The term ‘rite’ occupies a central and contested position across the depth-psychology corpus, spanning from ethnological, philological, and clinical-psychological frameworks to phenomenological and anthropological ones. Jung treats ritual as the primary institutional defense against the regressive pull of mass psychology: properly performed rite engages individual attention within the group, thereby counteracting unconscious instinctuality and the dangers of psychic epidemic. Harrison roots rite in the social biology of tribal adolescence and initiation, reading myth itself as a reflex of enacted ceremony. Turner’s structural anthropology dissects rites of passage into their constitutive phases — separation, liminality, reincorporation — mapping how ritual inversions of status generate the anti-structural energy he calls communitas. Benveniste recovers the philological substrate: the Indo-European vocabulary of libation, sacrifice, oath, and vow reveals that rite is fundamentally a mode of regulated communication between the human and divine orders, enacted through prescribed material action accompanied by formulaic speech. Eliade and Campbell read rites as living enactments of mythic templates, particularly the initiatory archetype. Moore, writing in a pastoral-psychological register, argues that soul-care requires submission to received ritual tradition rather than improvised ceremony. Pargament examines purification rites across traditions as coping mechanisms that restore the individual to sacred order. The corpus thus holds in productive tension rite-as-psychological-prophylaxis, rite-as-social-structure, and rite-as-linguistic-act.