Then Hoel went on to add that there were a “few very odd things about the con-
troversy. All of a sudden it is claimed that Dr. Reich must be expelled from the country.
When did it become a crime to perform some biological experiments, even if they should
prove to be amateurish? When did it become a reason for deportation that one looked in a
microscope when one was not a trained biologist?” Hoel argued that the real reason for the
intense outcry was not Reich’s experiments but his revolutionary work on human sexuality.
After all, psychoanalysis had met the same kind of opposition Reich was now encounter-
ing^29.
In addition to his Norwegian colleagues, Reich received professional support from
two persons outside the country who had independent reputations. The first was Bronislaw
Malinowski, whose work Reich had drawn on so heavily a few years earlier. Malinowski
wrote to the Norwegian press on March 12, 1938:
Both through the works he [Reich] has published and through personal
meetings he has impressed rne as an original and sound thinker, a true personality,
and a man with an open character and courageous views. I consider his sociologi-
cal works to be a distinct and valuable contribution toward science. In my opinion
it would be a very great loss if Dr. Reich should in any way be prevented from
obtaining a full opportunity to work out his ideas and scientific discoveries.
... My statement is perhaps further strengthened by the fact that it comes
from a man who does not share Dr. Reich’s radical opinions, nor his sympathies
with Marxist philosophy. I usually consider myself to be an old-fashioned, almost
conservative liberal^30.The second foreign supporter was A. S. Neill, founder and director of the pioneer-
ing progressive school Summerhill in England. Neill had independently evolved and prac-
ticed at Summerhill many ofthe same principles ofselfregulation Reich had elucidated.
Neill’s controversial books had made Summerhill known throughout the world. In 1936,
Reich attended a lecture Neill gave in Oslo. Neill, who had just read The Mass Psychology of
Fascismwith considerable excitement, later phoned Reich, who invited the educator to din-
ner. In Neill’s words about that first encounter: “We sat till far into the morning. If I remem-
ber aright his English was just as bad as my German, so that he spoke his language and I
mine. On departing I said, ‘Reich, you are the man I’ve been looking for for years, the man
who joins up the somatic with the psychological. Can I come to you as a student?’ ”^31
Reich agreed, and Neill, fourteen years Reich’s senior, became not only Reich’s patient over
the next two years but also his good friend until Reich’s death.
On June 25, Neill published a letter in the Norwegian press:
To me the campaign against Reich seems largely ignorant and uncivilized,
more like fascism than democracy.... The question is not: Is Reich a bad person, a
scoundrel destroying morale? The question isIs Reich a useful person who is bring-17 : The Bions: 1936-1939 219