What a loaded word, yet quite poorly understood in a connotative sense. Denotatively, authenticity means " being true to one's self" or, in the parlance of some of my brothers and sisters who choose to creatively appropiate and expand the otherwise ossified structures of the English language, "keeping it real, sonnn!". My contention is that this "keeping it real" is not only laden with paradox, but also a very risky venture that few people are willing to take.
Living an authentic life means that one lives by one's own authority and not by what others think (which does not mean that other people don't matter, it's just that the power of their authority superseding yours is nullified). I have collected my fair share of detractors over the years who took a dislike to my oftentimes jarring, 'in your face' personal style and my refusal to go along with consensus thinking. I will not pretend to like you if I don't. I will tell you exactly what I think, Devil take the hindmost. And, on the flipside, I (will) deeply respect those who do the same towards me.
The paradox one faces in choosing to live authentically is best captured by the great writer James Baldwin( http://falcon.jmu.edu/~ramseyil/baldwin.htm) when he observed: " Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced." You will be liked by some, but disliked/unenvied by most who choose to safely blend into society ( however flawed) with the hopes of achieving a modicum of success/recognition, material rewards/comforts and relative security (which raises the question of whether this blending in compromises one's authenticity). This paradox is best exemplified by the life of the Caribbean scholar/physician/activist Frantz Fanon (http://kirjasto.sci.fi/fanon.htm).
Fanon refused to blend into society in his native Martinique. Many, if not most, quietly succumbed to the racial myths ( and subsequent psychic damage) the white French creoles imposed on those who were of darker complexions ( social status declined steadily as skin colour darkened, until you reached the poor nègres) Fanon bucked the debilitating consensus thinking and, like an Old Testament prophet, emphatically bellowed, "No!" He wrote, in Black Skin, White Masks: "The white man slaves to reach a human level . . . The white man is sealed in his whiteness, the black man in his blackness". Like a surgeon with a scalpel, Fanon examined the way colonisation bred racial guilt and inferiority, and how its victims were forced to don white masks and forfeit their true identity. This analysis is still relevant today. Of course, not everything Fanon said I agree with, but the fact that he took a stand and tred on a path less taken (stumbling along the way, retracting some positions, resynthesizing others, etc) is indeed exemplary. In fact, Fanon himself recognized this when he said, " I should constantly remind myself that the real leap consists in (enabling) invention into existence.In the world through which I travel, I am endlessly (re)creating myself."
What if Fanon decided to just blend in and simply enjoy the luxuries his profession would have endowed him with? (Although there is nothing wrong with enjoying the fruits of labor, it becomes problematic when this (i.e materialistic joy / self-centered pursuits) becomes an end in itself). We would not have had his penetrating socio-political critique and humanistic vision. We would have had one less authentic voice.
The challenge then is to awaken the authentic self like the self that would, in the realm of politics, take a principled stance against, say, U.S imperialism, no matter the stigma or backlash. Simply allowing things which are morally reprehensible and intellectually bankrupt to just slide by is unacceptable. (The image of Jesus overturning the tables of the money-changers comes quickly to mind). Of course, exercising good judgement in any given moment is absolutely essential. There may be times, however, when one has to throw caution to the wind and utter the unspeakable...
What if Fanon decided to just blend in and simply enjoy the luxuries his profession would have endowed him with? (Although there is nothing wrong with enjoying the fruits of labor, it becomes problematic when this (i.e materialistic joy / self-centered pursuits) becomes an end in itself). We would not have had his penetrating socio-political critique and humanistic vision. We would have had one less authentic voice.
The challenge then is to awaken the authentic self like the self that would, in the realm of politics, take a principled stance against, say, U.S imperialism, no matter the stigma or backlash. Simply allowing things which are morally reprehensible and intellectually bankrupt to just slide by is unacceptable. (The image of Jesus overturning the tables of the money-changers comes quickly to mind). Of course, exercising good judgement in any given moment is absolutely essential. There may be times, however, when one has to throw caution to the wind and utter the unspeakable...
"Remember, a dead fish can float downstream, but it takes a live one to swim upstream"
W.C Fields
