During seventeenth and eighteenth centuries human beings came to be thought of more as individuals than as placeholders in systems of social relations. This emphasis on the importance of the individual is seen where the individual becomes the centre of attention not because of the extraordinary features or, her or his special knowledge, but because he or she is now seen as an unique individual no matter why.
Parallel to that the society comes to be seen not as an organic whole of interacting components, but as a mix of individual human beings and gradually going towards an artificial society which is led to the “social contract”. Being human is now becoming more and more about being an indistinctive individual which is best achieved through being unique and special. This happens inconsistently with a simultaneous increase in denial of “inwardness” or “internal space”. The uniqueness somehow has to be reflected outwards.
And that may be the derivation of the biggest struggle the modern human being gets to face without even being aware of; the fight and the attempt to match between one’s private and unique individuality and one’s public self which is measured, controlled and civilized (Taylor 1991; Trilling 1972).
These social shifts changed the way we value ourselves and others. Concepts like sincerity and honour become antiquated or naive. In earlier times, a sincere person was seen as someone who honestly attempts to live up to what expectations he or she creates, and that position is looked at from how the community define him or her, to strive to behave as he or she ought to.
Hegel boldly refers to sincerity as “the heroism of dumb service” and launches an attack on the condition of sincerity, the individual is uncritically obedient to the power of society—a conformity that leads to defeat and descent of the individual.
Authenticity comes to establish a somewhat a new ideal than the old naïve honesty concept. Concept of sincerity, as being truthful and honest in one’s dealings with others, following social norms, comes to be replaced by authenticity. Authenticity as being true to oneself for one’s own value and not by what one been told. Authentic recommended that one should be true to oneself in order to be true to others. But being true to oneself is also the cause to the end of successful social relations!
Authenticity and autonomy proposing that one should strive to live one’s life according to one’s own reasons and motives, relying on one’s capacity to follow self-guidelines. Authenticity on the other hand claimed to be going beyond autonomy as the individual’s feelings and deepest desires can easily overshadow the rational our reflection in making decisions, and which can lead to disrupt our willingness to follow the values of society. Authenticity becomes an indirectly critical and questioning the ruling social order and public opinion, demanding a huge amount of courage and wisdom from the single individual.
But in our contemporary thinking, authenticity start to refers to a way of acting that is meaningful in itself and almost independent of the context or consequence that it brings to others, as to say it doesn’t matter what other thinks, or how we make other feels, as long as you are true to yourself. Authenticity become a nicely masked self-centredness.
Authenticity could also become a mask for something less beautiful than the honourable fight to be true despite whatsoever. The idealism of authenticity as the to act according one’s own inner feelings and attitudes breed a self-centred obsession. There is even similarities between the clinical disorders referred to as Narcissistic Personality Disorder and authenticity. Narcissism and authenticity distinguished by lacking empathic skills, self-indulgence and self-absorbed behaviour.
‘The culture of authenticity has made the minds of the youth “narrower and flatter,” leading to the collapse of the public self. Some would even go so far to talk about the threat that the self-centeredness and narcissism of the “culture of authenticity” poses to morality and our political responsibility.
However, one might argue that this only becomes a problem if one thinks of authenticity as entirely a personal virtue. In other words, there is only a clash with morality if the “true” self is regarded as always right to go against the crowd.
Authenticity here is not about egoism or self-absorption. On the contrary, it seems to have been that, by turning inward and accessing the “true” self, one is simultaneously led towards a deeper engagement with the social world and by better understanding of oneself, you build a better understanding of the other- which lead to empathy. This is why some describes the project of authenticity is “inward and upward”.
The growing consumed comfort of life becomes a hinder for any true commitment to anything, wether is love, authenticity, our children and our global responsibility.
And if I have to answer what authenticity is for me then I would say it is to examine myself, to treat others as I like to be treated, is to be what I feel to be if I know I am not hurting anyone, and to take the responsibility to do what is right to be done but also be open to learn that it might be wrong- My authenticity is only true if I am open to check in with others without fear of judgment and so is critical to manage being vulnerable; to be compassionate more than I think I can, and to know that I’m part of the whole. I do matter but I am not the only one or thing that matters.”
