A Jumble of Philosophies

Freud and Marx wrote chapters and books defining their meaning of consciousness, Reich writes a page or two and assures us he is consistent with both into the bargin. This I fail to see, just as I fail to see how anyone can possibly be consistent with both of these and with Blake and Leary as well. The kernel of Marxism is there in the socio-economics but it is most unMarxist to assert, as Reich does later, that there is any individual who doesn't exhibit his consciousness, that there can be consciousness 'lag' or that age has more to do with consciousness than class. Reich's view presumes that an individual is conscious of his consciousness and that this Super Dooper Ego is the most reliable and fundamental insight into a person — a point I think Freud would want clarified. It attempts to relate values, behaviour and autonomy but I am certain Blake would rise in wrath at the description of all this as 'head' and with the idea that there are consciousness-types. And how can anyone possibly be consistent with the practically minded Marx and Blake and at the same time with the mystically minded Leary is beyond me. In attempting to appeal to as many persuasions as possible Reich can only have excluded them all, or perhaps persuaded them to something more 'transcendent'.

There is an element of self-consistency in world-views that makes it easier for us to predict what certain groups of people will say about certain things, but just from my experience with pupils and parents of diverse social backgrounds I would dispute that either 'self-consistent world-views' or socio-economies are such reliable indicators as to what a person thinks of the Springbok tour or Women's Lib. We are in the realms of stereotypes and prejudices, and Reich is anxious to push us there — these are not merely factors they are determinants, insists Reich's theory of consciousness. They are not, I insist, these are people.