Behaving authentically means that you behave in a manner consistent with your own values, beliefs and ideals (as opposed to those of other people or organizations), and that you also express yourself; this means that the person you portray to others is an accurate representation of who you really are rather than playing a part or role. “Authenticity” has become a hot watch word for leadership books in the last 20 years. Good leaders, leaders who are trustworthy and act in good faith are authentic.
But this view of leadership is fairly novel, not to mention western-centric. Nobody was talking about it in the 1950s and 60s, and nobody is talking about it in Asia or the Middle East or even eastern Europe. In the 1970s when it became popular to “find yourself” and “self-actualization” became a spiritual goal for many people, the movement toward authenticity as a core value was born. For many, it is a foregone conclusion that it’s morally superior. Early generations revered duty and community values (social good) over individualization and freedom of expression. Authenticity is a current trend. And yet, it’s got merit in building interpersonal trust. Psychologically, it’s more valuable for a leader to be authentic, comfortable in her own skin, than to be charming or incisive. Relationships in general are more trusting when built on a base of authenticity.
And yet, hierarchy, by its very nature, undermines authenticity. Consider the following:
- How do you act when you are in a position of authority? Do you have an obligation to portray your organization’s values over your own at times? Isn’t that also part of the duty of a leader?
- How do you act around someone you consider to be an authority figure? Does self-interest pressure you to behave in a certain way?
Commenter Cowboy once commented that people won’t disclose the whole truth to a bishop once they’ve made up their minds to leave the church because many who’ve left never had a relationship with those individuals in positions of authority anyway, and they don’t desire one now that they are leaving. They view people in the church who are contacting them to be doing so based on duty and stewardship, but often not because of an established relationship with them. Relationships up to that point may lack authenticity or real self-disclosure. Many relationships in life do.
Living in Asia, there was no hand-wringing over authenticity the way there is in the US. Anglos were more aware of this value than the Asians I met and worked with and used it conversationally at work in ways that did not occur in the Asian cultures I worked in. Within Asian cultures, community values trump personal interests. Saving face for the group is more important than honesty. People do not indulgently navel-gaze to the extent that we do in western culture. And people are accustomed to far more authority in their governments than we are, authorities they rely on to keep order and provide economic stability.
A person may choose to be inauthentic with others for a few reasons:
- Self-protection. They perceive people to be inauthentic in their interest. As it says in the New Testament, cast not your pearls before swine. They don’t want to unveil their personal views, beliefs, or needs in front of someone who will misunderstand them. Of course, this casts the believing person in the role of swine. Refusing to be authentic in this case is an indictment of the other person; it’s a deliberate decision to avoid self-disclosure for reasons of self-protection.
- Personal empowerment. They desire “boundaries” because they themselves had a view of their role as subordinate to those individuals (when they were an insider) and part of leaving involves reclaiming their power.
- Social conscience. They want to protect others who are happy from the difficulty of a faith crisis. This assumes that the “facts” will be interpreted the same by all people, and that this interpretation will necessarily be negative. Conversely, some will deliberately self-disclose to proselyte a contrary viewpoint for what they deem social good.
- No benefit. There is nothing to gain from self-disclosure. This presupposes that we only disclose our thoughts for reasons of self-interest, which is of course true sometimes. But it turns relationships into a cost-benefit analysis, politically motivated for personal gain.
While this second reason is one people discuss a lot in online forums, it also seems somewhat unnecessary. If you are being authentic, someone else’s “authority” bounces right off of you. Consider this analogy. If you secretly know you have a new job, and your boss at your current job wants to meet with you to exert her authority, how much do you care? Not that much. You may even find it secretly amusing. You have disengaged from the relationship and have nothing terribly important at stake. There’s nothing quite so satisfying as talking to your boss when you have two better job offers in your pocket. But that’s because a boss-employee relationship is unequal and by its nature, authority adds pressure that works against authenticity. If you participate in a hierarchical structure, you are accepting a role within that structure.
My daughter was pointing out to me that it’s sexist that girls can’t pass the sacrament. I said since she had a youth interview after sacrament meeting, she should tell the bishop what she thought. She said, “No way! He’s scary!” I pointed out that he’s not scary at all. He’s a very nice guy. She said he was a nice guy in real life, but as bishop he’s scary because of his role. And plus he can’t do anything about it. She is simply pointing out the nature of hierarchical relationships, and at the age of 12, she’s already feeling the need to censor herself. Kids learn this at a very young age, of course, dealing with their teachers and even parents, seeking approval from those on whom they rely for their very survival. I said she didn’t need to feel that way, that he would not be bothered by her honest feelings. Then I pointed out he would probably think I put her up to it since I’m her parent and many people think kids are just parroting what they hear at home (which in this case is not so).
So it is with many of us. The more we perceive authority, the less authentic we will be. And the more authority exerts itself, the less authentic we will be.
- Are you authentic with people at church? Does your answer differ by person? Why or why not? Does it differ by role? Why or why not?
- Is authenticity important or is it a fad? Defend your answer.
- Do leaders need to be authentic to be effective or can they portray the organization’s values even when those values differ from their own? Does this erode trust? Can you tell when this happens?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Authenticity is a fad. As the original poster points out, it is new and it is western — not universal, either in terms of time or breadth.
And it is a dangerous fad. It seems to be commonly used as a means to judge others, and to judge them negatively as not being authentic, while puffing up oneself as authentic.
Collectivism vs individualism has been in tension since the beginning of humankind. Authenticity justifies the breakaway from collectivism because it provides a path for faster growth individually than the glacier pace of the group (often paced to accommodate the least of the group) eventually creating multiple groups, the original heterodox group, the awakening group and the awakened group.
The argument against authenticity and for collective heterodoxy typically argues the existence of only one truth that happens to be held by the group implying that growth beyond the group is impossible or false but this argument must be false or Joseph, Christ and HF would still be at the group level themselves, not beyond it as we know them to be. So this argument defines the gospel as fixed, not progressing or growing and it argues that the group actually lives the fullness of the gospel when we know this isn’t true.
Authenticity and the search for self is a relatively new concept because the methods/ability to understand our subconscious is a relatively new and still growing contribution to individual enlightenment.
Authenticity is definitely not universal, which is interesting to note. When I hear people in discussion forums lament that other people misunderstand them, parents or siblings, etc., I am left scratching my head. I didn’t think that kind of understanding was realistic or the norm. It’s great when we feel understood, but it’s a rare exception in my experience. It’s a myth we chase when we are adolescents. Parents are certainly seldom understood by their children. Our roles intrude.
Living in Asia, I would say that it is very common for people to completely suborn their identity in a role, and that there are detrimental side effects to this. People are much less creative and more willing to be subject to social injustice (although westerners are perhaps a little trigger-happy in playing the victim card by contrast). It seems to me that self-knowledge leads to wisdom, and self-knowledge doesn’t flourish in a communitarian society, nor does it flourish in a completely individualistic society. We need moderation and balance.
As an Aspie, I tend to be “authentic” most of the time because it doesn’t occur to me to be otherwise, nor do I have much skill at it. I’ve gotten better over the years, mostly for self-protection, but it’s still been a significant handicap personally and professionally.
Regardless of the cult of authenticity in American business, while we might value it in higher-level leaders (or say we do), we certainly do not value it in the rank and file. The rest of us are expected to toe the line.
Our personal relationships (in spite of our efforts) typically do not approach oneness. Authenticity is a requirement for oneness because inauthenticity by definition creates distance. Can you imagine desiring to be one with someone who is inauthentic? What’s the point?
I think the big question here, and the question I have struggled with for years, is can one be authentic and a “good” member of the church at the same time? For me, the answer is no, because while I believe the church is good, and adds value to my life, I don’t believe it is the one true church or that there is one true church. This has ramifications for my attitude toward missionary work, temple ordinances, obeying the prophet, heck, half the things we talk about in church. I deal with this by avoiding big callings and by being inauthentic with my neighborhood friends, whom I respect and care about, but with whom I can’t have real friendships because I am not being myself or I am censoring what I want to say quite often.
In John 12:24-25, Jesus taught, “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.”
Many aspects of our authentic self are not what we believe they should be. Changing those things about ourselves properly involves a stage of denial. Even if we can’t get past being, say, authentically caustic and lazy, all concerned will be better off if we fake being a nice cheerful, industrious person.
#7 So inauthenticity and Pollyanna denial trumps authenticity for imperfect people? Well, if so you seem to be revering no growth, how do they ever progress out of that self-delusion?
By allowing the corn of wheat to fall into the ground and die.
Well, I can be authentic and be a good member of the church, as I do believe that this is Christ’s church restored. I suppose that means that I believe it’s “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased.” I do not, however, believe that the Church or its leaders are perfect, and I don’t think I need to be a lockstep, obey-at-any-cost member to be a “good member.”
Nice post. I think that submission to authority becomes an authentic expression inasmuch as the participant grows to value that authority. It’s like the Stockholm Syndrome. Our values change to reflect what we are told is “true.”
God ultimately wants us to be authentic, “whoso giveth a gift grudgingly it is the same as if he retained it.” “I will write my law upon their hearts.”
But God also set Himself at war with our nature, “the natural man is an enemy to God.” So you have to put off the natural man becoming “meek, submissive, patient,”
So in the church we are in a war against our natural authenticity, but striving to achieve what we are told is our true spiritual nature, wherein “no man shall say “know ye the Lord” for all shall know Him,” or “when we shall see Him we shall be like Him.”
John,
That’s a metaphor, do you mind explaining what you mean by it in plain language as it applies here?
Indeed the natural man is an enemy to God but we are not in a war against our authenticity rather we must become authentic as a step towards putting off the natural man. The natural man cannot be completely put off through rote obedience, this works for surface issues but when it comes to deeper issues that simply splits your psyche creating an LDS brand of hypocrisy, it elevates superficial outward behavior above one’s inward truth. The natural man is finally put off via the mighty change of heart and this includes integration of your psyche including embracing your shadow side to eliminate dissonance as a step toward healing and improving your shadow side. This is a process of becoming one with your self which in turn is preparatory to becoming one with God.
We start learning to give up authenticity when we’re very young, because we discover that throwing a tantrum or asking the fat lady why she’s so fat don’t work out for us socially. It’s great to be authentic, if you’re authenticly good. If not, it might be more beneficial for you to subsume your authentic self in a role. Sometimes, you can even grow in that role and be authentically better. For example, a home teacher can start out being an artificial friend and grow into a real one.
As adults we can resolve the core issues that cause us to throw tantrums etc. and then return to dissonance free, honest authenticity. Of course if one doesn’t want to do the work necessary to become mature inauthenticity and Pollyanna will work fine as a cover for maintaining their membership in the church. They won’t stand out at all.
Martin – I tend to agree with your “fake it till you make it” view of roles, but I don’t think we really outgrow authenticity in the way you describe. That’s just gaining social skills and tact. You don’t have to throw tantrums to be authentic. Hopefully we aren’t mostly walking around hiding the fact that we want to throw tantrums. I mean maybe people aren’t farting in public all the time. And I guess you could call them inauthentic for it. Or you could just say they have good manners. And yet the stress is between social good an individual good.
I’m someone, like New Iconoclast, who tends to default towards authenticity because of social obliviousness. It’s had consequences at church, both positive and negative. Yes, I’ve been told to keep my mouth shut at times, but I’ve also had people express appreciation for speaking up about controversial subjects that those who are more socially aware find too risky.
The other issue is that authenticity is different for each person. Being authentic in class for me is to speak up; being authentic for many others would be to skip class altogether. So for the benefit of teachers and others, people will be inauthentic and make an attempt for the public good. When my VT tries to fake interest in a topic that she knows I’m passionate about, I try to restrain myself from engaging too heavily. I appreciate that she recognizes my interest, but I have also figured out it is painful to her to continue the conversation. I guess that would fall under category #4 – there is no benefit from authenticity in that situation.
I also wonder if at times we are so eager to express ourselves that we choose an identity that is really just another mask. I am not the voice in my head. I am the one who hears the voice in my head. In essence, self-knowledge and self-awareness is often an illusion.
For example, consider a teenager. They create a persona through their choice of music, posters, authors, heroes. Sometimes they show they are “different” by showing they are some other thing, but it’s often not unique either. Many people’s identities are like that: the curmudgeon, the outsider, the rebel. While they aren’t “conformist,” that identity also may not be authentic.
I think authenticity in the modern western sense gets into trouble when it is used to deflect self-reflection and self-improvement. At its most extreme it can be invoked in ways that shut down basic self-awareness. Since I am also living in an Asian country seeped in the Confucian logic of perpetual hierarchy (Confucianism as I understand rejects the notion that any two people can be equal in any meaningful sense and therefore a hierarchy must naturally be established in all relationships. Very contra to western values of equality). Under this logic there are few repercussions for giving up authenticity to submit to authority. It has benefits and drawbacks. Among its benefits are the ability to run large complex organizations that can turn much more quickly than their western counterparts. This makes them the best “fast followers” in the world. Among its drawbacks is the ability to radically innovate. However, the younger generation here is definitely being influenced by western ideas and they are chaffing against the hierarchical system which can be brutally abusive.
This has definitely spurred my thinking about the classic tension in the church between authenticity (personal revelation/moral convictions) and authority (submission to leaders and church policy/practice/teachings). It has made me sensitive to just how easy legitimated submission based system are to abuse as all levels (hellow D&C 121!). I find that many within the church just aren’t senstive to this either believing that such contradictions are impossible or so rare as to not deserve serious consideration. I accept that for many they have simply never experienced such contraditictions in any meaningful way. Yet for me this tension has been the central focus of my relationship with the church and my own moral conscience. How do I do ‘what is right?’ under this conflict? I have decided to choose authenticity but hope that I can avoid the trap of losing self-reflection or simply searching for self-justification. We will see how it turns out. I definitely have not found it to be the “path of least resistance”, but I have been taught to be very wary of the “path of least resistance” my entire life.
Brenlee “I don’t believe it is the one true church or that there is one true church.”
I feel the voice you speak. I sat in therapy yesterday voicing my “one true church” grief. I have a testimony that religion is how man has interpreted God, science/nature, culture, and politics over the centuries. I value the depth of Jesus’s teachings but feel church is so childlike it its teachings- I need depth and not to-do lists.
I have talked to a few converts who have a much more liberal interpretation of this but i am pioneer stock and feel a “fundamentalist trauma” associated with my religious life and family dynamics.
I have told my mother-in-law who is visiting this week about my decision that it has become to painful for me to go to church and I will not be going for a while. I am not sure the end of my path but feel peace with the decision. Today, we even bore our testimonies to each other. Her testimony was simple and correlated and mine was complicated and deep (at least for me). I respect hers and after some pain (she said “You have hurt me”), today she told me I can respect your new beliefs. I didn’t sleep for 2 days before she came and I worried about being able to “be fake”.
I am grateful my 15 year old told her his mom’s beliefs had changed. It opened a door for me to be authentic. I see how it has blossomed my relationship with my children as well (fear is tough stuff).
It is a much more peaceful way to live and it can be done in non-harming ways. Harming others is not authentic either, that is why I go to therapy (sometimes I can’t see my own harmful ways or where I still need healing). I don’t want to unload my burdens on people who are not ready to bare burdens that are life transforming. Some are ok with simple and some need more depth to life. We must always meet others at their level authentically. So grateful I learned that these last few days.
hawkgrrrl, “In essence, self-knowledge and self-awareness is often an illusion.”
I am not sure I agree with this. This is how one puts off the masks we get externally. Awareness of self (knowledge of self) has been key for me to shed the masks. If one looks at a flower and puts words to the description based on books, teachers, or posters, I don’t really know the flower. That is the mask. The sitting down and practicing self-awareness (as if I were a flower), would be the only way to get to know the indescribable nature of the flower.
I may not understand what your definition of these terms are either. Mine are based on eastern philosophy.
Yesterday I was listening to a relevant piece on Aristotle’s “virtue ethics” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04ps558) which
“concentrates not on the actions that you do, whether what you do is right or wrong as rule-based and utilitarian ethics do, but it concentrates on who you are, the moral agent; whether the moral agent is themselves virtuous, whether they possess various virtues. And morality becomes about the development of certain virtues of character and this is what Aristotle thought the emphasis should be.
…
the point about virtue ethics is that pretend to act a certain way and keep on doing it and that will make it so much easier to be that sort of person when it is confusing… it’s actually not a bad formula for everyday life that you actually rehearse and pretend and prepare to be a good person and actually that person will much more likely emerge from that sort of practice.” (quoting theologian Giles Fraser from the programme)
I found those points interesting in respect of the above discussion. On the one hand it moves away from rule-based “authority”, but in respect to authenticity isn’t so much about what you are, than it is about what you want to become. So is it authentic to act what you want to be, even if you have yet to fully integrate that into your character? I hope so. On the other hand it would not be authentic to act something for which you have no respect, and don’t want to become.
That’s my take anyway.
hawkgirl,
even more fundamentally, do we have a single identity at all to which to be authentic? if you believe that identity is at all co-constructed with those around you (ie identity is some kind of mix between how you see yourself and how others see you) then it follows fairly closely that we all carry with us multiple identities that are tied up in the different roles we are playing at any given time. So much of what we do is dictated by these socially constructed scripts we come to adhere to. One could argue from a religious point of view that the struggle to come to understand and live true to our “real” eternal divine nature is a life long quest in this mortal coil. I agree with you that self-awareness and self-knowledge are *often* an illusion, but not always. I also think that agency is often illusion, but not always. The struggle for self-awareness and the struggle to sense and understand the social forces driving our decisions are often closely linked. I think agency (and true identity) exist only to the extent that we grow in our ability to understand how society around us impacts us. This to me underscores the deep insight in our (and other) religious tradition that growing in knowledge is the only way we can actually grow in our own moral agency. I would say the same thing about our identities. The more we grow in knowledge the more we might be able to get a handle on our wobbly and erratic identities, the masks we put on and take off as we navigate daily life. As a purely empirical matter I think people and society are better understood when we see individuals as carrying multiple, socially situated identities based largely on societal scripts around roles. As a spiritual matter I think there is great insight in trying to reign in the number of identities in search of a core self.
Glad to see some people on here appear to have read their Goffman!
rah,
I loved you #19 comment but you seem to be confusing/conflating consistency with authenticity even more fundamentally, do we have a single identity at all to which to be authentic? The concept of authenticity with regard to the psyche isn’t about consistency or a single identity it about integration via resolving dissonance in a way that one isn’t living a lie. This is the problem members face when church dogma conflicts with their internal B.S. meter. In this case the church encourages them to be silent about it and continue to live the lie (live inauthenticly) until they come to realize they are wrong and the church is right. Of course it doesn’t always work out that way.
Howard, I agree that the church encourages silence and living a lie. It was my life for the last 38 years until…”came to [her]self”. The church talks the talk but does not walk the walk (so to speak).
My new thoughts on a second coming is figurative. We are all authentically lamb and lion. The lion can be both harm and non-harm (i.e. self-preservation against someone who may harm, or protection a child,etc) and the lamb is both harm and non-harm (i.e. submit to harm of superiors, blind follower, teachable, compassionate to all). They key is for the second coming to happen in the now. The present moment. The lamb and the lion to lie, that exist in each of us at the same time, must down together is the creation of the “authentic” self in my opinion. The navigation of this lying down is not easy (from much experience) and is only possible by “and he came to himself” (or self-awareness/self-knowledge), as in the story of what I call the “non-prodigal son”.
Sue wrote: The church talks the talk but does not walk the walk (so to speak).
Yes the church still has a very big problem, it currently lacks the ability to receive true revelation at the top and instead substitutes committee drafted plans for divine approval via inspiration. This traps the church into being largely lead by the philosophies of men so the church has become static, stale, Mosaic and Pharisaical and it seeks to contain members participation within that envelope. If it truly represented the living gospel it would teach and facilitate a variety of levels of the gospel. For example where are the 2,000 year old beatitudes in day-to-day LDS practice, yes they are given occasional (largely infrequent) lip service while the the 10Cs and WoW are routinely *enforced* and narrowly acceptable belief boundaries are *policed*. Are enforcement and policing Christian ideals??? In order to actually walk the walk they will need to broaden their tent to embrace Jesus’ seminal Christian teachings presented in the sermon on the mount and plain and teach and encourage members to walk in the spirit but in order to actually do this they must cede some control of members and seek revelation instead. Giving up control isn’t something institutions do willingly, they would rather build more buildings with your funds.
Ten years ago I had a best friend at church and we were both at the same activity level with young babies fitting into the ideal mormon woman box. We were both in YW and perfectly active. We have moved away and occasionally keep in touch.
Imagine my surprise after I went through my faith transition, found mormon feminism, and began blogging that she sent me a note. She said she’d spent her whole life trying to fit into that box, the ideal mormon woman. And she finally broke–she said she felt so empty inside after pretending to be someone she wasn’t for so long she just couldn’t believe in *any* of the church’s claims anymore.
I had just spent a year pretending to be TBM at church and living in terror that anyone would find out I identified as feminist (you know, the f word)… I finally felt prompted to share my story – and came out of the MoFem closet. I lost some friends and gained others. And found that Brene Brown was right, living authentically and being vulnerable was hard but worth it. I was no longer living in fear.
I was reading an older conference talk and elder Holland shared he was visiting with Elder Maxwell and they joked about how Moses never had any problem with conformity when he opened the Red Sea, and my heart kind of broke–I have no problem obeying the principles of the Gospel…
But being pushed into this ideal box is suffocating and can break people. I know God’s at work forming and shaping me through trials into who he wants me to be, but I just can’t buy that he’s shaping us all the same. All I know is that I found my voice, and it’s been an empowering, beautiful thing.
I doubt very much this is a new fad of Mumbo jumbo – you can’t really connect with someone on just the surface level. It is incredibly healing to have a safe place where you can share yourself and be loved and accepted. Right now for a lot of people that is not the Church of Jesis Christ of Latter Day Saints, and that makes me sad.
For me it is not a question of choosing to be authentic or choosing to acquiesce to authority. It is a question of a) being fully at peace with who I am and where I stand regardless of the views of those whose approval or lack thereof may be perceived as “important” and b) being fully aware not only of my own thoughts on any given subject but also fully aware of the timeliness, effectiveness, or lack thereof of my expressing those in any given situation.
Why? Because the measure of authenticity is not verbal expression nor how one is perceived by others. My authenticity is my personal commitment to being a person who knows her own ideas and lives and speaks according to them. And one of those ideas is my personal commitment to building light and understanding in the most effective ways I can conceive. Which idea plays wisely into my words and daily life.
I never express support for ideas that I think are wrong or which I feel are misguided. That kind of “support for authority” would be contrary to my own integrity. And I reject the notion that I must meet certain unwritten expectations order to be a “good mormon”.
As a parent, I also understand that there are teaching/communication moments and there are moments when it is wise to wait a bit for a more mutually helpful time for communication and receptivity. Waiting for a better time, choosing to be quiet now and genuinely kindly vocal in a different setting the next day, is not inauthenticity. Choosing to do that is authentic to both my values of being true to myself and my value of creating understanding rather than fear or confusion.
I have Asian friends in Asia who talk about the damage to relationships that comes from acting entirely as acquiescent supporters. As an American I see the damage to relationships that comes from speaking and acting exclusively as “authentic” without regard to the receptivity or preparedness of coworkers.
I believe that it extremely important to be authentic but that to do so only focused on your own authenticity is inconsiderate of others and hinders communication. I believe that taking into consideration the state of mind and heart of those you are with is important and that choosing to be silent about your own thoughts out of consideration for another’s level of receptivity at that particular moment is not inauthenticity, but is rather an authentic expression of an authentic commitment to the value of respecting the state of mind and receptivity of another.
My experience is that people can feel trapped and alienated from others when they feel like they must always “tow the line” of an organization or that they must act in accordance with a preconceived notion of what is acceptable. And it is also my experience that practicing “authenticity” (always saying exactly and doing exactly what you think in every situation regardless of the sensibilities of those around you)can destroy trust and seriously diminish a person’s ability to effectuate good change and can also seriously hinder others’ efforts effectively express their own authentic selves.
Neither the western nor the eastern modus operandi works well when it becomes the ultimate measurement of successful interaction. I believe that a wise blending of both, guided by consideration for the readiness of others, a gentle and confident self-acceptance of your own beliefs, and the Spirit of Truth is needed in order to both free yourself and also to free others to create true community, one that is both mutually supportive and individually authentic, together.
Nate #11:
If I understood you right, is this what you were saying?
‘Mortal authenticity will be the happiest (the most successful) as it strives for an immmortal autthoritarianism’. (or something like that.)