Wilhelm Reich
Page 20
Again, each type, from genera A and B to the species of B, are manifestations of thirdness as it has emerged from the swirling darkness of secondness. But for Reich, the therapist has real access to these types only through the use of resistance analysis rather than interpretive or hermeneutic analysis. Hence to accept his typology, it is also necessary to accept his method for unfolding the types and subtypes. It is always the case, in whatever discipline, that typology and theory of method go together, even if they are not fully clarified in advance (which may not be possible). The method shapes the way the material appears, while the material shapes the way the method is formulated and rendered public. This is a reasonable dialectic from which it is impossible to escape. For many philosophers the only lasting criteria in forming issues of validation out of this dialectic are pragmatic ones. That is, method and typology Z have some validity only insofar as they generate desired pragmatic and measurable results, such as symptom relief. Given this pragmatic model, which I accept, Reich’s resistance model has obvious positive pragmatic consequences, while his typology may require some refinement if it is to do service and have good pragmatic consequences in the future configurations of gender, race, and class. Let us then look at the species under genus B.
The first species of the neurotic character type was that of the hysterical character (remembering that the term hysterical can be partially redeemed if it is understood in terms of volatility and extraversion). Of all the pathological character types, the hysteric was the most transparent to analysis. She or he presented with a dialectic of coquetry (psychosexual flirtation) with a transition to passivity. This type was prone to quick and easily excited fixations on other persons, which actually were without true emotional depth or any sense of long-term commitment. The hysteric would use the lure of his or her sexual powers to create a circle of genitally frustrated admirers. But the hysteric was frozen in the phallic/clitoral stage and had a deep Oedipal attachment that blocked any adult forms of sexual relationality. Anxiety was very high for the hysteric and could be controlled only by the repression of healthy genital impulses.
Was the hysteric honest about her or his use of intense sexual energy to shape and control both the object world (of external sensations) and the inner pulsations of libido? Could the hysteric take ownership of the chaotic mixed signals that were sent out over and over again to hapless victims of the dance of eros denied? Reich quite rightly pointed to a deep dishonesty in the hysteric type, a dishonesty that had painful and disruptive consequences for other people:
Thus, the sexual displays in the hysterical character are an attempt to find out whether dangers are present and where they might be coming from. This is also clearly demonstrated in the transference reaction in the analysis. The hysterical character never recognizes the meaning of his sexual behavior; he violently refuses to take cognizance of it and is shocked by such “insinuations.” In short, one soon sees that what stands out here, as sexual striving is basically sexuality in the service of defense.12
Pseudosexuality thus replaced full genital sexuality, as the latter would be too dangerous to the fragile compromise between the ego and the id. Whenever the hysteric sent out a sexual probe, via coquetry, she or he was in fact testing the dangers that lurked in the object sphere. If anyone acted on these signals, he or she would be immediately charged with inventing them or with being a demonic sexual aggressor. Hence the hysteric type was using sexuality in a dishonest way, projecting this power onto the Other, who in fact had been compelled to misread the signs because her or his sender was unaware of his or her complicity in sending genuinely sexual invitations.
Thus the hysterical type presented with hypersexuality, a need for immediate gratification, excitability, shallow relationality, a fixation on the phallic/clitoral stage where immediate gratification was the norm, a somewhat looser character armor than the other pathological types, and a high degree of somatic and psychic anxiety. The intense vacillations between sexual evocativeness and sharp denial when these invitations were accepted marked a personality that had a fragile ego structure with an unstable armoring that was far less solidified than in the compulsive type. Whenever someone sent the signal of yes to the hysteric’s implied invitation, she or he would be met with the reaction of no coming from the sudden increase of anxiety released by the hysteric’s newly activated libido, which was barely recognized for what it was in the first place. For the non-hysteric in the situation, it was a no-win scenario.
In a sense, the hysterical subtype was similar to the impulsive character type that Reich had analyzed several years earlier, especially insofar as they both manifested chaotic and uncontrollable forms of hypersexuality that were not seen as such. Impulse control was the one major weakness of the hysteric, combined with anxiety recoil when the impulses were met with an objective response. Sublimation was weak for both types, making it difficult for them to put long-term energy into lasting cultural or social artifacts. We would not be violating Reich’s categorial schema to say that the hysterical character type (subtype) acted out the traits of the impulsive or borderline personality.
While the hysteric was somewhat narcissistically tied to phallic/clitoral displays of outward pseudosexuality, the compulsive type was tied to anal and sadistic impulses and fixations. This type has entered the consciousness of the public imagination in a much clearer way than the other types, perhaps because its traits are so obviously distasteful. The compulsive had a pedantic sense of order in which the world of outer sensations had to be controlled, as well, of course, as the world of the libido. The compulsive was methodical in his or her behavior, cheap in financial dealings, often collected things that could be tightly controlled, such as stamps or coins, and was driven by an anal eroticism that had a sadistic component.
How did the compulsive type evolve out of its infantile and childhood experiences to become a fully compulsive character? What conflicts were at the center of the psychosexual drama that made full genitality impossible? Reich again showed his genius at taxonomy as he described the compulsive type both historically and structurally:
Historically, we have a central fixation on the anal-sadistic stage, i.e., in the second or third year of life. Toilet training, because of the mother’s own particular character traits, is carried out too soon. This leads to powerful reaction formations, e.g., extreme self-control, even at an early age. With the rigid toilet training, a powerful anal obstinacy develops and mobilizes the sadistic impulses to strengthen itself. In the typical compulsion neurosis, the development continues to the phallic phase, i.e., genitality is activated. However, partially because of the person’s previously developed inhibitions and partially because of the parents’ antisexual attitude, it is soon relinquished … Hence, in the compulsion neurosis the repression of the genitality is typically followed by a withdrawal into the immediately preceding stage of feces interest and the aggression of this stage. From now on, i.e., during the so-called latency period—which is especially pronounced in the compulsive character—the anal and sadistic reaction formations usually grow more intense and mold the character into a definite form.13
Reich added a footnote to the above passage in which he insisted that the latency period (from ages five to twelve) was shaped by cultural forms of sexual suppression and was not a biological imperative in any sense. The compulsive type thus became fixated during the end of the Oedipal stage, in which anal aggression was the norm for interacting with external stimuli. Whatever phallic/clitoral experiences became manifest were soon repressed by the maternal or paternal superego, so that the anal stage became the highest rung on the ladder of fixations.
The compulsive, often acting like someone who had obsessive compulsive disorder, manifest, for example, in activities such as constant hand-washing to ward off germs (libido), used ritual and repetition to control the internal and external worlds. Affect and thought were divorced from each other, and the realm of thought was used as a means to escape the power of the repressed affe
cts. Reich pointed out that scientists were often compulsive types because of their attention to controllable detail and their need for a more totalizing control of the environment. The greatest fear was loss of self-possession through something unpredictable (an irrational second). Thus the compulsive used thirdness in a deliberate way as a means to escape from secondness. By contrast, the hysterical type was more comfortable moving into and out of the realm where secondness can give birth to thirdness. The hysteric could honor secondness especially insofar as he or she thrived on a kind of impulsive chaos to cathect the phallic/clitoral excitations and fixations. This was a realm of experience utterly alien to the compulsive type, for whom any hint of change would induce a rapid increase in anxiety.
Externally, compulsives had a rigid musculature (hypertonia), in which the body presented itself as being awkward and uncomfortable with its surrounding world. As a child, the compulsive learned to hold in his or her feces by intense muscular control at the behest of the mother. This holding in became the norm for subsequent development through the latency and adolescent periods into adulthood. The entire body had to hold in the anal aggression of the libido, letting it out only through reaction formations such as repetitive ritualized behavior. (Reich here refers to a patient who used to “pass his hand over the fly of his pants three times before each session,” while also reciting a particular verse.) Rituals controlled the potential uprush of the libido. Freud had linked the compulsive neurosis with religious ritual to show the connection between the need to control sexual power and competition, on the one hand, and the equally compelling need to shore up the ego through reenactment and return to a threat now controlled by the suppression of the affects, on the other.
The third subtype in this list of psychopathologies, the phallic-narcissistic, was quite different from the first two. Unlike the compulsive type, the phallic-narcissistic character would not generate a reaction formation (a protective countercathexis) against aggression. This type would let aggression out and would usually attack first rather than wait for an attack, real or imagined. Reich gave a clear capsule summary of the three types:
The phallic-narcissistic character differs even in external appearance from the compulsive and the hysterical character. The compulsive is predominantly inhibited, reserved, depressive; the hysteric is nervous, agile, fear-ridden, erratic. The typical phallic-narcissistic character, on the other hand, is self-assured, sometimes arrogant, elastic, energetic, often impressive in his bearing.14
The phallic-narcissistic character would not have a complex inner world of introspection but would more likely be a person of decisive action without regard for real consequences. Reich listed Napoleon and Mussolini as two exemplars of this type. Addicts also tended to be phallic-narcissistic, and this was the type behind most forms of homosexuality.
The phallic-narcissistic type did not generate countercathexes against aggressive drives, as did the compulsive, but rather gave those drives free rein as a form of defense against external stimuli. Nor did the phallic-narcissist try to control the environment through ritual. Rather, a direct assault was more effective in bending the world to his or her will. Phallic aggression warded off those impulses that were defended against by character armoring. Further, phallic and sadistic violence was compensatory for childhood genital deprivations. Like the other types, the phallic-narcissistic was genitally impotent even with the unrelenting display of pseudogenital potency. The hysteric lacked the sadistic piece that was central to the phallic-narcissist, even if he or she shared a tendency toward exhibitionism. The compulsive was far too rigid and self-protective to act out in full pseudogenital splendor.
We can consider these three types (actually subtypes) of the neurotic type as forms in which the emotional and muscular armoring became shaped. The hysteric and the phallic-narcissist had more flexible forms of armoring than did the compulsive. But unlike the genitally healthy type, the neurotic subtypes used (or were used by) armoring as a means of protection against the twin threats of external stimuli and internal libido. Any threat to the armoring generated resistance and produced an increase in anxiety. The hysteric controlled anxiety by sending out pseudosexual probes of the object world to gauge any real threat. The compulsive controlled anxiety by sadism toward the object world and by a ritualistic struggle to manage the irrational. The phallic-hysteric controlled anxiety by a roosterlike display of bravado or some kind of addiction that blunted the effects of anxiety. But none of these types could find the right correlation of ego and libido that would assure full genital potency while allowing for a healthier form of armoring that was reality driven and fully flexible.
The masochistic character was the fourth subtype dealt with in Character Analysis. Like the preceding types, the masochist was also caught in the dialectic of libido and ego using armoring as a defense against the inner and outer demands of reality. Reich again attacked Freud’s view of masochism, which he read as rooting the drive for punishment in a biological urge toward self-destruction—namely, the death drive. For Reich there simply was no biological evidence for a death drive, and further, the cultural aspects of what appeared to be a secondary-level death drive were also misconstrued. Even on the level of cultural inscription, the phenomenological evidence—that is, the evidence derived from a very close study of the way death anxiety was actually experienced by the attending psyche—pointed to a sexual tension within a continuum, not a separate counterdrive that worked against the libido. Was the masochist really concerned with self-punishment, a kind of inverted self-sadism, or was another mechanism operating?
Reich remained a staunch believer in the pleasure principle (Lust) and still insisted, as he had in the 1920s, that unpleasure (Unlust) was itself a part of the pleasure spectrum rather than its opposite. So the psyche could not go “beyond the pleasure principle” in Freud’s sense, but rather it would experience tension as a kind of constricted sensation within the pleasure continuum. This sense of “constriction” was a central piece of Reich’s view of masochism, tied to his phenomenological awareness of the bursting sensation that came from the back pressure of emotional armoring on the libido. Thus “the masochist, far from striving after unpleasure, demonstrates a strong intolerance of psychic tensions and suffers from a quantitative overproduction of unpleasure, not to be found in any other neurosis.”15 The masochist was caught in an overload of anxiety and sexual tension that produced a sensation of unpleasure, but the masochist was not, contra Freud, desperate to punish him- or herself in order to assuage a guilt-consciousness (although that might be a piece of the tension).
Punishment was not directly sought, but substitute punishments would emerge that would actually take away some of the anxiety of feared punishments. Thus the masochist would imagine possible punishments and then work out an internal scenario in which they could be dealt with. This ongoing internal dialogue deflected anxiety away from the reality principle toward a domain of internal and somewhat manageable false punishment narratives. Interestingly, the masochist, unlike the phallic-narcissistic type, would run from sexual rivals because of a fear of the castrating father. This cut off any possibility of sexual fulfillment because the genital ideal was always translated into anal passivity in the face of a perceived threat from the phallic type:
His true nature, his ego, is rooted in passivity because of the anal fixation. As a result of the inhibition of exhibitionism, moreover, his ego has developed an intense inclination toward self-deprecation. This structure of the ego stands in opposition to and prevents the realization of an active phallic ego-ideal. The result of this is again an intolerable tension, which serves as a further source of the feeling of suffering and thus nourishes the masochistic process.16
Praise from another person was perceived as a threat to the stability of the ego and libido compromise formation, as it would heighten the possible phallic tendency of the ego ideal, thus threatening a sudden rush of sexual release in the direction of the object. Hence masochists tended to downplay
their own accomplishments so as not to “tempt the gods” with hubris. For the phallic-narcissistic type, on the other hand, the gods were on his or her side, and there was no issue of hubris from which one had to be protected.
How did the masochist operate in the dance of eros? While the hysteric was wrapped up in anxiety, and the compulsive hated and denied the love object, and the phallic-narcissist approached the object directly, the masochist used the tactic of self-abasement, a “show of misery” that was designed to elicit a love response from the Other. The masochist was saying, “Love me because I suffer for you, and if you love me, I will escape from this torment.”
But what was the masochist really afraid of? What caused such a defensive attitude that cut off outgoing phallic/clitoral power? The answer was clear—namely, that the masochist was actually afraid of an increase in pleasure out of the sea of unpleasure. That is, the masochist had a fear of bursting or exploding out and through the emotional and muscular armoring that had held anxiety at bay. This could also be a fear of a “melting feeling” in which the self would disappear in the orgasm. As a reaction formation against this disappearance, the pelvic floor would contract spasmodically and thwart the release of orgastic energy, that is, there is an inhibition at the height of excitation. Any possibility of “surrender” was blocked at this point where the sensation of bursting and melting was at its most intense and frightening. Further, for the male masochist there was the fear that the penis would dissolve in the vagina and cease to exist. For Reich this was a three-step process: “(1) I am striving for pleasure, (2) I am ‘melting’—this is the fear of punishment, (3) I have to suppress this sensation to save my penis.”17