It’s a common claim among participants of Mormon internet groups that people feel they cannot be themselves at church or can’t say what they think for fear of being ostracized. They feel they are discouraged from being honest or authentic, that they would be rejected if they disagreed with the party line or articulated a non-conforming viewpoint. Certainly many examples have been given of individuals who were viewed suspiciously for sharing unpopular opinions openly. These are complaints that they feel they must be inauthentic to be accepted.
The History of Authenticity
We currently equate authenticity with honesty. Anytime we have to “play a part” we consider it a pressure to hide our true selves, to be a hypocrite. Authenticity is a virtue very much in vogue right now. If you aren’t being “true to yourself,” you are living in the shadow, in misery, suborning your needs to others. And yet, authenticity is a fairly recent virtue. Generations before the self-actualization movement lived with a more communal, pro-social set of virtues, not one that elevates the individual’s needs above duty or others in the group. It’s precisely the sustained emphasis on duty that spawned the authenticity movement.
First let’s unbox the concept of duty. Consider the patriotic attitudes toward WW2 vs. attitudes toward serving in the Vietnam War. If you were an 18-19 year old man during the 1940s, you felt it was a duty and honor to fight for and die for so great a cause. If you were an 18-19 year old man in the 1960s, you likely felt more suspicious of the motives in going to a small war in a remote part of the world, fighting a cause even the country you were supposedly fighting for was divided about. The threat was less clear. The motives for war were more oblique. Trust in authority was no longer an obvious greater good because authority was revealed to be untrustworthy.
The authenticity movement came about in the late 1960s and later, and now it is a foregone conclusion that self-expression, self-actualization, and self-awareness are critical to one’s mental well-being. “I’m OK; You’re OK.” Since the 1990s, leaders are deemed ineffective if they are not authentic, although historically leaders were expected to toe the party line and represent management rather than themselves. We look for hypocrisy and people “playing a part” and distrust them instinctively. This wasn’t always the case.
The Diplomacy Balance
Let’s take a look at what we mean by authenticity. One of the best compliments I ever received was from my former boss who said she had never met anyone more comfortable in her own skin than I was. I took her to mean that I was authentic, by which she meant I said what I thought, I didn’t seek approval, and I didn’t hide any unpopular opinions I held. And yet she also said I was the peacemaker in our team, someone who could help defuse tension with humor, who could help disagreeing parties see each others’ perspectives, someone who was naturally diplomatic.
It’s certainly possible to be authentic while lacking diplomacy. Some people seem to wear tactlessness like a badge of honor. Part of being successful at authenticity is finding common ground so that who you are is not seen as a threat to who they are.
Discretion vs. Open Book
In sales, people talk about “opening the kimono” with clients, being transparent enough to reveal vulnerability in the sales process that leads to increased trust. And yet, “opening the kimono” can backfire disastrously. There’s a difference between opening your kimono in a doctor’s office (someone who knows what they are seeing and understands the human body) and opening your kimono on Times Square (basically being a flasher). Authenticity will backfire if you don’t understand the difference.
Concerns that one can’t be authentic are at heart about approval-seeking and the fear of rejection. The power to conform is ever-present in any group. For example, you can make comments at Wheat & Tares or By Common Consent that would get you banned at Millenial Star, and vice-versa. You can say something in a Visiting Teaching appointment that you couldn’t say in Sunday School. You can’t ask for a Diet Coke at Pepsi headquarters. Expressing an opinion far outside the group’s norm is never popular to the majority. Authenticity is avoiding hypocrisy, but doesn’t have to mean picking fights or casting your pearls before swine.
Who Are We, Really?
Do we really know ourselves? Our self-awareness changes, and our ability to articulate our perspectives also changes over time with experience. Studies show that people whose beliefs change, including political affiliations, often change their memories of the past to match their current beliefs. This can only be determined when comparing one’s current memory with an earlier written account of events, and yet, this process of confabulation is how memory works. It’s happening all the time.
Whenever we think we were “wrong” in the past, our mind works hard to resolve this cognitive dissonance by making us right. Whenever you hear yourself thinking “I knew all along . . .” or “Even back then, I suspected . . .” you may be rewriting your past memories to fit your current perspectives. It’s like those interviews about serial killers in which people recall what the person was like before they committed the crimes. Suddenly some of them knew all along that person was a bad seed, although nobody noted it at the time, or at least not enough to take action. We recast the past in light of our current knowledge.
Add to that the fact that as human beings, we constantly change. We are continually revealing ourselves to ourselves. As we encounter novel experiences, we can sometimes be surprised at our reactions. We think we will behave one way in theory, but the reality differs.
Seeking First to be Understood
Often when people express frustration at feeling forced to wear a facade, they approach relationships expecting to be understood and accepted for who they are. Even in close relationships, this is a naive expectation. Real understanding is quite rare. If we struggle to understand ourselves, is it any wonder that people struggle to understand each other?
One difficulty is that we judge others based on observed outcomes (what the outcomes are from our perspective) but we judge ourselves based on intentions. Even Hitler had, in his own twisted logic, “good” intentions: racial purity.[1] Stephen Covey talked about seeking first to understand others, then secondarily to be understood. Trying to understand others is hard enough that if we really try to do this, we will see how easy it is to be misunderstood and perhaps we will lower our expectations for being understood.
It is also difficult for others to accept who you are if they feel that you are threat to who they are, either through association, affiliation or our perception of ourselves as a parent, child or spouse. This is one reason family relationships are so fraught. Our identities are so wrapped up in one another in marriages and parent-child relationships that respecting and allowing differences can feel uncomfortable. Others can’t believe or act in a way that we dislike without some of that rebounding on us, or so we believe. How do you love what you don’t like? Unconditional love is at best incredibly hard, at worst unfathomable. As followers of Christ we say we love others, but as human beings, we wish the others conformed better to what we think is lovable.
Equally important to remember is that people seldom use relationships as a way to expand or challenge their perspectives. It’s much more common to see other people’s stories as a way to confirm or bolster our existing worldview. It’s often easier to change relationships than to change our perspective. We eliminate drama from our lives by eliminating people who challenge us.[2]
Conclusion
How do we seek authenticity while acknowledging human limitations? A few steps:
- Seek self-knowledge, but recognize your inability to be objective about yourself. Realize that you are in some ways a stranger to yourself, constantly evolving and (hopefully) growing and learning.
- Be curious about others. Ask more about others, out of a genuine desire to understand without judgment. The way to empathy and love lies here.
- Keep expectations for being understood in check, even among family members.
- Let go of the need for approval. The cost is too high. But you don’t need to pick fights about it either. Live and let live, and most other people will too.
- Allow others their own worldview without feeling you need to correct theirs or explain your own. Life’s too short. You be you; let them be them.
Do you feel you are able to be yourself in most settings? If not, why not? What’s your advice?
Discuss.
[1] Good intentions + lack of empathy + a big dose of fear or insecurity = a recipe for genocide.
[2] see also firing personal trainers.
One measure of how “authentic” we feel we can be is how many people use their real name on sites like this. I happen to be “Adam Happy Hubby”, but given I have aspirations for being a GA, I go by A Happy Hubby. “Elder A Happy Hubby” has a good sound to it.
I do feel I have to be very careful about saying anything critical of the church or decision of leaders. The church culture is very intolerant of any “evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed.” Even to suggest that the YW at camp should not have to wear a tight necked white shirt over their bathing suits might be teaching the YW the wrong thing about their body (let alone just a stupid and unneeded) might not get me called into the bishop’s office, but it might ensure that I never get called into any youth calling. So do I keep my mouth shut so I can work with the youth and help the young gay man, or do I stand up on the silly t-shirt issue at YW camp and get branded as “not in touch with the spirit”?
I shoot from the hip in the ‘block’ not unlike what I do in this here forum. I do make a reasonable attempt to convey the Spirit, but I’m getting too old to worry about ruffling feathers if they need to be ‘ruffled’.
Memory is about lessons learned and not about facts. As a result it is always suspect as a source of facts because that is not what it is about.
Authenticity is sometimes about self expression but it is often used as a sword rather than as an interaction.
This is a great post for capturing it.
“For example, you can make comments at Wheat & Tares or By Common Consent that would get you banned at Millenial Star, and vice-versa.”
Not vice versa. It is easy to get banned at M*, and nearly impossible to get banned here. We’ve banned less than a handful in 5 years, and I think M* does that in a month….
#4 – This blogsite, for being ‘run’ (if we can call it that, IDK if anyone wants to take credit for ‘running’ it) by mostly ‘liberals’ (my impression of the political tastes of the OPers, but I don’t presume to have a mind-readers license), is more open-minded than most that I’ve seen. It has its ‘downers’, but being run by ‘hew-mon’ beings, you have to just accept it and be thankful for the interest and service.
hawkgrrrl, I am really glad that you wrote this because it’s been something I think and write about (peripherally) a lot lately.
My conclusion, I suppose, is entirely different. I think everyone is always authentic, 100% of the time. Trying to be authentic doesn’t make you more authentic, just differently authentic. (And, really, how can you TRY to do things more real than what you do without trying?) For example, most of your list of “how to be authentic” at the end, was telling people how to change how they really are to fit a perceived idea of “authenticity.”
(1) Recognize your inability to be objective about yourself.
(2) Realize that you are in some ways a stranger to yourself.
(3) Be curious about others.
(4) Ask more about others.
(5) Keep expectations for being understood in check.
(6) Let go of the need for approval.
(7) Live and let live, and most other people will too.
(8) Allow others their own worldview without feeling you need to correct theirs or explain your own.
Those who want to say speak up about something but are too afraid to do so are authentic. They are really, truly someone who wants so speak up but is too afraid. For those who want to climb mountains, but instead sit around watching youtube videos of climbers, are authentically youtube watchers dreaming of climbing mountains. And, yes, people who go to church and play the role of Molly Mormon while having all manner of radical ideas are authentically outwardly Molly while inwardly rebel.
P.S. I always use my real name.
P.P.S. I’ve only blocked three (I think) comments on MM in 12+ years.
I think normal Mormon thinking runs into conflict with “authenticity” because Mormons are interested in what’s right more than what’s authentic. If a typical Mormon’s authentic self is not virtuous, of good report, or praiseworthy, she wants to change it. We don’t value the authentic if it’s bad. Being authentic is not a virtue, in and of itself, at least not in typical Mormon thought.
The one thing authenticity does do is create a certain level of intimacy, imagined or not. We seem drawn to people who seem vulnerable. We might even feel close to a blogger we’ve never met after reading an authentic piece, but I think that to a great degree, the intimacy is illusory. There’s also a lot of in-your-face authenticity that I’m not really convinced has any value — it’s just an excuse to be confrontational.
Once again, a fantastic post, HG.
Authenticity really came into its intellectual own with the unrepentant Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger. He was the primary inspiration behind both the existentialist movement (of the 50’s and 60’s) and much of post-structuralism (in the 70’s and 80’s). It was he who construe authenticity as obedience to “Being”.
I strongly agree with most of what OP says regarding its attempt to contextualize authenticity, even if I (unsurprisingly) go even further in my suspicions. To me, “authenticity” has become code for hedonism when and only when it is opposed by traditional values. In other words, it is only traditional authorities (church, etc.) that force me to “play a role” rather than allow me to be honest.
The problem, however, is its difficult to see how the virtue can be contained to its intended target. After all, why should we force pedophiles or bigots to be inauthentic? It is also difficult how authenticity can be fully compatible with the common claims that essentially every human institution (without exception) is a human construct which is aimed at making people less authentic. The only fully authentic state seems to be that of anarchic nature.
It’s for this reason that I am suspicious of HG’s last 2 points on how to be properly authentic. I think we should be more careful about who we try to please and who we strive to correct, but the idea that we should simply lessen or drop all such attempts without serious qualifiers strikes me with horror.
Alison: “Trying to be authentic doesn’t make you more authentic, just differently authentic.” Interesting idea. I agree with the first half, just not sure about the second half. I tend to think that “trying” to be anything differs from being that thing. But it is food for thought.
Authenticity is a fairly recent virtue because part of humankind is evolving toward greater light. Not holding slaves might be considered a part of this enlightenment as is allowing women to vote and ordaining black men. The philosophical/psychological concept of authenticity is about minimizing internal dissonance so that one’s external persona better matches one’s core values and beliefs. Yes in some ways we are a stranger to our self and it is growth to reduce this in a way that results in autonomy along the lines of say the concept of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Next align all of this with your relationship with God and you have the potential to become a disciple, but you’ll probably miss out on all the cool church callings because authenticity is inconsistent with a correlated gospel taught by a top down organization.
Growing up I tried to look and act the part of a good Mormon. I was in a sense trying to be my best self, even though I knew that I was falling short. The cultural, correlated forces that were encouraging me to look and act Mormon were helping me to be the best I could be. Wearing a white shirt, and all the other trappings of Mormonism, felt authentic. But when I stopped believing in the church, and still was feeling those forces encouraging me to look and act Mormon, it suddently felt incredibly inauthentic. Wearing a white shirt felt like a betrayal of myself and who I wanted to be.
Not meaning to threadjack, but as a Vietnam-era veteran, I am not entirely uncomfortable with your repeated interpretation of what happened during that war as far as the change in concepts around duty. Part of the differences also had to do with a sense of responsibility to the immediate community, something not dissimilar to the organizational dynamics of LDS congregations.
In WWI and WWII, units were called up and served together throughout the war. The only time people were reassigned was if there were enough casualties that the unit was disbanded/reorganized or someone had a special skill.
For example, my father-in-law and his brother and a bunch of kids they knew from high school all trained together at Hill AFB and went over to England together and spent the entire war together. So much pressure to fit with community norms, even though there were COs even back then.
You hear a lot of WWII vets talking about how they fought for the guy next to them, not for high-fallutin’ ideas of patriotism. I’m not sure that the “honor and duty” motivation is as strong as you make out. But then, I may be influenced by my mom’s admission that she served in WWII because the military was where “all the booze, cigarettes, and men” were.
That sense of community with the people next to you was missing in Vietnam, where a newbie was likely to die first, so one didn’t waste time getting to know them. And people were moved in and out like parts on an assembly line. Even if the justice of the cause had been less unclear, it was a very different dynamic.
In the most recent invasion of Iraq, a lot of reserve units were activated and sent over together, returning together, more like the WWII model. And a result was increased civilian casualties, as soldiers were more protective of each other since they knew each other’s families, and were fighting for each other above all. Even though they may have originally signed up for service as economic refugees (IME, a lot of military have family members with special health care needs, that would wipe them out without the military safety net).
Naismith: Thanks for that additional insight – it’s really interesting!
When you’re out of luck
I’ll be what you’re looking for
Even if it’s not who I am
I can change, I can change for you
I can bend, I can break
I can shift, I can shape
http://www.nme.com/news/brandon-flowers/85084
#12 – very good commentary, Naismith. Much like what my Dad related to me about his Vietnam-era service. He was Air Force, two stints in PACAF (a recon squadron operating B-57s) and two other stints later in B-52s, and yes, he was involved in Linebacker II and knew many who got shot down. As dreary as the casualty reports seemed at the time, the Air Force expected and was willing to commit to losing about 100 “BUFFS” (Big,Ugly,Fat,”Feller”) which meant six men (currently only five as the “H” models still in service had the quad-50 cal tail guns removed after Desert Storm, being found superfluous) per plane, for a total of 600 men either dead, missing, or POWs that they were willing to risk. Of course, the typical ‘grunt’ of the period would just shrug and say, “welcome to my world!”, once he got back to the “World”, that is.
This is why most countries that have a history of internal unrest and willingness to shoot their own people move units from far-flung areas…example, in Tiamenn Square in Beijing in ’89, the Type 59 tanks (bearing down on the brave guy with the flag in the famous footage) were likely crewed by Uighurs or other ethnic Turks, who had a long history of hating the Han Chinese and wouldn’t take much persuasion to fire upon them. The Russians likely used ethnic Mongolians or Tartars in the latest unrest in the Donestk region of the Ukraine, but those guys will shoot ANYONE, their own officers included.
The last three years have been interesting for me in Rexburg as I’ve learned a lot of these own lessons through trial and error.
1 – I moved here during the tail end of my faith transition. I was terrified to say the things I thought and believed – a lot due to the reaction from my family when I had shared the year before.
2 – After about six months of living in fear that people would find out my unorthodoxy I realized I was suffering a bit from depression. Also I had just left my full time job and my husband took this BYUI job so I could be a SAHM. And guess what: I didn’t like being a SAHM.
3 – I finally decided I couldn’t live my life being ruled by my fear. I started my blog sharing my story, and three months later wore pants to church, and agreed to be interviewed by the local newspaper. The editor stole my picture and plastered it on the front page.
4 – I authentically found out there were some people who I thought were my friends who really weren’t. More than that, though, I found out that I had been a judgmental git: the open hearts and minds of people who cared about me were a humbling gift from God. I realized I was surrounded by more “authentic” disciples then I could ever have imagined looking at them with my “unorthodox” colored glasses.
5 – At the start I’m sure I made a lot of missteps in my attempt to be “authentically” myself. I’m sure sometimes I was more “in your face” than ever need be.
6 – We moved 6 months ago and I’ve been a lot less “in your face” about how I manage my “authenticity.” One of the sisters I visit taught in the last ward once called me during an emotional emergency because she said I was the first person that came to mind because with me: what you see is what you get.
7 – I’ve come to see this as my new definition of authenticity: WYSIWYG
so basically hawk, you should have handed me this post 5 years ago. Would have helped 🙂 ha!