You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Calogeras defends Róheim against the accusation of being a prophet of the radical or left tradition in psychoanalysis and anthropology, leveled by P. A. Robinson and others. The basis for the accusation is twofold. One is that Robinson sees Róheim, along with Reich and Marcuse, as exemplifying a movement toward a reconciliation between Marx and Freud. The other is a triad of characteristics that he also finds in Reich and Marcuse: sexual radicalism, meaning an overestimation of the part played by sex in individual psychology and in the evolution of mankind; the linkage of politics and sexuality achieved by regarding sexual repression as a principal mechanism of political domination; and stylistic radicalism, which means a propensity for extreme statement and hard, inflexible argument. Calogeras explains that Róheim's emphasis on sexuality is accounted for by his adherence to pre-World War I psychoanalytic theory and his failure to include what was learned later about the child's social and ego development. His linkage of politics and sexuality was based on analyses and not mere reductionism, and his stylistic radicalism is attributed to the circumstance of his being Hungarian.