Transparency in the depth-psychology corpus is primarily a clinical and relational concept, concentrated in the literature of group psychotherapy, where it designates the degree to which the therapist discloses inner experience, fallibility, and real presence to clients. Yalom treats it as the defining variable that separates interpersonal from classical psychoanalytic models of group work: the move from analytic anonymity toward judicious self-disclosure is, for him, a durable rather than merely fashionable trend. Flores maps transparency against its dialectical opposite, opaqueness, insisting that the warrant for therapist openness is always therapeutic utility, never the therapist’s own need or group pressure. Both authors acknowledge that transparency does not dissolve transference — Yalom’s celebrated counter-example demonstrates that a thoroughly transparent therapist can still be perceived as devious. A second, phenomenological register appears in Gallagher, where transparency names the body’s self-effacement in skilled action: the body becomes invisible to itself precisely because its schemas operate without requiring perceptual monitoring. McGilchrist touches a third register, the semi-transparency of aesthetic media — language, paint, drama — that must be neither wholly opaque nor wholly invisible if genuine meaning is to be conveyed. These distinct uses share a structural logic: transparency is the condition in which a medium recedes so that something beyond it — relationship, world, meaning — can appear.