Within the depth-psychology corpus, ‘Wild’ functions less as a descriptive adjective than as an ontological category — a register of psychic life that precedes, exceeds, and frequently resists civilisation’s domesticating imperatives. Clarissa Pinkola Estés constructs the Wild as the ground-state of the feminine instinctual nature, personified in the archetype of the Wild Woman: a primordial, generative force whose diminishment tracks exactly the destruction of outer wilderness. For Estés, wildness is not chaos but a deeper ecological order, one that sustains creativity, cyclicity, and soul. Robert Bly, approaching the term from a masculine initiatory angle, posits the Wild Man as an autonomous mythological being — hairy, grief-conscious, nature-aligned — whose re-encounter by the modern male is the precondition for genuine initiation. Where Estés emphasises reclamation of an interior feminine nature suppressed by patriarchal culture, Bly stresses the structural necessity of the Wild Man as mentor-figure, distinct from and irreducible to the personal unconscious. Both authors share the conviction that taming represents psychic impoverishment, and both locate the wild in relation to wound, instinct, and a belonging to nature that modernity has severed. The Benveniste passage introduces a philological tension — the domestic/wild distinction may itself be a retrospective scholarly imposition — adding etymological depth to the corpus’s thematic arguments.