Agoraphobia occupies a revealing position within the depth-psychology corpus: it is simultaneously a clinical symptom, a developmental index, and a symbol of deeper psychic structure. Freud’s early nosological work placed it at the intersection of anxiety-hysteria and obsessional neurosis, classifying it among the phobias and situational fears that expose the architecture of repressed wish and signal anxiety. Bowlby’s contribution is arguably the most systematic: his attachment-theoretical account, developed across the Attachment and Loss trilogy, reads agoraphobia as a manifestation of separation anxiety rooted in anxious attachment, with family patterns—role reversal, fear of maternal harm, and parental discord—functioning as developmental preconditions. This relational etiology is reinforced by the empirical observation that agoraphobia and school phobia share a common psychopathology, often transmitted across generations. From a Jungian-astrological perspective, Liz Greene interprets agoraphobia and claustrophobia as paired, archetypal expressions of the puer dynamic—opposite symptoms arising from the same psychic conflict. Peter Levine’s somatic orientation links agoraphobia directly to unresolved trauma and physiological immobility responses. Barrett’s constructionist account situates agoraphobia as a culturally constructed category of pathological fear. Together, these voices illuminate an irreducible tension between intrapsychic, relational, somatic, and cultural explanatory frameworks for a condition whose surface simplicity belies profound psychological complexity.