I’ve been having trouble with the notion of authenticity for quite some time.
My first challenge is one of definition. According to dictionary.com, authentic, whence derives authenticity, is defined like this:
adjective:
1. not false or copied; genuine
2. having an origin supported by unquestionable evidence; authenticated; verified
3. representing one’s true nature or beliefs; true to oneself or to the person identified:
4. entitled to acceptance or belief because of agreement with known facts or experience; reliable; trustworthy
In that definition, numbers 2 and 4 are subjective; that is, given the fact that we no longer believe in or practice empiricism (because we no longer trust our senses or accept the fact that if it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck), there are no more objective notions of right and wrong. There is only relativity, as determined by one’s ideology, disposition, interpretations, political leanings, or special interests.
My second challenge is one of context. In the definition above, number 3 has the potential to be highly problematic: If I work in a context in which my ideology, disposition, interpretations, political leanings, or special interests differ from the proverbial party line — the more I represent my true nature or beliefs — the deeper the hot water in which I find myself, up to or until the point at which I get myself ostracized or shit-canned.
We the People …
The veracity of those challenges was reinforced when I came across this article on substack.com: “We want you to bring your whole self to work. But only if your “whole self” is the one we decide you should have.” The article is about:
what it means to work for a company today. Do we accept that if you work for a company you sign away your right to having an opinion on political matters? … you sign your right away to having opinions on matters of public concern? … You’d be giving up your rights as a citizen … is the (unspoken) point … you can have opinions but only those endorsed by the company you work for?
Back in the Dark Ages, say 1787 or so, free speech seemed like a pretty desirable thing. At the very least, it appeared to be a fairly logical way to express our differences. The Founding Fathers, of course — who disagreed with each other on many significant points — ultimately failed miserably to be ideologues. Rather, they determined to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
Wow. What a bunch of anachronistic cornballs.
Given what they wrote, they actually seemed to believe a willingness to suspend judgment, to respect other people’s perspectives, to listen, to learn, to grow thereby, and to refrain from taking offense at everything all the time could actually work. What a hoot!
The entire Constitution of the United States may be based on the false premise that it would be read by adults. The evidence suggests that was a huge mistake.
Martin Luther King said, “We came here on different ships, but we’re all in the same boat now.” A latter-day paraphrase might be, “We came here with differences, but we’re all homogenized now.”
And if we’re not, we’d better be, or else.
Good grief.
