CommendablesnA Tyrant of Mindnand Failed HealernLeo Raditsa: Some Sense AboutnWilhelm Reich;nPhilosophical Library; New York.nby Christopher Manionn”One does individuals and theirntheories the greatest compliment whennone sees their limitation,” observes LeonRaditsa in this short but captivating essay.nAnd indeed Raditsa means to bestow ancompliment on Reich, whose impact onnthe ideas of our age has been pervasive,nas well as to discuss his limitations. Onenmust admit, though, that this latter contributionnis the more welcome ofnthe two.nRaditsa displays a thorough knowledgenof Reich’s teaching without recapitulatingnit; instead, he concentrates on the factorsnwhich tell us not only about Reich, butnabout man, power, the intellect, and ournown cultural drift as well. He is wellequippednto do so—thoughtful and charitablenin his criticisms, but honest enoughnto submit for examination the paradoxesnof Wilhelm Reich which often evadendiscussion because they are so difficultnto discuss; instead, Raditsa explains,nReich is either acclaimed as a hero orndismissed as a villain. But his ideas livenon, and will bear some measure of unarticulatednpower until they receive thendiscussion they deserve. Hence, somen”sense” about Wilhelm Reich from anclassical scholar who has absorbed himselfnin Reichian teaching for twenty years.nReich finds man completely at oddsnwith nature and his own “true” self. Sonprofound is this loss of reality that mannhas a built-in “armor” to protect himnfrom discovering himself. But Reich’snimage of the problem of man is far fromnthat depicted in the Platonic myth of thencave: Reich sees man as hopelessly boundnMr. Manion is an officer of the RockfordnCollege Institute.nup in a rationality which keeps him fromnhis nature; hence, we can conclude, thenintellect must be suppressed, and philosophyndestroyed (not pursued), for mannto be free.nReichian therapy aims at the destructionnof rationality and the armor thatnprotects it through a process by whichnthe patient’s vulnerability is enhancedneven as his dependence on Reich (throughnhis doctrine and his therapist) becomesncomplete. Reich found man’s problemncomplicated by a tendency to meeklynaccept tyranny without protest; hence,nReich merely substitutes his own tyranny,ninsisting that the patient accept an ironcladnrule over his life by means of a treatmentninvolving the liberation of sexualityn(which is closer to “freedom” than isnrationality), self-debasement (whichnencourages a healthy disgust with one’snself, a good sign of progress), and anneventual emergence into a new existencenwhere, one might surmise, the patientnsees the world as Reich sees it, and allnis well.nTo Reich, the whole world was anpatient: he could not distinguish betweennthe world at large and a patient undergoingntherapy. He insisted on the universalnvalidity of his teachings, and thatnprovides a key to an understanding of hisnshortcomings, as Raditsa explains in hisnown case:n’As a young man when I first grew interestednin Reich’s work I was fascinatedn(and thought I was impressed) by suchnabsolute claims, claims that would admitnof no doubt. I took them for assurance. Inwanted the answers and I wanted themnin a hurry. Now . . . well, now thendifference between facts, and somethingnone wishes, one wants, one knows has tonbe true impresses me.”nReich’s shortcomings might also shednlight on the chronic ailment of an agenwhich could welcome such a tyrant ofnthe mind. For, while J^eich’s therapynmight do nothing more than transfer anpatient from one dream world intonanother, an age clamoring for authoritynand fleeing rationality would welcomensuch a blatant assertion of power in thennnname of a “freedom” and “nature” notnsubject to discussion. And, while Reichneventually abandoned his earlier Marxism,nhe never came to terms with it, andnyet his teachings—not because of Reichnbut in spite of him—contribute to annunderstanding of the frame of mindnwhich adheres to a “scientific” ideologynso constantly in conflict with reality.nReich insisted that his teaching shouldnhave priority over the ultimate good ofnthe patient, and by sheer force of willnand ignorance (for he insisted on it: nondiscussion, just subjection) he managednto garner a questionable claim ton”heroism” (in an age without heroes)nwithout agreeing to subject himself tonthe risk which all heroes must run: thatnthey might be wrong.nMindless idolatry which excludesncriticism tends to destroy the ability tonthink independently, says Raditsa, andnthis probing critique should be welcomednas a contribution to thoughtful discoursenin an unthoughtful age. DnCrane’s Resolvenand Ryan’s ExpertisenPhilip M. Crane: Surrender innPanama;nGreen Hill Publishers, Inc; Ottawa, Illinois.nPaul B. Ryan: The Panama CanalnControversy ;nHoover Institution Press; Stanford, Calif.nWhether or not this book had an effectnon the Panama Canal treaties vote, it didnsucceed in articulating the conservativenpolemics used to spearhead the anti-ratificationndrive. For Congressman PhilipnCrane, the Panama Canal is of pivotalneconomic, strategic and moral importancento the United States. He thinksnthat the canal will be a crucial energynthroughway in the near future; by 1980,n45% of all Alaskan oil will pass throughnthe canal. With the military and commercialntrend pointing toward smaller,nmore specialized vessels, the canal willnbe needed more in years to come than itn13nChronicles of Culturen