I was thinking today about Life of Brian and the delirious enthusiasm of people to be taught how to be themselves by an authority figure of any kind. Apparently, the issue is very tricky.

 

By now most of us have figured out that much of what we find out there, in terms of inspiration, is no more than a veneer, no matter how convincing. Just a few random examples:

  • A preacher tearing up with love for mankind, while talking about Jesus, to be found in the back of a van with a choir boy.
  • Politicians invoking patriotism to sacrifice their own citizens like cattle in wars, for momentary profit.
  • Wholesome entertainment productions depicting family life, watched by millions of people as a cultural staple, proven to be products of abusive environments where child actors were exploited, mistreated and often sexually abused.
  • Articulate speakers pontificating on personal freedom, proven to be leading cults.
  • Billionaires claiming to stand for the poor and “helping” them by micromanaging their lives.
  • Free speech advocates kneeling before authoritarian leaders.
  • Anti-discrimination activists stirring more tension between communities than their opposition ever could.
  • Anti-bullying activists directing the mass harassment of individuals.

And on it goes.

As the natural course of our lives unfolds, we are, at some level, aware that in spite of being unique, we are partly the product of our times, as well as the circumstances we’ve lived in (local culture, financial possibilities etc), plus any life experiences to draw conclusions from.

And given the fact that, as previous generations were, we are unavoidably surrounded by social constructs due to someday expire, we sometimes pause to ask ourselves who we really are; how to bring that to light from under the layers of artificiality and manifest it to the best possible extent.

 

Whilst the notion of authenticity itself is difficult to pin down, it’s worth analysing what it’s often, mistakenly, associated with.

 

  1. Climbing the zealotry ladder/ puritanism

In a world considered to be – often rightfully so – full of “trenders”, some pride themselves in claiming to be “the real deal”. Of course this dichotomy applies in many situations, when based on objective standards – such as an actual doctor versus the Infowars supplements guy.

When it comes to subjective matters however, such as ideologies or religions, seeking the real deal to associate oneself with is like chasing the ghost of Elvis and hoping to find it.

Moreover, some labels people take on as parts of their identity are completely artificial – something explained very well in Peter Coffin’s video on cultivated identity and fandom (except with an emphasis on how capitalism uses the fandom pecking order to extract as much value from masses of people as possible).

Over the centuries there have been so many guidelines on how to be a real Christian, a real socialist, a real patriot; you name it. What all those have in common is being publicly validated labels, often based on assiduousness and an apparent lack of flaws or compromises, as well as being based on abstractions in the first place, which are always up for discussion.

Extremism in any direction can lead people to ridiculousness or the nearest thing to sociopathy – take “patriots” dreaming of an ethnic cleansing, vegans wanting to execute non-vegans, the Westboro Baptist Church etc.

And yet, many of these characters are seen by their respective fandoms as “authentic” in their drive, as compromising would involve being lukewarm, gregarious or cowardly.

 

2. Rebelling for the sake of it

Perhaps nowadays it’s easier than ever to identify this illusion of being “real” by rejecting any convention society has maintained overtime (due to its functionality or its organic, natural roots), in favour of innovation, however needless or confusing.

What many don’t seem to get, especially at an impressionable age, is that the framework for said rebellion has already been put in place by others, for their own purposes. They are simply filling in the shoes already crafted for them, as opposed to having some kind of revelation.

Take the war of the sexes for example – a needles shit-show of personal grievances extrapolated into timeless global issues by being placed into the framework of gender studies or the underground Red Pill culture. It might feel organic as life experience is so varied anyone can relate to aspects these theorists describe, but at the end of the day, the whole thing is manufactured and directed, using the “newly liberated” as (often political) pawns.

The current popular forms of rebellion are geared towards demolishing existing conventions to the point of general dysfunction, with only a vague idea of what to replace them with. Because, of course, it’s far easier to tear down than to build or simply add to existing structures.

The other issue is that theorists arguing for radical overnight changes do so from the comfort and protection of the structures they reject. Let’s say that while a libertarian or anarchist is pontificating on the futility of the state, a gang of ten suddenly breaks into his house and he’s stuck in a room while all his stuff is being loaded into a van. He won’t think twice about calling the police in the next three seconds.

 

3. Resisting any change for the sake of it

The other extreme of the horseshoe draws those who think the ideal state of things was attained at a certain point in time and everything should be reversed to that, to be maintained in perpetuity.

This is often referred to as “normality”, which many have a fixed vision of and refuse to nuance it at all cost. Any new proposition is seen as corrupting and misleading; as the start of a slippery slope towards absurdity. Whilst some proposed changes definitely qualify, others might not.

Like people who are out to demolish civilisation as it stands, those who want to restore it to a previous “golden age” do so out of reflex, without judging every issue on its own merits.

Determined traditionalists/reactionaries see themselves as authentic when identifying the blatant falsehoods pushed by some would-be reformers (for instance, when said falsehoods go against all that is known about our species) and placing themselves in opposition to that drive.

However, they fail to realise that the “system restore point” they chose was also the result of a long evolution, and time doesn’t just stop. A locked cage can be just as damaging as the loose cannon described above.

What they refer to as “normality” or “the golden age” or “the good old days” is  not something intrinsic to them, but merely another set of conventions established by others at that point in time, not necessarily correct in their entirety. By forming an emotional bond to an idealised version of the past, one fails to analyse it objectively, in order to decide what is worth keeping and what was discarded for good reasons.

 

4. Solipsism

At times interlinked with rebelling, the feeling of having an absolutely correct grasp on reality (and it being all that matters) gives people the entitlement to organise the lives of others down to minute details, based on their limited personal knowledge and experiences.

I know this is true for me, therefore it must be true for everyone else, therefore I have the right (duty even) to enact my personal feelings into laws.

Some might call it authenticity, as it is organic, based on lived experience – but it’s in no way benign, which authenticity as a personality trait tends to signify. When sincerity is coupled with a lack of self-awareness (a lack of understanding that everyone else matters as well) and a drive to influence others in dictatorial manner, it can lead to absurdities.

Ideally, people would be able to compromise and live together without infringing on each other’s freedom to live however they please, as long as they don’t harm anyone else.

That’s not what happens in practice though when it comes to activism. The political left and right are both guilty of using the emotional testimonies of their momentary “poster boys and girls” to give a human depth to whatever sweeping change they are planning.

 

5. Maintaining one’s positions unchanged throughout the years

I guess it’s related to the first point, of being “the real deal”. It doesn’t necessarily relate to mindless zealotry though, but to being constant in one’s positions, without adding nuances or heaven forbid, crossing over to “the other side” of the debate.

How many times do we see people who change their opinions labelled as traitors and formerly inauthentic? “You were never a real Christian/socialist/vegan/ you name it”.

Besides stating the obvious, namely that people evolve as they mature and they are exposed to more information – how do others expect to read minds retroactively; to measure someone’s former attachment to a cause and then label them as generally phoney?

Sure, there are blatant frauds out there, seeking to only exploit others; it doesn’t take long to spot them when not blinded by the desire to think they are genuine. But the average individual being attacked for merely changing their stances overtime, as if that were a character flaw, makes no sense whatsoever.

Each persuasion is highly hypocritical in that sense, when it comes to gaining or losing adherents.

What I keep noticing is that radical changes of opinion are to be celebrated by a group when a former opponent joins it, regardless of the beliefs or actions of that person before changing. The same consideration is not shown to a former member of the group when simply becoming more moderate.

As an example, a former member of the far right will be embraced by the left when switching sides (which is obviously a good thing, as the past shouldn’t have to determine someone’s acceptability or future). At the same time, a leftist who, let’s say, slides to the centre, is often regarded with disdain, as not having ideological purity or the spine to stand up for certain principles.

 

Authenticity itself is a subjective notion

One cannot detach their understanding of it from how they see humans and life in general.

A materialist, for instance, is likely to conclude that there is no free will, and everything we think or say is a consequence of how our brains process the information they have absorbed, to their innate ability.

A spiritual person, on the other hand, may associate this notion with being guided by intuition, of a mysterious origin and detached from any external factors.

The truth is anybody’s guess.