Bond maintenance occupies a pivotal but often undertheorized position in the depth-psychology corpus, where it designates the ongoing behavioral and psychological effort required to sustain an attachment relationship once formed — as distinct from the initial processes of bond formation or the traumatic rupture of bond dissolution. Bowlby provides the foundational architecture: whereas an attachment bond endures as a relatively stable internal structure, the behavioral systems that serve it are activated selectively by conditions of threat, fatigue, or inaccessibility, and are terminated only when proximity or communication with the attachment figure is restored. This goal-corrected, homeostatic account frames bond maintenance as a dynamic regulatory process rather than a static state. Flores extends Bowlby’s framework into clinical territory, emphasizing that addiction disorders represent failures of the very capacities — self-regulation, proximity-seeking, affect tolerance — that ordinarily sustain intimate bonds. Dayton and Worden foreground the neurobiological and evolutionary underpinnings, linking long-term attachment to the cooperative infrastructure necessary for pair-bonding and parenting. Grief theorists, particularly through Neimeyer and Klass, complicate the picture by demonstrating that bond maintenance persists even across death: bereaved individuals do not detach but transform the bond into an internalized continuing relationship. Hillman approaches maintenance from an archetypal and economic angle, valorizing the preservative function that resists entropic dissolution. Across these registers, the central tension is between maintenance as natural homeostatic regulation and maintenance as deliberate relational labor that can be disrupted by trauma, loss, or character pathology.