referred to him as Willy. He was always Reich to a few, and Dr. Reich to most^3.
Early in the Oslo period, the controversy with Otto Fenichel erupted again.
Fenichel had migrated to Oslo before Reich. Nic Hoel and Ola Raknes started psychoana-
lytic treatment with Fenichel, although their first choice was Reich. Later, both transferred
from Fenichel to Reich, exacerbating the friction between the two men. Hoel and Raknes,
along with Schjelderup, very much wanted Reich to join the Scandinavian Psychoanalytic
Institute and thereby be reinstated within the International Association. Moreover, they were
prepared to take the risk, threatened by the International executive committee, of the exclu-
sion of their Institute should Reich become a member. Fenichel, however, was opposed. He
was not prepared to face exclusion, believing the best way he could serve the cause of psy-
choanalysis was to remain a member of the Association fighting for those scientific direc-
tions he supported^4.
As we saw earlier, Reich was quite ambivalent about rejoining the International
Association. On the one hand, he felt his work was so different from the dominant trends
within the psychoanalytic establishment that he did not belong there. On the other hand, he
felt that any continuer of the true analytic tradition did belong. In any case, he deeply resent-
ed Fenichel’s opposition, which whetted his appetite for readmission.
A meeting was held in Oslo on December 14, 1935, attended by Reich, Fenichel,
Nic Hoel, Raknes, and other members of the “opposition group” of analysts, to discuss,
among other things, the question of Reich’s relationship to the Scandinavian Institute.
Fenichel clearly had the better of the argument on several points raised. For example, even
after the events of Lucerne, Reich still continued to believe that he could count on consid-
erable endorsement among the rank-and-file members of the International Association, an
opinion fueled by hope rather than realistic assessment. In a paroxysm of blame, Reich
accused Fenichel at the December 14 meeting of not explaining to potentially supportive
analysts just where Reich’s concepts and late Freudian views differed. On his side, Fenichel
had no such illusions about the degree ofeffective allegiance his adversary could rally. Reich
also still believed that the psychoanalytic organization had to take a political stance, now not
with the Communist Party per se, but in “the camp of the political left.” Understandably,
Fenichel saw this demand as unnecessary provocation to the more conservative analysts^5.
Equally, Reich was right about the originality of his orgasm theory. Fenichel
believed that Reich’s genitality concepts substantially stemmed from Freud. Reich argued
that a consistent and radically new elucidation of the psychological, sociological, and phys-
iological aspects of the orgasm was a quite different matter from Freud’s early but scattered
references. Yet for a long time Reich himself had not been entirely clear about the precise
differences between himself and Freud. His expectation of clarity on Fenichel’s part led to
a comical interlude at the December meeting when Reich said: “I myself have only realized
over the last three months why and how the orgasm theory so absolutely comradicts death
instinct theory.” Fenichel interjected the ironic comment: “And during the preceding years,
Inever explained to youwhy and how you differed from Freud?” Reich angrily: “No, you did
not!”which was followed by an outburst of laughter from those present, the point of which
19 : Personal Life and Relations with Colleagues: 1934-1939 233