W
hat does authenticity refer to when not being applied to humans? It means something akin to "real", not an imitation, and often "in the tradition of" something, like a cuisine. Things which are inauthentic are drawing upon something real, but have only superficial similarities. They are often created by someone with only a passing knowledge of the real thing, or one who has modified the real thing for the sake of making a sellable product.
Obviously, the word means something similar when applied to people, but the "real thing" against which authenticity is being measured is a bit harder to pin down. When we say a person is inauthentic, we mean something along the lines of "their personality is manufactured; they are behaving in ways that are unnatural for them", and we typically assume that this "falsity" is a sort of means for an end, whether it be for popularity, a defense mechanism, to deceive others, novelty, or some such reason. We also, I think, typically accept that inauthenticity can be subconscious or accidental, and similarly recognize that "everyone is a little inauthentic"; there is a sliding scale at work here, but "more authentic", or more natural, more "true to onself" is better, while "more inauthentic", more false, is worse.
So what does it mean to be true to ourselves? In a culture as multi-faceted as ours, in which travel is so prevalent and media so diverse, it has become extremely important to be able to wear many kinds of "masks", to speak in a variety of ways depending on social context. This is particularly pronounced in the middle- to upper-class, in which families are less likely to be geographically bound over generations. We recognize it as very common for those in adolescence and early adulthood to try out different personalities—different ways of dressing, acting, and speaking to figure out what "works for them". If all goes well, a person will come out the other side with an authentic personality, one which is natural, and genuinely expressive of their inner self. If it goes poorly, the person in question will seem somewhat awkward, or will be unable to settle within a single mode, or will appear to be "trying too hard".
The question has to be asked—what are we actually measuring here? The feeling of another's naturalness, and the feeling or our own naturalness are real experiences. At least in the modern West, and certainly in America (though I very much believe the phenomenon to be more widespread through both space and time), people do in fact notice things like whether a person has a genuine demeanor, and we are able to look back on our own lives, and realize when we were being or feeling more or less "authentic". Yet there is an important piece of the equation here which will be found highly resistant to analysis—the "true self" itself. Is there such a thing, against which authenticity can be measured? And if not, what are we in fact talking about? And of course, we need to ask what the real value of authenticity is—are we discussing a genuinely moral quality?
I suppose I have mostly used this post to pose a variety of questions, which I will delve into more as this series develops. A teaser of my own thoughts: "the true self" is a much thinner concept than we are used to thinking; "authenticity" is a social strategy we use to navigate our expectations and those of others; while it is good to feel authentic, there are much more important moral imperatives operating on our lives.