Idealization occupies a pivotal and contested position across the depth-psychology corpus, functioning simultaneously as a developmental necessity, a defensive operation, and a pathological formation. Klein locates its origins in the paranoid-schizoid position, where the infant’s innate longing for an ‘extremely good breast’ generates idealized internal objects that serve as a bulwark against persecutory anxiety — the greater the persecutory anxiety, the stronger the imperative to idealize. Yet this same mechanism is deeply entangled with envy: the idealizing impulse, when driven by excessive envy, remains precarious, for envy inevitably reaches toward what it has elevated. For Horney, idealization operates at a higher level of psychic organization, producing not merely an idealized object but an idealized self — an image so compelling it displaces the real self altogether, becoming the fulcrum of neurotic character structure. Wiener observes idealization operating interpersonally between analysts themselves, noting that the mutual idealization between Freud and Jung functioned as a collective scotoma, foreclosing the reflective distance necessary to analyze their own transference dynamics. In somatic and trauma-informed approaches, idealization surfaces as a transference posture — a childlike orientation of looking ‘up’ at the therapist — legible in the body before it is articulable in speech. Across these positions the central tension is consistent: idealization is both a condition of psychic life and, under pressure, its most seductive distortion.