The Cost of Belonging and Selfhood
Audio is not available for this quote.
To be ourselves causes us to be exiled by many others, and yet to comply with others' wishes causes us to be exiled from ourselves. — Clarissa Pinkola Estés
—What lingers after this line?
One-minute reflection
What feeling does this quote bring up for you?
The Double Bind of Authenticity
Clarissa Pinkola Estés frames a painful dilemma: authenticity can invite social rejection, while conformity can produce an inner estrangement. In other words, we often choose between being “exiled” by others or exiling ourselves from our own instincts, values, and voice. This tension isn’t merely a personal quirk; it is a recurring human predicament that shows up wherever communities enforce norms. From the start, her wording implies that exile is not always geographical—it can be emotional and relational. Being oneself may cost invitations, approval, or belonging, but the alternative can cost something subtler: self-respect and wholeness. The quote sets up a question that reverberates through the rest of her work: which exile is more survivable, and at what long-term price?
Social Belonging as a Quiet Currency
To understand why authenticity can trigger exile, it helps to notice how belonging functions like a social currency. Groups—families, workplaces, friend circles—often reward predictability and punish deviation, even when they claim to value individuality. As a result, a person who refuses a prescribed role can become inconvenient evidence that the role was never inevitable. This is why exile can be subtle: fewer calls, cooler tones, unspoken disapproval. The dynamic echoes the pressure described in Solomon Asch’s conformity experiments (1951), where many participants agreed with an obviously wrong group answer to avoid standing apart. Estés’s point gains force here: the fear of social loss can be so powerful that we barter away pieces of ourselves without noticing the transaction.
The Inner Exile of Self-Betrayal
Yet Estés pivots to the second, quieter tragedy: compliance can estrange us from ourselves. When we consistently reshape our desires to match others’ wishes, we may remain physically included while becoming internally absent. Over time, this can feel like living as a carefully edited version of oneself—socially acceptable, emotionally dislocated. Psychologically, this resembles what D.W. Winnicott called the “false self” in his writings on adaptation and authenticity (e.g., Winnicott, 1960), where a person presents a compliant persona that protects them from rejection but distances them from spontaneous feeling. The exile Estés describes is therefore not dramatic but cumulative: each small self-silencing adds up until the person no longer knows what they actually want.
Identity as a Relationship, Not a Performance
Moving from the personal to the relational, the quote implies that identity is not something we “perform correctly” to earn membership; it is something we live in relationship with. When relationships demand that we abandon our essential nature to stay connected, they create attachment at the expense of integrity. That bargain can feel stable in the short run, but it erodes trust—especially self-trust. Existential thinkers make a similar point about the hazards of living by external scripts. Jean-Paul Sartre’s concept of “bad faith” in Being and Nothingness (1943) describes the avoidance of freedom through adopting roles as if they were our essence. Estés’s language of exile aligns with this: the farther we drift into role-playing, the more foreign our own life can begin to feel.
Choosing Which Exile to Risk
The heart of Estés’s message is not that exile can be avoided, but that it must be chosen consciously. If being oneself risks rejection, the task becomes discerning which relationships can tolerate truth, and which require disguise. In practice, many people discover that a few honest losses create space for truer connections—friendships and communities that don’t require constant self-editing. This is also where courage becomes pragmatic rather than heroic. Even small acts—naming a preference, setting a boundary, declining an expectation—test whether belonging is conditional. Each test clarifies the landscape: who can stay with you when you are real. By treating authenticity as a series of decisions, the quote shifts from despair to agency.
Integration: Belonging Without Abandoning Self
Finally, the quote gestures toward a form of belonging that does not demand self-erasure: integration. Rather than swinging between total compliance and total isolation, integration seeks relationships where difference is negotiated rather than punished. This may mean learning to speak honestly with tact, to accept misunderstanding without immediate retreat, and to tolerate the discomfort that often accompanies growth. In that sense, Estés is less prescribing defiance than inviting alignment—living so that one’s inner life and outer life match. When that alignment becomes the priority, exile from oneself is no longer an option, even if social exile sometimes is. Paradoxically, that stance often attracts healthier bonds, because authenticity filters out relationships built primarily on control and performance.