Page    1   2   of this article. Journal of Orgonomy Volume 19 no. 1 Raising Children* Richard Schwartzman, D.0. ** I will discuss how the emotional plague works to stifle children and make them neurotic. Orgone therapy strives to remove the armor that is laid down in infancy and childhood, and to restore the body biosystem to its original unarmored state and natural functioning. The goal of functional childrearing is to prevent the armoring process and maintain natural functioning as much as possible. The theory is simple, and 1ike most theories that are simple, putting t into effect is rather complex and difficult. There is much at work in the environment directly, through particular individuals in contact with the child, and indirectly, through social organizations and situations that work against the natural rearing of children. And, also, in the environment, a factor that must be considered, is the actual atmosphere itself, and how that has an effect upon the child and his energy movement. These factors combine to continue the armoring process from generation to generation. How this is perpetuated and what we can do about it is the most crucial work for the future of orgonomy and for the future of mankind. Reich tells us "The fate of the human race will be shaped by the character structure of the Children of the Future" (1:5). The hope for mankind and certainly for the very planet itself rests on how we raise our children. But where do we start, or even more important, where does the problem lie, so that we know what to do? All parents want a better life for their children, a better life than they have had. But even the most intelligent, well-intentioned parents seem unable to prevent the cycle from repeating itself. In a recent book by Reich, Children of the Future, there is a 1950 quote that "During the past century our parents and grandparents have repeatedly tried to penetrate the wall of social evil with all kinds of social theories, political programs, reforms, resolutions, revolutions. They have failed miserably every time; not one attempt at improvement of the human lot has succeeded" (1:5). The question is: Why have our efforts not resulted in a steady improvement for each succeeding generation. Why does the incidence of neurosis, psychosis, and suicide continue at the same rate? And why do wars, atrocities, and human misery continue as they always have? The answer to the riddle of the human dilemma lies in how we raise our children. It certainly will not come with newer and better technological advances. The promises held out by mechanical technologies have not been fulfilled. Many are little more than decorations for the trap to help divert us from our unhappy state, and others in the hands of armored man may yet be used to destroy us all. However, on a more optimistic note, there is some evidence that we are groping toward better childrearing practices. Reich's insights are slowly being rediscovered in piecemeal fashion by the scientific community. By and large, their understanding remains a mechanistic one, explained by behavioral, learning, and interactional theories on the one hand, and by the brain, the EEG patterns, and endorphins on the other, but at least they are validating Reich's perceptions within their own frameworks. The evolution of the human race will ultimately require the adoption of Reich's functional and energetic concepts, and that is many generations away. But at least today there is more of an appreciation of just how critical childrearing practices are, especially in the earliest days of life. Only a very short time ago, one could read in pediatric textbooks that the newborn cannot fixate on a visual target or track a moving object. It's now known, of course, that the newborn has behavior that is much more organized than was believed, that he is not the passive, blank slate that reacts to stimulation and learns behaviorally. He has preformed organizations and is actually stimulus-seeking. The concept of learning primarily through drive-reduction, that is, that the organism strives to reduce the level of stimulation, has largely been revised. It has been found that those infants whose mothers respond to cries early in infancy cry less in their later infancy. This runs contrary to the theory of drive-reduction in behavioral modification, that the more a behavior is rewarded, the more it continues, for the infants actually showed a decrease in crying, a decrease in the responded-to behavior. A study by Moss and Robson revealed that infants initiate fifty percent or more of the interactions with their caretakers (2). Also, another study revealed that Infants demonstrate an expectancy for interaction with their caretakers which includes an engagement in rhythmic cycling of attention and non-attention (3). If the caretakers violate expectancies or reciprocities (by not moving their faces, for example), infants alter their interactive rhythms, and they eventually turn off. So we can see from this how necessary it is for a mother to be in contact with her baby in those very earliest days of life, to be attuned to him, just so that he does not turn off. I think the most remarkable study that I came upon was by Condon and Sanders (4), using microkinesic movie techniques. These movies are taken and then slowed down and viewed frame by frame and coordinated with the sound. The study cited revealed that, as early as the first postnatal day, newborns move in precise synchrony with the articulated structures of adult speech. Other studies have shown that the infant is, at birth, responsive to sound frequencies in the range of human speech (5). During an interaction between a mother and baby, as the mother talks, the baby responds. There is an actual "dance," or relationship, that goes on between mother and child in precise synchrony at the earliest days of life. We also have learned from these filming techniques that when talking with someone, we tend to fall or try to fall into a pattern of synchrony with the other party's pattern of talking. The human visual apparatus has been shown to be relatively advanced at birth, as compared to other human sense modalities or to those of other mammals (6). The idea that the newborn cannot see is simply not true. We also know that the sense of smell is present at least by the age of six days. So, what we're coming to see is a newborn that is complete, with all his senses, sensitivities, fine tuning, and capacity to resonate with the mother and the world. As to prenatal influences, the energetic pulsation between mother and embryo is vitally important; in fact, Reich thought that a great deal of what is now considered to be genetic or hereditary is probably based upon the prenatal energetic systems of mother and child. But leaving that aside for now, let's turn our attention to the events of postnatal life. The problem is that because we are armored, we have lost our ability to appreciate just how exquisitely sensitive the newborn is. We ourselves know, as adults, how strongly we can be affected by an insult, a reproach or even a glance, despite having developed an ego and some fairly effective coping mechanisms. It's really just impossible to know how profoundly an infant is affected by the traumas imposed upon him in the earliest days of life. Each shock the infant experiences causes him to contract; this damages the energy system's ability to pulsate. We lose our ability to sense, and we lose our ability to relate through our energy field (that is how we relate with each other, that is how we make contact) and we lose them through early damage to the bioenergy system. Each contraction lays down the groundwork for permanent armor. And this constitutes what Reich called "the somatic core of the neurosis." As the armor is laid down, it becomes an integral part of us. We damage the newborns' energy system; they lose contact with themselves and the ability to energetically contact others. The literature is now replete with studies confirming what Reich told us so long ago: that the earliest infant-mother contact is critical to development, and that the armoring process begins right from birth. For example, Reich said that schizophrenia was laid down in the first days of life. It comes down to the basic functions of expansion, contraction, and contact. The mother most free of anxiety who is herself expanded and in contact will best allow her infant to expand, energetically each augmenting the other. Another truly remarkable study by Klaus and Associates of mothers with their first babies demonstrated just how critical the early contact was for later development (7). The study was done as follows: There was a control group of mothers and infants who underwent the usual hospital routine, that is, the baby was briefly seen after birth, then separated from the mother. There was brief contact at six to eight hours for identification, and then mother and child were separated, except for five times a day for 20-30 minutes for bottle-feeding. The experimental, extended-contact group, by contrast, were with their babies for one hour in the first three hours after birth, and five hours each afternoon for three days. That was the only variable: A total of only 16 additional hours of contact. But it resulted in statistically significant differences between the two groups. At one month, on interview, the extra-contact group showed more concern about their infants than the control group; they showed more physical proximity to their children during physical examination; they fondled the infants more; and they held them in the en face position more during the observed feedings. There were continued differences up to one and two years later. At two years, they asked more questions of the doctor and gave fewer commands to their children. Now think about that . . . they gave fewer commands to their children. This means that children may well have been more autonomous and more self-regulating simply as a result of having had only 16 additional hours of initial contact with mother from birth. Another study revealed that rooming-in mothers who kept their infants with them were able to abstract more from the infants' cries than those who did not have their children in the room (8). They were more in tune with the infant, they could understand what the wanted by the sound of the cry, whether he was hungry or tired or whatever. And, of course, we know now that it is a reciprocal matter. Not only does the baby need to be with the mother, but the mother also needs to be with the baby, in order for bonding to take place. This ongoing mutual adaptation between mother and child is a function of mutual energy excitation and contact. Klaus et al. has shown that there is a dramatic increase in child abuse in premature infants who suffered early postnatal separation (9). On the level of animal studies, we learn that environmental stimulation can enhance postnatal myelinization and influence dendritic connections in the cerebral cortex (10). The brain and the nervous system mature better with stimulation. Scientists account for this in the only framework they know, with mechanical explanations. But with Reich's energetic concepts, we have a functional understanding, i.e., growth and development occur best in an atmosphere of stimulation, in an atmosphere that promotes expansion. The usual childbirth process remains for the most part traumatic worldwide, almost as it always has. There have been some advances, such as rooming-in, and in perinatal care, and some other forward trends. But overall, children are subjected to the same treatment as they were 20 or 30 years ago. And this traumatic reception that they receive certainly must contribute to the initial contraction and loss of contact. If we examine what is routinely inflicted on infants and children, it's little wonder why they are so crippled. At the time of birth, the mother is often sedated, which affects the baby as well. Born groggy and out of contact, frequently traumatically, sometimes with the use of forceps, he's exposed to bright lights, loud noises, oftentimes rough handling, and then separated from the mother. Stinging drops are instilled in his eyes, and he's taken away to a sterile nursery where he's wrapped tightly, laid on his back, and again exposed to bright lights. I saw this myself with my own daughter. The caretakers were out of contact and they didn't realize what they were subjecting the child to. I remember, I think it was on the second day, when I walked into the room. There was Mom with Becky and, by her bedside, a picture of Becky. Someone had come into the nursery and flashed a camera into Becky's eyes, without my permission. Now what kind of a thing is that to do to a child? Flash a blinding light into her eyes! The child is routinely brought to the mother and fed on a schedule that's convenient for the hospital staff, but not for the baby or the baby's functional rhythms. Blood is obtained for a laboratory test by sticking his heel. His screams of distress go unnoticed and unheard by the smiling nursing personnel; and even sometimes by the contactless parents themselves who amazingly seem much more interested in which grandfather he looks like than in his obvious misery and distress. And this is not an exaggeration. I've seen it many times over, and I'm sure you have also. It always amazes me how doctors, and nurses, and parents can be so blind and deaf to the murder of life right in front of their very eyes. But there is progress, and we are seeing some changes. Steckler, some 20 years ago, published his findings on the effects of drugs given to the mother prior to delivery (11). Up to that time it was routine so that any of us who are over 20 were probably delivered to narcotized mothers. It was Steckler who determined that the baby's visual alertness was adversely affected for days after birth. The sucking and feeding reflexes were depressed as well (12). Medication in these early crucial days produces a postnatal depressive effect and interferes with spontaneous REM sleep; the effect on the newborn's behavior can extend beyond the first week of life. Sedation, a very routine procedure then, is still much practiced now. Current literature in the relatively new field of neonatology speaks of an important concept, the postnatal adaptation syndrome, which is a very encouraging sign. The pediatricians who specialize in this field are now focusing on this adaptation syndrome of the immediate postnatal period and how t affects the infant. Ideally, the mother should give birth without medication if at all possible, and with active intervention by the physician only when necessary for the well-being of the child or the mother. It should not be at the service of speeding up a slow delivery for someone's convenience. The mother should also have a trained worker available, who is at least familiar with the principles of orgonomic therapy and treatment. Such a worker can help her regulate her breathing and relax spastic muscles and, most importantly, keep her eyes in contact. With the buildup of pain, if the mother can keep her eyes in contact, she will be able to maintain control. If she goes out of contact, with mounting pain, she becomes like a psychotic for the moment, and a chaotic situation may result. Low lights with little noise and no shocking temperature changes should be the rule. The umbilical cord should not be cut until well after it stops pulsating, and the baby should be placed on the mother's abdomen. If eye drops must be instilled, they should be non-irritating. There's good reason for the procedure since children were blinded by gonococcal infection in the past. But there's no reason to put silver nitrate or other burning solutions in the eyes. There are other preparations that will accomplish the same purpose without burning. The mother and baby should remain together for as long as they feel comfortable, with the baby nursing on demand and both of them resting as they feel the need. Nursing personnel should be primarily for support and encouragement and to relieve the mother of chores, and not to tell her what is best for her and baby. Breast-feeding, of course, should be supported, and anxiety allayed if difficulty arises, with encouragement to the mother to continue her efforts to nurse. The baby should never be wrapped tightly, as he needs motoric muscular discharge for release of tension. When you go into a nursery, there they are, all lined up like soldiers in their bassinets. And the nursing personnel will tell you that "it's good for baby." This is a sign of the emotional plague, which tells you what is "good" and "right" and justifies it. It's clearly an early limitation on the expression of life and its energy. Circumcision is also something to be avoided. Despite the many studies showing there are no medical indications for routine circumcisions, they continue to be performed as always. The American Academy of Pediatrics came out many years ago against routine circumcision, and yet they continue. The question I would like to pose is "How many circumcisions would there be, if the obstetricians were not paid for the procedure?" I think they would suddenly find it not quite so necessary. Of course, the other factors involved are the fear and hatred of genitality. But, if we could reduce circumcisions by eliminating the compensation that is given, that would help. This is exactly what happened in England when the National Health Service stopped paying for circumcisions. They were significantly reduced. A baby needs only the most gentle of handling: no rough and tumble turning; careful lifting and laying down. Baths should be at about body temperature, and he should not be cooled too quickly. The object is to keep both the mother and infant in a state of energetic mutual contact. These simple measures are so obvious that, if we had not lost contact with our core, we would be doing all of these things instinctively. Only those with good contact should tend to the mother and child, and these may well not be the mother's mother or grandmother. In her anxiety and uncertainty, the new mother often turns to her mother or grandmother, blind to how damaged they are, and asks them to help with the baby. These are often the least equipped to give advice on how to raise a child. But they turn to these people because they're uncertain, and this is how the process cycles, generation after generation. Those who do care for the baby should be carefully selected, particularly the pediatrician and the babysitters. Pediatricians are too much concerned with infections, the baby's weight and height, and when he should walk. They are walking textbooks of statistics and average ranges. They are in authority positions, and they give opinions on childrearing based upon their own character structure and what they've been taught. However, in medical school one is not taught anything about what is natural. One is only taught pathology; they don't know what natural is. Pediatricians are forever giving advice about what to do, but they are not necessarily in the best position to give it. I have never heard a pediatrician say that he did not know the answer to any question that was asked of him. Of course, the doctors get pulled into this kind of relationship; they have to be authoritative, because that's what's asked of them and expected of them.     next page Page    1  2  of this article.   *  This paper is adapted from a lecture, entitled "Raising Children, or How They Become as Sick as We Are" given at the conference, "The Work of Wilhelm Reich: Orgonomy," sponsored by the American College of Orgonomy in Arlington, Virginia, on November 11, 1984. **  Medical Orgonomist. Diplomate in Psychiatry, American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. Diplomate of the American Board of Medical Orgonomy. Assistant Profesor, Department of Mental Health Sciences, Hahnemann University Hospital of Philadelphia Medical. Medical Director, Hahnemann Mental Health Services Division, Philadelphia Prison System.