Emotion regulation occupies a pivotal position across the depth-psychology corpus, functioning simultaneously as a developmental achievement, a neurobiological capacity, a clinical target, and — in one provocative counter-reading — an evolutionary liability. Siegel situates it within the relational matrix of early attachment, arguing that the capacity to modulate affective states is co-constructed between caregiver and infant through attunement and reflective function, and that its failure produces the rigid, non-integrative states evident in clinical populations. Schore grounds this developmentally in the orbitofrontal cortex’s inhibitory circuitry, tracing affect regulation to the neurobiology of early dyadic experience. Price and Hooven extend the somatic register, proposing that interoceptive awareness — the body’s communicative infrastructure — constitutes a necessary precondition for coherent self-regulation. Garland repositions the question neurocognitively, demonstrating how mindfulness-based interventions target the attention-appraisal-emotion interface to reverse suppression-driven dysregulation and enhance cognitive reappraisal. Scott’s DBT framework renders the term clinically operational, offering discrete skills — Opposite Action, mindful labeling, behavioral checklists — for populations with intense emotional reactivity. Against this predominantly remedial literature, Ein-Dor and Hirschberger mount a structural challenge: what clinical discourse calls dysregulation may serve indispensable sentinel functions at the group level, querying the uncritical equation of regulation with adaptiveness. The tension between regulation as integrative achievement and dysregulation as functional strategy remains the field’s generative fault line.