Psychological projection occupies a central and contested position across the depth-psychology corpus. Originating as a Freudian concept — wherein only repressed wishes are displaced onto outer objects — the term was substantially broadened by Jung, who recognized projection as a universal, involuntary mechanism by which any unconscious content, whether personal shadow material, contrasexual figures such as anima and animus, or collective-archetypal images, is transposed onto the external world. Jung’s formulation insists that projection is not a pathological aberration but the natural, given condition of an unreflective psyche: participation mystique, the primitive identity with one’s environment, names the baseline state from which differentiation must be won. Von Franz extends this further, noting that the projecting agency is not the ego at all — one finds oneself already in projection, as if an arrow had been shot — which raises the profound question of who or what projects. The corpus attends simultaneously to projection’s phenomenology (the exaggeration of a quality genuinely present in the object), its clinical significance (transference as a special case), and its civilizational scale (political propaganda, alchemy, cosmological myth). The tension between projection as necessary developmental medium and projection as obstacle to integration — the stone figure blocking inner transformation — runs throughout. Withdrawal of projection emerges as a therapeutic and moral imperative, yet Hillman warns that the ideal of becoming ‘objectively conscious’ can itself become paranoid ego-inflation.