Within the depth-psychology corpus, ‘control’ emerges not as a single coherent capacity but as a contested site where drives, defenses, neurological systems, and existential imperatives converge and collide. The literature registers at least four distinct orientations. First, the recovery and trauma traditions — represented by the Adult Children of Alcoholics literature and Levine’s somatic work — treat control as a survival adaptation rooted in fear, one that calcifies into manipulation, isolation, and the compulsive management of uncertainty; here the therapeutic task is staged as a gradual, supported release rather than an assault on the defense. Second, Hillman’s archetypal perspective reads control as a diminished, paranoid form of power — a rearguard action that forecloses the richer, more venturesome expressions available under the wider canopy of power’s ‘kinds.’ Third, Lewis’s neuroscientific framing renders cognitive control a distributed, multi-channel regulatory signal rather than a unified volitional faculty, destabilizing the folk-psychological rider-and-horse metaphor popular in addiction discourse. Fourth, Eastern and contemplative sources — the I Ching’s taxonomy of ‘sweet’ versus ‘bitter’ control, Patanjali’s hierarchy of sense-mastery — locate control within cosmic and ethical registers irreducible to either ego-psychology or neurophysiology. The tension between control as indispensable structuring principle and control as pathological constriction of vitality runs through virtually every register of the corpus.