Rigidity occupies a contested but structurally central position across the depth-psychology corpus. It appears in two broad registers that frequently intersect: the phenomenological-somatic, wherein rigidity designates a bodily or affective fixation — the holding patterns encoded in trauma, the armoring of the musculature, the shutting-down of parasympathetic dorsal-vagal withdrawal — and the systemic-relational, wherein rigidity names one pole of a fundamental dyad with chaos, together constituting the twin failures of psychic integration. Siegel’s River of Integration furnishes the most explicit theoretical architecture: healthy mind-states flow between the twin banks of chaos and rigidity, and psychopathology is legible as deviation toward one or the other extreme. Winhall extends this framework into addiction theory, mapping rigidity onto dorsal-vagal shutdown and chaos onto sympathetic hyperarousal. Jung, characteristically, frames rigidity as the temptation that arises when a psyche confronts the demand for transformation but recoils — the ‘convulsive stiffening of the previous attitude’ — a defense against the suffering of genuine self-division. McGilchrist raises the epistemological stakes: rigidity in cognitive systems, whether neurological or cultural, corresponds to left-hemisphere over-reliance, producing brittle, fragile structures unable to adapt. ACT theorists treat rigidity as the hallmark of pathological psychological inflexibility. Across these perspectives, rigidity consistently signals arrested process, foreclosed becoming, and the substitution of fixation for genuine stability.