Dominance in the depth-psychology corpus is not a simple behavioural fact but a node where etymology, social structure, intrapsychic dynamics, neurophysiology, and erotic life intersect and contest one another. Hillman excavates the Latin root — dominus, domus, despotes — to argue that Western agency is structurally sedimented with lordship: to act at all, in the inherited language, is already to dominate. Fromm reads the sadistic drive to dominate as a compensatory response to existential powerlessness, inseparable from its masochistic twin. Yalom treats dominance hierarchies as a permanent and productive tension within the therapy group, one that can either be metabolised or calcify into pathology. Perel locates domination and submission in erotic fantasy as a culturally subversive inversion of egalitarian ideology, while Panksepp grounds social dominance in opioid-mediated affect states measurable across species. Ricoeur distinguishes domination as the constitutive, troubling underside of legitimate political power. McGilchrist extends the concept into neuropsychology by demonstrating that attentional dominance lateralises even more strongly to the right hemisphere than speech does to the left. Taken together, these voices reveal dominance as something simultaneously archaic and structurally reproduced — in the brain, in the consulting room, in the bedroom, and in the very grammar of power.