Rezension zu Unpolitische Wissenschaft?
Rezension von Henry Zvi Lothane
Andreas Peglau. Unpolitische Wissenschaft? Wilhelm Reich und die
Psychoanalyse im Nationalsozialismus. Psychosozial-Verlag, 2013.
Anthony D. Kauders. Eine Geschichte der Psychoanalyse in
Deutschland. Berlin Verlag, 2014.
These two books share a number of themes: the history of
psychoanalysis in Germany in the Third Reich, the tragic complex of
Wilhelm Reich, the most gifted and most controversial of the
Freudians born around the turn of the 19th century, and the
question of psychoanalysis as a political or nonpolitical science.
Behind these themes becomes visible the continuing history of the
German soul-searching Angst about the Schoah, or Holocaust, the
anti-Semitic Nazi persecution, and genocide of the Jews, including
what was done to Jewish psychoanalysts. The further reason for the
this larger context is that not only were victims, survivors and
their children »betroffen« by WW II and Holocaust – the Germans
were betroffen as well, the soldiers who bled and died, the
defeated veterans who came back to their traumatized wives and
children. By saying I do not intend to minimize the crimes and
horrors of the Holocaust that are still a tabooed topic for both
victims and perpetrators for decades after war’s end (Volkan et
al., 2002). Even after the 1946 Nürnberg trials and convictions of
the leading Nazi architects of the genocidal »Final Solution« as
well as the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem, an evil wrongly
characterized by Hannah Arendt as »banal« (Lothane, 2014a), and the
history of psychoanalysis from 1993 to 1951 was also a theme veiled
by a curtain of silence, until the 1985 IPV Congress in Hamburg in
1985: then the flood gates were opened with the book by Brecht et
al. (1985) and the 1985 book by Geoffrey Cocks about psychotherapy
in the Third Reich. Thereafter two historiographies developed, one
orthodox, represented by DPV members, e.g. Werner Bohleber, Ludger
Hermanns, and non-member Michael Schröter, and the other
revisionist, represented by Dahmer, Fallend, and Nitzschke,
paralleling the political split between the DPG and DVP that
developed between 1945 and 1951 and continued until recently. Could
the political situation today bring about a more ecumenical
synthesis? Another dichotomy that emerged the question whether
there was a break, that psychoanalysis was a »Jewish science« that
died in the Third Reich as claimed by Goggin & Goggin (2001) and
the DPV; or was there a continuity, as argued by the DPG, Nitzschke
(1997, 2003) and Lothane (2001b, cited by Peglau on p. 29). Peglau
has provided additional research demonstrating this continuity with
documents not previously seen. As Peglau rightly noted, Reich
»blieb für mehrere Jahre der einzige Psychoanalytiker, der sich
öffentlich ausführlich mit dem Faschismus (..) auseinandersetzte.«
(S. 506)
Both Peglau and Kauders come with impressive scholarly credentials,
both wrote excellent books that hold one’s interest from cover to
cover. The narratives are clearly written, impeccably researched,
copy edited and proof read (in Peglau I found the name of the
former IPA president’s Charles Hanly misspelled as Handy).
The question of whether psychoanalysis is, or can be, non-political
is more rhetorical than real for the more basic question is: what
is science. Derived from the Latin scientia, means knowledge,
Wissen, same as in Greek: episteme, i.e., valid knowledge as
contrasted with doxa, or opinion. Strictly speaking, science means
studying something material, or tangible. So which science do
people have in mind: chemistry, physics, biology, neuroscience? One
can also apply this to the time-hallowed psychoanalytic notion of
interpretation: is it based on valid knowledge or mere opinion, let
alone conjecture, or even error? On the one hand, science is
applied to a systematized body of knowledge and observation and to
rigorous argumentation. Thus, conceived narrowly, science means
Naturwissenschaften, exact sciences involving measurement and
quantification, vs. Geisteswissenchaften – and therein lies the
rub, as Hamlet said, a source of Reibungen due to differences of
opinion, ethics, or the socio-political and socio-historical
context. For the subject of the Geistes- and Sozialwissenschaften,
the human being (der Mensch), cannot be quantified and measured as
the person who lives, loves, and suffers from outer and inner
conflicts, further complicated by the fact that the person is part
of a collective: family, society, nation, or Masse and, last but
not least, bound by religious faith or the ideology of a political
party. Now, sciences such as chemistry and physics that are applied
to technology and civil or military industrial production can
become politicized among nations in conditions of economic
competition and warfare. For example, the science of climatology is
beset by constant and insoluble debate about global warming. So
far, the only non-controversial and non-political science is
mathematics, all other sciences are prone to either being infected
by politics or mythology, as Freud wrote to Einstein in 1933(a):
»Aber läuft nicht jede Naturwissenschaft auf eine solche Art von
Mythologie hinaus? Geht es Ihnen heute in der Physik anders?« (p.
22). In 1933(a) Freud claimed that psychoanalysis, as compared with
Marxism, is not a matter of a Weltanschauug, or ideology: »Denn
auch die Soziologie, die vom Verhalten der Menschen in der
Gesellschaft handelt, kann nicht anderes sein als angewandte
Psychologie. Streng genommen gibt es ja nur zwei Wissenschaften,
Psychologie, reine und angewandte, und Naturkunde« (S. 194).
However, in the same work he stated this to be true of
»Abfallsbewegungen«: »das eine jede sich eines Stücks aus dem
Motivesreichtum der Psychoanalyse bemächtigt und sich auf Grund
dieser Besitzergreifung selbständig macht, etwa des Machttriebs
[Adler], des ethischen Konflikts [Jung], der Mutter [Rank], der
Genitalität [Reich] usw.« (S. 154). Clearly, such heresies, let
alone the heresies of Adler and Jung from the libido doctrine, were
matters of opinion and ideology, i.e., politics.
The hostile critics of psychoanalysis, ever since Freud became a
target of attacks by psychiatrists Richard von Krafft-Ebing in
Austria and Gustav Aschaffenburg and Alfred Hoche in Germany in the
first decade of the 20th century, claimed that it is not a science.
Freud anticipated this criticism the Studien über Hysterie: »es
berührt mich selbst noch eigentümlich, daß die Krankengeschichten,
die ich schreibe, wie Novellen zu lesen sind, und daß sie sozusagen
des ernsten Gepräges der Wissenschaft entbehren. Ich muß mich damit
trösten, daß für dieses Ergebnis die Natur des Gegenstandes
offenbar eher verantwortlich ist als meine Vorliebe« (1895, S.
227). As an empirical science psychoanalysis, originally born of
medicine, a mix of science and art, was nurtured in the bosom of
literature (Brandell, 1976, Lothane, 2009).
What is insufficiently addressed by both authors is that from the
beginning of his itinerary as healer of the sick soul Freud was
concerned with therapeutic psychoanalysis, on the one hand, and
with angewandte Psychoanalyse, on the other, not just starting with
the 1916-1917 Vorlesungen zur Einführung in die Psychoanalyse, as
Peglau dates it (Lothane, 2014b). As therapeutic psychoanalysis
evolved, its findings gradually coalesced with philosophical and
sociological concepts and were applied to philosophy itself,
psychology, philology, biology, art, history, literature, and
education. At first Freud was predominantly concerned with the
psychology of the individual; starting with Totem and Taboo and
climaxing with the great sociological essays of 1921, 1927 and 1930
Freud turned his attention to society and sociology (Freud, 1913;
Rieff, 1959, Roazen, 1971). Kauders is perplexed by what he calls
der Freud Komplex, an »Ansammlung von Gefühlen, Bildern und
Gedanken« and by »deutschen Sonderweg, mit der Rolle der Romantik
im deutschen Denken über die Psyche« (S. 16) and the lack of
consensus as to whether psychoanalysis is scientific,
psychological, or philosophical, about instincts or free
association. This is true, but Kauders’ perplexity stems from the
common and recurrent lack of clear demarcation between therapy and
theory, of psychoanalysis as a psychoanalytic method of healing
(Heilen) and research (Forschen) utilizing the method of free
association as the fundamental methodological instrument vs.
psychoanalytic theories of disorder, i.e., the doctrines of
Freudism (I prefer this to Freudianism can be reserved for
designating groups of adherents to this or that doctrine).
Freudism is largely concerned with generalizations about the causes
of disorders, the two major ones being sexuality (the libido
theory), and aggression (the death instinct theory). As noted
above, This entails the additional differentiation: between ideas
that are intrinsic to a science and others that are extrinsic to
it. Thus theorists called Freudians, e.g. Fenichel, focused on
instincts as intrinsic to psychoanalysis, while neo-Freudians,
e.g., Harald Schultz-Hencke and Karen Horney, emphasized feelings
and emotions, such as love, hatred, envy and jealousy. These
theoretical differences have been the core of extrinsic
psychoanalytic politics of inclusion and exclusion down the
decades, marked by dissent, discord, and damage, such as malicious
gossip and character assassination. In such confrontation it was
overlooked that, paradoxically, Freud was neo-Freudian (Feud 1905a)
before he turned Freudian (Freud,1905b) (Lothane, 2014), that
generalizations and abstractions are not per se causes of human
actions and interactions, for the latter are in the realm of
individual dramatic interactions of concrete historical persons,
with their external and internal characteristics, interacting with
each other in life’s dramas, as dramatis personae in situations in
time and place, motivated a pursuit of popularity, power,
prestige—and financial profit, both intramurally and extramurally,
within the psychoanalytic establishment and in the arena of society
at large.
It is noteworthy that Freud (1914) also saw psychoanalysis as a
psychoanalytische Bewegung, a term usually linked to a political
movement, e.g., die zionistische Bewegung, or a Partei with its
ideology, politics, and practice. Bewegung also implies group
loyalty as shown by ideological adherence to a ruling doctrine so
that deviating from accepted doctrine or dogma can result in
excommunication and expulsion from the movement, as happened to
Adler and Jung and Stekel. The most notorious—and tragic—case of
expulsion was that of Wilhelm Reich. From the time of his meteoric
rise to fame in Vienna as gifted analyst, teacher and thinker, and
later in Norway and the USA as discoverer of orgone energy, Reich
was distrusted and defamed as schizophrenic and paranoid, discarded
as trouble maker, and eventually destroyed in the USA. There were
four reasons for Reich getting in trouble, and, ironically, it
started with Freud’s icy gesture of distrust which later turned
blatantly hostile.
I agree with Peglau that Reich was rejected by Freud because Reich
dwelt too much on sex (even though Freud sounded Reichian in 1908),
on sociology (even though Freud turned sociological in 1921), with
political Marxism (which Freud did acknowledge to some extent), his
criticism of the death instinct, and, last but not least, his
anti-Nazi agitation (which Freud was able to confront only after he
left Austria).
Peglau’s linking Reich with the fates of psychoanalysis in
National-Socialism continues publications on efforts to »save«
psychoanalysis (Baumeyer, 1971; Bräutigam (1984), Brecht at al.
1985; Dahmer, 1997; Lockot, 1994, 2002, Lockot & Bernhardt, 2000;
Lothane, 2001a, 2001b, 2003; Nitzschke, 1997, 1999, 2003). It is an
effort to rehabilitate both Reich and the psychoanalytic
establishment (IPV, DPG) struggling to survive under Nazi rule
already at a time when Auschwitz was a hell that nobody could have
yet imagined .The expulsion of Reich, first from the DPG and then
from the IPV, was an extrinsic affair dictated by appeasement
politics of the IPV towards the Nazi state to »save« psychoanalysis
(Lothane, 2001b, cited by Peglau, S. 29). And yet, I would argue,
Reich’s attacks on Austrofascism and National-Socialism, were
actually an intramural matter, more important to Freud and the IPV
leadership and the Linksfreudianer at the 1934 Luzern Congress than
to the Nazis and the persecution of Jewish doctors and
psychoanalysts (Eckart, 2000) and genocide of the Jews.
Kauders discusses Reich mostly in connection with the post-war West
German student revolt while Peglau places Reich at the center of
the history of psychoanalysis in the NS years. Both Peglau and
Kauders mention Hitler and cite numerous past and recent secondary
reactions to him but leave out presenting Hitler’s own ideas as
expressed in Mein Kampf and cited by Reich in Massenpsychologie des
Faschixmus. While the complete 1943 text of Mein Kamp can be read
on the internet, the book is still banned from publication by the
Bavarian Government for fear it might embolden Neo-Nazis and
facilitate the spread of their propaganda (Volkan et al., 2002).
This is a mistake: this censorship is not serving the Germans, they
should read the book and debate it in homes, schools, churches,
town meetings, mass meetings, in the press and in books.
Reich wrote in 1942: »Die Massenpsychologie des Faschismus entstand
in den deutschen Krisenjahren 1930-1933. Sie wurde 1933
niedergeschrieben; sie erschien im September 1933 in erster and im
April 1934 in zweiter Auflage in Dänemark. ... Die Faschisten
verboten das Buch 1935« (Reich, 1972, S. 20). In 1969 Mary Higgins
published a third edition, enlarged and corrected edition, a 421
long typescript text Reich composed in 1942, containing numerous
corrections in Reich’s handwriting, plus a the new 22 page »Vorwort
zur III. korrigierten und erweiterten Aufllage.« This third edition
was published in 1971 by Kiepenheuer & Witsch, 351 pages long, and
again in 1972, 384 pages long. In his bibliography Peglau lists yet
another edition, »Reich, Wilhelm (1986) [1971]« but, surprisingly,
does not cite anything from that third edition and only uses
citations from the 283 pages long 1933 edition, reprinted by Junius
Verlag in 1972. This creates a gap (Lücke), for, as Reich noted
himself: »Seither [1933] sind 10 Jahre verstrichen« (S. 20) and his
ideas about Marxism, the Soviet Union, and communism had
drastically changed. I discuss Peglau’s account in detail elsewhere
(Lothane, 2015, in press). However, this should not be seen as a
criticism but as a completion of this important book by Peglau.
References
Baumeyer, Franz (1971). Zur Geschichte der Psychoanalyse in
Deutschland 60 Jahre Deutsche Psychoanalytische Gesellschaft.
Zeitschrift für Psychosomatische Medizin und Psychoanalyse,
17:203-240.
Brandell, Gunnar (1976). Freud-Kind seiner Zeit. München:
Kindler.
Bräutigam, Walter (1984). Rückblick auf das Jahr 1942.
Betrachtungen eines psychoanalytischen Ausbildungskandidaten des
Berliner Instituts der Kriegsjahre. Psyche, 38(10):905-914.
Brecht, Karen, Friedrich, Volker, Hermanns, M. Ludger, Kaminer, J.
Isidor, Juelich, Dirk H. Hrsg.(1985). „Hier geht das Leben auf eine
sher merkwürdige Weise weiter...“. Hamburg: Verlag Michael
Kellner.
Cocks, Geoffrey (1985). Psychotherapy in the Third Reich. New York:
Oxford Univeristy Press. Unveröfentlichte Dissertation: Psyche und
Swastika: Neue deutsche Seelenheilkunde 1933-1945, University of
California, Los Angeles.
Dahmer, Helmut (1997). Psychoanalytiker in Deutschland 1933-1951.
In: Fallend & Nitzscke, 2002.
Eckart, Wolfgang Uwe (2000). Verunglimpft, vertrieben, vernichtet:
Rassisch und politisch verfolgte Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Deutschland
1933–1945. Deutsche medizinische. Wochenschrift, 125:709- 710.
Fallend, Karl (1988). Wilhelm Reich in Wien. Psychoanalyse und
Politik. Wien/Salzburg: Geyer-Edition.
Fallend, Karl & Nitzschke, Bernd (2002). Der „Fall“ Wilhelm Reich
Beiträge zum Verhältnis von Psychoanalyse und Politik. Giessen:
Psychosozial-Verlag.
Freud, S. (1895). Studien über Hysterie. Gesammelte Werke, 1.
Freud, S. (1905a). Drei Abhandlungen zur Sexual Theorie. GW, 5.
Freud, S. (1905b). Psychische Behandlung (Seelenbehandlung). GW,
5:289-315.
Freud, S. (1908d). Die „kulturelle“ Sexualmoral und die moderne
Nervosität. GW 7:143-167.
Freud, S. (1914). Zur Geschichte der psychoanalytischen Bewegung.
GW, 10:43-113.
Freud, S. (1921). Massenpsychologie und Ich-Analyse. GW 13.
Freud. S. (1927). Die Zukunft einer Illusion. GW 14.
Freud, S. (1930). Das Unbehagen in der Kultur. GW 14.
Freud, S. (1933a). Neue Folge der Vorlesungen zur Einführung in die
Psychoanalyse. GW 15.
Freud, S. (1933b). Warum Krieg? Gesammlete Werke, 16:13-27.
Goggin, James E., & Goggin, Eileen Brockman (2001). Death of a
“Jewish science” Psychoanalysis in the Third Reich. West Lafayette,
Indiana: Purdue University Press.
Lockot, Regine (2002 [1985]). Erinnnern und Durcharbeiten. Gießen:
Psychosozial-Verlag.
Lockot, Regine (1994). Reinigung der Psychoanalyse. Die Deutsche
Psychoanalytische Gesellschaft im Spiegel von Dokumenten und
Zeitungen (1933--1945). Tübingen: edition diskord.
Lockot, Regine & Bernhardt, Heike(2000). Mit ohne Freud Zur
Geschichte der Psychoanalyse in Ostdeutschland. Gießen:
Psychosozial-Verlag.
Lothane, Zvi (1997). Omnipotence, or the delusional aspect of
ideology, in relation to love, power, and group dynamics. American
Journal of Psychoanalysis, 57:25-46. Also in: Ellman, C., & Reppen,
J., eds. Omnipotent Fantasies and the Vulnerable Self. Northvale,
NJ: Aronson
Lothane, Zvi (2001a). Introduction: Psychiatry, psychotherapy and
psychoanalysis in the Third Reich. In: Special Issue, Lothane, Z.
Ed., Special Issue Psychiatry, psychotherapy and psychoanalysis in
the Third Reich. Psychoanalytic Review, 88:143-153.
Lothane, Zvi (2001b). The deal with the devil to “save”
psychoanalysis in Nazi Germany. Special Issue Psychiatry,
psychotherapy and psychoanalysis in the Third Reich. Psychoanalytic
Review, 88:197-224 (cited in Fallend & Nitzschke, 2002).
Lothane, Zvi (2003). Power politics and psychoanalysis—an
introduction. Special Issue 2-3, Psychoanalysis and the Third
Reich, Zvi Lothane, Guest Editor. International Forum of
Psychoanalysis, 12:85-97.
Lothane, Zvi (2006). Mass psychology of the led and the
leaders/Masses and mobs, democracy and demagogues/or how prejudice
of the leader becomes mass paranoia. International Forum of
Psychoanalysis, 15:183-192.
Lothane, Zvi (2009). Dramatology in life, disorder, and
psychoanalytic therapy: a futher contibution to interpersonal
psychoanalysis. International Forum of Psychoanalysis,
18(3):135-148.
Dramatologie im Alltagsleben, bei Erkrankungen und in der
analytischen Therapie: Ein weiterer Beitrag zur interpersonellen
Psychoanalyse. Texte: 30(3):96- 128. Wien: Passagen Verlag,
2010.
Lothane, Henry Zvi (2014a). How to think about evil: a response to
Richard J. Bernstein Ph.Do on Arendt’s banality of evil. Issues in
Ego Psychology, 36:1-20.
Lothane, Henry Zvi (2014b). Emotional reality: A further
contribution to dramatology. International Forum of Psychoanalysis,
DOI: 10.1080/0803706X.2014.953996
Lothane, Henry Zvi (2015). Wilhelm Reich revisited: Die Rolle der
Ideologie in der Charakteranalyse des Individuums versus in der
Charakteranalyse der Massen. texte, 35(3):8-29; Passagen Verlag,
Wien.
Nitzschke, Bernd (1997). “Ich muß mich dagegen wehren, still
kaltgestell zu warden.” Voraussetzungen, Begleitumstände und Folgen
des Ausschlussess Wilhelm Reichs aus der DPG/IPV in den Jahren
1933/34. In: Fallend & Nitschke (2002).
Nitzschke, Bernd (1999). Psychoanalysis during National Socialism;
present-day consequences of a historical controversy in the “case”
of Wilhelm Reich (translated and with an introduction by Zvi
Lothane). Psychoanalytic Review, 86:349-366.
Nitzschke, Bernd (2003). Psychoanalysis in National Socialism
Banned or brought into conformity? Break or continuity? In:
Lothane, Z., ed.: „Psychoanalysis in the Third Reich.“
International Forum of Psychoanalysis, 12:98-108.
Reich, Wilhelm (1933). Massenpsychologie des Faschismus. Zur
Sexualöonomie der politischen Reaktion und zur proletarischen
Sexaulpolitik. Kopenhagen-Prag-Zürich: Verlag für Sexualpolitik.
Reprint by Junius-Drucke. Frankfurt: Junius Druck&Verlag, 1972.
Pp 283
Reich, Wilhelm (1969[1942-1944]). Die Massenpsychologie des
Faschismus (Typoskript). Vorwort von W. Reich 1942. Distributed for
the Wilhelm Reich Trust Fund by Farrar, Straus & Giroux, Inc.
Copyright by Mary Boyd Higgins. Reproduced from the final
manuscript revised, enlarged and corrected by the author. Portions
of earlier drafts of this work appeared previously in German under
the same title, 421 S + XXII.
Reich, Wilhelm (1970). The mass psychology of fascism. Translated
by Vincent R. Carfagno. Edited by Mary Higgins and Chester Raphael,
M.D. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1970.
Reich, Wilhelm (1971). Die Massenpsychologie des Faschismus. Köln:
Kiepenheuer & Witsch. 351 S., erste unveränderte Auflage.
Reich, Wilhelm (1972). Die Massenpsychologie des Faschismus. Köln:
Kiepenheuer&Witsch. Vorwort von Mary Higgins aus dem Englischen
von Herbert Graf. 1971 Mary Higgins. 384 S., zweite veränderte
Auflage.
Reich, Wilhelm (1986 [1971]). Die Massenpsychologie des Faschsimus.
Köln: Kiepenheuer&Witsch, 351 S., unveränderte Auflage.
Volkan, V., Ast, G., Greer, W.F. Junior (2002). The Third Reich in
the unconscious Transgenerational transmission and its
consequuences. New York: Brunner-Routledge.