The Refusal of Simplification: Karl Menninger and the Moral Demands of Psychiatry
The Refusal of Simplification: Karl Menninger and the Moral Demands of Psychiatry
The Refusal of Simplification: Karl Menninger and the Moral Demands of Psychiatry
Timothy Lesaca MD
January 18 2026
=============================================
Psychiatry is unavoidably a moral practice. Long before questions of mechanism or measurement arise, the field is asked to respond to human suffering that is disruptive, frightening, or socially consequential. It intervenes where behavior causes harm, where judgment is demanded, and where responsibility is uncertain. Decisions about diagnosis, treatment, hospitalization, and punishment are therefore never purely technical. They are acts taken within a moral field shaped by assumptions about agency, danger, normality, and value.
Throughout the twentieth century, psychiatry repeatedly attempted to narrow this moral exposure. By emphasizing biological causation, standardized classification, or procedural neutrality, the field sought forms of legitimacy that could shield it from ethical ambiguity. These strategies offered clarity and professional authority, but they did not dissolve the underlying problem. Suffering that expresses itself through violence, self-destruction, or social disruption cannot be addressed without engaging questions of meaning and responsibility. Psychiatry could defer these questions, but it could not escape them.
It was within this unsettled terrain that Karl Menninger became one of the most prominent figures in American psychiatry. Over more than four decades of writing and public engagement, Menninger addressed topics that many clinicians preferred to keep at the margins of the field: suicide, aggression, criminal punishment, hatred, guilt, and moral accountability. He did so not as a philosopher offering abstract ethical systems, nor as a technician proposing standardized interventions, but as a physician insisting that psychiatry remain answerable to the human meaning of the suffering it encountered.
Menninger did not construct a unified theoretical framework that can be easily summarized or operationalized. His major works—from The Human Mind (1930) to Whatever Became of Sin? (1973)—span different audiences, genres, and moments in psychiatric history. What gives them coherence is not doctrinal consistency but a recurring orientation: a refusal to treat psychological disturbance as either meaningless pathology or pure moral failure. Instead, Menninger approached destructive behavior as an intelligible response to conflict, development, and social context, even when that behavior caused real harm.
This orientation carried ethical consequences. To insist on meaning was to resist responses grounded solely in condemnation or exclusion. At the same time, Menninger did not argue for the abandonment of responsibility. He rejected both punitive moralism and reductive determinism, attempting instead to hold understanding and accountability in tension. Responsibility, in his view, did not disappear in the presence of psychological conflict; it became more complex and more demanding.
The significance of Menninger’s work lies not in the solutions he offered—many of which were provisional, historically situated, or incomplete—but in the moral demands he placed on psychiatric practice. He insisted that psychiatry could not absolve itself of ethical responsibility by appealing to neutrality, nor could it claim moral authority without engaging the lived realities of those it sought to treat. Whether one accepts or resists his conclusions, his writing forces confrontation with a question that remains unresolved: how should psychiatry respond to human suffering in ways that are both intelligible and humane, responsible and restrained?
This essay examines Menninger’s contribution as an intellectual and moral project rather than a closed system. It situates his work within its historical context, traces the recurring principles that animate his writing, and considers both the reach and the limits of his moral vision. In doing so, it treats Menninger neither as a model to be emulated nor as a figure to be dismissed, but as a consequential voice whose engagement with meaning, responsibility, and care continues to illuminate the enduring moral problem at the center of psychiatric practice.
Karl Menninger’s moral orientation toward psychiatry did not emerge in abstraction. It was shaped by a particular professional lineage, institutional setting, and historical moment—one in which psychiatry was expanding its claims to authority while still negotiating its identity as a medical and social discipline. Understanding the formation of Menninger’s outlook therefore requires attention not only to his ideas, but to the conditions that made those ideas plausible, influential, and consequential.
Menninger was born into a family already embedded in medical practice. His father, a physician, provided an early model of medicine as both technical work and moral calling. This background encouraged an understanding of clinical practice that extended beyond symptom management to questions of responsibility and care. From the outset, Menninger’s conception of psychiatry was oriented less toward specialization than toward integration—of medicine with psychology, and of both with ethical concern.
His medical training coincided with a period in which psychoanalysis was gaining prominence in the United States, offering psychiatry a language for meaning, conflict, and development that biological models alone could not provide. Menninger adopted psychoanalytic concepts pragmatically rather than dogmatically. He drew on them to articulate the intelligibility of mental suffering, particularly where behavior appeared irrational, self-destructive, or socially disruptive. Psychoanalysis, for him, was valuable not primarily as a technique, but as a moral psychology—one that rendered inner life interpretable rather than opaque.
This interpretive orientation found institutional expression in the development of the Menninger Clinic, founded with his father and later expanded into one of the most influential psychiatric centers in the United States. The clinic embodied Menninger’s belief that environment, relationship, and institutional culture were integral to treatment. Unlike custodial models of care that emphasized containment and control, the clinic sought to create a setting in which patients were approached as participants in a therapeutic community rather than as objects of management.
The success and visibility of the Menninger Clinic granted Menninger a degree of authority that extended beyond clinical practice. He became a prominent public intellectual, writing for both professional and general audiences, and addressing issues that many psychiatrists preferred to avoid. His interventions into debates about crime, punishment, education, and war reflected a conviction that psychiatry could not be confined to the consulting room. Psychological suffering, in his view, was inseparable from social conditions, and psychiatric expertise carried obligations that were civic as well as clinical.
This public role, however, also shaped the character of Menninger’s moral engagement. Writing from a position of institutional security and cultural legitimacy, he often spoke with a tone of urgency and confidence that left limited space for sustained dissent. His appeals to shared human meaning presumed a common moral framework, one largely continuous with mid-twentieth-century American professional culture. While this presumption enabled him to address a broad audience, it also structured the boundaries of his analysis, rendering certain experiences more visible than others.
Menninger’s moral vocabulary was expansive but not exhaustive. His writings display deep concern for those labeled deviant, criminal, or mentally ill, yet they rarely foreground the ways in which race, gender, sexuality, and economic power shape psychological suffering. These absences were not unusual for his time, but they are analytically significant. They indicate the limits of a moral psychiatry grounded in universalizing assumptions that were themselves culturally situated.
At the same time, Menninger’s authority insulated him from some of the constraints faced by less prominent clinicians. He could afford to resist narrow specialization and to challenge punitive social practices without risking professional marginalization. This relative independence allowed him to sustain a moral critique of psychiatry’s role in social control, even as he benefited from the very structures of authority that made such critique audible.
The combination of moral seriousness, institutional power, and public legitimacy shaped both the reach and the limitations of Menninger’s work. He was able to insist that psychiatry confront questions of meaning and responsibility at a time when the field was eager to retreat into technical neutrality. Yet the same conditions that enabled his influence also constrained the diversity of perspectives his framework could easily accommodate.
Menninger’s formation, then, cannot be reduced to either personal conviction or historical circumstance alone. His moral vision emerged at the intersection of psychoanalytic thought, medical authority, and mid-century American confidence in professional expertise. To engage his work seriously requires holding these elements together—recognizing both the ethical ambition of his project and the structural conditions that shaped its scope.
One of the most persistent themes in Menninger’s writing is the rejection of mental illness as a categorical break from ordinary human life. Against models that divided populations into the “sane” and the “insane,” the normal and the pathological, he consistently argued for continuity. Psychological disturbance, in his view, differed from mental health by degree rather than by kind. Conflict, anxiety, aggression, and despair were not alien intrusions into an otherwise ordered psyche; they were exaggerated or maladaptive extensions of capacities shared by all.
This position was not merely theoretical. It shaped how Menninger understood diagnosis, treatment, and social response. If mental illness exists along a continuum, then the sharp moral and social boundaries often erected around it lose their justification. Fear-based segregation, permanent exclusion, and moral distancing become difficult to defend once psychological suffering is recognized as a potential within the human condition rather than a marker of otherness.
Menninger developed this view early, most explicitly in The Human Mind, where he described mental life as a dynamic process of adaptation to internal and external demands. Health, on this account, was not a static state but an ongoing capacity to negotiate tension, frustration, and loss. Breakdown occurred not because an individual belonged to a different category of being, but because adaptive capacities were overwhelmed or distorted. The difference between health and illness was therefore quantitative and contextual, not ontological.
The ethical implications of this continuum model were substantial. By collapsing the distance between clinician and patient, Menninger undermined forms of professional detachment that relied on categorical separation. The psychiatrist, no less than the patient, was situated within the same psychological landscape, subject to similar conflicts under different conditions. This recognition carried a demand for humility: clinical authority could not be grounded in exemption from vulnerability.
At the same time, the continuum model challenged social practices that treated mental illness as justification for exclusion or abandonment. If psychological suffering represents a shared human possibility, then stigma becomes difficult to sustain without contradiction. Menninger did not approach stigma primarily as a problem of misinformation; he understood it as a moral failure rooted in denial. To stigmatize mental illness was to refuse recognition of one’s own psychological fragility.
This stance also complicated questions of responsibility. If mental illness is continuous with ordinary mental life, then responsibility cannot be assigned by simply placing individuals on one side of a diagnostic boundary. Instead, responsibility becomes a matter of degree, capacity, and context. Menninger did not deny that individuals remain accountable for their actions, but he resisted frameworks that treated responsibility as an all-or-nothing property. The continuum model required a more discriminating moral judgment—one attentive to limitation without collapsing into excuse.
Yet the very breadth of this model introduced tensions. By emphasizing continuity, Menninger risked underplaying forms of psychological disturbance that appear qualitatively distinct, particularly severe psychosis or profound cognitive disorganization. While he acknowledged these conditions, his moral language was often better suited to conflicts that could be narratively interpreted than to states in which meaning itself was fragmented. The continuum model illuminated much, but it did not illuminate everything equally well.
Moreover, the assumption of a shared psychological framework carried cultural presuppositions. Menninger’s descriptions of conflict, adaptation, and health reflected norms that were presented as universal but were in fact historically and socially situated. Experiences shaped by racialized exclusion, gendered constraint, or economic precarity were more likely to be interpreted through general psychological categories than examined as products of specific power relations. The continuum he described was real, but it was not culturally neutral.
Despite these limitations, Menninger’s insistence on continuity marked a decisive ethical shift. It redirected psychiatric attention away from categorical judgment and toward relational understanding. It required clinicians and institutions to recognize their subjects not as representatives of a deviant class but as participants in a shared human struggle with meaning, frustration, and vulnerability.
This orientation would shape Menninger’s subsequent engagement with destructive behavior, where the stakes of understanding versus judgment became more explicit. If mental illness and health exist along a continuum, then acts of harm and self-destruction cannot be dismissed as incomprehensible aberrations. They must be approached as extreme expressions of conflicts that are, in their less destructive forms, widely distributed across human life.
Menninger’s insistence on continuity between mental health and mental illness reached its most challenging expression in his treatment of destructive behavior. Acts such as suicide, self-injury, aggression, and violence confront psychiatry with a dual demand: to respond to harm and to account for it. Menninger resisted approaches that treated such behavior as either meaningless pathology or irreducible moral failure. Instead, he argued that destructive acts, however damaging, emerge from intelligible psychological processes and therefore demand interpretation rather than dismissal.
In Man Against Himself, Menninger examined suicide not as an irrational impulse or a simple wish for death, but as an action shaped by conflict, ambivalence, and communication. He emphasized that suicidal behavior often expresses multiple, even contradictory, intentions: a desire to escape suffering, an appeal for recognition, an attempt to punish oneself or others, or a final effort to regain control. To acknowledge these meanings was not to romanticize suicide or to minimize its consequences, but to refuse the notion that such acts are beyond understanding.
This interpretive stance extended beyond self-directed harm. Menninger approached aggression and antisocial behavior with similar assumptions. Violence, in his view, was rarely a spontaneous eruption of evil; it was more often the outcome of accumulated frustration, humiliation, and failed adaptation. By situating destructive behavior within a framework of psychological meaning, Menninger challenged responses that relied primarily on condemnation or exclusion. If behavior expresses conflict, then ignoring that conflict ensures its persistence.
Crucially, Menninger did not equate explanation with exoneration. He was explicit that understanding the psychological origins of destructive behavior does not dissolve responsibility. Rather, it transforms the nature of responsibility. Responsibility, on this account, cannot be assigned solely on the basis of outcomes; it must take into account intention, capacity, and context. Menninger thus rejected both punitive moralism and reductive determinism, insisting that neither could support a humane response to harm.
This position placed psychiatry in a difficult role. To interpret destructive behavior as meaningful is to assume obligations that are both clinical and ethical. It requires sustained attention, tolerance of ambiguity, and willingness to engage suffering that may be hostile or frightening. Menninger was clear that such engagement is demanding and often resisted, not only by society but by professionals themselves. Dismissing behavior as senseless or purely criminal offers emotional relief; interpretation does not.
At the same time, Menninger’s emphasis on meaning exposed psychiatry to criticism. Critics argued that interpreting destructive behavior risked minimizing its impact on victims or diluting social norms. Menninger responded indirectly by maintaining a distinction between understanding motives and evaluating consequences. Meaning does not neutralize harm, nor does it dictate leniency. It provides the conditions under which response can be proportionate rather than reflexive.
There were, however, limits to this approach. Menninger’s interpretive framework was most effective where behavior could be integrated into a narrative of conflict and development. In cases of severe psychosis, profound cognitive impairment, or extreme disorganization, the attribution of meaning became more tentative. While Menninger acknowledged these limits, his writing sometimes conveyed greater confidence in interpretability than the clinical reality could sustain. The moral demand to understand occasionally outpaced the available tools for doing so.
Moreover, the search for meaning was not immune to cultural assumptions. Interpretations of destructive behavior often relied on normative expectations about family structure, sexuality, productivity, and social conformity. When behavior deviated from these norms, psychological explanation sometimes functioned to normalize rather than to interrogate the norms themselves. In this way, the attribution of meaning could simultaneously humanize and constrain.
Despite these tensions, Menninger’s refusal to treat destructive behavior as meaningless marked a significant ethical intervention. It challenged psychiatry to confront its own impulses toward avoidance and moral simplification. By insisting that even the most troubling behaviors arise within a field of human meaning, Menninger positioned understanding not as a luxury or indulgence, but as a prerequisite for any response that claims to be humane.
This insistence would lead Menninger to confront directly the dangers of judgment untempered by psychological comprehension. If destructive behavior is meaningful, then moral certainty detached from understanding becomes not merely inadequate, but ethically hazardous. It is to this problem—judgment without understanding—that his work repeatedly returned.
Menninger returned repeatedly to the problem of judgment—not because he sought to abolish it, but because he regarded it as ethically dangerous when severed from psychological understanding. In his view, judgment rendered without comprehension does not merely risk error; it risks cruelty. Moral certainty, when insulated from inquiry into motive, capacity, and context, becomes a mechanism for distancing rather than responsibility.
This concern was most clearly articulated in Whatever Became of Sin?, where Menninger examined what he perceived as a growing confusion in society’s handling of moral accountability. He argued that traditional moral language had not disappeared so much as it had been displaced, leaving behind punitive instincts that operated without reflective grounding. Judgment persisted, but understanding often did not. The result, in his view, was not moral clarity but moral incoherence.
Menninger did not advocate the elimination of responsibility. On the contrary, he insisted that responsibility remains central to any meaningful ethical response. What he challenged was the tendency to treat responsibility as self-evident and uniform. Responsibility, as he understood it, was not a fixed property that could be assigned without reference to psychological development, emotional regulation, and situational constraint. To hold someone responsible without asking what capacities were available to them at the moment of action was, for Menninger, to engage in a form of moral abstraction.
This position placed him in tension with both legal and moral traditions that rely on clear thresholds of culpability. Menninger did not deny the necessity of such thresholds for social functioning, but he regarded them as blunt instruments. They simplify in order to act. Psychiatry, however, had a different obligation. Its task was not to enforce norms efficiently, but to illuminate the conditions under which behavior arises. When psychiatry adopted the language of judgment without undertaking this illumination, it abdicated its distinctive responsibility.
Menninger was particularly concerned with the emotional satisfactions that judgment provides. Condemnation can restore a sense of order, affirm shared norms, and relieve anxiety by locating danger outside the self. These functions, while psychologically understandable, troubled him. He argued that judgment often serves the needs of those who judge more than the needs of those judged, especially when it substitutes for engagement with underlying causes.
At the same time, Menninger resisted the opposite error: dissolving responsibility into explanation. He was wary of frameworks that treated behavior as the inevitable outcome of forces beyond individual influence. Such approaches, he believed, risked eroding moral agency and undermining the possibility of change. Responsibility, in his account, was not negated by understanding; it was reconfigured. To understand the constraints on agency was not to deny agency altogether, but to define it more realistically.
This balancing act—between condemnation and excuse—was central to Menninger’s moral vision. He rejected moral absolutism that treated wrongdoing as evidence of inherent defect, but he also rejected moral nihilism that treated values as irrelevant to psychological life. Ethics, for Menninger, required psychological depth. Without such depth, moral response became either punitive or evasive.
Yet this insistence on understanding introduced its own tensions. Menninger’s confidence in psychological interpretation sometimes functioned as an alternative form of authority, one that could displace other moral perspectives rather than engage them. When psychological explanation was treated as the privileged lens through which all behavior must be viewed, disagreement could be reframed as ignorance rather than difference. Judgment without understanding was dangerous, but understanding without reflexivity carried risks as well.
Nevertheless, Menninger’s core claim remains significant: that ethical response cannot be reduced to rule application or emotional reaction. Judgment, to be humane, must be informed by an effort to understand the human processes that give rise to action. This does not guarantee correct outcomes, but it constrains the kinds of responses that can plausibly claim moral legitimacy.
The implications of this position extend beyond individual cases. They shape how institutions respond to deviance, how societies assign blame, and how psychiatry understands its own authority. If judgment is ethically hazardous without understanding, then systems built primarily around judgment—whether legal, clinical, or administrative—require continuous scrutiny. Menninger’s work thus challenges psychiatry not only to refine its techniques, but to examine the moral assumptions embedded in its practices.
This emphasis on ethical restraint and psychological depth would inform Menninger’s approach to treatment itself. If understanding must precede judgment, then care cannot be reduced to procedure. It must take place within relationships capable of sustaining inquiry, ambiguity, and respect. The relational dimension of treatment therefore became central to his conception of psychiatric practice.
For Menninger, treatment was not primarily a matter of technique. While he did not reject diagnostic frameworks or therapeutic methods, he consistently treated them as secondary to the quality of the relationship between clinician and patient. Long before empirical research formalized the importance of therapeutic alliance, Menninger assumed that the tone, posture, and ethical stance of the clinician were themselves central components of care.
This assumption followed directly from his broader moral orientation. If psychological suffering is meaningful rather than arbitrary, and if responsibility is complex rather than absolute, then treatment must be responsive rather than corrective. Menninger resisted models of care that positioned the clinician as an enforcer of normality or a technician applying standardized interventions to deviant behavior. Instead, he emphasized curiosity, respect, and sustained engagement as conditions under which change could occur.
Menninger’s writings repeatedly return to the idea that how one listens matters as much as what one does. Dismissiveness, impatience, or moral certainty on the part of the clinician were not merely interpersonal failures; they were clinical interventions with predictable consequences. A patient treated as an object of management rather than as a subject of experience was unlikely to develop the trust necessary for therapeutic work. In this sense, Menninger understood relationship not as an adjunct to treatment, but as its medium.
This relational emphasis shaped the institutional culture of the Menninger Clinic, where environment, staff interactions, and daily routines were considered integral to therapeutic effect. The clinic sought to create conditions in which patients were addressed as persons embedded in a social world rather than isolated bearers of symptoms. Treatment extended beyond the consulting room into the rhythms of communal life, reinforcing the idea that psychological health is inseparable from relational participation.
At the same time, Menninger’s relational model did not imply symmetry. The therapeutic relationship remained structured by professional authority, and Menninger did not challenge this hierarchy in principle. Care, in his framework, was benevolent but paternalistic. The clinician’s responsibility was to understand and guide; the patient’s task was to engage and respond. While this model humanized care relative to custodial or punitive approaches, it also reflected assumptions about expertise and authority that went largely unexamined.
This asymmetry became more pronounced as Menninger’s influence grew. His confidence in the moral aims of psychiatry sometimes left limited space for questioning the clinician’s interpretive authority. When understanding was defined primarily through professional lenses, alternative interpretations—whether from patients themselves or from marginalized perspectives—could be subordinated rather than integrated. The relational ideal, while humane in intent, was not immune to the dynamics of power.
Nevertheless, Menninger’s insistence on relationship marked a departure from impersonal models of care that prioritized efficiency or control. He understood that treatment unfolds within an interpersonal field shaped by trust, vulnerability, and expectation. Techniques could be taught and protocols could be refined, but the ethical quality of engagement could not be standardized without loss.
This view also informed Menninger’s resistance to narrowly outcome-driven definitions of success. Symptom reduction mattered, but it was not sufficient. Treatment aimed at restoring the patient’s capacity to participate in relationships, tolerate frustration, and find meaning within social life. These goals could not be achieved through procedure alone; they required sustained human engagement.
The relational conception of treatment thus reflected Menninger’s broader moral vision: care grounded in understanding, exercised with responsibility, and oriented toward the restoration of human connection. Yet it also carried limitations rooted in its historical context and institutional structure—limitations that would become more visible as psychiatry confronted questions of social power and collective responsibility.
It was in this broader social dimension that Menninger extended his moral psychiatry beyond the clinic, insisting that psychological suffering could not be disentangled from the conditions in which people live. To address suffering responsibly, psychiatry would have to look beyond individual pathology to the social environments that shape it.
Menninger consistently resisted efforts to confine psychiatry to the treatment of isolated individuals. He argued that psychological suffering cannot be adequately understood without attention to the social environments in which it develops. War, poverty, humiliation, neglect, and institutionalized violence were not peripheral concerns to psychiatry; they were central determinants of mental health. To focus exclusively on individual pathology while ignoring these conditions was, in his view, both clinically shortsighted and ethically evasive.
This conviction was evident in Menninger’s public writings, particularly Love Against Hate, where he addressed hatred and aggression as social phenomena rather than merely personal failings. He regarded large-scale violence not as an aberration produced by a few pathological individuals, but as an expression of collective psychological processes shaped by fear, deprivation, and moral disorganization. Psychiatry, therefore, had a responsibility to engage with cultural norms and political practices that fostered such conditions.
Menninger’s extension of psychiatric concern into the social sphere challenged prevailing professional boundaries. Many clinicians were uneasy with psychiatry’s involvement in questions of war, education, or criminal justice, viewing these domains as outside the proper scope of medical expertise. Menninger rejected this compartmentalization. He argued that psychiatry’s claim to understand human motivation carried obligations that could not be selectively applied. If social structures routinely produced psychological harm, psychiatry could not responsibly ignore them.
At the same time, Menninger’s approach to social critique reflected the assumptions of his historical moment. He tended to frame social pathology in terms of generalized moral failure—hatred, fear, loss of conscience—rather than in terms of specific systems of power. Structural racism, gendered exclusion, and economic exploitation were not central analytic categories in his work. Social suffering was often treated as the cumulative outcome of individual conflicts rather than as the predictable product of entrenched inequalities.
This framing allowed Menninger to speak broadly and persuasively about moral responsibility, but it also limited the precision of his social analysis. By emphasizing shared human tendencies toward aggression and denial, he sometimes obscured the ways in which suffering is distributed unevenly across populations. The social world he described was real, but it was flattened, its asymmetries under-theorized.
Nevertheless, Menninger’s insistence that psychiatry engage with social conditions marked an important departure from clinical isolation. He understood that no amount of individual treatment could compensate for environments that systematically undermine psychological stability. A society that normalizes humiliation, violence, or neglect, he argued, will inevitably generate mental suffering, regardless of the sophistication of its therapeutic techniques.
This perspective also informed his skepticism toward purely technical solutions to mental health problems. Advances in diagnosis or treatment could alleviate suffering at the margins, but they could not address the sources of distress embedded in social organization. Menninger therefore regarded preventive efforts—particularly those focused on childhood, education, and community stability—as ethical imperatives rather than optional enhancements to care.
Yet here again, his moral seriousness carried tensions. Menninger often spoke with confidence about what society ought to do, but less frequently about who should decide how such changes are pursued. His critique of social harm did not always include mechanisms for democratic deliberation or pluralistic disagreement. Psychiatry’s moral voice, in his writing, sometimes risked speaking for society rather than engaging with it.
Despite these limitations, Menninger’s expansion of psychiatry’s scope remains consequential. He challenged the field to recognize that its ethical responsibilities extend beyond the relief of individual symptoms to the conditions that shape psychological life more broadly. In doing so, he refused the comfort of professional neutrality and insisted that psychiatry confront its place within a larger moral and social order.
This concern with society’s response to harm would find its most provocative expression in Menninger’s critique of punishment. If social institutions respond to wrongdoing in ways that satisfy emotion rather than promote understanding or change, then psychiatry has reason to question not only individual behavior, but the moral psychology of justice itself.
Menninger’s most direct confrontation with institutionalized judgment appears in The Crime of Punishment, where his moral psychiatry turns explicitly toward the practices of criminal justice. Here, the tension between understanding and condemnation becomes structural rather than interpersonal. The question is no longer how a clinician responds to a patient, but how a society responds to those who have caused harm.
Menninger approached punishment not primarily as a legal or deterrent mechanism, but as a psychological act. He argued that punitive systems often function less to prevent future harm than to satisfy collective emotional needs—anger, fear, and the desire for retribution. Punishment, on this account, is expressive before it is corrective. It reassures society that boundaries have been restored and that wrongdoing has been symbolically contained.
This psychological interpretation did not deny the reality of harm or the necessity of social response. Menninger acknowledged that societies must protect themselves and that some form of accountability is unavoidable. What he questioned was whether punishment, as conventionally practiced, actually served the ends it claimed. If punitive measures neither rehabilitate nor deter reliably, their persistence demands explanation. Menninger located that explanation in the emotional life of those who punish.
From this perspective, punishment becomes a way of externalizing conflict. By locating wrongdoing in a deviant individual and imposing suffering in response, society avoids confronting the broader conditions that contribute to harm. Punishment simplifies moral complexity by converting it into a binary of offender and offended, guilty and innocent. For Menninger, this simplification was psychologically understandable but ethically insufficient.
His critique was particularly sharp in its attention to the moral language surrounding punishment. Concepts such as justice, desert, and accountability, he argued, often functioned as rationalizations rather than analyses. They provided a vocabulary that masked emotional impulses while preserving their effects. In this sense, Menninger treated punitive systems as psychological defenses enacted at the level of institutions.
At the same time, Menninger was careful not to substitute sentimentality for judgment. He did not argue that all offenders should be excused or that consequences were unnecessary. Rather, he insisted that consequences should be oriented toward change rather than retaliation. If the goal of social response is to reduce harm, then systems that prioritize suffering over understanding must be scrutinized, regardless of how morally satisfying they appear.
This position placed Menninger at odds with prevailing assumptions about justice. It challenged the idea that punishment is self-justifying or inherently moral. It also unsettled the belief that moral outrage, once aroused, provides reliable guidance for policy. Menninger’s analysis suggested that outrage, like fear, is a psychological state that requires interpretation rather than automatic endorsement.
There were, however, limits to his critique. Menninger’s focus on emotional motivation sometimes underplayed the political and economic dimensions of punishment. Carceral systems are not sustained solely by affect; they are embedded in structures of power, profit, and social control. By emphasizing psychological dynamics, Menninger risked treating punishment as a collective emotional failure rather than as a system with material beneficiaries and entrenched interests.
Moreover, his alternative vision—emphasizing rehabilitation, understanding, and prevention—relied heavily on the assumption that institutions could be redesigned to reflect humane intentions. This optimism, while ethically compelling, underestimated the resistance of systems organized around control and exclusion. Moral insight alone proved insufficient to transform practices rooted in fear and inequality.
Despite these limitations, Menninger’s critique remains instructive. It reframes punishment not as a neutral necessity but as a moral practice with psychological consequences. By asking what punishment does emotionally, rather than what it claims to do morally, he exposed a gap between intention and effect that continues to shape debates about justice.
This analysis also reinforced a broader theme in Menninger’s work: that institutions, like individuals, can act defensively. They can avoid understanding by resorting to certainty, and they can mistake emotional relief for ethical resolution. Psychiatry, if it is to remain morally serious, cannot collude with such avoidance without abandoning its own claims to understanding.
The question then becomes how psychiatry organizes its own tools—particularly diagnosis—without reproducing similar forms of closure. If punishment can become a way of ending inquiry, so too can diagnostic labeling. Menninger was acutely aware of this risk, and it shaped his cautious approach to psychiatric classification.
Although Menninger made extensive use of diagnostic language, he regarded it as a provisional tool rather than a definitive account of the person. Diagnosis, in his view, was justified only insofar as it organized care and preserved inquiry. When labels hardened into explanations, they ceased to be clinically useful and became obstacles to understanding.
Menninger was writing at a time when psychiatric diagnosis lacked the formalized structure it would later acquire, yet he anticipated many of the concerns that would emerge alongside increasingly standardized classification systems. He worried that diagnostic categories, once established, tend to acquire an authority that exceeds their evidentiary basis. What begins as a descriptive shorthand can become a substitute for curiosity, encouraging clinicians to treat categories as causes rather than as summaries.
This concern was not abstract. Menninger observed that once a person was identified with a diagnosis, subsequent interactions were often filtered through that label. Behavior that might otherwise prompt inquiry became predictable, even expected. The diagnosis explained in advance what the person would do, think, or feel, and in doing so relieved the clinician of the obligation to remain open to surprise. Understanding stalled not because knowledge had been achieved, but because inquiry had been foreclosed.
For Menninger, this foreclosure carried ethical implications. To reduce a person to a diagnostic identity was to narrow the field of moral recognition. The individual became representative of a category rather than a subject with a distinctive history and set of conflicts. Care risked becoming procedural rather than responsive, guided by protocols rather than by engagement with the particularities of a life.
At the same time, Menninger did not reject diagnosis altogether. He recognized its practical necessity in communication, research, and institutional organization. His critique was directed not at classification as such, but at its misuse. Diagnosis should orient the clinician toward certain questions, not provide their answers in advance. When labels functioned as endpoints rather than starting points, they undermined the very understanding psychiatry claimed to pursue.
This skepticism toward diagnostic closure reflected Menninger’s broader resistance to moral simplification. Just as punishment could serve to end inquiry into the causes of harm, diagnosis could serve to end inquiry into the person who suffered. In both cases, certainty replaced engagement, and explanation displaced relationship.
Menninger’s caution also extended to the social consequences of diagnostic labeling. Once diagnoses circulate beyond clinical settings, they can shape identity, expectation, and stigma. Categories intended to facilitate care may become markers of difference that justify exclusion or diminished responsibility. Menninger was attentive to this risk, even if his analysis did not fully anticipate the scale at which diagnostic labels would later operate within bureaucratic systems.
There were, however, limits to his position. Menninger’s emphasis on individual understanding sometimes underplayed the benefits of diagnostic standardization, particularly for populations historically denied access to care. Shared categories can facilitate recognition, resource allocation, and advocacy. His critique of labels was grounded in concern for curiosity, but it did not fully address the ways in which diagnostic language can also function as a tool of inclusion.
Nevertheless, Menninger’s insistence that diagnosis remain subordinate to understanding remains ethically salient. It challenges psychiatry to ask whether its classificatory practices expand or contract the space of moral recognition. Labels can clarify, but they can also obscure. For Menninger, the task was not to eliminate diagnostic language, but to prevent it from replacing the attentive, interpretive stance that gives psychiatric practice its moral legitimacy.
This concern with language and meaning led Menninger to address directly the place of moral concepts within psychiatry. Rather than eliminating terms such as guilt, conscience, or responsibility, he argued that psychiatry needed to engage them more carefully. The problem, as he saw it, was not that moral language existed, but that it had been either wielded unreflectively or abandoned altogether.
Menninger was unusual among psychiatrists of his generation in his willingness to engage explicitly with moral language. At a time when psychiatry increasingly sought legitimacy through scientific neutrality, he resisted the wholesale abandonment of concepts such as guilt, conscience, and responsibility. His concern was not that these terms were imprecise, but that their disappearance left psychiatry ill-equipped to address questions of meaning and choice that patients continued to experience as central to their suffering.
In Whatever Became of Sin?, Menninger argued that psychiatry had not so much eliminated moral judgment as displaced it. Traditional moral vocabularies were often rejected as archaic or punitive, yet the underlying impulses toward blame and condemnation persisted in less examined forms. Moral judgment did not vanish; it reappeared disguised as diagnosis, risk assessment, or administrative decision-making. The problem, in his view, was not the presence of moral evaluation, but its lack of transparency.
Menninger’s defense of moral language was therefore not a call to restore older frameworks of sin or moral failing. He did not advocate a return to religious or legalistic models of judgment. Instead, he argued for reinterpretation. Concepts like guilt and conscience, he suggested, could be understood psychologically—as indicators of internal conflict, social learning, and moral development—rather than as evidence of intrinsic defect. Properly understood, moral language could deepen clinical understanding rather than foreclose it.
This position reflected Menninger’s broader effort to hold meaning and responsibility together. Without moral language, psychiatry risked reducing human action to symptom expression alone. Such reduction, he believed, stripped experience of its ethical dimension and left patients without a vocabulary for agency or accountability. To treat guilt merely as a symptom to be eliminated was to miss its role in signaling violated values or unresolved conflict.
At the same time, Menninger was acutely aware of the dangers associated with moral judgment. He repeatedly warned that guilt could be imposed externally in ways that exacerbate suffering rather than promote reflection. Shame, humiliation, and coercive moralizing, in his view, were incompatible with care. The task was not to reassert moral authority over patients, but to engage the moral meanings already present in their experience.
This nuanced position placed Menninger between competing tendencies within psychiatry. On one side stood approaches that sought to purge moral language entirely, treating it as an obstacle to scientific credibility. On the other stood approaches that retained moral judgment without psychological depth, relying on condemnation rather than understanding. Menninger rejected both. He insisted that moral concepts could not be eliminated from psychiatric practice without distortion, but that they must be handled with restraint and interpretive care.
Yet here again, the scope of Menninger’s moral vocabulary was shaped by its context. The moral concepts he sought to rehabilitate were largely drawn from dominant cultural traditions, and he did not systematically address how moral language itself can function as a vehicle of exclusion. Norms surrounding sexuality, family, productivity, and conformity often entered psychological interpretation without being named as such. Moral language could illuminate experience, but it could also reproduce unexamined assumptions.
Despite these limitations, Menninger’s insistence on retaining moral language remains significant. It challenges psychiatry to acknowledge that questions of right and wrong, responsibility and repair, are not extraneous to mental health. They are part of how individuals understand themselves and their actions. To refuse engagement with these questions is not to achieve neutrality, but to abandon a central dimension of human meaning.
This concern with moral engagement also shaped Menninger’s emphasis on prevention. If psychological suffering is bound up with moral development and social context, then the most responsible psychiatric intervention may occur long before crisis or diagnosis. Prevention, for Menninger, was not merely pragmatic; it was an ethical obligation.
Menninger regarded prevention as one of psychiatry’s most neglected moral obligations. While treatment addressed suffering after it had become acute, prevention confronted the conditions under which suffering emerged in the first place. For Menninger, the ethical priority of prevention followed directly from his understanding of mental health as a developmental and relational capacity rather than a static state. If psychological breakdown reflects failures of adaptation over time, then waiting to intervene only after collapse represented not prudence, but abdication.
His emphasis on prevention was particularly focused on childhood. Menninger argued that early environments—shaped by caregiving, education, social stability, and exposure to violence or neglect—play a decisive role in psychological development. Interventions that support emotional regulation, secure attachment, and social participation during formative years, he believed, were more humane and effective than efforts to remediate entrenched pathology later in life.
This focus was not merely pragmatic. Menninger framed prevention as an ethical demand rooted in responsibility to future persons. To invest resources only in crisis response while neglecting the conditions that make crisis likely was, in his view, a failure of moral imagination. Societies that tolerate environments of chronic insecurity, humiliation, or deprivation should not be surprised when psychological suffering becomes widespread.
Menninger’s preventive vision extended beyond individual families to broader social institutions. Schools, workplaces, and communities were sites of moral formation as well as social organization. Policies that normalized competition without care, discipline without understanding, or authority without accountability contributed to psychological strain. Psychiatry, he argued, had a role to play in naming these dynamics, even when doing so exceeded the comfort zone of clinical practice.
At the same time, Menninger’s approach to prevention reflected the limits of his framework. He often spoke in general terms about healthy development and moral education, assuming a shared understanding of what such health entailed. The diversity of cultural values and family structures received limited attention, and prevention was sometimes framed in ways that risked conflating psychological well-being with conformity to dominant norms. While his concern was humane, its application was not immune to paternalism.
Moreover, Menninger’s confidence in preventive intervention rested on an optimistic view of institutional capacity. He assumed that social systems could be reorganized in ways that reliably promote psychological health if guided by moral insight. This assumption underestimated the complexity of political, economic, and cultural forces that shape policy. Prevention requires not only knowledge of harm but sustained commitment to equity, a dimension that remained underdeveloped in his analysis.
Despite these limitations, Menninger’s insistence on prevention retains ethical force. It challenges psychiatry to consider whether its priorities reflect convenience rather than responsibility. Crisis-driven systems may be efficient, but they are rarely just. By emphasizing prevention, Menninger reframed mental health not as a specialized service for the afflicted, but as a collective project shaped by how societies organize care, education, and opportunity.
This forward-looking orientation also informed Menninger’s understanding of mental health itself. If the goal of psychiatry is not merely to eliminate symptoms but to support the conditions of human flourishing, then mental health must be defined expansively. It is not enough to ask whether distress has been reduced; one must ask whether life has become more livable.
Menninger’s definition of mental health resisted reduction to the absence of symptoms or the achievement of emotional equilibrium. In The Vital Balance, he described health as a functional and relational capacity: the ability to live, to work, to love, to tolerate frustration, and to participate meaningfully in social life. This definition shifted the focus of psychiatry away from diagnostic endpoints and toward the lived realities of persons over time.
By framing mental health as a capacity rather than a state, Menninger emphasized adaptability. Psychological health did not imply freedom from conflict or distress; it implied the ability to engage conflict without collapse. Frustration, loss, and disappointment were not signs of pathology but ordinary features of human life. Mental health consisted in the capacity to encounter these experiences without being overwhelmed or compelled toward destructive response.
This conception aligned with Menninger’s broader moral orientation. If health is the capacity to live, then psychiatric care cannot be evaluated solely by symptom reduction. A person may meet diagnostic criteria for improvement while remaining socially isolated, economically marginal, or emotionally disengaged. Conversely, a person may continue to experience distress while functioning meaningfully within relationships and responsibilities. Menninger’s definition allowed for this complexity without collapsing into relativism.
The emphasis on livability also reinforced the relational nature of health. To live well is not merely to manage one’s internal states; it is to participate in shared practices and social worlds. Work, family, and community were not peripheral to mental health but constitutive of it. Psychiatry, therefore, had to attend to the conditions that enable such participation rather than focusing narrowly on intrapsychic change.
At the same time, Menninger’s conception of health reflected normative assumptions about what constitutes a meaningful life. His emphasis on work, family, and social contribution mirrored dominant cultural ideals of his era. While these ideals resonated with many, they did not encompass the full diversity of human experience. Lives structured differently—by choice or by constraint—were at risk of being measured against standards that were presented as universal.
This normative dimension did not invalidate Menninger’s insight, but it placed limits on its applicability. The capacity to live cannot be defined independently of social context, and social contexts vary widely. A moral psychiatry attentive to livability must therefore remain open to plural accounts of what living well entails. Menninger gestured toward this openness, but he did not fully develop it.
Nevertheless, his insistence on livability as the measure of mental health remains a corrective to reductionist models. It challenges psychiatry to consider whether its interventions expand or contract the possibilities of a person’s life. Health, on this view, is not a matter of internal order alone, but of sustained engagement with the world.
This expansive definition also sharpened the ethical stakes of psychiatric practice. If the goal of care is to support the capacity to live, then psychiatry must examine whether its practices inadvertently restrict that capacity through stigma, coercion, or narrow expectations. Treatment that achieves symptom control at the cost of autonomy or dignity may succeed technically while failing ethically.
Menninger’s conception of mental health thus brings together the central elements of his moral vision: meaning, responsibility, and care oriented toward lived possibility rather than abstract normality. Yet it also exposes the tensions inherent in any attempt to define health across diverse lives and social conditions.
These tensions become particularly salient when considering the limits of Menninger’s framework. While his work offers enduring insights, it is neither complete nor immune to critique. To engage his moral vision responsibly requires acknowledging not only what it illuminates, but what it leaves insufficiently examined.
Menninger’s moral vision of psychiatry was ambitious in scope and serious in intent. It sought to hold together understanding and responsibility, care and accountability, individual suffering and social obligation. Yet the very breadth of this vision depended on assumptions that warrant careful examination. To engage Menninger’s work critically is not to dismiss its ethical force, but to attend to the conditions under which it operated and the limits those conditions imposed.
A central feature of Menninger’s influence was authority—professional, institutional, and cultural. His position within American psychiatry afforded him a platform from which he could speak not only about clinical practice but about society’s moral failures more broadly. This authority enabled his critiques of punishment, stigma, and neglect to reach audiences far beyond the clinic. At the same time, it shaped the manner in which his moral claims were articulated and received.
Menninger often wrote as though the moral framework he employed was broadly shared. His appeals to responsibility, conscience, and meaning presumed a common orientation toward value and obligation. This presumption allowed him to argue forcefully against cruelty and exclusion, but it also functioned as a form of universalism that left limited room for moral disagreement rooted in cultural difference. Experiences that did not align with the dominant norms embedded in his framework were less likely to appear as sources of insight than as problems to be interpreted.
This universalizing tendency was not unique to Menninger; it characterized much mid-twentieth-century professional discourse. Nonetheless, its effects are analytically significant. When moral frameworks are treated as self-evident, the perspectives they exclude can become invisible. Menninger’s concern for the marginalized was genuine, yet it was often mediated through representation rather than participation. He spoke about those who suffered more often than with them, and the authority of interpretation remained largely in professional hands.
These dynamics were particularly evident in the relative absence of sustained engagement with race, sexuality, and structural inequality in his work. While Menninger addressed social harm in general terms, he rarely examined how power operates unevenly across populations or how psychological suffering is shaped by historically specific forms of exclusion. The moral vocabulary he employed—while expansive—did not systematically interrogate the norms it presupposed. As a result, certain forms of suffering were rendered legible primarily through dominant cultural lenses.
This is not a matter of individual prejudice so much as structural limitation. Menninger’s framework reflected the horizons of his professional and social milieu. His emphasis on shared humanity countered dehumanization, but it also risked flattening difference. Universality, in this sense, functioned both as an ethical resource and as a constraint.
Authority also shaped the internal dynamics of Menninger’s institutional influence. The moral seriousness that characterized his work did not always extend to reflexive examination of power. His confidence in psychological understanding sometimes foreclosed sustained dissent, particularly within institutions he helped define. While he critiqued punitive authority in society at large, he was less attentive to the ways in which benevolent authority can limit pluralism and contestation.
These tensions do not negate Menninger’s contributions, but they complicate them. They suggest that moral psychiatry, when grounded in professional authority, must attend not only to the ethics of judgment and care but also to the ethics of voice and inclusion. Understanding can humanize, but it can also dominate if it is insulated from challenge.
Engaging Menninger’s work today therefore requires distinguishing between the moral demands he articulated and the universality he sometimes assumed. His insistence that psychiatry confront meaning, responsibility, and care remains compelling. At the same time, his framework must be situated within a broader ethical conversation—one that recognizes the plurality of moral experience and the necessity of shared authority in defining humane response.
The question that follows is not whether Menninger’s moral vision should be adopted or rejected wholesale, but how it has been absorbed, transformed, or diluted in contemporary psychiatric practice. To assess his legacy requires examining what remains unresolved in the moral life of psychiatry itself.
Menninger’s influence on psychiatry is difficult to trace precisely, not because it was minor, but because it has been partially absorbed, partially displaced, and partially obscured by later developments. Many of the positions he advanced—continuity between health and illness, the centrality of therapeutic relationship, skepticism toward punitive responses, and attention to social determinants—are now widely endorsed in principle. Yet the moral urgency with which he framed these positions is less evident in contemporary practice.
In the decades following Menninger’s most active period, psychiatry increasingly oriented itself toward standardization, risk management, and measurable outcomes. Diagnostic systems became more formalized, treatment protocols more tightly specified, and institutional accountability more closely tied to efficiency and compliance. These developments addressed real needs, including consistency of care and protection against arbitrariness. They also altered the moral texture of psychiatric practice.
Within this landscape, Menninger’s emphasis on meaning and responsibility survives unevenly. The language of trauma, social context, and relational care remains prominent, but it often functions as a supplement to systems primarily organized around classification and management. Understanding is acknowledged as important, yet it is frequently subordinated to procedural demands. Moral reflection persists, but it is rarely foregrounded as a defining feature of the field.
Menninger’s critique of punishment remains particularly resonant, even as its implications remain largely unrealized. Contemporary debates about incarceration, rehabilitation, and restorative justice echo many of his concerns about the emotional satisfactions of retribution and the limits of deterrence. At the same time, the scale and complexity of modern carceral systems reveal the insufficiency of moral critique alone. Where Menninger emphasized psychological insight, contemporary analysis must also attend to political economy, institutional inertia, and structural inequality.
Similarly, his preventive vision has been widely endorsed rhetorically while remaining underdeveloped in practice. Early intervention, childhood support, and attention to social determinants are now standard components of mental health discourse. Yet investment continues to favor crisis response over structural reform. Menninger’s claim that prevention is an ethical obligation rather than a cost-saving strategy remains more aspirational than operative.
Perhaps the most enduring aspect of Menninger’s legacy lies in his refusal to allow psychiatry to present itself as morally neutral. Even when his specific formulations appear dated or incomplete, his insistence that psychiatric practice entails ethical responsibility continues to challenge contemporary assumptions. The question is no longer whether psychiatry has a moral dimension—it does—but whether that dimension is acknowledged, examined, and shared.
At the same time, Menninger’s limitations have become more visible with historical distance. His framework did not adequately address the ways in which power, exclusion, and inequality shape psychological suffering. Contemporary psychiatry, informed by perspectives from social theory, public health, and lived experience, has begun to articulate concerns that fall outside Menninger’s analytic horizon. These developments do not negate his work, but they situate it as one contribution within a larger, more plural conversation.
Menninger’s legacy, then, is not a set of doctrines to be preserved intact. It is a set of unresolved questions about how psychiatry understands its responsibilities—to individuals, to communities, and to society at large. His work persists less as a model than as a provocation: a reminder that technical sophistication does not absolve moral obligation, and that understanding remains a demanding, unfinished task.
Karl Menninger did not resolve the moral problems of psychiatry. He did not offer a system capable of settling debates about responsibility, judgment, or care. What he offered instead was a sustained refusal to let those problems disappear behind technical language or institutional routine.
Across decades of writing and public engagement, Menninger insisted that psychological suffering is meaningful, that destructive behavior demands understanding rather than dismissal, and that psychiatry cannot evade its ethical responsibilities by appealing to neutrality. He sought to hold together care and accountability, explanation and responsibility, in ways that resisted both punitive certainty and reductive excuse.
This effort was ambitious and consequential. It humanized forms of suffering that had often been treated as alien or irredeemable. It challenged practices that relied on fear and retribution rather than engagement. It expanded the scope of psychiatric concern beyond the clinic to the social conditions that shape psychological life.
At the same time, Menninger’s moral vision was shaped by its historical context and constrained by its assumptions. His universalism obscured certain forms of exclusion, and his confidence in professional authority limited reflexive engagement with power. His framework illuminated many dimensions of suffering while leaving others insufficiently examined.
To engage Menninger responsibly is therefore not to endorse his conclusions wholesale, nor to dismiss them as outdated. It is to recognize his work as an attempt—serious, imperfect, and unfinished—to articulate what psychiatry owes to those it serves. That attempt remains instructive precisely because it resists closure.
In an era increasingly oriented toward efficiency, quantification, and risk management, Menninger’s insistence on meaning and responsibility may appear impractical or unfashionable. Yet the moral questions he confronted have not disappeared. Psychiatry continues to operate at the intersection of care and control, understanding and judgment. The challenge is not to recover Menninger’s answers, but to sustain his willingness to ask questions that resist easy resolution.
Meaning, responsibility, and care are not variables to be optimized. They are ongoing demands placed on any practice that claims to respond humanely to human suffering. Menninger’s work endures not as a blueprint, but as a reminder that psychiatry’s moral task cannot be completed—only continually renewed.
Menninger, Karl. The Human Mind. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1930.
Menninger, Karl. Man Against Himself. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company, 1938.
Menninger, Karl. Love Against Hate. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company, 1942.
Menninger, Karl. The Vital Balance. New York: Viking Press, 1963.
Menninger, Karl. The Crime of Punishment. New York: Viking Press, 1968.
Menninger, Karl. Whatever Became of Sin? New York: Hawthorn Books, 1973.
Frank, Jerome D. Persuasion and Healing: A Comparative Study of Psychotherapy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1961.
Horwitz, Allan V. Creating Mental Illness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002.
Rosen, George. A History of Public Health. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.
Rose, Nikolas. Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self. London: Routledge, 1990.
Bosk, Charles L. Forgive and Remember: Managing Medical Failure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.
Hacking, Ian. The Social Construction of What? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.
Arendt, Hannah. Responsibility and Judgment. New York: Schocken Books, 2003.