ground and the “peasant” quality about him which so many of his colleagues commented
on, sometimes with admiration, sometimes with disdain. For a farmer, the form and color
of animals, plants, soil, clouds are of practical importance. I was often struck by the simi-
larities between the way Reich would look at a patient and the way he would look at an ani-
mal or the atmosphere, noting slight shifts in color, sparkle, or movement.
One particular concept of Reich’s vividly illustrates his penchant for physical analo-
gies: his notion of “character armor,” which formed the basis of Character Analysis.
Resistances could now be described in terms of a basic metaphor that allowed for many
variations on a central theme. Thus, in the case of the compulsive character, “everything
bounces back from his smooth hard surface. The querulous character ... has an armor which,
though mobile, is always bristling The passive-feminine character seems soft and yielding,
but in the analysis that proves to be a kind of armoring which is very difficult to resolve.”^11
If in concentrating on resistances, especially in their nonverbal form,Reich was
leading from certain personal strengths, he was also avoiding certain weaknesses. His
emphasis on resistances to some extent downplayed the importance of working through
infantile experiences. Put more exactly, Reich argued that only a consistent analysis of resist-
ances would bring up early memories in their full affective vividness. However, he was some-
what impatient and would grow more so over the years with the slow working through of
childhood events, the repeated review of infantile fantasies, and the family constellations
within which they occurred. George Gero quotes Reich as saying in the early 1930s that the
psychological reconstruction of childhood events was not his strong point^12. To some
extent this may have been connected with his own difficult childhood traumas.
Character analysis permits—indeed, demands—considerable activity on the part of
the analyst. He must make a very careful selection of material: he can be active when the
patient is silent by pointing out the latter’s nonverbal communications. The traditional, more
passive stance of the psychoanalyst was not Reich’s preferred approach. He was much more
comfortable in the role ofvital,active therapist.
A possible danger in this approach was noted by Otto Fenichel. In one of the few
careful criticisms of character analysis, Fenichel states his general agreement with and enthu-
siasm for Reich’s concepts. His main caveat concerns not the principles in themselves but
the way they may be applied. He warns against an overly aggressive attack on the armor. For
we “are familiar with the resistance of some patients, who long for a ‘trauma’ and expect
cure not from a difficult analysis, but from the magic effect of a sudden explosion. There is
an analogous longing for a trauma on the part of the analyst also. Let us beware of it.”^13
Fenichel’ s remarks here are extremely sensitive. Certainly nothing in the essence of
character-analytic principles justified harshly aggressive or contemptuous attacks on the
patient’s armor. I would suggest, however, that Reich may have had some need, inside and
outside therapy,to master his own early trauma, which he endured helplessly, by repeating
dramatic, emotioncharged events with himself now in the active, trauma-inducing rather
than trauma-experiencing role.
Frequently the followers of a pioneer take over the possible misuses of his
82 Myron SharafFury On Earth