When Reich began his sex-political counseling, he felt he had Freud’s support.
Freud was generally encouraging toward diverse enterprises along analytic lines even when
he was not fully in agreement with them. And, to some extent, he was in sympathy with
Reich’s direction, Freud had long been concerned with finding ways to bring psychoanalyt-
ic knowledge to a broader public than could be reached through individual treatment.
Furthermore, Reich’s sex-politics reflected Freud’s early interest in the treatment of the actu-
al neuroses.
In addition, Reich’s critique of conventional sexual morality was not without reso-
nances in Freud’s work. To give but one example, Freud had commented early on the preva-
lence of sexual unhappiness in marriage: “The uninitiated can hardly believe how rarely nor-
mal sexual potency is to be found in the man, and how often frigidity in the woman, among
those married couples living under the sway of our civilized sexual morality: what a degree
of renunciation is associated often for both partners with marriage, and of how little the
marriage comes to consist of bringing the happiness that was so ardently desired.”^10
Freud also shared with Reich the hope that the Soviet Union’s experiment in relax-
ing divorce laws and other measures of sexual liberation would be successful^11. Still, even
here Freud was hesitant, fearing that too great a liberalization would lead to social chaos. For
he held the belief that considerable frustration of the sexual impulse was necessary for civ-
ilization.
In short, whatever support Freud gave to Reich was always qualified. As Reich con-
tinued to insist on drawing social consequences from psychoanalytic findings, Freud’s cool-
ness increased. In a private conversation in 1929, when Reich discussed the problem of
compulsive monogamy, Freud remarked that if Reich pursued this line, he would be provok-
ing a good deal oftrouble^12.
The most extensive information on Freud’s reaction to Reich’s social views comes
from an evening meeting on December 12, 1929, held at Freud’s home. This particular ses-
sion was one ofa series of regular monthly meetings attended by the inner circle of
Viennese analysts, including such persons as Paul Federn, Hermann Nunberg, Felix and
Helena Deutsch,Heinz Hartmann,and Ludwig Jekels, in addition to Freud and Reich. Guest
members also came to particular meetings.
In his presentation that evening, Reich outlined his views (summarized in Chapter
11) on the need for sweeping changes in man’s sexual and economic life in order to prevent
an “epidemic” of neuroses. In the ensuing discussion and at subsequent meetings, Freud
answered with the arguments later to be published in his Civilization and Its Discontents:
There can be no doubt about its purpose [the purpose of the pleasure principle],
and yet its program is in conflict with the whole world, with the macrocosm as with
the microcosm.It simply cannot be put into execution: the whole constitution of
things runs counter to it. One might say that the intention that man should be
“happy” is not included in the “scheme of Creation.” What is called happiness in
its narrowest sense comes from the gratification—most often instantaneous—of12 : Personal Life and Relations with Colleagues: 1927-1930 149