At this point, Reich moves to the heart of the matter, linking the fear of punishment directly to the formation of character armor and notes that the armor is not easily removed (Reich,, 1972, p. 158):

Thus, the armoring of the ego takes place as a result of the fear of punishment, at the expense of id energy, and contains the prohibitions and standards of parents and teachers. Only in this way can the character formation fulfill its economic functions of alleviating the pressure of repression and, over and above this, of strengthening the ego. This, however, is not the whole story. If, on the one hand, this armoring is at least temporarily successful in warding off impulses from within, it constitutes, on the other hand, a far-reaching block not only against stimuli from the outside but also against further educational influences.

We find that character armor can sometimes be successful in addressing childhood fears; however, it rarely is consistently successful—thus necessitating its permanent presence to defend against future fears (or childhood origins).

Inner vs. Outer world: A second source of anxiety is to be found in the ongoing pull between our internal world that is governed by instincts and our outside world that is governed by the demands of reality. We find that Reich identifies an ongoing struggle that is similar to Freud’s ongoing battle between Id and Superego on the one hand, and Ego on the other hand. Reich (1972, p. 155) offers a unique perspective, however, in suggesting that character armor is put in place to buffer this struggle and the associated anxiety:

In the vernacular, we speak of hard and soft, noble and base; proud and servile, cold and warm people. The psychoanalysis of various characteristics proves that they are merely various forms an armoring of the ego against the dangers of the outside world and the repressed instinctual demands of the id. Etiologically, there is just as much anxiety behind the excessive politeness of one person as there is behind the gruff and occasionally brutal reaction of another.

We find that Reich is not only setting the stage for a description of the armor with which we protect ourselves, but also for differentiating different kinds of armor that are manifest in diverse behavior patterns (personality characteristics).

Ambivalence: This condition is represented in a vacillation between strivings toward hate and strivings toward love that operate on the surface layer of the psychic apparatus. Reich (1972, p. p. 274) proposes at a deeper level that ambivalence corresponds to the forementioned pull between instincts and reality. The pull between love and hate resides, ultimately, at a much deeper level:

[Ambivalences] are the manifestations of a clash between a libidinal impulse ceaselessly striving for expression and fear of punishment which inhibits it and prevents it from being translated into action, Often (in the compulsive character, always) the love impulse is replaced by a hate impulse which, in the depth, pursues the goal of the love impulse but is also inhibited by the same anxiety as the sexual impulse.

At this point, Reich (1972, p. 274) offers a brief dramatic portrayal:

[D]epending upon its genesis and the depth of its function ambivalence has three meanings:
a) “I love you, but I am afraid of being punished for (love-fear).
b) “I hate you because I am not allowed to love you but am afraid of gratifying the hate” (hate-fear).
c) “I don’t know whether I love or hate you” (love-hate)

We will leave our initial exploration of Feldenkrais’ and Reich’s formulations regarding energy and anxiety with this remarkably simple insight regarding the relationships between love, hate and fear. This remarkable three-fold portrayal might serve as the base for an entire theory of interpersonal relationships. At the very least, it can serve as an important diagnostic point in addressing the Tin Man’s ailments.