>>788559What makes you think they were being truthful or that their recollection of childhood events are that accurate to begin with and weren’t later re-shaped by reactionary beliefs contrary to that of Reich that later on became mainstream by the 80s?
Think more critically before taking any accusation at face value. Yes, Wilhelm was a quack for believing that there was some magical “orgone” energy over masturbation, and it was wrong for him to give treatment without any license. But that:
- Doesn’t discredit his works on the psychology of fascism and how authoritarian personalities are reproduced in the traditional family structure, nor his works on human sexuality preceding his quackery of “orgone”.
- Who is to say that secondary harm (i.e., psychological harm due to re-collections based on societal biases as opposed to the event itself) wasn’t at play in those testimonies? And most of all, are the more extreme “practices” described in the article really normative within orgone therapy or not? After all, those may well have been the exception (e.g., the needle story) as opposed to the norm.
Basically: Reich was spot on in a lot of things, but also wrong in others, and it’s important not to take accusations at face value, especially if they realise they’ve been “victimised” only later in their lives. Likewise, it’s also important to understand whether the article itself isn’t biased against Reich’s work.
Do more research matey.