Plausibility of the Ideal of Authenticity

Abstract

The term authenticity means being true to yourself, which calls for sincerity and reliability. It entails a kind of purity and honesty. This presupposes that everyone has a unique and given identity, on which we can count to guide our actions. This is not as simple as it sounds. Our identity is not simply given. It is simultaneously part of us and something that we can reflect on and influence, as a separate entity. It determines us and we determine it. Because of this circularity, it is very difficult to do either of these things. If we define our identity as the things we find fundamentally important, our values, being authentic is forming your own value set and then acting on it, consistently. The question is, on what do we base this choice? This process is influenced by other people, in our surroundings, and their opinions. Yet, is our identity still our own, if we let others influence it? Can we be authentic under the influence of a social context? The main question I will try to answer is: ‘What makes an identity significant and authentic?’ In this paper I will focus on the influence of a social context on the choices of forming an identity. In doing so, I will discuss two accounts of authenticity. The first one, by Charles Taylor, in which a social context is necessary for authenticity. The other, by Jean-Paul Sartre, in which we cannot be authentic by basing our identity on others. Yet, we can be authentic by deciding on values and our identity in anguish; as if we were choosing on behalf of all Mankind. I will weigh their arguments and decide which theory of authenticity (in light of their theory of identity) is more plausible.