motive that was perhaps “infantile, but neither ambitious nor criminal.”
Secondly, in 1924 Freud was still chairman of the Society (and the executive com-
mittee), but Federn had replaced Otto Rank as vice-chairman. Clearly, the vice-chairman
now had considerable organizational power, particularly if, as in Federn’s case, he had long
been loyal to Freud.
The facts suggest that Reich was not paranoid in thinking that Federn was block-
ing his advancement to the executive committee. In 1924, Reich was at first chosen by a vote
of the committee as second secretary. But apparently Federn, in a private conversation with
Freud, persuaded the latter to go against the committee choice and to appoint Jokl as sec-
ond secretary instead.
However, close upon the heels of this decision Freud received Reich’s monograph
on the impulsive character. In a letter dated December 14, Freud wrote Federn:
Shortly after you left I read a manuscript by Dr. Reich which he sent me this morn-
ing. I found it so full of valuable content that I very much regretted that we had
renounced the recognition of his endeavors. In this mood it occurred to me that
for us to propose Dr. Jokl as second secretary is improper because we had no right
to change arbitrarily a decision made by the [Executive] Committee. In the light of
this fact, what you told me about private animosities against Dr. Reich is not signif-
icant. Satisfied with this position, I ask you to abide by the original decision of the
Executive Committee and to drop the substitution of Dr. Jokl. I regret that I have
to contradict myself so quickly but I hope you will agree this is the only correct
decision^17.After reading the letter, Federn must have once more communicated with Freud,
still urging Jokl over Reich, but now on the grounds that he would be embarrassed vis-à-vis
Jokl. For on December 15, Freud wrote Federn again:
I am very sorry that I cannot rescue you from the embarrassment which you have
brought upon yourself. You should have raised your objections against Dr. Reich in
the Committee Meeting,not afterward. To try now to get an affirmative vote from
individual members [in favor of Jokl] ... with the implication that I am motivated
to torn against Reich is clearly inadmissible. What would you do if a member
refused such an affirmation [of Jokl]? I can therefore only insist that you represent
the decision made by the Committee with your cooperation^18.But somehow or other Federn managed to arrange that Jokl, not Reich, was
appointed. Not until 1927 was Reich appointed a member of the executive committee, on
the grounds that he was the leader of the technical seminar, although the same justification
could have been found as early as 1924. Reich never did hold a formal office within the com-
mittee.
6 : Reich’s Early Work on Character Analysis: 1920-1926 85