Tension in the depth-psychology corpus is not a simple or univocal phenomenon. It ranges across registers — physiological, psychological, archetypal, and libidinal — and the literature reveals persistent ambiguity about whether tension is a pathological residue to be discharged or a generative force essential to psychic life. In the somatic traditions represented by Ogden, Levine, and Fogel, muscular tension is treated as the body’s encoded autobiography: the trace of unresolved defensive responses, procedural memories, and autonomic dysregulation. Here tension is a diagnostic signal and a therapeutic entry point, something to be tracked, titrated, and eventually released. Freud, working from an earlier economic model, situates sexual tension at the heart of libidinal theory, noting its paradoxical independence from pleasure — tension arises with satisfaction yet is not itself satisfying. Hillman, by contrast, reads tension as archetypal and sacramental, the invisible force field that gathers around collective acts such as family meals. Feinstein’s empirical work on floatation therapy offers a more clinical view, demonstrating that anxiety-linked muscle tension responds measurably to interoceptive conditions. What unites these otherwise divergent positions is the conviction that tension is not merely epiphenomenal: it carries meaning, encodes history, and demands response. The therapeutic question is always whether to discharge, metabolize, or harness it.