The Mother, Anxiety, and Death
2
BOOK REVIEW THE MOTHER, ANXIETY, AND DEATH. By Joseph C. Rhe ingold. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1967,271 pp. , $9.50. R eviewed by Aaron H. Esman, M.D. The problem of anxiety, as Freud 's 1926 masterpiece was somewhat misleadin gly titled in its first Engli sh edition, is still with us, monu- mental in its scope and tantalizing in its elusiveness. Central as it is to our theoreti cal edifice, we have but a dim understanding of its ont ogeny, and its relationships to those other universals of human experience, bir th and death , have often been specul at ed about but little clarified. It is this last challenge that engages Rh ein gold who sees in the fear of death the origin of all anxiet y and ascribes what he calls "the death complex" to the infant's perception of the ever-present, hostile, mur- der ous impulses of the mother. Considerin g, and dismissing or mini- mizing, ontological expl anations, in stinct psychology, and organic considerat ions, he develops a carefully reasoned thesis that predicates all psychopathological de velopments on the child's defensive struggles against the overwhelming danger of violent extinction . The fear of death is, he suggests, experienced in uter o on a premental level and is certainly present in early postnatal life. Fear of object loss, castra- tion anxiety, and fear of the superego are , Freud to the contrary not- with standing, later elaborations of this basic, primordial anxiety that has its root in the woman 's in ability to offer her infant unambivalent nurturance. Failure to recognize this fact is the consequence of the defenses we all erect against our own death complexes; even Freud Dr. Esman is Director of Training, Jewish Board of Guardians; Lecturer, Columbia University, New York; and a member of the New York Psychoanalytic Society. 161
Transcript of The Mother, Anxiety, and Death
BOOK REVIEW
THE MOTHER, ANXIETY, AND DEATH. By Joseph C. Rheingold.Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1967,271 pp. , $9.50.
R eviewed by Aaron H. Esman, M.D.
The problem of anxiety, as Freud's 1926 masterpiece was somewhatmisleadingly titled in its first English edition, is still with us, monumental in its scope and tantalizing in its elusiveness. Central as it isto our theoretical edifice, we have but a dim understanding of itsontogeny, and its relationships to those other universals of humanexperience, birth and death, have often been specul ated about butlittle clarified.
It is this last challenge that engages Rheingold who sees in the fearof death the origin of all anxiety and ascribes what he calls " the deathcomplex" to the infant's perception of the ever-present, hostile, murderous impulses of the mother. Considering, and dismissing or minimi zing, ontological explan ations, in stinct psychology, and organicconsiderations, he dev elops a carefully reasoned thesis that predicatesall psychopathological developments on the child 's defensive strugglesagainst the overwhelming danger of violent extinction. The fear ofdeath is, he suggests, experienced in utero on a premental level andis certainly present in early postnatal life. Fear of object loss, castration anxiety, and fear of the superego are, Freud to the contrary notwithstanding, later elaborations of this ba sic, primordial anxiety thathas its root in the woman's in ability to offer her infant unambivalentnurturance. Failure to recognize this fact is the consequence of thedefenses we all erect against our own death complexes; even Freud
Dr. Esman is Director of Training, Jewish Board of Guardians; Lecturer, ColumbiaUniversity, New York; and a member of the New York Psychoanalytic Society.
161
162 Book Review
was unable to penetrate this last stronghold of unconscious resistanceand thus missed the essence of phenomena he did so much to clarify.
This, in substance, is Rheingold's argument. It is buttressed by animpressive scholarly apparatus with hundreds of citations of psychoanalytic, neurophysiological, existential, and theological literature.His clinical references are penetrating and persuasive, and his strictures against his scientific colleagues who have tended to deal withthe issue of death by means of massive denial are well taken. His position merits serious attention and judicious consideration.
And yet, one surfaces from the depths to which Rheingold takes uswith an acute sense of discomfort. It is not so much the content of hiscontention as his contentiousness th at troubles. He often verges onthe polemical, if not on the omniscient. As in an y reductionist thesis,he essentially rejects all other determinants, and, in the process, loadsan unbearable burden of guilt on the already bowed back of the"pathogenic" mother. Of course, if he is right, this is simply something that must be borne and rationally dealt with, and science, notsentiment, must be our guide in appraising his formulations.
To his credit, Rheingold seeks to avoid moralizing, eschewing suchterms as "good" and "bad" mother, and seeking to replace the notionof "maternal love" with the concept of "nurturance." He believes th atsuch a view offers a wide scope for primary prevention through educating mothers in proper maternal behavior irrespective of theiraffective attitudes. He may, at least in this, be right; recent work ofBrody and Axelrad also points in this direction.
I do not wish to minimize the importance of Rheingold's ach ievement. H e has produced a substantial book, one that every child psychiatrist will find rewarding and challenging. Yet , despite the impressiveness of his indictment, one is inclined to enter the Scotch verdict: "not proved."
