Within the depth-psychology corpus, grief occupies a position of remarkable theoretical density, attracting treatment from clinical, neurobiological, attachment-theoretical, developmental, and recovery-movement perspectives simultaneously. The field’s dominant tension is temporal: classical psychoanalytic tradition, as Estés documents, once prescribed grief as a finite, dateable process, while contemporary research — from Rosenblatt’s diary studies to O’Connor’s neuroimaging work — demonstrates that significant losses produce recurrent, lifelong episodic grieving whose intensity diminishes in frequency but not in magnitude. Worden establishes a foundational lexical distinction between grief (the subjective experience), mourning (the process), and bereavement (the situational state), a triad contested by Bowlby’s reconceptualization of grief as a special case of separation anxiety rooted in attachment dynamics. Neimeyer and constructivist clinicians redirect attention toward meaning reconstruction and narrative as the primary therapeutic mechanism, while Worden and Horowitz debate whether ‘complicated grief’ constitutes a discrete diagnostic category or a trauma-spectrum phenomenon. The ACA recovery tradition treats grief as cumulative developmental wound — the internalized residue of childhood shame and neglect — demanding lifelong incremental disclosure. Across all positions, suppressed or masked grief is consistently identified as pathogenic, capable of somatic, behavioral, or affective displacement. The question of when grief becomes pathological, and how cultural, relational, and attachment variables mediate that threshold, remains the field’s most clinically consequential open problem.