The Myth of "Authenticity"

The illusion of self-image and the problem with "just be yourself!"

I used to view "authenticity" as an essential value. When I envisioned authenticity, I thought of realness, honesty, and rawness. Since then, however, I've realized that it is hard to define authenticity when all of us are made up of many pieces. You hear the words "just be yourself" preached all over media - but what is "yourself"? What even is self-image?

In this article, I will argue that the concept of "self-image" is simply a delusion, how genuine authenticity is almost impossible to achieve, and the values we should replace "authenticity" with.

The Instability of Self-Identity

For a while, my definition of "authenticity" meant having a stable identity. I wanted to approach every situation and person the same way: I did not want to alter my personality, toning it down for some or turning it up for others. I wanted everyone to see me the same way - I wanted everyone to have the same idea of who I was.

During my Reading Theory class, I was doing a reading on deconstructive criticism and came across the following quote:

"...we are, ourselves, unstable and ambigious force-fields of competing ideologies. The self-image of a stable identity that many of us have is really just a comforting self-delusion, which we produce in collision with our culture, for culture, too, wants to see itself as stable and coherent when in reality it is highly unstable and fragmented. We don't really have an identity because the word identity implies that we consist of one, singular self, but in fact we are multiple and fragmented, consisting at any moment of any number of conflicting beliefs, desires, fears, anxieties, and intentions."

From Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide (3rd Edition) by Lois Tyson

The problem with our self-image is that no one exists without contradiction. Our identities are roughly woven in with preexisting ideas about ourselves that may or not be accurate. We may believe we are a certain way but act differently once entering a situation. This is why I find that self-definition is almost always impossible; we will never truly understand who - or what - lies beneath our conscious thoughts. We very rarely can fully grasp our identities because we are made up of so much more than just what we are aware of.

To even go about prescribing descriptive qualities on ourselves - "loud," "quiet," "intellectual," "contemplative" - is to assume that we always fit these qualities, that there are never any exceptions to this rule. As much as I love taking personality tests, I am consistently aware that no human truly fits into a box so cleanly. As well, we are biased about ourselves. Depending on what shade of glasses we choose to wear, we may only take note of our good qualities (overlooking our flaws), or we may only take notice of situations and interactions where we have "failed." How can we ever trust ourselves to actually know who we are?

If we assume we are not the best judges of our own "image," we must turn to others to fill in the blanks. Others can hint at our public personas: the faces we show to the world and how we show up in various situations. But can we trust others to define who we are?

The short answer that may spring to your mind immediately is "no." Everyone else is a collection of assumptions. They project their desires and insecurities onto the world around them and judge others as fit. No one can truly look at you objectively - one can't just "shut off" the lens with which they see the world.

"Doesn't the idea of a fragmented self explain a good deal of our day-to-day experience? Aren't most of us very different people on the job, at the store, on a date, or alone in front of the TV set? And even if we confine our investigation to our experience of ourselves on the job, for example, doesn't that experience change from day to day, sometimes from hour to hour or minute to minute, as we encounter different people or as various thoughts, memories, and emotions occur? In other words, isn't each of us really a kaleidoscope of selves?"(Tyson)

Whether or not we want to believe it, we are a mix of many different identities rather than one "whole" one. We can try to remain consistent in how we show up to the world, but does this equate to authenticity, or is it, paradoxically, more ingenuine?

Measuring Authenticity

If self-image is as slippery as Tyson is to believe, then how can we measure our authenticity? Is authenticity more of a "feeling" than an actual action? And can we be authentic if we are shyer in certain situations and seemingly "hide" parts of ourselves?

According to MindTools.com, "authenticity means you're true to your personality, values, and spirit, regardless of the pressure that you'reyou're under to act otherwise. You're honest with yourself and with others, and you take responsibility for your mistakes."

But what is our "own personality"? Is this what comes naturally to us in any given situation, or does it mean ripping off any apparent “masks" that we put on in various situations?

What if I were to argue that acting differently in front of different people or situations isn't "wearing a mask" and can actually be more "natural" for us than trying to force ourselves to be consistent all the time? Isn't putting pressure on ourselves to always act the same, regardless of the situation, somewhat more unnatural than just letting ourselves… be?

This call to "authenticity" can be especially damaging for those who struggle with social anxiety and shyness. When in an unfamiliar situation, such as giving a presentation, entering a large busy room, or going on a first date, we won't always act the way we usually do once we can "warm up." Does this make us inauthentic? Are we lying to those around us, disguising our real personalities under layers of anxiety? I think not.

Often when we think of "authentic," we think of someone who automatically places all their cards on the table — someone who is open and honest about how they're feeling and who they are. But if you struggle with shyness, this concept can be incredibly daunting and can even feel unsafe. We may be able to "force ourselves" to act this way, but it could be against our values. For those who are shy, is their supposed "inauthenticity" a problem, or is the problem a society that views extraversion as the ideal and sees introverts — or people who are "slow to warm up" — as more secretive or distrustful?

As I mentioned before, when we imagine someone who is "authentic," we often think of somebody who is charismatic, extraverted, [seemingly] honest about their lives, and, from our point of view, has a "consistent" identity that doesn't shift from situation to situation. But the same person we view as authentic might not even consider themselves as authentic; for all we know, they are forcing upon us a version of themselves that is not true to them. Perhaps, for them, genuine "authenticity" would look a lot less bombastic or outgoing.

The Paradoxical Reality of "Authenticity"

According to Scientific American, research has shown that people feel most authentic when they conform to a particular set of socially approved qualities, such as being extroverted, emotionally stable, conscientious, intellectual and agreeable.

"This is the paradox of authenticity: In order to reap the many of the benefits of feeling authentic, you may have to betray your true nature. A number of studies have shown that people’s feelings of authenticity are often shaped by something other than their loyalty to their unique qualities. Paradoxically, feelings of authenticity seem to be related to a kind of social conformity." (Scientific American)

We may feel less authentic if we are quieter around people we are unsure about, lack self-awareness in certain situations, or are less emotionally stable than our baseline. How can one become authentic if certain uncontrollable situations, emotions, or qualities are seen as less "authentic"?

If we are more private and less revealing around certain people, we may be accused of being inauthentic, but if we show up as louder and more self-assured, we may feel - and be seen as - more authentic. Does authenticity equate to reducing our social limitations?

We might also go the extreme way and view authenticity as being "anti-conformative"", and we might take on identities of hyper-individuality and uniqueness. So then, is it inauthentic to conform? Or, by putting pressure on ourselves to avoid "going with the crowd", is this inauthentic as well?

This may seem confusing, but I'm trying to explore that actual authenticity doesn't even exist. There's no real way to measure our authenticity. We are too complex; collections of various selves, faces, emotions, and ideas. By attempting to reduce ourselves to one singular concept of who we are, we are unintentionally diminishing our very definition of authenticity.

Rethinking "Authenticity": Stop Aiming for Something That Cannot Be Defined

I argue that our current societal idea of "authenticity" should be scrapped entirely. Attempting to become more "authentic" can be inauthentic in and of itself. We don't need to force individuality upon ourselves, become more outgoing, or find a singular definition of ourselves to become "better." Who is this helping?

People also often use "authenticity" as an excuse to hurt others. Having no self-control in what you say to others isn't being more or less authentic; it's just being cruel. This is why we should not aim for authenticity but rather other values that focus on collective well-being and allowing ourselves more complexity.

Here are some more clearly defined ideals that are much healthier and more helpful than "authenticity":

• HONESTY. Being clear about what we want. Not lying to others about who we are—not saying things we don't mean.

• FREEDOM OF COMPLEXITY. Allowing ourselves to be a collection of different personalities or identities. We don't have to always act or be the same. Viewing others in the same way; not expecting people to behave the same, day in and day out. Realizing there are more factors at play.

• SELF-COMPASSION. Loving ourselves despite our flaws, our shyness, our awkwardness, our weirdness, or how we don't fit in inside social settings. Allowing ourselves to conform, not conform, be shy, be loud, and just be whatever we want to be in any given moment.

• MINDFULNESS. Remaining present; not focusing on how we are behaving, but on what is happening around us. Not forcing anything (including our personalities or behaviour). Embracing every emotion that comes to us, even anxiety.

• VULNERABILITY. Expressing ourselves emotionally and being open once we develop trust with someone. Discussing our feelings, worries, and anxieties, even when there is a risk of rejection.

• KINDNESS. Showing compassion towards others. Holding back words that could damage others, even if it means being less "authentic." Realizing we don't even know what is happening in someone else's life, and so a kind word could mean more than we could even imagine (just as an insult or cruel remark could be more damaging than we thought, too).

I argue that these values are much more researched, much less paradoxical and much more healthy and helpful than the concept of "authenticity."

Aiming to always "be ourselves" is difficult, often unsatisfying, very confusing, and may even be impossible, as our understanding of ourselves is shifting, complex, and hard to actually pin down.

Embracing the idea that we are ultimately too complex to reduce ourselves to a single definition is more freeing than chaining ourselves to the confusing message of "be yourself!"

If we instead look to enter social situations with kindness, self-compassion, honesty, vulnerability, and mindfulness, we will do ourselves (and others) more good than chasing authenticity.

Giving ourselves the freedom to be complex - shy one day, loud the next, or sad at times, but joyful at others - allows us to breathe. We no longer have to push a specific version of ourselves out into the world.

When authenticity is no longer the ideal, we value the many different pieces of ourselves that make us whole, which at times may feel incongruent and odd, shifting and indefinite... rather than "just being ourselves!" we allow ourselves to "just be."