Acknowledgements
The contents of this book represent the culmination of over a decade of philosophical enquiry and thought. Although I began this particular project as a doctoral student and brought it to completion as Visiting Research Fellow at Queen’s University Belfast, many of the ideas contained within occurred to me prior to undertaking philosophy as an academic endeavour. My personal motive for studying philosophy was to come to terms with the modern world as a fluid, dynamic and shifting concept; to discover what it means to live well; and to understand my place within such a conceptual framework. With this book I have sought to satisfy these concerns by articulating modernity as a philosophical problem and the ethics of authenticity as a response.
Whilst this book may bear my name alone, human beings do not develop independently of one another. We are, rather, as I argue, dialogical beings who owe our identity to the many cultural contexts and communities to which we belong. With this in mind, it would be ignorant to believe that the completion of this book could have been achieved in isolation. First and foremost, I owe an immense debt of gratitude to my doctoral supervisors: Keith Breen and Cillian McBride. Both of whom pushed me in directions which I was initially reluctant to go and whose advice and encouragement made this project far more successful than I alone could have imagined or achieved. I am also obligated to the examiners of my viva voce, Jonathan Webber and Fabian Schuppert, who pushed me beyond my comfort zone, forcing me to think on my feet and testing the commitment to my ideal (which I hope was maturely conceived!)
I am simultaneously appreciative and apologetic to the audiences of countless conferences and workshops to whom I subjected work in progress and who offered valuable, and much appreciated, constructive criticism on early chapter drafts. The primary outlet for my research was the immensely beneficial Friday Ethics Workshop at Queen’s and its regular attendants: Cillian McBride, Keith Breen, Tom Walker, Jeremy Watkins, Josh Milburn, Hanhui Xu, Suzanne Whitten and Michael Whitten. I am also thankful to my friends and fellow members of the Sartre Society UK (Jonathan Webber, T Storm Heter, Maria Russo) and the European Network of Japanese Philosophy (Hans Peter Liederbach, Yusa Michiko, Inutsuka Yu, Morisato Takeshi), where I not only received valuable feedback on presentations but also developed many of my ideas during intervals and coffee breaks.
I also owe special thanks to Gaven Kerr who encouraged me to pursue doctoral research whilst I was still an undergraduate student, and whose friendship has endured as long as my formal philosophical training. Last but not least, I am grateful to my parents and grandparents: Margaret Shuttleworth, Alan Shuttleworth, the late Rita Parkinson and Joseph Parkinson – who encouraged and helped cultivate my intellectual curiosity. Finally, my best friend Sayaka Shuttleworth for her infinite patience and belief in my ability to bring this book to completion, especially when my own confidence began to falter.
皆さん本当にありがとうございました
K.M.J.S.
0.1 What is authenticity?
The first documented concern with the authenticity of a work of art dates to the nineteenth century and two almost identical paintings of Raphael’s portrait of Pope Leo X, located in Florence and Naples, respectively. On a visit to the late pope’s family in the 1520s, the Marquis of Mantua perceived the painting, became enamoured and requested it for his own collection. The Marquis’s request was granted, and the painting was brought to the artist Andrea del Sarto to construct a suitable frame. Whilst in his possession, Sarto made a duplicate of the painting which was deemed to be aesthetically on par with the original. The duplicate was then presented to the Marquis, who upon being informed that it was not painted by Raphael nevertheless praised the painting in terms of the artist’s own merit. However, attitudes towards duplicates changed in the nineteenth century. As Jonathan Keats articulates,
whilst Andrea del Sarto was still venerated in the 1800s – ranking just a tier below Raphael and Michelangelo – skill was no longer valued as highly as authenticity. Whether the Pope’s damask looked realistic was secondary to whether Raphael had painted it. Experts made a living assembling and documenting provenance. Eventually, Naples was humbled by scholarly consensus that Florence had the original painting. (2013: 3)
In this regard, the authenticity of a work of art refers to an artistic creation which can be verified in terms of provenance and by connoisseurs who possess expertise in the techniques and mind-set of the artist in question. Here an epistemological distinction is made between an original and a replica which has been produced with the intention of deceiving others. With the increase of modern technology, skill is no longer required to replicate works of art, and forgery has become much more prevalent. One reason why reproductions are deemed inferior is because they lack the history of the original. According to Walter Benjamin, ‘even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be’ (1999: 124). This historical element is precisely that which makes an object authentic in his account. As Benjamin continues, ‘the authenticity of a thing is the essence of all that is transmissible from its beginning, ranging from its substantive duration to its testimony to the history which it has experienced’ (1999: 125). The authenticity of art pertains to not only paintings but also music and in particular the genres of punk rock and hip-hop.
In 1975 a group of working-class lads from London debuted under the stage name ‘The Sex Pistols’. Their political messages of anti-establishment and disenfranchisement soon came to epitomize punk culture. However, questions surrounding their legitimacy arose. When the group’s manager Malcolm McLaren first encountered the soon-to-be lead vocalist, John ‘Johnny Rotten’ Lyndon, Lyndon had orange hair and was wearing a Pink Floyd t-shirt to which he had prefixed ‘I hate’. And although Lyndon was a substandard vocalist, McLaren invited him to join the group on account of his unique sense of style. Another iconic member of the band, John ‘Sid Vicious’ Richie was originally introduced as a bassist but was deemed incompetent – indeed, Richie only featured on one track on the iconic God Save the Queen album, which was eventually dubbed over – nevertheless Richie was not introduced for his musical talent, but for his arrogant, outspoken attitude which caused frequent controversy, and thus publicity, at their shows. Despite the questionable recruitment of members, and whether the group was manufactured by McLaren, the issue of authenticity arose in relation to the backgrounds of the members themselves. As Peter York makes explicit, ‘because of punk’s creation myth – that it was all about alienated, working-class youths breaking through – the authenticity debate arrived immediately after with the most literal-minded Jacobin interrogation. Every punk band had to face a new line of questioning. How genuinely working class were they?’ (2014: 42).
In hip-hop, rap artists place a premium on ‘keeping it real’ by remaining true to the customs and values of the cultural community within which they were raised. One of the first and most prominent rap groups to provide a social commentary on the gangster lifestyle prevalent within American ghettos was N.W.A. However, the group’s song writer O’Shea ‘Ice-Cube’ Jackson did not personally partake in the violence-fuelled culture conveyed in his lyrics. To maintain an air of authenticity, Eric ‘Easy-E’ Wright, who was renowned for his street-sense, was introduced as a frontman for the group. After disagreements over royalties, Jackson departed from the group to pursue a solo career though was branded a traitor by the remaining members on their succeeding album Efil4zaggin (1990). Jackson riposted on the song ‘No Vaseline’ by claiming they ‘moved straight out of Compton, living with the whites’ (1991). Referencing their hit song and eponymously titled debut album, Jackson questioned his ex-group’s authenticity by inferring they have forgotten their origins and distanced themselves from the black community. In Kembrew McLeod’s account, claims of authenticity in hip-hop arise in response to artists finding themselves within the mainstream of a culture they oppose. In McLeod’s own words, ‘they preserved this identity by invoking the concept of authenticity in attempting to draw clearly demarcated boundaries around their culture’ (1999: 136). Thus, for punk rock and hip-hop, as with art, the question of authenticity is a question of provenance: Is the disadvantaged rhetoric real, are the artists disenfranchised as their lyrics portray, and are they pretending to be something they are not?
One common concern at the heart of the discussion of authenticity in popular culture relates to the development of mass society and the subsequent loss of traditional identity. This concern is aptly expressed by José Ortega Y Gasset in Revolt of the Masses (1930), where mass society is presented as a threat to individuality and free thought.1 In his own words,
the mass crushes beneath it everything that is different, everything that is excellent, individual, qualified and select. Anybody who is not like everybody, who does not think like everybody, runs the risk of being eliminated. And it is clear, of course, that this ‘everybody’ is not ‘everybody’. ‘Everybody’ was normally the complex unity of the mass and the divergent, specialized minorities. Nowadays, ‘everybody’ is the mass alone. (1994: 14–15)
In contemporary culture, the rejection of mass society is perhaps best expressed by the rise of hipsters, who can ironically be identified by their plaid shirts, quirky facial hair, retro electronics and fixed-gear bicycles – as satirized within Chris Morris’s Channel 4 comedy Nathan Barley (2005). And although it has become fashionable to mock the conformity of these non-conformists, their rejection of mainstream values is fuelled by the pursuit of authenticity.
As attested by Ico Maly and Piia Varis, ‘what is absolutely crucial – and global – in defining a hipster is the claim to authenticity, uniqueness and individuality. Being a true hipster is about “being real”, and not “trying too hard”. “Being real”, however, demands identity work, and being a hipster comes with very strong and reoccurring identity discourses that all focus on authenticity’ (2015: 8). This pursuit of authenticity in response to mass society has led to a progressive counterculture which seeks to impede the corrosive effects of globalization by reviving traditional practices. That is, the hipster’s desire to be authentic has led to the preservation and utilization of traditional ways of life. This, however, is not to be confused with nostalgic, blood and soil sentiment – the stark cold reality of pre-war Britain was urban squalor, consumption, indentured labour and zero prospects. Rather, as David Boyle makes explicit, ‘authenticity doesn’t just mean reliving the past: it means using it to find new ways of living – maybe even new kinds of progress. The most authentic isn’t necessarily the most true to the past; it could be the most creative or the most human’ (2004: 44). It is precisely in this respect that hipsters excel.
Through their use of typewriters instead of the latest MacBook, and opting for vintage clothing rather than the latest trend in fashion, the rise of hipsters can be understood as a response to mass society, generic produce and a rejection of capitalism. Against factory work and mass production, which threaten the loss of traditional skills, we have also seen the return to handmade produce, ranging from hand-died silks and wallpaper printing to the promotion of independent business such as microbreweries. There has been a backlash against the mass production of food in the form of complaints against artificial produce which has been genetically modified and produced with synthetic flavours. This has led to the rediscovery of local produce with an emphasis on organic, free-range, gluten-free and vegan alternatives to promote sustainable lifestyles. A further concern is the loss of local identity, which has been seen in the replacement of corner shops with superstores, rendering every major city identical in terms of commercial output. In response, we have seen the emergence of bare brick bars and restaurants decked out with distressed furniture and architectural salvage as has become a cliché in Shoreditch, London. Thus, whilst hipsters may wear vintage clothes, utilize retro electronics and participate in bygone past-times, they have also had a significant impact upon local communities through their pursuit of authenticity.
Why has the concept of authenticity become so prevalent? According to Andrew Potter,
absent from our lives is any sense of the world as a place of intrinsic value, within which each of us can lead a purposeful existence. And so we seek the authentic in a multitude of ways, looking for a connection to something deeper in the jeans we buy, the food we eat, the vacation we take, the music we listen to, and the politicians we elect. (2010: 264)
David Boyle expresses a similar sentiment:
our demand for authenticity is partly a response to living in a fake, constructed world, to being manipulated over the airwaves at every moment of the day, to the way virtual communication is cutting out human contact. It is partly a simple reaction against modernity. But it is also something else: it’s a demand for a different kind of life in the century ahead when, for the first time since the industrial revolution, questions about how we are intended to live – and how we should live – become central again. (2004: 282)
It is in this sense that we will take up the concept of authenticity in this enquiry – not in terms of provenance, or uniqueness in reaction to mass society, but in relation to oneself.
The importance of authenticity in relation to oneself is reflected within the plethora of self-help guides and spiritual gurus which claim to possess the secret to unlock our true selves.2 This literature advocates leading an ‘authentic’ life as the means to increased happiness and meaning. And although this does not express the concept of authenticity per se, it nevertheless demonstrates the demand for self-realization. The market has also responded to this demand, offering personalized products and commodities which propose to enable self-discovery and realize our inner being.3 This message is perpetuated by billboards, commercials and online bloggers promising that the product in question provides the means to achieve self-actualization. Through marketing and consumerism, we can thus detect a reciprocal shaping of capitalism and authenticity. Society urges us to actualize our potential, to become what we are and capitalize upon our unique abilities and attributes. However, these supposed spiritual aids and marketplace creations merely gesture towards an innate sense of self, without saying anything substantial about what it is to be authentic. What is it precisely, then, that they are attempting to articulate?
In general terms, authenticity indicates genuineness and a sense of being true to oneself. One way to conceptualize our ‘true self’ is through the metaphor of childhood, recalling how children possess strong characteristics and opinions, aspiring to a particular calling which resonates with them. This notion of who we really are, and what we truly want, is often said to become obscured by the social ordering and demands imposed upon us by others. In this regard, we can thus conceive of who we truly are by articulating that which is at our core when stripped of the pretence of one’s social roles. One can thus conceive of one’s true self as constituted by one’s own-most values, abilities and interests. In short, we like to think that our authentic self is constructed by actualizing those abilities which are uniquely our own. There are, however, various theories which attempt to articulate this state of existence by advocating alterative understandings of that which our true self consists of and how to achieve authenticity. On the one hand, there are advocates who claim that we possess an individual essence which is discovered through introspection. On the other, there are those who reject any sense of human essence, and instead argue that we are what we determine ourselves to be through self-creation. Nevertheless, in each of these approaches, authenticity refers to an individual mode of existence, and one which is self-determined.
If authenticity is an individual mode of existence, then surely any attempt to formally define it will result in inauthenticity. That is, if we attempt to reduce authenticity to a formula which anyone can apply, then it seems to follow that such a formula will lead to a generic existence which is neither uniquely one’s own, nor authentic. By offering an analysis of that which constitutes an authentic existence, our intention is not to provide instruction on how one ought to act, but to explain the conditions which lead to an inauthentic existence and how to determine whether one’s existence is indeed authentic. What we will present is the form of authenticity, as opposed to the content. Thus, far from constructing a framework to adhere to, the purpose is to provide a diagnostic tool which will enable us to identify aestheticism and egotistical self-indulgence and demarcate these from an authentic existence. Furthermore, a formal account of authenticity avoids the presuppositions of an underlying metaphysical approach; that is, to claim that we have an authentic self which is our own suggests that we possess an individual essence. However, by offering a formal account of authenticity we are able to avoid relying upon any such underlying essentialism of normative ideals.
The aim of this book will be to make a positive contribution to the contemporary literature on authenticity. Although there has been a resurgence of academic interest in the phenomenon of authenticity, as will be demonstrated in Section 2.4., there is still room for growth and development. The particular contribution which this book is intended to make, and the problem which it will address, is to determine the extent to which an ethic of authenticity is capable of responding to the increase of negative freedom and loss of meaning within contemporary European society. That is, the central focus of this book will be to concern ourselves with the manner in which authenticity is simultaneously capable of addressing the increase of negative freedom and providing the individual with a meaningful mode of existence within the wake of a post-metaphysical society. The question that both motivates this enquiry and which this book intends to address is therefore: To what extent can authenticity provide a compelling resolution to the problems of freedom and meaning which pervade modern existence?
0.2 Why freedom, meaning and modernity?
The traditional view of philosophical problems is that they are distinguished by the fact that they are eternally relevant and engage with topics which lack an obvious, straightforward response. Reading Platonic dialogues, it is difficult to conceive of intellectual progress in the Occidental tradition because we are still unable to provide an explanation to the metaphysical, epistemological and ethical problems raised within. It is for this reason we can appreciate Alfred North Whitehead’s famous exclamation, ‘the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato’ (1978: 39). Having mapped the intellectual terrain of human understanding, Plato’s predicaments became those which subsequent theorists have attempted to resolve. However, after 2,600 years of engagement, there is very little which one can contribute to these debates. Anything which could have been said has doubtlessly already been proposed. Thus, many traditional issues appear as but dry, dusty philosophical problems which have been over-analysed with no real significant contributions.
This conception, however, was challenged by the onset of modernity, which brought about a radical overhaul of existing social orders. Although the project of modernity was developed with the intention of achieving immense progress and resulted in a variety of social and political developments, it nevertheless brought a host of new problems with it. Modern theorists advocated that the end goal of human civilization was absolute autonomy and actively pursued the realization of this ideal. What ensued from the Enlightenment’s endeavour was the breakdown of social hierarchies which were prejudiced against certain social classes and the undermining of corrupt political institutions that took advantage of those they were designed to protect. Although these orders and institutions were challenged with the intention of increasing freedom, which was taken to be a positive contribution to human civilization, there were, nevertheless, negative consequences of the Enlightenment’s utopian ideal.
The onset of modernity caused seismic intellectual activity which disrupted the metaphysical grounds of human existence. The rational pursuit of freedom saw social hierarchies and religions as an impediment to progress, and it was this particular perspective which led to the secular dismissal of religion and the scientific rejection of Aristotelian metaphysical biology, which had advanced the belief that human nature possessed a natural telos. Although the rejection of these beliefs led to an initial increase in freedom, there were also unforeseen consequences. The breakdown of social hierarchies challenged our role within society and led to a loss of a shared communal goal, affecting how we conceive of ourselves, and subsequently, how we conduct ourselves ethically. The rejection of religion resulted in the loss of a natural end to our existence, to transcend the material world and discover our true nature, which was to be achieved by living in accordance with God’s word. In each of these cases, the reverent pursuit of freedom brought about a loss of raison d’être. Freedom thus came at the cost of meaning. However, even the modern achievement of autonomy has been relinquished. That is, the freedom which the Enlightenment had actively pursued was consequently lost by the introduction of bureaucratic procedures.
It is this particular problem – the loss of meaning brought about by the pursuit of freedom – which we will engage with in this book. One may, however, object that there are more pressing philosophical problems, such as the increasing inequality which seems to be perpetuated by modern economic systems, and racial/sexual discrimination aga inst ethnic/gender minorities. In this respect, one could argue that the problem of meaning is but a bourgeois ideal for those with no other concern than to vanquish boredom. On the contrary, it will be upheld that meaning is necessary to living a fulfilled existence. This position is made explicit by Abraham Maslow who, in his hierarchy of needs, postulates that humans have five states of psychological development: physiological, security, love, esteem and self-actualization.4 It is the final sphere, self-actualization, which Maslow takes to be the pinnacle of psychological development and where he locates the need for meaning (1990: 370–96). Thus, whilst it may be argued that there are more fundamental issues which ought to be addressed, such as those of security for the impoverished, and esteem for minorities, the question of meaning is one which can be understood as an end goal which all human beings consciously pursue. Thus, far from an empty ideal pursued by those who have found satisfaction in the fulfilment of basic needs, the drive for meaning is an intrinsic aspect of healthy psychological development.
0.3 A structural overview
In order to address the problems of freedom and meaning, and to determine the extent to which an ethic of authenticity can respond to these, our enquiry will be divided in two parts. The first part will be explicatory, outlining the problem and proposed resolution. Here we will explain the origin of the decrease of freedom and loss of meaning, noting the socio-historical conditions which led to not only the problem but also the emergence of authenticity as an ideal. In this way, our book will address the question from a hermeneutic standpoint. That is, we will discuss the emergence of authenticity in relation to a historical problem and maintain that it only makes sense within this context. We will also explicate the concept of authenticity much more thoroughly, explaining the ways in which it has developed and seek to make a contribution to the various traditions by constructing our own approach.
In Chapter 1, we will begin by presenting a historical framework within which to situate the problems of modernity. After offering a general account of the intellectual trajectory of modern European society, we will then narrow our understanding by focusing specifically on the Enlightenment as ‘the project of modernity’. In order to address our primary research question, we will attempt to determine the problems which modernity poses in terms of freedom and meaning. We will then turn to address the Enlightenment’s effect on the pre-modern framework, the vicissitudes it induced and the consequences of the Enlightenment’s failure. In order to demonstrate these, we will consider the counter-discourse of Friedrich Nietzsche and Max Weber, who illuminate the outcome of the Enlightenment project. Having determined the negative implications, we will then present our particular approach to modernity.
Within Chapter 2, a comprehensive account of authenticity will be presented, by drawing out the intricacies of this concept. We will begin with a preliminary account of authenticity, defined as a distinctly modern phenomenon, which emphasizes individuality and that is understood in relation to inauthenticity. We will then expand upon this by comparing and contrasting authenticity with the alternative ethical ideals of sincerity, integrity and autonomy. We will also discuss contemporary approaches and illustrate that they reject the existential approach to authenticity, and instead advocate a socio-ethical inspired account. In order to understand why this occurred, we will consider Sartre’s existential approach. However, it will be argued that we can understand Taylor’s socio-ethical approach as a development of existential authenticity.
With a thorough understanding of the phenomenon of authenticity, we will then be in a better position, in Chapter 3, to develop a concept of authenticity which builds upon the existing literature. Our intention here is to construct a theory which merges the social and existential approaches outlined in the previous chapter. Here it will be determined that there are six dimensions to the socio-existential approach to authenticity: choice, commitment, maturity, becoming what one is, intersubjective consciousness and heritage. It will then be argued that a further consequence of these six dimensions is a meaningful existence. We will also offer a preliminary elucidation of how the concept of authenticity is capable of addressing the problems of freedom and meaning. And as there will be outstanding issues, such as the concern that authenticity has become commodified, we will then turn our attention to considering alternative approaches to the problems of freedom and meaning.
The second part of this book will offer an analysis of alterative contemporary theorists who problematize modernity in terms of freedom and meaning. Here we will focus on Jürgen Habermas, Michel Foucault and Alasdair MacIntyre. These theorists have been chosen because they each attempt to engage with the intellectual failure of the Enlightenment and devise a resolution similar to authenticity; however, each undermines our account in a specific way. In each instance, we will consider the challenge which these accounts pose to authenticity, defend our account and argue that these approaches are insufficient to resolve the problem of meaning. However, our strategy will not be as simple as to defend and counter-strike, but through engagement with these thinkers our aim is to develop our concept of authenticity. That is, through being challenged we can detect weaknesses and overcome flaws by assimilating aspects of the theorists in question.
Chapter 4 will focus on the modernist response to the problem of freedom and meaning, as advocated by Jürgen Habermas. Although he recognizes the problems which have been caused by the failure of the Enlightenment project, Habermas nevertheless believes reverently that the project can be completed. That is, he argues that the outstanding, unfulfilled potential of the Enlightenment, if completed, would provide the means to resolve questions of freedom. In his account, the problems are a consequence of the colonization thesis that systems imperatives have been imposed upon the lifeworld. Habermas’s approach is to restrict power/instrumental reason to systems and increase communicative reason within the lifeworld. However, it will be argued that Habermas’s dualist conception of system and lifeworld is unrealistic because power cannot be restricted to system spheres. Furthermore, his theory of discourse ethics is subject to a performative contradiction. Namely, he prioritizes morality over ethics, though morality itself depends upon a prior conception of the good. However, Habermas’s strength, and that which we will take from our engagement, is that resistance to the colonization thesis provides the continued possibility of an authentic existence.
In Chapter 5, we will consider the postmodernist response developed by Michel Foucault. Unlike Habermas, Foucault accepts the failure of the Enlightenment and the metaphysical ruins that surround him rather than attempting to complete the project. However, he believes that within modern society the subject has come to be produced by discourses of power. The consequence of his book is that, if there is no individual subject then none of our choices are our own; as such, we cannot live an authentic or meaningful life. However, Foucault later relinquishes this claim and attempts to develop a means of recovering subjectivity from this dominating force. He attempts to achieve this aim by drawing upon the Stoic-inspired ethic ‘care of the self’ which he believes has not been affected by discourse. However, although he offers a response to social domination through the ethic of care, his approach does not say anything explicit with regards to the problem of meaning. Nevertheless, we will draw out the implications of his ethic of care and suggest that despite being morally insensitive, to the extent that his approach cannot inhibit one from impinging upon the autonomy of another, his account can nevertheless be shown to provide a sense of unity. From our encounter, it will be claimed that Foucault enables us to develop our understanding of inauthenticity in terms of power relations.
The penultimate chapter offers an analysis of Alasdair MacIntyre’s pre-modernist response, which focuses upon the negative ethical implications of the Enlightenment. In MacIntyre’s account, the breakdown of hierarchies and the rise of modern society, which ensued from rationalization, lead to the loss of a unifying communal good and the emergence of emotivism– that is, our moral point of view is determined by our emotions alone. However, rather than accepting our existential condition, MacIntyre argues that in order to overcome emotivism we ought to revive the Aristotelian virtue ethics tradition. This, however, challenges our concept of authenticity on two grounds: (i) MacIntyre’s account would suggest that authenticity is a manifestation of emotivism, and (ii) if teleology can be restored, as MacIntyre intends, then our concept of authenticity becomes redundant. In order to defend our concept of authenticity, we will challenge MacIntyre’s concept of tradition, which underpins his virtue ethics, and demonstrate this is an unrealistic resolution for the reason that it is steeped in nostalgia. However, the aspect which we will take away from our experience with MacIntyre is his sense of narrative quest, which will enable us to further articulate the sense of unity inherent within our concept of authenticity.
In Chapter 7 of this book, we will bring together those aspects which we have learned and assimilated from the aforementioned theorists. Namely, we will attempt to explain how we may resist the colonization thesis, the relations of power with which theories of authenticity must contend and how we can acquire a unified sense of self through conceiving of authenticity in terms of a narrative quest. We will also demonstrate how our socio-existential concept of authenticity is capable of resolving the problems of freedom and meaning and complete our account by demonstrating that it provides a better resolution than the alternative theorists considered. Having defended our theory, we will then turn to consider practical and social problems to authenticity. In particular, we will consider whether our current economic structure inhibits one’s ability to realize one’s authentic self. We will also question the implications of social media upon our ability to live authentically, and what potential problems this may pose in the future. Having defined the key concepts, justified our choices and provided a structural framework of our book, let us now proceed.
Notes
1 Interestingly, Sigmund Freud published his Civilisation and its Discontents in the same year, which also focused on the clash between the desire for individuality and freedom and civilization’s demand for conformity in modern society.
2 Examples of influential self-help guides include Dale Carnegie’s How to Make Friends and Influence People and Stephen Covey’s The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, both of which became best sellers.
3 For example, the British-based gym Fitness First uses the motivational slogan ‘be yourself, only better’. Moreover, in Lancome’s advertisement for their perfume La Vie Est Belle, Julia Roberts is depicted breaking free from chains whilst at a formal dinner, suggesting that the perfume epitomizes independence and individuality.
4 The desire for meaning is also perpetuated in the sociological studies of Marx through his notion of alienation and Durkheim with anomie. A sense of meaninglessness is also portrayed in the great works of twentieth-century literature, as demonstrated through Dostoyevsky’s underground man in Notes from Underground, and Kafka’s K in The Trial and The Castle.