Connection, within the depth-psychology corpus, operates simultaneously as a developmental imperative, a neurophysiological state, and an archetypal aspiration. The literature does not treat connection as a simple relational given; rather, it examines the conditions under which connection becomes possible, the mechanisms by which it is foreclosed, and the therapeutic strategies by which it may be restored. Laurence Heller’s NeuroAffective Relational Model identifies Connection as the earliest and most fundamental of the adaptive survival styles, arguing that disruption of connection at the level of prenatal, perinatal, or early postnatal experience produces a characteristic constellation of somatic dysregulation, dissociation, and ambivalent approach-avoidance toward relational contact. Deb Dana and Stephen Porges, working within polyvagal theory, reframe connection as a biologically prepared state—ventral vagal activation—that can be cultivated through patterned regulatory practices. Daniel Siegel situates connection within attachment theory, emphasizing rupture and repair as the developmental engine through which the capacity for intimacy is elaborated across the lifespan. James Hillman’s archetypal lexicon treats connection not as psychological health but as eros in motion—the pull between ego and archetype, person and image. Across these traditions, connection is both what early trauma destroys and what effective therapy must first render possible before other work can proceed.