Shakespeare and the Psychology of Infidelity: Guilt, Desire, and Self-Deception

Sonnet 152

In loving thee thou know’st I am forsworn,
But thou art twice forsworn to me love swearing;
In act thy bed-vow broke and new faith torn,
In vowing new hate after new love bearing.

But why of two oaths’ breach do I accuse thee,
When I break twenty? I am perjured most;
For all my vows are oaths but to misuse thee,
And all my honest faith in thee is lost.

For I have sworn deep oaths of thy deep kindness,
Oaths of thy love, thy truth, thy constancy;
And to enlighten thee gave eyes to blindness,
Or made them swear against the truth so falsely.

But, why of two oaths’ breach do I accuse thee,
When I break twenty? I am perjured most.

William Shakespeare, Sonnets (Sonnet 152), late 16th century (first published 1609).

Even William Shakespeare presents infidelity not merely as a moral transgression, but as an internal split between desire, guilt, and self-deception. The lyrical subject acknowledges not only the betrayal of the other, but also his own participation in sustaining the illusion. It is precisely this ambivalence that becomes a central theme in contemporary psychoanalytic concepts of infidelity.

How Contemporary Psychoanalysis Understands Infidelity

In contemporary psychoanalytic thought, infidelity is increasingly viewed less as an isolated act of moral deviation or impulsive behaviour, and more as a complex intrapsychic phenomenon that cannot be reduced solely to a violation of monogamous norms. Instead, it is conceptualised as a “symptomatic action.” Unlike classical Freudian interpretations, which emphasise the conflict between libido (psychic energy of desire, attraction, and the drive toward closeness and pleasure) and prohibition, contemporary authors integrate attachment theory, emotion regulation, and narcissistic personality organisation (a personality structure in which self-worth is heavily dependent on external recognition and evaluation) to explain the multiple functions infidelity may serve. In this sense, infidelity is understood as a point of intersection between the inner world of the individual and the relational field.

Infidelity through the lens of Otto Kernberg: narcissism, idealisation, and inner emptiness

One of the most influential contemporary lines of thought comes from object relations theory and structural theory of personality, especially in the work of Otto Kernberg. He emphasises that in cases of unstable identity, an affair often serves as an attempt to maintain a grandiose self-experience through the idealisation of a new object. In this sense, the external relationship is not simply an expression of desire for variety, but a regulator of internal emptiness and aggression that cannot be integrated within the primary relationship. Kernberg also highlights ambivalence – the need for an object that is simultaneously idealised and devalued, a process often enacted through splitting between an “internal” and an “external” love object.

Attachment theory: how early relationships influence infidelity

Attachment theory, originally developed by John Bowlby and later integrated into contemporary psychodynamic approaches, provides another important framework for understanding infidelity. In this context, an affair can be interpreted as a coping strategy for insecure attachment (a relational model characterized by a strong need for closeness and a persistent fear of abandonment or rejection), in which the individual uses external relationships to regulate anxiety, fear of abandonment, or experienced emotional unavailability in the primary relationship. In anxiously attached individuals, infidelity sometimes appears as a paradoxical attempt to restore security through external validation of one’s own desirability, while in avoidant types it may function as a means of maintaining emotional distance without directly breaking the primary relationship. Thus, infidelity is not seen as a random deviation, but as a logical consequence of stable, early-formed patterns of relational regulation.

Relational psychoanalysis: infidelity as a message of the couple

Relational psychoanalysis, represented by authors such as Stephen Mitchell, shifts attention from individual pathology to mutually constructed relational scenarios within the couple. In this model, infidelity is understood as part of repetitive patterns in which both partners participate, albeit asymmetrically. An affair may be seen as an “external stage” on which unconscious couple conflicts are enacted – for example, between the need for closeness and the fear of fusion, or between the desire for recognition and the experience of erasure. Infidelity functions as a secondary mechanism for restoring disrupted emotional regulation, which, however, often deepens the initial trauma. In this sense, it becomes a communicative, albeit destructive, act through which unspoken feelings find expression.

Jessica Benjamin and the need for mutual recognition

In Jessica Benjamin’s intersubjective perspective, the concept of “mutual recognition” occupies a central place. Here, infidelity can be understood as a result of a breakdown in the experience of subjectivity within the relationship – when one or both partners cease to experience themselves as mutually recognised autonomous subjects. When the relationship is organised around domination, devaluation, or chronic non-recognition, the external relationship may acquire the function of a space in which subjectivity is experienced as alive again. This does not justify the behaviour, but positions it as an attempt to restore psychic wholeness. Thus, the affair appears not merely as a search for a new love object, but as an attempt by the individual to feel seen and recognised.

Infidelity as trauma of trust and attachment

Contemporary psychoanalysis also emphasises the idea of infidelity as a “trauma.” In this context, it is described as an event that can severely disrupt the attachment system and be experienced as a “wound” to the basic sense of security and trust. Some authors define it as a deep destabilisation of the internal relational model. From this perspective, infidelity is not only a moral or behavioural act, but an event with potentially traumatic consequences for psychic organisation.

What contemporary research shows about infidelity

Contemporary clinical literature, including systematic reviews and meta-analyses, consistently shows that infidelity is closely linked to factors such as attachment style, relationship satisfaction, and individual needs for connectedness. This supports the understanding that it is not a one-dimensional behavioural deviation, but a multidetermined phenomenon emerging at the intersection of personality structure and context.

Psychoanalytic therapy after infidelity: beyond guilt and blame

In therapeutic practice, contemporary psychoanalytic approaches do not focus solely on guilt or “choice,” but on the function of infidelity in the life of the individual and the couple. It is seen as a solution – albeit often a destructive one – to problems related to attachment style, narcissistic vulnerability, and the need for recognition. Therapeutic work aims to transform this “acting-out symptom” into a symbolised experience that allows new forms of connection, whether within the existing relationship or outside it.

Conclusion: from Shakespeare to contemporary psychoanalysis

In conclusion, contemporary psychoanalytic theory views infidelity not as a single moral failure, but as a complex psychic phenomenon. From Shakespeare’s character who recognises his own participation in illusion, to contemporary psychoanalytic models, infidelity is revealed as an attempt to resolve internal conflicts through another person. Therefore, understanding it requires careful attention to the complex processes of desire, attachment, recognition, and psychic organisation that underlie it.

References:

Allen, E. S., & Atkins, D. C. (2005). The multidimensional and developmental nature of infidelity: Practical applications. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(11), 1371–1382.

Benjamin, J. (2004). Beyond doer and done to: An intersubjective view of thirdness. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 73(1), 5–46.

Benjamin, J. (2018). Beyond doer and done to: Recognition theory, intersubjectivity and the third. Routledge.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. Basic Books.

Duba, J. D., Kindsvatter, A., & Lara, T. (2008). Treating infidelity: Considering narratives of attachment. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 7(1), 23–40.

Ghiasi, N., Rasoal, D., & Haseli, A. (2023). The interplay of attachment styles and marital infidelity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Heliyon, 9, e23261.

Josephs, L. (2006). The impulse to infidelity and oedipal splitting. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 87(2), 423–437.

Kernberg, O. F. (1995). Love relations: Normality and pathology. Yale University Press.

Kernberg, O. F. (2014). Severe personality disorders: Psychodynamic strategies. American Psychiatric Publishing.

Mendelsohn, R. (2014). “Collusive infidelity,” projective identification, and clinical technique. The Psychoanalytic Review, 101(4), 517–546.

Mitchell, S. A. (1988). Relational concepts in psychoanalysis: An integration. Harvard University Press.

Mitchell, S. A. (1997). Influence and autonomy in psychoanalysis. The Analytic Press.

Warach, B., & Josephs, L. (2019). The aftershocks of infidelity: A review of infidelity-based attachment trauma. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 36(1), 68–90.

Shakespeare, W. (1609). Sonnet 152. In Shakespeare’s Sonnets. London.