Practically every serious description of the “authentic person” extant implies that such a person, by virtue of what he has become, assumes a new relation to his society and indeed, to society in general. He not only transcends himself in various ways; he also transcends his culture. He resists enculturation. He becomes more detached from his culture and from his society. He becomes a little more a member of his species and a little less a member of his local group. My feeling is that most sociologists and anthropologists will take this hard. I therefore confidently expect controversy in this area.
—Abraham Maslow
Disclaimer: Some of what I discuss below may challenge, perhaps even offend some people. If you are a person who is easily offended or who prefers not to have your worldview challenged, consider this your “trigger warning.” Proceed at your own risk.
~~~
In the first part of this essay, I have only touched on the fact that “authenticity” may have different—potentially incompatible—meanings when considered as a quality of things (e.g., photographs, writings, artworks, or other creations). However, authenticity has another meaning when considered as a quality of people and as an attitude toward life.
Consider this passage from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP):
The term ‘authentic’ is used either in the strong sense of being “of undisputed origin or authorship”, or in a weaker sense of being “faithful to an original” or a “reliable, accurate representation”. To say that something is authentic is to say that it is what it professes to be, or what it is reputed to be, in origin or authorship. But the distinction between authentic and derivative is more complicated when discussing authenticity as a characteristic attributed to human beings. For in this case, the question arises: What is it to be oneself, at one with oneself, or truly representing one’s self?
Note first the distinction that SEP makes between “authentic” and “derivative.” Applied to art, it suggests that works which are deliberately copied/plagiarized or that very closely mimic works originally authored by someone else are not authentic, even if they meet the criteria for one or both kinds of authenticity identified by Arnheim in the first part of this essay (i.e., either objectively realistic or expressive of their maker’s experience). Likewise, if the distinction is applied to artists, it suggests that those who don’t produce original works are not authentic creators.
Another part of the reason I mention SEP here, is to encourage readers who wish to understand authenticity at a deeper level than I cover here, to read the complete entry and the texts it references, if only because I can’t hope to do justice to the term in all its nuances in this essay. In the following, I’ll refer to authenticity as it is characterized in the work of Martin Heidegger and its further influence on so-called “existentialist” thinkers. Put simply, authenticity in this sense may be considered as being true to oneself, and its opposite—inauthenticity—as acting in unquestioned deference to other people’s norms, values, rules, or expectations.
(It’s worth noting here that most people likely believe they know their “true self” but have never stopped to think about what it really means, and to what extent this self is a reflection of their environment and circumstances, rather than a result of deep introspection. To avoid going on a tangent, I invite you to read my thoughts about this subject in my book, Be Extraordinary.)
Heidegger coined the term Eigentlichkeit, which is generally translated as “authenticity.” However, it’s also useful to consider Heidegger’s term in its original language. Heidegger made use of the German “eigen,” which may be translated as “own.” This is an important aspect of authenticity in the Heideggerian sense: to be authentic is to “own” yourself—your place in the world and in society, your possibilities, your choices, your story, your beliefs, your nature as a human being existing in the world. Heidegger likewise coined the term “Dasein” to signify an individual human being in the world—one who “owns” and contemplates the nature and meaning of their existence. Two eminently important aspects of Dasein are especially important in the context of authenticity: “thrownness” and mortality.
Thrownness refers to the fact that we all come into existence—thrown into a world, and into a set of circumstances—that we did not choose. These circumstances constrain us in many ways but also provide us with opportunities to make individual choices and to shape our individual courses in life. Our circumstances include, among other things, the norms, expectations, and laws of the family and society we happened to have been “thrown” into. When we act according to these expectations, either because we fail to question them or because doing so is more convenient and less risky than resisting them, we are acting inauthentically (or, as Jean-Paul Sartre put it, we are acting in “mauvaise foi,” sometimes translated as “bad faith” or as “self-deception”). On the other hand, when we choose to act according to our own true judgment, even if in defiance of other people’s rules and expectations—we are acting authentically: we “transcend” our circumstances, to borrow a term from existentialist writings.
Mortality is something most people prefer not to think about too often or too deeply. Still, it is the one fact we know with absolute certainty is awaiting us in the future. We only exist in the world for a limited time. Authenticity requires that we acknowledge our ephemeral nature and factor this knowledge into our choices. Knowing that our lifespans are limited, we must consider time as a finite and ever-diminishing resource. To live authentically is, among other things, to make deliberate choices about how to use this limited resource: whether we spend our time (or portions of it) living according to other people’s rules and expectations or according to our own ethics and desires. The point is not that one way is “good” and the other is “bad.” The point is that, because we are mortal, we must consider and decide for ourselves when one way is more appropriate than another—and a better use of our limited time.
It should be obvious by now that authenticity is situational. No person, even the most authentic, can function in a society and at the same time always act authentically in every situation. For example, a person may put on a suit and tie when attending a formal event even if they would otherwise prefer the comfort of wearing sweatpants and a tee shirt. Likewise, we are all being inauthentic when we communicate using a common language and comply with its rules of grammar and spelling, which we did not choose. In these situations, we can say that being inauthentic is entirely justified and necessary for the proper functioning of any society. Likewise, we rarely judge people for acting inauthentically in situations when doing otherwise may involve great risk or extreme hardship.
So, if no person can be authentic in every situation, then who gets to be considered as an authentic person? The answer depends on whom you ask. According to predecessors of existentialist philosophy, such as Friedrich Nietzsche and Søren Kierkegaard, authentic people are those who separate themselves from society and choose their own values and beliefs, rather than accept them as given from any tradition. According to Heidegger and Sartre, authenticity and inauthenticity are not so much qualities of people as states that all people transition between in different situations (i.e., there are no truly authentic people, but perhaps some people are more prone to act authentically than others).
By any definition, there remain a few inconvenient truths about authenticity. One of these inconvenient truths is that authenticity is generally considered an exception, not the rule. Most philosophers who wrote about authenticity (perhaps using different terms for it) considered inauthenticity to be the default human conditions: most people, in most situations, don’t act authentically but blindly obey social norms or default to easy and convenient choices without overthinking their greater implications.
Another inconvenient truth about authenticity is that it is a quality of individuals (or of individual acts). As I mentioned, authenticity implies asserting ownership of one’s true self, rather than going along in compliance with the norms and expectations of others. To be an authentic person thus implies, among other things, a willingness to break with, or even to stand against the collective. It is, therefore, odd to see some groups list authenticity as one of their shared values.
Certainly, membership in a group may be an authentic choice if an individual sincerely and voluntarily shares in the group’s values. However, human social dynamics being what they are, most collectives ultimately give rise to various tensions and disagreements: situations in which the authentic choice for a member who finds themselves at odds with the group, is to rebel against, or to leave the group. Most groups in fact implicitly encourage inauthentic qualities in their members, such as conformity, loyalty to the collective above the individual, and tolerance of disagreements.
I suspect that, like most people, you have arrived at this point believing that authenticity, despite its rarity and difficulty, is always and unequivocally a “good thing,” and that if everyone acted authentically, “the world” would be a “better place.” This belief explains why so many people proudly declare themselves as authentic. In truth, this belief is at best naïve, if not outright hypocritical.
Authenticity and goodness are separate things, and don’t always overlap. Also, not everyone will agree on what “goodness” might mean in any given context. There are many ways to demonstrate this, but it should be obvious enough if we consider that our prisons are full of people who chose to act authentically—according to their true nature—and in doing so ended up violating a social norm or even causing great harm to others. Likewise, some of the greatest atrocities and injustices in history were—and are—committed by great numbers of people who believe(d) absolutely in the goodness of their cause. Name any politically or morally divisive issue, and you will find people on both sides of it who (authentically) believe that their judgment is correct, their cause is good, and their actions justified.
As Abraham Maslow put it bluntly:
The group of thinkers who have been working with self-actualization, with self, with authentic humanness, etc., have pretty firmly established their case that man has a tendency to realize himself. By implication he is exhorted to be true to his own nature, to trust himself, to be authentic, spontaneous, honestly expressive, to look for the sources of his action in his own deep inner nature.
But, of course, this is an ideal counsel. They do not sufficiently warn that most adults don’t know how to be authentic and that, if they “express” themselves, they may bring catastrophe not only upon themselves but upon others as well. What answer must be given to the rapist or the sadist who asks “Why should I too not trust and express myself?”
Both Heidegger and Sartre recognized this problem and claimed firmly that their thoughts on authenticity should not be considered as moral guides. Authenticity is no guarantee of being “right,” being considered morally good, and certainly not making “the world” better. Authenticity is important in one sense only, which is this: being true to oneself, when circumstances permit, is the best attitude for individuals seeking to elevate their own living experiences: their own individual sense of meaning in life. Authenticity means, in blunt terms often used by Friedrich Nietzsche, acting as individual agents making choices according to their own values and judgment, rather than acting as “herd animals.” This, of course, is no guarantee that “the herd” will consider these choices as “good,” nor that authenticity is a valid defense for committing acts considered as offensive or criminal.
I hope the discussion above has given you more insight into the idea of authenticity. I also hope it at least gave you some pause about declaring yourself an “authentic person” without further qualification of what you mean by it.
But, here again, don’t get too comfortable just yet! Another plot twist is coming in the next and final part of this series. To whet your appetite, consider this: the concept of authenticity relies on the belief that each of us is free, at least in some situations, to make our own choices. These choices, in turn, may be authentic or inauthentic. But are we really as free to choose as we think we are?
Likes are good but comments are better: