The term ‘Parent’ traverses the depth-psychology corpus along several distinct axes, each generating its own set of tensions. Hillman’s sustained critique of what he names the ‘parental fallacy’ constitutes one of the corpus’s most polemical positions: the assumption that parents are the primary architects of the soul is, for Hillman, a cultural ideology that displaces the daimon and divinizes ordinary human figures at the expense of the child’s own innate calling. Against this, attachment theorists — Bowlby, Siegel — ground the parent-child dyad in empirical developmental science, demonstrating how parental attunement or its absence literally shapes neural architecture and attachment organization across the lifespan. The Adult Children of Alcoholics literature introduces a third register: the internalized parent, split into the ‘Critical Parent’ and the ‘Loving Parent,’ becomes the theater of self-reparenting work, translating psychodynamic insight into a Twelve Step practice of inner re-mothering. Astrological depth psychology (Greene, Sasportas) complicates the empirical view by distinguishing the actual parent from the ‘parental imago’ — the archetypal image the child selectively constructs. Across all positions, the parent functions simultaneously as a real historical figure, an internalized complex, an archetypal carrier, and a site of cultural projection, making it one of the most contested and generative nodes in the entire field.