In many ways, Reich moves beyond Freud in providing an integration of word and body. He proposes that character armor is forced in the dynamic interaction between body and the language being used by the person encased in armor. Reich not only takes a jab at Freud’s diagnosis (verbal identification) of his own throat cancer, but also at Freud’s emphasis on verbiage in traditional psychoanalysis and deemphasis on the body (particularly the muscular structure and tension within this structure). Reich offers the following observation regarding this interaction between body and language in Character Analysis:
… apart from its function as communication, human language also often functions as a defense. The spoken word conceals the expressive language of the biological core. In many cases, the function of speech has deteriorated to such a degree that the words express nothing whatever and merely represent a continuous, hollow activity on the part of the musculature of the neck and the organs of speech. On the basis of repeated experiences, it is my opinion that in many psychoanalyses which have gone on for years the treatment has become stuck in this pathological use of language. This clinical experience can, indeed has to be applied to the social sphere. Endless numbers of speeches, publications, political debates do not have the function of getting at the root of important questions of life but of drowning them in verbiage.
In this quote we see that language is often the villain and that sole reliance on the word will never adequately address problems associated with character disorders. However, it should be noted that Reich confronts a contradiction here. While offering a clear position on the mis-used or over-use of verbal language in psychoanalysis, Reich was still reliant on “the talking cure” (as Freud originally called it) when seeking to discover defensive routines that are blocking the flow of energy in his patient’s body.
Reich also makes use of verbally based therapy to bring about the diminution of these defenses. This inherent tension in Reich’s original work is somewhat resolved in his later almost exclusive attention to the redirection of bodily energy through the use of machinery (energy accumulators). Those (such as Lowen) who built their own work off of Reich’s original perspectives and practices, have also tended to have a more consistent focus on the body and less on the talking cure.
Outliers
There is another important characteristic shared by Reich and Feldenkrais. They are both rebels. Malcolm Gladwell (2008) would identify them both as Outliers—and in this capacity we find that both of them found both success and repression. Gladwell might be pointing to cultural influences (their Jewish heritage) or to the way in which they approached elusive issues (from a holistic perspective). We can turn to another observer of rebellion and unique forms of success—this being Thomas Kuhn. Writing about scientific revolutions, Kuhn (1962) employed the term “paradigm” when describing the deeply embedded set of assumptions and structures supporting “normal science.”
Kuhn suggests that a change (revolution) in a specific scientific domain often comes from someone who resides outside the mainstream of normal science–because of their ethnicity, gender, geographic location, or lack of affiliation with a prestigious institution. Reich and Feldenkrais certainly resided outside the mainstream of their own fields of endeavor (psychotherapy and physical therapy) and found it hard like virtually all paradigm-challengers to find much initial support for their perspectives or practice.
Download Article 1K Club
