Within the depth-psychology corpus, ‘right brain’ functions as a shorthand for the right cerebral hemisphere’s distinctive mode of engaging reality — holistic, contextual, embodied, and resistant to the reductions of purely linguistic, analytical cognition. The term spans a spectrum of treatment: from the richly philosophical arguments of Iain McGilchrist, who insists the right hemisphere is not the seat of irrationality but of a broader, more reality-adequate attention, to the developmental-clinical investigations of Allan Schore and Daniel Siegel, who locate early attachment regulation, trauma processing, and therapeutic change in right-hemispheric systems. Julian Jaynes contributes an archaeological dimension, associating the right hemisphere with the synthetic, spatial intelligence implicated in the bicameral mind’s divine voices. Van der Kolk’s neuroimaging work on trauma demonstrates that flashback states lateralize to the right, giving the concept direct clinical urgency. Lenore Thomson’s Jungian-neuropsychological synthesis argues that psychological type maps onto hemispheric preference in non-obvious ways. Dean Burnett, by contrast, cautions that the folk-psychological binary of ‘left-brained logical / right-brained creative’ is scientifically invalid, even as the underlying lateralization research it distorts retains genuine importance. The central tension in the corpus is between reductively popular uses of the concept and its rigorous neuroscientific rehabilitation — a distinction McGilchrist prosecutes with particular force.