Manualization — the codification of psychotherapeutic procedure into structured, replicable treatment manuals — occupies a contested position within the depth-psychology corpus. The empirically-oriented literature, represented most fully by Miller and Rollnick on Motivational Interviewing and by Scott on Dialectical Behavior Therapy, treats manualization as an indispensable infrastructure for fidelity monitoring, training standardization, and clinical trial replication. Yet the same authors register its hazards with candor: Miller documents how an overly restrictive therapist manual suppressed clinical responsiveness and yielded null or adverse outcomes, and he correlates manual use with significantly lower effect sizes. Scott’s DBT materials present manualization in its most elaborated form — therapist guidelines, client handouts, modular skill sequences — while acknowledging the necessity of individual tailoring within the structured frame. Chambless, writing from the empirically supported therapies tradition, establishes the evidentiary context within which manualization acquires its legitimacy. Against this backdrop, the depth-psychological tradition — Jung, Hillman, Levine — says nothing directly about manualization, which is itself diagnostically significant: its silence registers a fundamental incommensurability between the standardized treatment protocol and the irreducibly singular encounter that depth psychology takes as its primary datum. The tension between procedural fidelity and relational spontaneity is the axis around which the entire debate turns.