Wilhelm Reich (1897–1957)

(This is an old review that I wrote in 2002 and thought that I had copied here, but hadn't. I haven't read Reich since then so I'm not sure what I would think now.)

As you may know, Reich was a student of Freud who's now known as a colorful crackpot (or, in California, a genius) who believed sexual life-energy could cure cancer, change the weather, etc. He was also a crusading anti-fascist and anti-Stalinist, and he thought dangerous politics were a side effect of unconscious contradictions in society; this book makes a pretty good case for that. But it's also disorganized, repetitive, and self-righteous, and in general it gives the impression of someone who found it very easy to convince himself he had "proved" things. I think this is partly due to the way he went back and revised the book in the '40s (I've never read the original edition) to get rid of some Communist bits and put in more orgone theory; this results in some strange choices such as always saying "sex-economic" when he means "revolutionary." And I'm not sure I trust his retrospective view of the progressive movement in Germany, when he claims that he managed to turn an audience of 1,000 lower-middle-class Christians away from the Church just by explaining that sexual taboos were reactionary. (Of course I may be biased because he believes that not only religion, but fairy tales and detective stories and really anything "irrational," are nothing but fascist bullshit getting in the way of "mental hygiene." For a guy who said he was all about release, he's got pretty strict ideas about where people should find comfort.)

The main theme of the book still seems true: when people grow up cramped and dishonest and afraid of pleasure, they're likely to support horrible leaders without understanding why.

Anyway, besides being an interesting and frustrating read, this was a particularly good used copy to have found, because it came with a whole lot of handwritten margin notes by a mysterious Irish woman who was apparently reading it in Seattle some time in the last 30 years. Besides trying to apply Reich to her surroundings and enthusiastically underlining about 50% of the book, she was also gathering thoughts for a study of an Irish revolutionary about whom she had mixed feelings. There are a lot of pages where this reader's notes are more interesting than Reich's writing, and certainly more practical. Among my favorites: "'Liberalism lays stress upon its ethics for the purpose of holding in suppression the "monster in man"': You can visibly see this in the deadness lack of spontaneity in certain political groups. The unattractiveness rigidity of facial expression." "'Hitler speaks of his mother with great sentimentality': As do most Irish men. But do they love the real person or the myth." "'Employees of aristocratic families ... often appear as caricatures of the people whom they serve': My aunt Louise." "There is no day more empty than the day following an election for the average vol[unteer] worker. What do you have???" "Sadism: 'She doesn't know where she stands w. me. That's the way it should be!'" "To say good-bye to mysticism. I am resistant. Who is it that said 'Walk softly. I have only my dreams?' Does it really do so much damage? ... Beauty of Irene's face at Mass. But it doesn't work for everyone. Didn't for my mom." "'We have to designate as non-work that activity that is detrimental to the life process': Would running a bar be non-work?" Thanks, whoever you are; I hope you figured out what you were trying to figure out.… (mere)