Reading Alexander Lowen in my early twenties was being exposed to the gospel of depths of wisdom without end. Coming back to him in my late twenties, however, I am first and foremost struck by the lack of nuance and the overconfidence of some of the claims. For example, when discussing the restrained expressions of feelings in a patient, he said there was only one answer, namely that the relationship between father and daughter had become sexual. I believe the “there is only one answer” blurb is emblematic of Lowen’s nuanced view of psychopathology, namely, that it’s easily diagnosed and rooted in sexuality.
In The Fear of Life, Lowen tackles topics such as fate, acceptance, the Oedipus complex, psychological problems especially regarding sex, emotion and relationships, stemming from issues from the parents regarding sexual guilt, competition, attraction and seduction. Like all of the rest of his books, he puts a heavy emphasis on the psycho-somatic and how bodily exercises can facilitate psychological healing. Unfortunately for me, Lowen has a naive Rousseauian view of human nature, and while he’s worth reading, most of his writing is considered outdated.
Lowen makes the case, like Freud, that children are inherently sexual, and their love and desire for physical intimacy with their parents are of a sexual nature. Lowen writes that babies derive erotic pleasure from nursing because it’s sexual in nature, and that the difference between childhood and adult sexuality is that the former lacks penetration and ejaculation. I have often wondered about what exactly is sex lately. Modern “sexperts” define it as anything that is physically pleasurable and leads to satisfaction. I think the discussion, especially reading Lowen, is very confusing unless you make “sexuality” have a meaning so vague it is practically meaningless. If a baby nursing is sex, then the word, in my opinion, completely loses its meaning.
I wonder what is the purpose of stretching the definition of sex so thin. One of the reasons might be that psychoanalysis like Lowen has seen the damage done by sexual repression, and if they make sexuality ominous from childbirth (or before, as in the fetus is having sex with its mother?), then they can drown in their inherent incestuous nature, surrender to it, accept it, and thus stop feeling guilt about, well, their sexual nature, especially in relation to family, and thus paradoxically transcend their neurotic fate.
I do think Lowen’s writing should be taken seriously, as he makes a lot of very interesting points, and I think the bioenergetic perspective should be considered, and on the whole, I am in agreement with him, except he is rather vague, overconfident and overliberal in many cases. I don’t share his views on masturbation, sexuality, and I think, as psychoanalysts do, overemphasize trauma in childhood to an overblown importance. Lowen writes at many instances that particular childhood events (always done by the parents, of course) permanently traumatize the child, creates suppression and mental repression, and permanently changes their character structure, causing endless misery for the rest of their lives. Taking Lowen seriously would lead the parent or potential parent to walk on eggshells with their child, hoping they will never do anything to upset them enough to alter their character structure.
Nevertheless, a lot of Lowen’s writing is interesting and I believe it is true. For example, regarding the Oedipus complex, Lowen says a father might withdraw from his daughter because he is uncomfortable by the eerie (sexual) tension between them. The daughter is confused and feels rejected, and by mere osmosis, takes on his sexual guilt onto herself. I don’t think this is as unrealistic as it might seem. Especially when the father is sex-deprived of the wife and the daughter is radiating the so-called infantile “sexual” love for her father. I think the guilt and repression of sexual feelings for the father is also evident in that it’s frequent among women to be attracted to men similar to their father, and it’s common for women to get sexually aroused by calling their partner “daddy” or “papi,” and also explicit father-daughter role-play fantasies. I don’t doubt that the Oedipus complex is real, widespread and plays a significant role in a person’s “neurosis,” and while Freud’s castration-anxiety seems alien and far-fetched to me, I don’t deny it, and I think competition of father-son and daughter-mother is real, and I do think girls feel guilt for wanting to compete with their mother for the father’s affection, and at some level of consciousness, afraid she will be punished for it.
My main problem with Lowen, and Reich for that matter, is that nobody is advocating limits, apparently. Sexual suppression is the root of all evil, so to say-- thus, the natural implication is that we ought to reduce sexual suppression, sexual guilt and shame. And I wonder, then, what is the ideal that Lowen is getting at? Throughout the entire book, Lowen keeps hammering on the idea that repressed sexuality between parent and child, and the shame, leads to psychological problems. On the other hand, he presents no counter-force, namely the traumatic effects of shameless unsuppressed sexuality: real incest acted out. I think it would be totally appropriate for Lowen to at least include one incident where the psychopathology was caused by unrestrained sexuality with no healthy boundaries; and let his commentary be colored by such an example. It is unfortunately not.
Though it seems that my criticism can be dodged easily considering that Lowen uses such a loose definition of sexuality that incest is undefinable. If breastfeeding is incest, then incest isn’t wrong, and thus the problem is more of abuse and exploitation rather than anything inherently sexual, which might open the door ajar to more explicit sexual acts inside the family that is deemed appropriate, and I do not doubt the sexual revolutionists and radicals actually think this is the case, with Lowen, I don’t know. What’s frustrating about reading Lowen is that he does not discuss boundaries, and the only solutions he presents the reader is that we ought to bend back on a stool and breathe deeply, hit a bed with a tennis-racquet and put our fingers in our mouth to gag out our neurotic holding patterns.
If I were to give my best interpretation of Lowen, I would say that he answers this conundrum indirectly. In discussing the Oedipus myth, he makes the case that if Oedipus would have accepted his fate as proclaimed by the Oracle, paradoxically, he wouldn’t end up marrying his mother and killing his father. Thus for Lowen, I think, the answer is to accept our fate, that we’re flawed human beings with a sexual nature that doesn’t always seem to coexist well with our own conscience, super-ego, society's standards and moral law. It seems to me that acceptance is one of the cornerstones of healing, which makes me suspicious that, for example, taboo sexual roleplay is beneficial to the degree it brings about mutual acceptance in the parents, or potential parents, and that fantasies are not necessarily furthering ingraining the neurosis and create an obsession (which it might), but instead living out the fate in the realm of sexual play will free them from it in “real life.”
Though my problem with saying that “acceptance” is the answer is that it doesn’t help us with knowing what to accept. Now that I think of it, I remember reading Lowen say that he had sexual feelings for a patient, but in contrast with the proponent of Radical Honesty, Brad Branson, Lowen had the view that it would be appropriate to hold that feeling for oneself, thus, Lowen does believe in boundaries (secrets, unexpressed feelings), and it’s not hard to extend that out to the family, although didn’t voice any such boundaries, at least so far in my reading of him. So, what should one accept, and what does accepting look like in practice? My fear, of course, is that if you were to practice radical acceptance, by consequence, it would seem to me that boundaries would dissolve together with the repression, guilt and the burden of holding something within yourself.
Reading Lowen is always a treat because he sprinkles in his wisdom about the relationship between the psycho and the somatic, and a book of Lowen is always worth reading. However, his politics and view of human nature is too Rousseauian (communist) for my taste, as he comes from the place that children are naturally innocent and perfect, but are corrupted by their parents and culture, and anything bad children do is actually because of the parents. He writes that humans nor animals are inherently violent, but only act in such a way if they feel psychologically trapped. And his commentary about the patriarchy is nothing but confusing to me. On the one hand, he says that most of his patients come from a household where the mother had the power, where Lowen says this was the norm at his time. I might also suspect there is some selection bias, given that most of his patients struggling psychologically are coming from households with weak fathers.
Seven pages later, however, he writes about how parents tend to pass on their conflict from the previous generation onto the child, and there is a power struggle between children and parents. He writes, “In a patriarchal culture the misery is passed on from generation to generation.” But as we remember, most of his patients come from households where mothers wield the power. So, why is it the fault of the “patriarchy” that parents pass on their misery in his patients? It would make much more sense to me that you can’t blame the patriarchy for people’s tendency to want to inflict damage onto others.
The confusing thing, of course, is that Lowen uses “patriarchy” in a very bizarre way, in such a way that means that men
have power over women, but moreover, the role of power itself. Meaning, in cases where women had power over men, it would still be a patriarchy because it involves power, and of course, power is an invention that male homo sapiens made up when the left hemisphere took over and gained ego control over the body, nature, and the unconscious “great mother.” Does that make sense? No? Nor does it to me. Right after Lowen says that the patriarchy is to blame for this behavior, he contrasts our culture with that of the Oriental one and the primitive societies, where parents do not use children as an outlet for their frustrations and bring down the demons down the generations. In Lowen’s world, it seems to me he conceived Oriental and primitive societies as not patriarchal, which is very confusing to me, because it is as if he thinks of communist China as a giant zen garden where everyone is doing Tai-Chi, doing art and practicing enlightenment in perfect harmony with nature, where men and women are equal and there’s no dynasties of (male) emperors, struggling for power in bloody wars. Not to mention the primitive societies, which he thinks lived in perfect harmony with each other based on one example, of course, turning a blind eye to all the counter-examples.
Lowen defines patriarchy as an authority system based on top-down enforced power, where there is a hierarchy of values, and knowledge and power are valued, whereas a matriarchy as a system where the rule is the agreement of the community, and pleasure and sex are valued. However, I fail to see why this distinction should be correlated with the sexes. My best guess would be that women have a natural aversion toward explicit hierarchies, and there are examples in animals where females are leaders by sheer competence, and other animal examples where females are dominant and have a lot of sex, and their authority is based on voluntary submission to that competency. However, to assign “female” or “matriarchy” to a well-functioning power structure is a misleading use of words and based on cherry-picking your favorite animal species (elephants, probably).
A repeated theme in all Lowen’s writings is his insistence that power is antithetical to love, a sentiment he's probably been handed down by his Marxist mentor, Reich. I’ve never been able to know what to do with this stance. What would a world look like where nobody had power over anyone else? And what is power? Although the idea sounds beautiful, once you think about it, the idea does not make sense, because power is a prerequisite for love. God loves us, yet wields ultimate power over us because if he did not have power over us, he could not love us. In a powerless universe, there would be no friction, no contact, thus no love. If adults do not have power over their children, their children will die, thus, it makes no sense for me to say power (thus the patriarchy) is the root of all evil.
Lowen relates a story where a child was “abused” by the mother at an airport because she used power to force his body to be in a position where the child did not want to be. If the mother would never resort to physical force and try to rationally convince the three-year-old to voluntarily step onto the plane, she would have missed the flight. If physical force is never used, all children will eventually die. When a mother picks up her baby to breastfeed it, she is exercising power because the infant does not consent to being picked up. Fundamentally, all power rests in physical force, and ideally, power should rest in the hands of the competent. And while that’s not the case as often as it should be, it’s useless to point to power itself as the source of the problem.
Lowen’s radicalism shined brighter through the following sentence than any other: “As long as we have a hierarchy of values, everything associated with the lower half of the body is viewed as common, vulgar and dirty.” This is a very strange sentence, and I think Lowen got carried away here. It is reminiscent of Lowen’s take on power, namely, it is power itself that’s the problem, not the way it’s exercised. By the same token, it’s values themselves that are the problem, not which values we have. In other words, in order to get rid of our sexual shame, guilt and embarrassment, not only do we need to change our values, but this sexual shame is so deeply ingrained in our value system, we have to eradicate values altogether, and become moral relativists in order to get rid of neuroticism, and have the ultimate sexual pleasure aliveness without any character armor.
There is a contradiction, that Lowen seems unaware of, by saying a matriarchy is one without a hierarchy of values, yet simultaneously, value sex and pleasure over power and knowledge. Needless to say, if there is no hierarchy of values, nobody would have sex, but instead, everyone would be lying flat on their backs letting the autonomic nervous system breathe until they die of thirst, most likely.
Lowen, unfortunately, is not a serious thinker, nor a careful writer, and despite having written a voluminous amount of books, he’s also not a very good writer. He has no style, his sentences have no sense of flow, nor seem connected half of the time, but instead seem loosely connected sentences one after another. Most of the sentences seem as if they are there because of a CTRL+V.
When discussing sexuality, Lowen, unfortunately, does not understand Freud’s idea of sexual sublimation, which is very strange, considering he’s a student of Reich, who was a direct student of Freud. Lowen writes: “I don’t agree with Freud that creative achievement depends on the sublimation of the sexual drive. On the contrary, individuals with more sexual aliveness are, often, the more creative persons. But productivity is another matter.” He then goes on to say that society is deliberately breaking the sexuality of the person in order to be a well-functioning cog in the productive (capitalistic-patriarchal) machine, as if a process of castration of animals to domesticate them for our needs.
A lot of people, Lowen included, believe that the deliberate abstinence of porn, masturbation and having orgasms is suppressing one’s sexuality. What Lowen doesn’t understand about sexual sublimation is that the omission of masturbation increases sexual aliveness, not diminishes it, and that’s the entire point. To abstain from masturbation comes from a place where one wants to keep the sexuality within oneself from a place of embrace, and values it, thus, does not want to squirt it out, wipe it off and throw it down the toilet. It is clear to me that the real “castration,” which Lowen talks about, is facilitated by internet porn addiction and frequent masturbation, to get rid of sexual energy within the confines of the privacy of your bedroom. Lowen is blindfolded by the sexual shame his patients carry, and thus abstain from masturbation from that angle, but that is not sexual sublimation that Freud was talking about. Sexual sublimation isn’t based on repression of sexuality by shame, but rather, using the raw libidinal energy, which is inherently creative, onto other acts of creativity than ejaculation.
In conclusion, it appears to me that Lowen is a radical who stifles his raw opinions so as not to be labeled a communist in New York in the 1970s. He’s a full-on Rousseauian, and has an overly romantic and naive view of primitive peoples and orientals. While he has a solid grasp on the relationship between the psycho and the somatic, as well as an interesting approach to psychotherapy, he presents only one side to the issue, only emphasizing the damage parents and society do to children, and only the damage of sexual suppression, not bothering to discuss boundaries, which is concerning and unhelpful.