The Myth of the Extraordinary

​”None of us stands outside humanity’s black collective shadow.” – C.G. Jung

Introduction

Sometime in the last month, I came across an article in the New Yorker Magazine with a title that stopped me mid-scroll: “Why Is It So Hard to Be Ordinary?” I paused on it longer than I expected to. Many faces (including my own) came to mind as I read it. Faces of people I know, people I have sat with in conversation over years, people of considerable intelligence and capacity, for whom being extraordinary is not an aspiration so much as a requirement. Not a goal they chose, exactly. More like a sentence they are serving.

I decided to go deeper.

What I found were the quiet confessions from women who shared that this was not a story about ambition. It was a story about a wound that ambition is being used to manage. Underneath the drive to be extraordinary – the relentless achievement, the credentials, the curated life, the performance of a self that is always becoming – was something older and more painful. The feeling, installed early and confirmed daily, that, as they actually are, in the ordinary fact of their existence, they are not quite enough.

We live inside a set of cultural messages so ambient they have become indistinguishable from reality. That your worth is demonstrated through your output. That the self is a project requiring constant improvement.

Often, good enough seems to be a consolation prize. These messages arrive dressed as motivation, as inspiration, as the reasonable standards of a competitive world. They do not announce themselves as the machinery of insufficiency. They don’t need to. By the time we are old enough to question them, they have already moved in and rearranged the furniture.

What the research kept returning to, again and again, was a particular sentence that appeared in different forms across different territories, different women, different registers of confession: “I intellectually know I’m enough. But I never feel it.” The knowing and the feeling, perpetually estranged from each other. The correct conclusion arrived at, understood, repeated — and the body, unmoved, continuing to send the older signal. “Not yet. Not quite. More.”

This wound formed early enough so that it does not live in the realm of ideas, where understanding can reach it. It lives in the structure beneath consciousness — in what Jung called the complex, the autonomous psychic formation organized around the original hurt, recruiting evidence from every new experience, confirming itself in every moment of perceived inadequacy. You can understand the complex perfectly and still feel its grip. The wound precedes the language available to describe it. And the culture, rather than interrupting the wound, has learned to speak its language fluently — to address the not-enough feeling not by dismantling it but by offering it new objects to strive toward.

This is the engine. The not-enough feeling generates striving. The striving generates temporary relief. The relief collapses back into not-enough when the achievement is absorbed without satisfaction — and it always is, because the wound was never actually about the achievement. It was about the original insufficiency, which no credential can touch.

And so the drive to be extraordinary is not, at its root, a story about ambition. It is a story about a self that was taught, before it had the words to argue, that its ordinary existence was insufficient. That the mortal fact of simply being here, imperfect and unfinished and entirely human, was not yet worthy of belonging.

The culture did not create that teaching.

But it built an entire economy on top of it.

Marion Woodman and the Addiction to Perfection

In 1982, the Canadian Jungian analyst Marion Woodman published her book Addiction to Perfection. She opens it with this sentence: “This book is about taking the head off an evil witch.”

The witch she was naming was not a fairy tale figure. Instead, the witch is symbolic of an internal pattern existing inside women. This pattern petrifies a woman’s spirit, freezes the living person into something static and driven, and never quite arrives. And the source of the witch’s power, Woodman argued, was culture itself. A culture so thoroughly organized around patriarchal values — productivity, goal-orientation, intellectual excellence, spiritual perfection — that it had severed an entire dimension of human experience from what was considered acceptable, valuable, real.

What had been severed was the feminine. Not women — but rather the feminine principle: the earthy, the relational, the instinctual, the body’s slow and non-negotiable wisdom. The dimension of experience that does not produce, does not optimize, does not arrive anywhere in particular, but that knows how to receive, to rest, to be moved, to grieve, to belong to itself.

Woodman’s central argument was this: When the feminine is systematically culturally devalued, it does not disappear. It goes underground — into the body, into compulsion, into the driven perfectionism of women who are trying, with extraordinary effort, to be good enough by standards that were never designed to include them. The not-enough feeling is not an accident of individual psychology. It is what happens when an entire principle of being is declared insufficient by the dominant order, and women internalize that verdict as a personal failure. Perfectionism becomes a defense against the body, against the feminine, and the living flesh.

This is the belief system that the culture instills and the not-enough feeling maintains. The woman driving herself toward extraordinary — through the credentials, the achievement, the body that must also be disciplined, the emotions that must also be managed — is not pursuing wholeness. She is pursuing an image. And the image, by its nature, is static. Fixed. Airless. It cannot grow because it cannot be touched. Woodman named this condition as being the unravished bride — frozen at the threshold of life, forever approaching but never entering, perpetually becoming but never simply being.

The addiction, Woodman understood, is not weakness. It is the psyche’s attempt to satisfy a hunger that perfection can never actually feed. Underneath the drive to be extraordinary is not ambition. It is a thirst — for meaning, for belonging, for the experience of being received as one actually is, not as one has managed to perform. “To strive for perfection,” Woodman wrote, “is to kill love, because perfection does not recognize humanity.”

Brené Brown and the Shame Beneath the Striving

If Woodman diagnosed perfectionism from the depths — as a soul problem, a severing from the feminine, a hunger that no achievement can feed — Brené Brown arrived at the same wound from a different direction entirely. Brown is a researcher. She came to perfectionism not through dreams and archetypes but through thousands of hours of interviews, through data, through the accumulated testimony of ordinary people trying to explain why, despite everything they had accomplished, they still did not feel free.

What she found beneath the drive for perfection was not ambition. It was shame.

Shame, Brown argues, is the intensely painful feeling that we are flawed and therefore unworthy of love and belonging. It is not guilt — guilt says “I did something bad”. Shame says, “I am bad”. And perfectionism, she discovered, is one of shame’s most sophisticated defense systems. If I look perfect, perform perfectly, produce perfectly — if I can make myself into something that cannot be criticized — then perhaps I can avoid the exposure. Perhaps I can outrun the verdict.

In her book, Daring Greatly: How the Courage to Be Vulnerable Transforms the Way We Live, Love, Parent, and Lead, Brown writes that perfectionism is not about self-improvement. It is fundamentally about earning approval. The perfectionist is not asking “How can I grow?” She is asking, “What do I need to be so that no one can touch me?” The distinction is everything. One is oriented inward — toward genuine development, toward the self’s own becoming. The other is oriented entirely outward — toward the audience, toward the judgment that is always imagined as imminent, toward the pre-emptive performance of a self that cannot be found wanting because it has already found itself wanting and built armor against it.

This is what Brown calls the shield. Perfectionism is not a pursuit of excellence. It is a twenty-pound piece of armor that we strap on every morning, believing it will protect us, not noticing that it is also what makes it impossible for us to be touched — by love, by connection, by the very belonging we are killing ourselves to deserve.

Here the two women — Woodman and Brown — are, without having planned it, saying the same thing from different floors of the same building. Woodman says: to strive for perfection is to kill love, because perfection does not recognize humanity. Brown says: perfectionism is the belief that love must be earned before it can be safely received, which means it can never be received at all, because the armor that protects against rejection also prevents the very contact that would dissolve the wound.

The hunger Woodman named — for meaning, for belonging, for being received as one actually is — is precisely what Brown’s shame-driven perfectionism makes structurally impossible to satisfy.

The Question of Discernment: Perfectionism or Healthy Striving?

Brown offers something Woodman does not: a practical distinction. Because not all striving is perfectionism. Not all standards are shame-armor. The desire to do something well, to grow, to bring genuine care and attention to one’s work — this is not the same thing as the driven, other-directed, never-enough performance that Woodman and Brown are both diagnosing.

Brown’s distinction is clean and worth holding: perfectionism is other-focused, healthy striving is self-focused. The perfectionist’s internal question is always a version of “What will they think?” The healthy striver’s question is “How can I grow? What does this work ask of me? Where is the next edge of my own becoming?”

The difference is in the direction of the gaze.

But how do we actually know which one is operating in us, in any given moment? Brown offers a diagnostic that is almost uncomfortably simple. Ask yourself: Who am I doing this for? Not the answer you perform for others — the actual answer. Is the standard you are holding yourself to one you genuinely believe in, or is it the imagined standard of an audience in your head whose approval you have been trying to secure for longer than you can remember?

A second question, drawn from Woodman’s frame: What happens in your body when you imagine stopping? Not resting — stopping. Letting the work be good enough, imperfect, human. Is there relief? Or is there terror? The terror is the tell. It is the shame speaking from underneath the striving, the wound saying: if you stop, you will be seen. And if you are seen, you will not be enough.

Perfectionism lives in that terror. Healthy striving does not require it.

And perhaps the deepest diagnostic of all — one that Woodman would recognize and Brown’s research confirms — is this: Does your striving make you more yourself, or less? Does the pursuit of excellence in this particular area open you, enlarge you, bring you into more genuine contact with your own life? Or does it progressively narrow you, isolate you, require you to perform a version of yourself that is more polished and less alive with every iteration?

Wholeness expands. Perfectionism, however dazzling its productions, ultimately contracts — until the person inside the armor is so protected, so defended, so relentlessly extraordinary, that there is no longer any room for the ordinary, imperfect, entirely sufficient human being who was there before the witch took hold.

Have you found value here? Have you been inspired or moved?  Please consider sharing the post on your social media networks by using the buttons below.

I love to hear your comments and ideas. Use the comments below or send me an email.