a natural scientific translation for
mystical<br>
concepts,<br>
> which at the same time is very clever but in the end irrational
and<br>
> obsessive. I think Reich's fate as desperate paranoid in Cold
War America<br>
> (as an exile from fascist Europe) presents yet another object lesson
for<br>
> the inability of bourgeois society to mediate the dichotomy
between<br>
> positivism and life-philosophy (scientism and Romanticism). So
yeah, I<br>
can<br>
> provide as firm a foundation as you need, but I can't do it in one
or two<br>
> paragraphs. At least I am contributing something to this list;
I see<br>
> little productive thought going on here otherwise. Care to
offer some<br>
> thoughts of your own on any subject of your choosing?<br>
><br>
> At 04:40 PM 4/10/2003 -0400, malgosia askanas wrote:<br>
> > > Reich's later deterioration into crackpot vitalism=20
is<br>
> > > interesting for the lessons it unintentionally teaches,
even though it<br>
> > > doesn't have the positive features of his early=20
work.<br>
> ><br>
> >Does this sentence have any firm foundation? What is your
definition of<br>
> >"vitalism" and "crackpot"? And what
have you studied of Reich's works?<br>
> ><br>
> >-m<br>
><br>
></blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
____________________________________<br><br>
H=E5vard Nilsen<br>
Research Fellow<br>
Dept.of History<br>
University of Oslo <br><br>
P.O.Box 1008 Blindern<br>
N-0315 Norway<br>
Phone: + 47 22 85 49 87<br>
Fax: + 47 22 85 52 78</html>
--=====================_1141711907==_.ALT--