Applied psychoanalysis, as encountered across the depth-psychology corpus, designates the translation of psychoanalytic theory and technique from the consulting room into broader therapeutic, cultural, and scientific domains. The corpus reveals no single, settled definition but rather a field of contestation: Jung himself is ambivalent, acknowledging psychoanalysis as a powerful but limited instrument, insisting that clinical selection, supplementary methods, and the personality of the practitioner all condition its efficacy. Freud’s original restriction of the term to his own libido-economic method is noted by Jung in The Practice of Psychotherapy, yet popular usage had already dissolved those boundaries, absorbing Adler and others under the same rubric. Samuels traces how post-Jungian analytical psychology developed in continuous dialogue with object-relations theorists, Kohut, and Bion, each school cross-fertilising the other’s applied practice. Hillman’s archetypal revision challenges normative, adaptation-oriented applications. Carhart-Harris identifies an entire early era of psychedelic research as psychoanalytically grounded. Bowlby locates his own departure precisely in the limitations of classical applied frameworks. What unites these voices is the recognition that applied psychoanalysis is never a mere technique but always a theoretically laden practice whose assumptions about sexuality, development, the unconscious, and therapeutic relationship remain perpetually at stake.