The depth-psychology corpus treats ‘fetish’ along several partially overlapping axes, none of which reduces entirely to another. Freud establishes the foundational clinical framework in the Three Essays and beyond: the fetish arises when the sexual object is displaced onto a substitute that screens castration anxiety, and yet a ‘certain degree of fetishism’ inheres in all normal erotic overvaluation. Abraham extends and complicates this account through meticulous case studies of foot- and corset-fetishism, demonstrating that anal-erotic determinants, scopophilic drive, and osphresiolagnia interact with the castration complex to produce the particular object-choice. Lacan, approaching the question through the Platonic agalma, reconceives the fetish as the ‘fetish-accent’ of any object that holds hidden, excessive value — the object-cause of desire condensed into a thing — thereby generalising the concept well beyond clinical perversion. Jung employs the term in a looser, socio-cultural register, noting that structural viewpoints in social science can themselves become ‘fetter and fetish’ (Turner echoes this usage), and that primitive libido-conceptions invest objects with magical potency in ways that prefigure fetishistic symbol-formation. Running beneath all positions is a shared concern with the displacement of charged meaning onto a material surrogate — whether this displacement is read as pathological defence, structural necessity, or the very ground of desire.