What do you think?
Rate this book
Guilt: A Contemporary Introduction
This insightful and innovative book sheds light on the complexity of the concept of guilt, while exploring aspects of guilt that have previously been overlooked in psychoanalytic theory and discourse. Offering original insights on the topic, Donald Carveth looks at Freud's failure to distinguish persecutory guilt from reparative guilt, and the superego from the conscience. The significance of these distinctions for both psychosocial theory and clinical practice is explored throughout the volume. Carveth distinguishes varieties of punitive guilt, such as justified, unjustified, "borrowed" or induced, existential and collective. He expertly describes patterns of self-punishment and self-sabotage, while also addressing the widespread use of persecutory guilt and self-punishment as a defence against and evasion of reparative guilt, contrition, and reparation. Throughout the volume, Carveth critically reviews a range of recent contributions to psychoanalytic literature to support his theories. Part of the Routledge Introductions to Contemporary Psychoanalysis series, this book will be of interest to psychoanalysts, psychotherapists, social scientists, and social philosophers, as well as to those studying ethics and theology.
80 pages, Hardcover
Published July 26, 2023
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
November 28, 2023
3.8 stars.
February 9, 2026
Melanie Klein's work has as much ground in love, reparation, gratitude, hope, safety, life’s flourishing tendencies, and mutual development as it does in other grounds, despite the somewhat skewed representations of her work by many.
“In actuality, Klein constantly stressed the crucial importance of good, loving caretaking, for only this can hope to offset the inevitable rage and paranoia resulting from frustration, both that which is basic and unavoidable and the surplus.” – Carveth
This book was like a torch, a compass, a light in a gray and dim room with no sense of direction. I stumbled upon it in late 2025, and I could not be more in need of a meaningful text written and spoken from the heart of existential human experience. The author is a professor of sociology and political theory, a practicing clinician in psychotherapy, and, most importantly, a psychoanalyst, an influential and critical psychoanalytic writer in today’s world of fluid boundaries and unusual splitting, even at the deeper level of scientific thought and philosophy. What makes Carveth stand on another level for me is, first, that he writes critically not to undermine or idealize, but to confront and provide constructive arguments; he is often critical of his own orientation and biases. Second, he does not exaggerate or go to extremes in his criticism to the point of denying, undervaluing, or missing the positive and productively meaningful output of any writer or theorist; in fact, he does as much as a beautiful job in highlighting and providing a clearer perspective on the good thoughts that have had a good impact and value in the development of any scientific or human field he tries to assess or discuss, particularly in psychoanalysis, where many good, perhaps great thoughts of value and distinctions were unfortunately left out or disavowed, whether consciously or unconsciously, and that these pivotal thoughts were a turning points that accumulated in the developmental histories of psychoanalysis and related fields, even reaching to affect other natural fields as well and shaping the reality of contemporary reality testing. In a sense, existentially, there is a profound mismatch between what is being discussed in theory or practice and what one feels or, rather, lives within oneself. And despite all of this, he remains a flawed human being who dares to admit it, and not to idealize him as well.
I’ve been struggling for years –like most of us– with choosing either the side of social determinists or the side of the biological determinists, even tho I sensed deeply from my early days at a younger age and before any thought crystallization, that choosing a side over the other does not reflect the truth or the reality we are experiencing. In short, the feeling “that still there is something quite off about this”. Since my personal discovery of psychoanalysis five years ago, a spark of interest emerged along my original interest in neurological sciences, in which I finally found a possible human vessel to correlate the human reality with the mere abstracted and objective, or what some like to call, hard sciences. The terms “conscience” and “superego” were felt to be obscure and confusing, and in psychoanalytic literature, they were referred to as the same thing.
Carveth, a man speaking from experience – as you can feel in his texts – brings to light one of the most important disavowed contemporary issues: humans possess both good and bad tendencies from the very beginning. And that, although both are rooted in our early existence, he argues that the reparative quality (conscience) is potentially more innate and earlier than the persecutory (superego). Many theorists and writers emphasize the dominance or primacy of one trait over the other, suggesting that either good or bad qualities are inherent and the other is socially constructed, and many behavioural and social experiments took place over the latest ceturies to approve one over the other; weither some feilds concluded that humans are mere “beasts” as we took these traits from “animals”, or with many others refused this accusations and tried to, even succeded, in providing early evidence from experiments of human and animal infants showing an original traits of love and capacity for concern for the other, reflected in the good and productive traits of more coherent and safe and lovely sociaties thrhoughout mammalian species and more largly pronounced with our human traits and moral heretigaes. However, Carveth argues that the common belief—that destructiveness has come to outweigh love in human development—is deeply mistaken and reflects a regression in our recent history, as far as I understand it.
He (Carveth) argues that the same issue with destructiveness as being valued and studied more than love and repair, applies to other important human problems we are splitting and grieving huge mistakes: guilt and shame. Because we are all human, we unconsciously love ourselves and idealize those we believe or perceive as embodying the traits we wish to see in ourselves. That is, because we are all narcissistic and splitting, serious distinctions were left out without naming or calling them out since the very early days of the psychoanalytic field. As this reflects our very human truth of not wanting to bear ambivalence, contradictions, and of daring to confront qualities that might injure our narcissism, we have made mistakes in building upon some halved aspects of these issues (guilt, shame, destructiveness) and have been carried away with it, taking much of our research, discussion, and practice, leaving behind traces of other halved aspects of the same issues (reparative guilt, persecutory superego, innate or id love and connection, etc.) that desrved as much concern and holding environment.
These are some thoughts that have rained on my mind. And whether I got it or not, what really matters is the meaning and value: How are we doing in our supposedly investigative stance toward the real world, more essentially toward ourselves? What have we missed or mistakenly taken for granted as reality or accurate, and how can we confront our faults and flaws that certainly have a role in shaping the current reality we are living, including each one of us with their own selves, life, and work?
Thank you for reading.
“In actuality, Klein constantly stressed the crucial importance of good, loving caretaking, for only this can hope to offset the inevitable rage and paranoia resulting from frustration, both that which is basic and unavoidable and the surplus.” – Carveth
This book was like a torch, a compass, a light in a gray and dim room with no sense of direction. I stumbled upon it in late 2025, and I could not be more in need of a meaningful text written and spoken from the heart of existential human experience. The author is a professor of sociology and political theory, a practicing clinician in psychotherapy, and, most importantly, a psychoanalyst, an influential and critical psychoanalytic writer in today’s world of fluid boundaries and unusual splitting, even at the deeper level of scientific thought and philosophy. What makes Carveth stand on another level for me is, first, that he writes critically not to undermine or idealize, but to confront and provide constructive arguments; he is often critical of his own orientation and biases. Second, he does not exaggerate or go to extremes in his criticism to the point of denying, undervaluing, or missing the positive and productively meaningful output of any writer or theorist; in fact, he does as much as a beautiful job in highlighting and providing a clearer perspective on the good thoughts that have had a good impact and value in the development of any scientific or human field he tries to assess or discuss, particularly in psychoanalysis, where many good, perhaps great thoughts of value and distinctions were unfortunately left out or disavowed, whether consciously or unconsciously, and that these pivotal thoughts were a turning points that accumulated in the developmental histories of psychoanalysis and related fields, even reaching to affect other natural fields as well and shaping the reality of contemporary reality testing. In a sense, existentially, there is a profound mismatch between what is being discussed in theory or practice and what one feels or, rather, lives within oneself. And despite all of this, he remains a flawed human being who dares to admit it, and not to idealize him as well.
I’ve been struggling for years –like most of us– with choosing either the side of social determinists or the side of the biological determinists, even tho I sensed deeply from my early days at a younger age and before any thought crystallization, that choosing a side over the other does not reflect the truth or the reality we are experiencing. In short, the feeling “that still there is something quite off about this”. Since my personal discovery of psychoanalysis five years ago, a spark of interest emerged along my original interest in neurological sciences, in which I finally found a possible human vessel to correlate the human reality with the mere abstracted and objective, or what some like to call, hard sciences. The terms “conscience” and “superego” were felt to be obscure and confusing, and in psychoanalytic literature, they were referred to as the same thing.
Carveth, a man speaking from experience – as you can feel in his texts – brings to light one of the most important disavowed contemporary issues: humans possess both good and bad tendencies from the very beginning. And that, although both are rooted in our early existence, he argues that the reparative quality (conscience) is potentially more innate and earlier than the persecutory (superego). Many theorists and writers emphasize the dominance or primacy of one trait over the other, suggesting that either good or bad qualities are inherent and the other is socially constructed, and many behavioural and social experiments took place over the latest ceturies to approve one over the other; weither some feilds concluded that humans are mere “beasts” as we took these traits from “animals”, or with many others refused this accusations and tried to, even succeded, in providing early evidence from experiments of human and animal infants showing an original traits of love and capacity for concern for the other, reflected in the good and productive traits of more coherent and safe and lovely sociaties thrhoughout mammalian species and more largly pronounced with our human traits and moral heretigaes. However, Carveth argues that the common belief—that destructiveness has come to outweigh love in human development—is deeply mistaken and reflects a regression in our recent history, as far as I understand it.
He (Carveth) argues that the same issue with destructiveness as being valued and studied more than love and repair, applies to other important human problems we are splitting and grieving huge mistakes: guilt and shame. Because we are all human, we unconsciously love ourselves and idealize those we believe or perceive as embodying the traits we wish to see in ourselves. That is, because we are all narcissistic and splitting, serious distinctions were left out without naming or calling them out since the very early days of the psychoanalytic field. As this reflects our very human truth of not wanting to bear ambivalence, contradictions, and of daring to confront qualities that might injure our narcissism, we have made mistakes in building upon some halved aspects of these issues (guilt, shame, destructiveness) and have been carried away with it, taking much of our research, discussion, and practice, leaving behind traces of other halved aspects of the same issues (reparative guilt, persecutory superego, innate or id love and connection, etc.) that desrved as much concern and holding environment.
These are some thoughts that have rained on my mind. And whether I got it or not, what really matters is the meaning and value: How are we doing in our supposedly investigative stance toward the real world, more essentially toward ourselves? What have we missed or mistakenly taken for granted as reality or accurate, and how can we confront our faults and flaws that certainly have a role in shaping the current reality we are living, including each one of us with their own selves, life, and work?
Thank you for reading.
April 16, 2026
N-am înțeles tot, dar ce am înțeles mi-a plăcut (neînsemnând că ce n-am înțeles nu mi-a plăcut).
Vorbește despre vinovăția gestionată de supraeu (cultură) - care e vinovăția persecutorie (primitivă) - și despre vinovăția gestionată de conștiință (natură) - care e vinovăția reparatorie (matură). Despre vinovăția existențială și cea colectivă. Despre vinovăția inconștientă- nu îți dai seama că te simți vinovat și resimți altceva (autosabotaj, angoasă, depresie etc.).
Vinovătia persecutorie e strâns legată de “cultura narcisismului”, ridicarea neoliberalismului și a fundamentalismului de piață.
Mai zice de “amnezia socială” - societatea își amintește tot mai puțin, tot mai superficial, iar semnul distinctiv al epocii este gândirea care a cedat modei.
Și muuulte altele.
Vorbește despre vinovăția gestionată de supraeu (cultură) - care e vinovăția persecutorie (primitivă) - și despre vinovăția gestionată de conștiință (natură) - care e vinovăția reparatorie (matură). Despre vinovăția existențială și cea colectivă. Despre vinovăția inconștientă- nu îți dai seama că te simți vinovat și resimți altceva (autosabotaj, angoasă, depresie etc.).
Vinovătia persecutorie e strâns legată de “cultura narcisismului”, ridicarea neoliberalismului și a fundamentalismului de piață.
Mai zice de “amnezia socială” - societatea își amintește tot mai puțin, tot mai superficial, iar semnul distinctiv al epocii este gândirea care a cedat modei.
Și muuulte altele.
September 30, 2023
Exceptional
I have followed your podcast series that I'm able to access via Audible, all of the episodes. I love your broad and critical perspectives in related subjects including your amendments on Jung whom I'm basing my PhD dissertation on. Psychoanalysis has offered really deeper ways to make life more beautiful, but in today's rapidly changing world, psychoanalysts themselves and sympathizers need to read works like this and go back to what their forebears beginning with Freud were trying to do by their discovery and foundations.
I have followed your podcast series that I'm able to access via Audible, all of the episodes. I love your broad and critical perspectives in related subjects including your amendments on Jung whom I'm basing my PhD dissertation on. Psychoanalysis has offered really deeper ways to make life more beautiful, but in today's rapidly changing world, psychoanalysts themselves and sympathizers need to read works like this and go back to what their forebears beginning with Freud were trying to do by their discovery and foundations.
May 26, 2024
Truly wonderful book, concisely written, fairly accessible considering the complexity of the subject, eye opening. Highly recommended for those with interest in psychoanalysis and psychotherapy.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews