This psychotherapeutic perspective is not held by Feldenkrais nor the practitioners he trained. Feldenkrais was less concerned with directly healing the wounding heart than with providing clients/patients with the tools needed to move freely and live life in a healthy manner. It is through the “liberation” of the human body that we get on with our life rather than being immobilized in a rigid physical structure. For Feldenkrais, stress is reduced through movement—whatever the source of this stress. If we heal the body, then the healed heart is likely to follow. It is a matter of digging in the dirt (physical movement-oriented therapy) rather than speaking from a balcony (verbally based therapy).

Healing the Heart: Wilhelm Reich

A very controversial (and some would say “mad”) psychoanalyst, Wilhelm Reich provided a very insightful observation about the “Character Armor” that some of us wear as a way to protect against vulnerability. Reich proposed that this armor was contained primarily in our muscular system.

Furthermore, it was a form of psychic defense that contained the history of the patient’s traumas. For example, later in life, Reich attributed Freud’s jaw cancer to his muscular armor, rather than his habit of excessive smoking. He went further, suggesting that Freud, as a Jew living in antisemitic Vienna, was always “biting down” impulses, rather than expressing them. Freud’s armor was thus concentrated in his mouth and throat.

Given this brief background, we are ready to address several questions in this essay: is Reich’s character armor the same that encumbered our beloved Tin Man of Oz? What about the tin women and men of mid-21^st Century life?  Like Sigmund Freud, our Tin Man required some treatment of his joints. However, was the Tin Man more fortunate than Freud in that he got some oil to liberate his armor and could join Dorothy, the scarecrow, cowardly lion and Toto in a mission-quest that would eventually liberate his heart?

These questions are important to ask—even if the Tin Man is a fictious character in Frank Baum’s novels (and Hollywood’s movie). They are important to ask because we see Reich’s character armor in people with whom we associate (and perhaps in ourselves). We observe a pattern of rigid behavior and seeming indifference among many women and men to the interactions of people around them.

It is not that these men and women are sociopaths or hermits living in a cave. They work with and around other people and are often quite effective in getting their work done and monitoring the work of fellow employees. And these folks clearly care about those with whom they live and work – it is just that this caring attitude doesn’t show up very often. Like the Tin Man of Oz, they all have a large heart—but it is encased in their armor.

Character Armor

Character, as Reich uses the term, is equivalent to what today we call “personality.” We now tend to use the term “character” when describing the presence or absence of virtue in the decisions being made and actions taken by someone.  For Reich, it is not a matter of virtue—it is much more a matter of the dynamics operating inside people who are quite rigid in their behavior as well as their values and perspectives on life. To the extent that “virtue” is a part of Reich’s “character armor” it is a virtue that is resistant to any change and is applied indiscriminately (and often with passion and a touch of vengeance) in all situations.