Talk:Wilhelm Reich

Affair with Gerda Ring

I've added information about his affair with Norwegian actress Gerda Ring. Now, what I added looks suspiciously similar to what was already mentioned about him having an affair with an actress who was also his student. The reason I didn't simply conclude that that actress must have been Ring is the additional information that this actress had been married to a colleague of his. Ring was married to a colleague of hers (i.e. an actor–Halfdan Christensen), and that marriage lasted from 1922 to at least 1943 (and likely to his death in 1950). Sharaf may have had his facts mixed up (or he has been inaccurately cited). For the time being I suggest we treat these two actresses as separate people. Also, in my source there was mention of Sigurd Hoel having assisted Reich and Ring in keeping their affair hidden from the public which I didn't include here. I suppose that would be too much detail here. __meco (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we should regard them as separate people, because they do sound like the same woman. I've moved the paragraph here for now.

Reich and Lindenberg reportedly grew apart during the media attacks and Reich started seeing other women, one of them the actress Gerda Ring, whom also Reich had in training analysis at the time. Since Reich never received a licence to practice as a therapist in Norway he could only perform training analyses, i.e. analyses of individuals studying to become therapists themselves.

Also, could you give a translation of the following paragraph from the source? It sounds unclear as written, in that one group paid for it, another person owned the building, and yet a third group owned something else (the institute?). What was Reich's role, and when was it founded? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Financed by Norwegians Rolf Stenersen and Lars Christensen, and Englishman Constance Tracey, the International Institute for Sex Economy was founded on the property of the writer Sigurd Hoel in Oslo, with Hoel, Ola Raknes, Nic. Hoel and Odd Havrevold as owners. The cost of the equipment amounted to NOK 60,000, with monthly operating costs of NOK 2,000.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The structure of this section has become cluttered, but I'll leave that for now, responding directly below to your request to me. Huldra has supplied below the translation which you request. My late response is due to the fact that I was finishing reading a 2010 biography of Ola Raknes which also contained information on this issue and I wanted to absorb it adequately to assess how it could best elucidate the information about this research institute.

Reich's experimental activities would eventually take place in Sigurd Hoel's house on Ensjøveien. In February 1936 Reich here created his Institut für Sexualökonomische Lebensforschung, heavily sponsored by Rolf Stenersen. Here also the Sexpol publishing company was localized. Reich saw to it that a number of assistants were employed, some were German refugees, and the official language was German. The institute was owned by Sigurd Hoel, Ola Raknes, Nic Hoel/Waal and Odd Havrevold, and Rolf Stenersen made guarantees for it.

[Den eksperimentelle verksemda til Reich gjekk etter kvart føre seg i Sigurd Hoels hus i Ensjøveien. I februar 1936 oppretta Reich her sitt Institut für Sexualökonomische Lebensforschung, sterkt sponsa av Rolf Stenersen. Her heldt òg Sexpol-forlaget til. Reich fikk tilsett fleire assistentar, nokre var tyske flyktningar, og det offisiell språket var tysk. Det var Sigurd Hoel, Ola Raknes, Nic Hoel/Waal og Odd Havrevold som eigde instituttet, og Rolf Stenersen garanterte for dei.] (Gatland, p. 140)

In the next paragraph this information is added:

On May 1, 1937 Reich opened his news research laboratory at Drammensveien 110 H, where he was also living...

{Den 1. mai 1937 opna Reich sitt nye forsøkslaboratorium i Drammensveien 110 H, der han òg sjølv budde...] (ibid., p. 140)

Next paragraph (perhaps the Norwegian original text isn't crucial here, let me know if I should add it):

The development of vegetotherapy and the experimental work in the laboratory went on in parallell. He researched among other things electrical potential differences in the skin during anxiety attacks and during erotic stimulation. This was done in order to learn more about the two basic phenomena of opposite nature which are present in all neuroses, and which are fundamental opposites in vegetative life: sexuality and anxiety, which thus has a biological and bioenergetic basis... (ibid., p. 140)

Nexr paragraph (this is not about the institute but about the controversial human experiments which is also discussed further below between yourself and Huldra):

There were a number of rumors going about regarding Reich and his sexual experiments, but the experiments were far from as direct as for instance those which have later been detailed by Masters and Johnson. True enough, Reich did take measurements on the sexual organs of research subjects, also during erotic stimulation, but the trials did not include intercourse or gratification. At least this is what Helge Waal claims, who probably has the information from his mother, Nic. Waal. In the Arbeiderbladet, chief physician Johan Scharffenberg nevertheless claimed that Reich did want to make electrical measurements on mentally ill patients during intercourse, which would have been a grave criminal act. Reich himself rejected this as untrue rumor. (ibid., p. 140)

Then the next paragraph which adds some reflection to the seemingly one-sided criticism of Reich's sexual experiments in Oslo.

More than thirty years later Raknes expresses that he does not view it as unreasonable that Reich wanted to research this. Reich was ahead of his time, and later much more thorough experiments in this field have been done. "What's supposed to be wrong with this?" Raknes asks: "Who would be suffering from such experiments?" He adds that nowadays doctors perform experiments about which the mentally ill have no notion of the consequences of. Perhaps Raknes is thinking about lobotomy as a much more outrageous and sensational experiment on mentally ill than that which Reich had wanted. "Reich was an ethical man," Raknes emphasizes and repeats Harald Schjelderup's earlier statement about Wilhelm Reich being one of the strictest moralists he knew of. (ibid., p. 140f.)

I think in particular the two testimonies above concerning Reich's moral/ethical character should be considered important to the issue of ensuring balance in the present article.

Now, skipping the next paragraph there's more about Reich's laboratory (mustn't we take that as synonymous with the institute?):

In his laboratory Reich had a great number of assistants and first-rate scientific equipment, including electrical microscopes, stills and film cameras. In addition to expensive scientific instruments there could sometimes be 2000 kroner per month in operational costs. Just the biological laboratory had cost close to 60,000 kroner, he informs... (ibid., p. 142.)

Several pages onward in the Raknes biography, Gatland introduces some information about Reich's institute which are confusing and perhaps even controverting information give earlier (and detailed in the quotes I have provided above):

As a kind of follow-up of [Zeitschrift für Politische Psychologie und Sexualökonomie], Reich took towards the end of his stay in Norway the initiative for the establishment of an International Institute fir Sex Economy (Internasjonalt Institutt fir Seksualøkonomi) with himself as the leader. Among the members were Ola Raknes, Nic. Waal, Sigurd Hoel and Odd Havrevold fraom Norway and the two Danish doctors Tage Philipson and J.H. Leunbach and Englishman A.S. Neill. The institute was dissolved in 1940 as a consequence of the war and Reich's departure... (ibid., p. 150.)

Unfortunately Gatland does not provide inline footnotes. The situation, however, is not as bad as with Søbye since at the end of the book Gatland does provide detailed references except that he lumps them together for each sub-chapter. For that reason I have not dealt with these yet. That would entail a lot of work, untangling the individual references finding which applies to a particular statement or item of information in the book. (I hope no other biographer ever takes after Gatland's format!). __meco (talk) 11:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Just a few notes: Søbye, 1995, p.195, in Norwegian:

"Wilhelm Reich trengte penger til forskningen. Rolf Stenersen, skipsreder Lars Christensen som okkuperte Bouvetøya med sine hvalfangst-ekspedisjoner i 1927 og den grunnrike engelske Constance Tracey ga Reich penger så han kunne skaffe seg blandt annet to kostbare elektriske mikroskoper som forstørret 4 500 ganger. Reich fikk 20 000 kroner av Christensen og enda mer av Stenersen. Den eksperimentelle virksomheten foregikk i Sigurd Hoels hus i Ensjøveien på Kampen. Der opprettet Reich sitt Internasjonale seksualøkonomiske institutt. Det var Sigurd Hoel, Ola Raknes, Noc Hoel og Odd Havrevold som eide instituttet, og Rolf Stenersen som garanterte for dem. Reichs vitenskapelige apparater hadde kostet 60 000 kroner, og driften av instituttet slukte 2000 kroner pr. måned"

Basically: Sigurd Hoel, Ola Raknes, Nic Hoel and Odd Havrevold owned the institute. (They were all very central people in the "cultural scene" in Norway for years). The practical/experimental work took place in the house in Ensjøveien, (which was owned by Hoel). The money behind it all came from Stenersen. And it was a lot of money: the instruments alone cost 60 000 nok, and the Institute cost 2 000 nok per month to run. (2000 nok was a good yearly income for a normal worker in the 1930s in Norway.) (However; Stenersen could certainly afford it: he was one of the richest men in Norway. Even today, Norway has his museums, with all the modern art (Picasso, Munch, etc) he gave to the country.)

However: the fact that Reich got money from Stenersen disgusted many who had earlier been sympathetic to Reich. This because Stenersen at the same time was treated by Reich, breaking all ethical rules about doctor/patient relationships. People like Johan Scharffenberg turned against Reich partly for such reasons. That Reich at the same time also started a relationship with a female patient did not make matters better.

And there are other extremely controversial aspects, p.213 refers to his plans to measure "the electrical voltage" of the sexual organs during sexual intercourse. And these experiments were to be done on schizophrenic patients at Dikemark!! (Needless to say: they were never done).

In short: there are so many aspects of his stay in Norway, that it could be an article by itself.... But if I could sum up the controversy in two parts it would be:

• A: much of the "science" was rubbish
• B: all normal ethical standards were non-existent.

Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. I think he did do the experiments on the psychiatric patients, at least according to Christopher Turner in Adventures in the Orgasmatron (2011). If Søbye says that didn't happen, maybe I should look up Turner's source. I'll try to add something about the Institute. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Slim, do you have the Turner-book? If so, could you please see which sources he gives for pages 173-175? Søbye just mentions that Reich wanted to do this, not that it happened. (Not that I´m too pleased about the Søbye- book, as it has no foot-notes/references.) I find it very hard to believe that Reich got permission for experiments on psychiatric patients, especially as the "established" medical community in Norway (who would have to allow it) mostly had a very low opinion of him. Reich certainly also has his supporters in Norway, but they were typically among the more liberal or radical "intelligencia" (writers, artists etc). (If you don´t have the book, I can get it from an out-of-town library, but that will take a few days.) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have Turner. The psychiatric patients are on pp. 174–175.

On p. 174: "Several of his students and Norwegian friends served as test subjects for these bioelectric experiments: Reich was nothing if not persuasive. Willy Brandt, who later became German chancellor but was then living in Norway to escape Nazi persecution, was one of Reich's unlikely guinea pigs. Others included the catatonic inmates of the Dikemark Sykehus, a psychiatric hospital just outside Oslo; rumors spread that Reich was arranging couplings there between mental patients. ..."

There is a footnote at the end of the paragraph referencing a film directed by Digne Meller-Marcovicz, Wilhelm Reich: Viva Little Man (2004), but that might be the source of some quotes that end the paragraph, unrelated to the psychiatric patients.

Then on p. 175: "Another of Reich's helpers, Wilhelm Hoffmann, who had trained in physiology at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin, also became suspicious of Reich's thesis. He found that the catatonic patients he tested for Reich at the Dikemark Sykehus displayed similar readings to those of healthy patients (Reich expected them to be lower), and he found that the skin potential recorded on these patients' erogenous and nonerogenous zones was identical (Reich expected the erogenous zones to be more sensitive). Reich also rejected Hoffmann's criticisms, claiming that Löwenbach had poisoned Hoffmann 'with lies.'"

The footnote after the p. 175 paragraph refers to Wilhelm Reich, Beyond Psychology: Letters and Journals, 1934–1939, p. 56. But again, it doesn't say which part of the paragraph the ref supports.

There's a reference to Reich in this 2012 article, "A History of Norwegian Psychiatry," but it's subscription only. It might mention those experiments, or the fact that he wanted but wasn't allowed to conduct them. I'll try to get hold of a copy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

GabrielF at the Resource Exchange passed a copy of the article to me. It doesn't mention the psychiatric patients specifically, just that Reich had to leave the country "because of his uncritical medical treatment and research" (p. 264). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

There's a reference to Hoffmann's criticism of Reich's experiments on schizophrenic patients in Sharaf's Fury on Earth (Sharaf is generally regarded as Reich's main biographer). See p. 215. Sharaf references a newspaper article (I assume it was Sharaf who translated this into English): William Hoffmann, "Dr. Reich and His Electrophysiology," Arbeiderbladet, June 8, 1938. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, great, thanks. The Sharaf -book is available here; I´ll try to get hold of it. Also I found this: Randolf Alnæs (1995): Norsk Psykoanalyse i Mellomkrigsårene. (="Norwegian psychoanalysis between WWI and WWII"). Alnæs is professor emeritus in psychiatry at UiO: a better source than Søbye, me thinks. The booklet (about 50 pages) is partly about the bitter dispute between Otto Fenichel and Reich in the 1930´s. (Fenichel also lived in Oslo, part time until mid 1930s). And Alnæs does not mention anything about experiments on patients.

If you want any of the pages translated; feel free to ask (Alnæs writes about the "Institute for sexual economy" on p.28-29)

Alnæs points out that Reich did not have a license to practise as a doctor in Norway, and (p.36-37) he never got access to a proper hospital lab, but had to do his research on "Die Bione" in a private flat.

As a sidenote: Alnæs writes that the girlfriend of Willy Brandt (who worked for Reich), was Gertrud Gaasland, who later became Brandt´s first wife. However, that does not fit with the Willy Brandt article. It is well known that he was married first for a few years to a Norwegian woman, then divored and married a second Norwegian lady, Rut Brandt. But I cannot remember the name of the first wife...there is some mix-up here, somewhere.

Both Nic Waal and Ola Raknes knew & worked with Reich, and both wrote about him. I´ll see if I can find it. (Both were relatively positive to him, though, (especially Raknes).)

And Arbeiderbladet, June 8, 1938: should be relatively easy to get a photocopy of that article. I have not come across the name William Hoffmann anywhere else, yet. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I vaguely recall that Gertrud Gaasland is listed elsewhere with a different surname. I forget all the details, but I believe it's the same woman, i.e. Brandt's wife = Reich's assistant. If you could find a copy of the Arbeiderbladet article that would be very interesting. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have got a scan (or rather: 3 scans -its a large article) of Wilhelm Hoffman: Dr Reich og hans elektro-fysiologi, in Arbeiderbladet, June 8, 1938. Basically, it refers to measurements done by Hoffman, and an "electrophysical" assistant, in the summer of 1935, on patients of Dikemark. Hoffman writes that these measurements were of interests, with or without the theories of Reich. They were not experiments, but measurement of "skin voltage" on different areas of the body, including the nipples. Hoffman and the assistant found no difference on the different parts of the body. The measurements were therefore terminated after about 2 months. Hoffman then writes that he was invited to observe a "sexual experiment" in the private home of Reich. Prof. Schelderup was also present, and the same assistant as at Dikemark prepared the instruments. Also this experiments was negative, as there was no measurable difference of "skin potential" related to sexual reaction. Hoffman then goes on to why he had drawn the conclusion that Reich had no knowledge of research into the natural sciences. He then criticize in some detail the 1937 article Experimentelle Ergebniße Über Die Elektrische Funktion von Sexualität und Angst. He also mentions that Reich was an unknown/ignored in Norway until he held a highly publicised speech in Norwegian Students' Society, which became front-page news in the liberal Dagbladet. That triggered a strong reaction from the "science research community".

I have gotten hold of the Sharaf-book, and also Reich "Beyond Psycology: letters and Journals 1934-39". This last book is fascinating, as it shows Reich was in contact with just about "who is who" in Norway during that period. He also has some problems with Norwegian names.....on p. 138 he writes about a dr Jessing at Dikemark, alas, Jessing is not a Norwegian name, that should be dr. Rolf Gjessing, pronounced "Jessing." Oh, and Reich also writes about visiting Gertrud Gaasland and her husband, Willy Brandt, on his 25th birthday. "Gaasland" was one of the false names Willy Brandt used at the time.

I have not gotten the Turner-book yet, but I am wondering if the last (=third) paragraph in the "Bioelectricity" should perhaps be rewritten. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

This is great stuff, Huldra, thanks. I've made the part about the patients invisible for now. Does Hoffman say that the patients were present during the sexual experiment(s) in Reich's home, or that Reich was present during (or in some other way involved in) the measurements of the patients' skin voltage? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hoffmann does not state it directly, but in the context, I think it can be taken for granted that the Dikemark patient were not present at the home of Reich. (Firstly, Hoffman mentions the "notables" who were there, people like Schelderup, Secondly: the patients at Dikemark at that time were seriously sick people. Just moving them would be a logistical task. (Just about all patients were at Dikemark for life, there were other hospitals in Norway for "lighter" cases.)

And Hoffman says clearly, that while Reich was given permission in the summer of 1935 to make some measurements on the patients at Dikemark, the measurements were not actually done by Reich, but instead by Hoffmann and his "electrophysical" assistent. ("Målingene på Dikemark blev ikke utført av dr. Reich selv, men av hans elektrofysiologiske assistent og av mig." ) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll see if I can tweak that sentence to make clear what Hoffmann says, or if you want to go ahead, please feel free. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I´ll leave the editing to you; I´m not "into" the material enough. I just got interested as I think that period in Norway is fascinating.. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wilhelm Reich/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: EricEnfermero (talk · contribs) 12:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I will be glad to take on this review. I should be able to provide at least some initial feedback by the weekend. Hopefully I can get the process started quickly, as I see that the article has been nominated for some time already. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 12:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, Eric, that's much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you guys for your hard work on this article. Reich is a controversial figure, and that is reflected in the talk page comments over several years, but all content disputes seem to be dormant if not resolved. Despite this being a long article, I see very few items that need to be addressed.

Lead

• May want to link University of Vienna and neuropsychiatry (second paragraph)

• psychoanalytic outpatients' clinic - outpatient (no apostrophe or s) is a bit more common, may be more straightforward

• What is the source for the six tons in the portion about book burning?

First two fixed, and source added for the six tons. [1]

Early life

• I would avoid saying "by all accounts" unless specifically attributed to a source; might use an example of a source that said he was cold and jealous.

• I've left this because all the sources I've seen mention it; attributing it to just one would make it sound as though it was just one opinion. And as I suppose all the sources about this ultimately rely on Reich anyway, there probably isn't another opinion out there.

1919-1930

• Rework the sentence beginning "He arrived in the city with nothing" - might just take out the "where in addition..." portion. I generally prefer shorter sentences, but that's just a personal preference. In this case though, the sentence isn't quite clear.

• Is there doubt about whether he considered shooting himself? I'm not sure what to make of the "apparently." Best to clarify further.

• I think we generally prefer hyphens or other punctuation in lieu of slashes, as in reductionist/mechanistic. Some other sources use hyphens or commas between these two words.

• Fixed the first, removed the second, left the third. It's reductionist, i.e. mechanistic, so a slash is more appropriate than a hyphen. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

1930-1934

• In the "Verlag..." section, the government "failed to renew" his visa - denied the renewal of?

• I may be missing it, but who is Paul Federn?

Fixed the visa issue. Paul Federn is described on first reference: "The appointment was made over the objection of Paul Federn (1871–1950), who had been Reich's second analyst in 1922 and who, according to Sharaf, regarded Reich as a psychopath."

1934-1939

• First sentence under Personal life is a bit awkward. Better might be "According to Sharaf, Reich's personal life was the happiest between 1934 and 1937."

• Fixed.

1947-1957

• Under Imprisonment, flying saucer guy and sex box man should probably be in quotes as they aren't common phrases.

• Done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Most of this stuff is pretty superficial, so it should be straightforward to address. I may make some additional minor copyedits. I look forward to promoting this. Thank you for some hard work on a thorough and extensively sourced article. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 15:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Eric, I'll go through the article and smooth out the issues you raised. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. Any remaining issues fall outside the scope of GA.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Minor copyedits made by nominator and reviewer.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Extensively referenced.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Spot checks of text show consistency with cited references.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Appears comprehensive without trivial details.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Thank you for dedicated work on this article over several years. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 22:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and promotion, Eric. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)