Within the depth-psychology corpus, ‘Adolescent’ emerges not as a merely demographic category but as a charged developmental threshold whose psychological significance far exceeds its chronological boundaries. Winnicott stands as the dominant theoretical voice, insisting that adolescence carries an irreducible unconscious fantasy structure — the death of an adult — without which genuine maturity cannot be achieved; his repeated emphasis on immaturity as the adolescent’s most vital asset, and on the necessity of society’s survival of the adolescent challenge rather than its premature resolution, constitutes the most sustained depth-psychological theorization of the term in this corpus. Greene and Sasportas approach the phase through astrological symbolism, mapping identity formation, peer dynamics, and the awakening of sexuality onto specific house placements and transits. A substantial clinical-empirical literature, anchored by Russell, DeMille, Harper, and Bettmann, treats the adolescent as a subject requiring specialized substance-use and wilderness-based intervention, foregrounding motivation, coercion, and the fragile balance between recovery and relapse. Bowlby contributes a distinctive note concerning adolescent mourning pathology. The central tensions in the corpus are between Winnicott’s insistence on non-intervention and the clinical literature’s emphasis on structured treatment, and between depth-psychological readings of adolescent rebellion as developmentally necessary and public-health framings of it as a symptom to be managed.