Self-reliance occupies a contested position across the depth-psychology corpus, functioning simultaneously as developmental achievement, spiritual obstacle, defensive posture, and cultural ideal. The Emersonian formulation—most concentrated in the essay ‘Self-Reliance’ and its climactic journal passage of 1838—defines the term as radical inward sovereignty, a visionary self-existence that excludes example, precedent, and social validation. Harold Bloom reads this as daemonic intensity rather than mere individualism, linking it to an intuition that precedes language. The recovery literature, by contrast, treats self-reliance as an ambivalent inheritance: the AA Big Book concedes its partial utility while arguing that finite self-confidence cannot exhaust the fear problem, and ACA materials identify ‘compulsive self-reliance’ as a trauma-driven strategy that must itself be surrendered. Jung navigates between these poles: his 1930 letter to Walpole articulates an unconscious teleology that drives persons toward self-dependence as liberation from childhood attachment, yet his broader clinical writing recognizes pathological rigidity when a dominant function overrides the whole personality. Developmental psychology adds a third register: Mahler’s practicing subphase is the ontogenetic ground of healthy self-reliance, its emergence from reduced reliance on external objects being a normal maturational step. The Stoic autarkeia and Aurobindo’s stages of surrender supply philosophical and spiritual counter-pressures, framing self-reliance as a necessary but ultimately penultimate stage on the path toward transpersonal alignment.