Empowerment occupies a contested and generative position within the depth-psychological corpus, appearing not as a simple therapeutic outcome but as a multi-layered problem touching questions of agency, trauma, archetypal force, and the politics of healing. Judith Herman establishes the term’s clinical stakes most rigorously, arguing that the restoration of the survivor’s control—against the unilateral action of well-meaning professionals—is the foundational ethical and therapeutic principle in trauma work. Peter Levine approaches empowerment from a somatic perspective, situating it as the natural sequel to successful physiological discharge: the organism that escapes overwhelm re-acquires a felt sense of competence that is biological before it is psychological. James Hillman mounts the corpus’s most searching critique, insisting that ‘personal empowerment therapy’ addresses only the individual symptom of a collective malaise, and that power must be reconceived in terms of sustaining, releasing, and allowing—rather than asserting dominance. Russ Harris, in the ACT tradition, locates self-empowerment specifically in the redirection of attention toward what lies within one’s control. James Hollis reads empowerment archetypally, tying it to male initiation and the activation of the masculine imago through necessary wounding. The corpus thus registers deep tension between empowerment as somatic restoration, as political act, as archetypal initiation, and as collective rather than merely individual project.