Passivity occupies a contested and multi-dimensional position across the depth-psychology corpus. Far from functioning as a simple antonym of activity, it emerges as a philosophically loaded term whose valence shifts dramatically depending on the theoretical register in which it is deployed. In Aurobindo’s integral metaphysics, passivity and activity are co-equal poles of a single Brahman-power — Tapas held in reserve versus Tapas released — neither reducible to the other, neither privileged above the other. In Plotinus, the distinction between Passion (paschō) and Action resists easy demarcation: motion remains the same whether in agent or patient, and the ontological status of passivity becomes genuinely problematic. Ricoeur, drawing on Spinoza and phenomenology, reads passivity as structurally woven into lived experience — in bodily selfhood, in affect, in the passions as ancient philosophers understood them — such that the conquest of activity is itself dependent on recognising prior passive conditions. In clinical depth psychology, Horney maps passivity onto neurotic resignation: the withdrawal from active wishing, striving, and planning that masquerades as wisdom or serenity. Abraham identifies passivity as a libidinal position, a retreat from full masculine activity into the pleasures of passive reception. Bly frames enforced passivity as a historically gendered wound. Peterson’s philological analysis of paschō — conjugated in the active voice — challenges the very grammatical assumption that suffering must be passive. Taken together, these voices reveal passivity as a site of profound ontological, clinical, and cultural contestation.