Ego-centered interpretation designates a hermeneutic stance in which psychic material — dream images, mythological motifs, fantasy figures, and symbolic narratives — is read exclusively or primarily through the lens of the conscious ego’s needs, perspective, and self-referential framework. Within the depth-psychology corpus, the term marks a contested and frequently criticized mode of engagement with the unconscious, standing in opposition to what various authors call the objective, archetypal, or soul-centered reading. Hillman’s archetypal psychology mounts the most systematic critique, identifying ego-centered interpretation with the ‘monotheistic hero myth’ of secular humanism — a single-centered, self-identified consciousness that produces self-blindness and represses psychological diversity. Giegerich distinguishes the ‘subjective’ meaning that the dream-ego or narrator imposes from the ‘objective’ meaning latent in the tale itself, a difference he treats as methodologically decisive. Edinger traces the pathology of ego-centered consciousness to the primordial inflation in which the ego identifies with the Self, treating itself as the center of the universe. Spiegelman offers a corrective in the Buddhist-Jungian notion of ‘Self-centric’ functioning, where ego-centricity is dissolved without dissolving the ego. Hall and McNiff, from differing disciplinary angles, each underscore how the ego’s claim to be the sole center of subjectivity systematically occludes other perspectives available within the psyche. The tension between ego-centered and archetypal or objective interpretation remains one of the generative fault-lines of post-Jungian thought.