Family dysfunction occupies a central and heavily theorized position across the depth-psychology corpus, functioning simultaneously as an etiological category, a systems concept, and a transgenerational transmission mechanism. The literature does not treat the term as a simple sociological descriptor; rather, it frames family dysfunction as an encoded condition — impressed into the nervous system, the false self, and the body itself — that persists long after the individual has departed the originating household. The ACA corpus (Adult Children of Alcoholics/Dysfunctional Families) provides the most sustained treatment, arguing that dysfunction is a disease in its own right, propagated through denial, shame, and the internalization of both alcoholic and para-alcoholic parental patterns. Tian Dayton situates the concept within systems theory, drawing on Satir’s homeostasis model to show how relationship trauma renders family self-regulation maladaptive. Richard Schwartz, from the Internal Family Systems perspective, attends to the intrapsychic residues of family dysfunction — polarized parts, enmeshment, and legacy burdens — rather than overt pathology. Thomas Moore recovers a soulful ambivalence, insisting that the family, precisely because of its dysfunctions, is the irreplaceable matrix of soul-making. James Hillman offers a dissenting mythological critique, noting that depth psychology has constructed a ‘demonology’ within the family to sustain the myth of individual ego development. The core tension across these positions concerns whether dysfunction is a disease to be recovered from, a systemic imbalance to be rebalanced, or an archetypal necessity woven into family life itself.