concepts concerning orgastic potency? I have made clear my belief that Reich started from
his own sexual experiences. He then went on to find corroborating and amplifying evidence
from his clinical work and from general social-cultural observations. Gradually, he wove an
interlocking network of evidence to support his sweeping hypotheses.
Freud utilized the same procedure when, on the basis of his own selfanalysis, lim-
ited clinical experience, and wide reading in anthropology and literature, he proclaimed the
universality of the Oedipus complex. That this complex was not as universal as he assumed
does not detract from the magnificence of the discovery. Nor do the possible qualifications
regarding Reich’s concept of orgastic potency substantially detract from its magnificence.
Even though the evidence for the degree of correctness of Reich’s sexual concepts is far
from conclusive, orgastic potency remains an immensely fruitful concept.
It takes an unusual kind of mind, an unusual courage, indeed, an unusual narcis-
sism, to say: What is true of me is true of all men. Emerson once wrote: “In great writers
we meet our own rejected thoughts.” This kind of approach can lead to huge errors, if
uncontrolled by objective research. But it can also be the path to great discoveries.
Throughout his life, an important ingredient of Reich’s work method was to begin with feel-
ing, with subjective experience, and then move on to more controlled observation. I have
emphasized here his commitment to the first part ofthis method,a commitment that dis-
tinguishes him from most contemporary scientists.
Reich was criticized for the content of his concepts, but equally for his manner of
presenting them. For example, Helena Deutsch, looking back to the 1920s, speaks with dis-
taste of Reich’s “aggressiveness” and “fanaticism” in advancing his ideas on sexuality^20.
A closer look at Reich’s presentation of his views on genitality yields a more com-
plex picture. If there is a note of fanaticism in the early papers on genitality, Reich was also
capable of going back to clinical issues and reviewing them more carefully in response to
criticism. Furthermore, there was a tentativeness that revealed itself less in his manner of
presentation than in the absence ofany presentation at all. In the technical seminar, for
instance,Reich wrote that “the actual goal of therapy, that of making the patient capable of
orgasm, was not mentioned in the first years of the seminar. I avoided the subject instinc-
tively. It was not liked and aroused animosity. Furthermore, I was not too sure about it
myself.”^21
In certain instances the opposition clearly stung Reich, perhaps even inspired him,
to pursue his efforts all the more vigorously, to state his conclusions all the more sweeping-
ly.But he could also complain about specific ill treatment. For example, in the unsent letter
to Paul Federn of February 12, 1926, Reich spoke of the “irrelevant personal criticism”
Theodore Reik had made of one of his papers. He also mentioned the “personal insults of
Drs. Hitschmann, Nunberg, and Hoifer.” He went on to write that he would not even item-
ize all the instances of “needling” lest he appear foolish^22.
Reich was perhaps needled for other aspects of his work besides his formulations
on genitality,although these seem to have been the main target. And he appears to have been
7 : Reich’s Work on Orgastic Potency: 1922-1926 99