Within the depth-psychology corpus, ‘structure’ operates across at least three distinct registers that frequently intersect. In the psychoanalytic-developmental tradition, most forcefully articulated by Schore, structure denotes the hierarchically organized, experience-dependent formations of the psyche — neural and psychological scaffoldings that emerge from object-relational exchanges and constrain earlier, more primitive functions. For Flores, drawing on self-psychology, ‘structure building’ designates the intrapsychic consequence of adequate selfobject responsiveness; without it, the self remains architecturally deficient, prone to the substitutions that characterize addiction. Jung’s own corpus treats structure at two levels: the biological-hierarchical architecture of the psyche (The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche) and the quaternary or mandala-like ‘basic fourfold structure’ of which von Franz speaks — a primordial organizing schema that gradually differentiates as consciousness develops. Turner, by contrast, deploys structure sociologically and ritually, opposing it to liminality and communitas; his ‘anti-structure’ names precisely what escapes or subverts organized social positions. Hillman invokes structure aesthetically, noting Jung’s claim that the dream possesses a ‘dramatic structure’ akin to theater. Harrison reads social structure as the matrix from which religious projection proceeds, and Thompson, reading Merleau-Ponty, situates structure as the emergent form that neither reduces to components nor floats free of them. Across these voices a persistent tension emerges: structure as consolidating achievement versus structure as constraint on living process — a polarity that animates depth psychology’s ongoing negotiation between form and transformation.