Integrity, as treated across the depth-psychology corpus, is not merely a moral virtue but a structural and developmental achievement of the psyche. Herman, drawing on Erikson, frames integrity as the culminating accomplishment of maturity — the capacity to affirm life in the face of death and to serve as the very ground upon which trust between persons can be founded and, when shattered, restored. Von Franz situates it at the nucleus of personality itself, identifying it as an aspect of the Self and the irreducible standard of Jungian practice: to abandon integrity in the service of institutional strategy is, for her, already to have lost what Jungian psychology essentially is. Beebe extends this structural reading into typology, arguing that the plumb line between superior and inferior functions — the hero and the anima — constitutes the spine of personality and makes ‘integrity in depth’ possible as a lived reality rather than an aspiration. Miller, writing from a clinical-behavioral standpoint, treats integrity as a motivational force: the magnetism of self-consistency that drives persons to align action with stated commitment. Nussbaum introduces a Stoic-Aristotelian tension, asking whether bodily and personal integrity, once violated, can be borne without excessive reactive passion. The corpus thus presents integrity along three axes: ontological (integrity as Self-expression), developmental (integrity as the achievement of maturity and trust), and clinical (integrity as the dynamic coherence between value and action).