The derision and drama on blogs, news and broadcast nowadays is entertaining, like a domino of tabloids back-to-back. And while we instinctively know that insistent self-actualization is an incredibly banal form of entertainment, it remains so vast in its infectiousness, and so strong in its self-referential feeding, that navel-gazing is now suffocating in its empire.
Let’s poke some holes for air.
You are not genuine because you told me of your heartbreak, or your success or your disease or your strengths or your weaknesses or miscarriage or move or relationship or promotion or demotion or disability or conflict or how your cat peed outside of its litter box.
Gross over-sharing is not encouraging or revolutionary or innovative. You are not absolved because you made what was once private now public.
Enough of the cultish drippy-rainbowed sentences: “What’s holding you back? Yourself;” “Motivation is first about taking that first step;” “Do whatever you want, your intuition will guide you;” “Force yourself to look inward;” “Start telling yourself positive things instead of negative things.”
Enough crowdsourcing your life’s misdeeds, your life’s lessons, your life’s minutiae. Enough with bogus empowerment, dramatics, and inflated realities in the name of support, transparency, attention, acceptance. That is not authenticity. That is allegiance to a culture of nineties motivational speeches.
“For me, the demand that everything be paraded in the public space and that there be no internal forum is a glaring sign of the totalitarianization of democracy,” philosopher Jacques Derrida maintains. “If a right to a secret is not maintained then we are in a totalitarian space.”
“Which is to say,” author Zadie Smith argues in Changing My Mind, “enough of human dissection, of entering the brains of characters, cracking them open, rooting every secret out!”
Authenticity is not about revealing it all, nor complete transparency, nor opening the door and shining a very bright light on every raised goosebump. Authenticity is not about blurring public with private. Authenticity is not about the flailing and flapping of our entire hearts and minds to an audience of mirrored hosts.
We have a right to our private lives. Dear God, we have a right to keep the corners of our lives to ourselves. And it is delicious to do so.
35 replies on “The Corruption of Authenticity”
Here’s an idea. Forget the word authenticity.
A better way to think of this issue might be that there’s good writing and bad writing. People like to read good writing and people feel good writing it. People don’t like to read bad writing, and, for the most part, people don’t feel good writing it. Figure out who you want to read your writing, and if they are reading it, then the writing is good.
I think this might be a more useful way to talk about writing than tossing around the word authenticity.
Penelope
Yay! Rebecca’s back!
Penelope does have a point. Sometimes, when someone is willing to shine a light in a dark place via a blog post, a reader can be thankful in a “that’s exactly what I’m feeling but I could never be willing to write that” kind of way. Example: Post Secret – except it’s anonymous.
There’s a fine line between sensationalism and literature, however. Unfortunately, many bloggers cross it hastily. I think you do a good job of knowing where that line is, Rebecca.
Right on!
@ Penelope – 1) Not a very good idea. You can’t forget a word that’s become part of the foundational truth in how we engage in discourse (Obama, Tiger Woods, bloggers, etc.), and 2) Besides the fact that this is about more than just good or bad writing (perhaps a better way to describe it would be good and bad storytelling?), and that “good” is completely subjective, that’s too simplistic of an argument. I unsubscribe from good writing all the time for its sensationalism, misleading nature and dare I say it, in-authenticity.
@ Sam – I think you’re making my point. Somehow, we’ve mixed in the idea that for good writing to be good, it has to be “authentic,” which has come to be defined as either telling all (look at the top memoirs on Amazon: Andre Agaasi’s for another famous example), or reading directly from a self-help book. It’s fine to be sensationalist if that helps your story, but I think more of what we’re seeing is compulsive narcissism. Not a damning indictment over everyone or everything, but a trend nonetheless. Thanks for the comment : )
This is just brilliant, Rebecca! I have this theory that one day it will be a crime to try and keep your identity a secret. Think about it!
At any rate, I think there are some really huge implications to what you’re talking about here. If the premise of Facebook and Twitter is to tell absolutely everyone you know absolutely everything about yourself, it’s not a a “conversation”, it’s 350 million monologues. Is that what social networking is really about? Can a dialogue happen if no one is stopping long enough to listen?
And to go along with Sam & Penelope, I would also say that in order for any kind of writing (or storytelling) to be good, it has to be edited (either by thinking it over ahead of time, or on paper, or online, etc.). Pure, spontaneous, stream-of-consciousness communication runs the risk of being both boring AND offensive at the same time (think of snarky blog comments, for example).
Finally, as to authenticity, my best guess is that it means consistently sticking to your core values. As an individual (or an organization) you don’t need to “tell all” in order to be authentic. Rather, you display authenticity by behaving and communicating in a predictable, transparent manner.
Thanks again for your inspirational and thought-provoking post today!
-Jonathan
Rebecca… the flip side of this is that, as writers, we also have a right to reveal every corner of our lives (I say this as someone who does not) and, as readers, we have a right to choose the writers we read.
Authenticity isn’t one-size-fits-all. The extent to which a writer is being authentic depends on who that writer is.
@ Jonathan – I didn’t even think about some of the larger implications and appreciate you bringing up the point of “350 million monologues” – so true. I agree that part of authenticity is sticking to your core values, whatever they may be – although the caveat of behaving in a “predictable, transparent manner” makes me a bit nervous… ; ) Thanks so much for the thoughtful comment!
@ Alli – You’re so right… but is there not a propsensity to believe that success is deemed by how authentic you are in today’s society? And that such authentcity is how well you are able to bear it all in a likeable manner?
Amen! Such a great — and necessary — voice of reason. This will, no doubt, bear repeating, so keep up the good work.
OK–I see where you’re coming from. And I’m sure there are any number of posts on “Top Ten Ways to be Authentic,”and others with less obnoxious names. And in our public figures, we’re seeing “authenticity” defined for us in a range of ways (most of which seem to have absolutely nothing to do with authenticity).
The very implication that one person can define authenticity for another is inauthentic.
Nice job, Rebecca.
I really enjoyed this post Rebecca even though I loved nineties motivational speeches. It is all about the power of one, right?
I think the selectivity to know what to expose and what to be private about has to be one of the more critical skills we don’t take into consideration. Consider this crass example: a bikini worn incorrectly is as useful as not wearing one at all.
Not only is being private important, being private about the right things is as important.
Another point is that authenticity doesn’t have to breed familiarity. I think that is a myth. If we met in person, we would interact differently and talk about issues in a different way. My voice is different in person than it is online. One breeds familiarity, the other not so much. Both can be authentic too.
Thank you!
So then… what IS authenticity?
@ Doug – Thanks for the kind words.
@ Alli – I love this quote, “we’re seeing “authenticity” defined for us in a range of ways (most of which seem to have absolutely nothing to do with authenticity).” since it speaks to the complexity of the issue, wherein there are obviously multiple truths. It’s hard to define, you’re right.
@ Lance – I love when you like my posts, ha. The idea about being private about the right things is an interesting point. Goes to the saying of there’s a time and place for everything. And I agree, it doesn’t breed familiarity. I’m different in person as well and that doesn’t mean preclude authenticity online or vice versa. Great issue to bring up.
@ Corwyn – A lot of the other commenters have some good answers to that question : )
Ha, there is nothing that annoys me more than bloggers who turn into a broken record of “nineties motivational speeches” and then say that they’re all about authenticity. Honestly authenticity means nothing to me anymore. It’s just a buzzword now.
Really well-written. I do feel like it’s a bit of flailing around when people divulge everything about their life, revealing it all to a group of people who hardly (for the most part) know them.
I love that not everyone knows my business, but I love that I also write honestly. Two separate pieces of work.
I also love your writing :) Thanks for writing this.
“Authenticity is not about the flailing and flapping of our entire hearts and minds to an audience of mirrored hosts”
That line reminded me of facebook status updates and Tweets. Sometimes I can’t get over what people share via updates and tweets…I feel like I know too much about the inner workings of the minds of “friends”. I have a hard time using either because I feel like I don’t want to share so much of myself with the masses…with each tweet being a representation of the inner workings of my mind or a calculation at that exact moment.
“Enough crowdsourcing your life’s misdeeds, your life’s lessons, your life’s minutiae. Enough with bogus empowerment, dramatics, and inflated realities in the name of support, transparency, attention, acceptance. That is not authenticity…”
To me thats what I hate about facebook and some elements of social media.
Great post!
@ Nisha – Yes, you’re absolutely right on. It is now a buzzword. I wonder what the next word will be used to describe such traits?
@ Grace – Glad you think it’s well-written; it was one of the few posts that didn’t take me long to write. I think you strike a good balance, as most people do, but others setting examples don’t. And the question becomes, to be successful, do you have to visit one of the extremes?
@ Erin – It’s difficult, isn’t it? In a way, Facebook and Twitter are a way for us to receive instant gratification and to be heard without having to exit our house, but it comes with consequences. The next few years should be interesting to watch it all play out, to say the least : )
I always thought the point of being authentic meant being yourself, and if this is the case, one shouldn’t have to try TOO hard to be authentic, right? Unfortunately, it appears many people have taken it upon themselves to be the crusaders for truth, demanding transparency and authenticity – and forgetting that this means more than oversharing mundane details of their lives with the rest of the world. If you’re being genuine, it should show. Broadcasting it would be unnecessary.
Great piece, Rebecca. Couldn’t agree more.
Don’t focus on navel-gazing and self-actualization, but DO focus on authenticity and meaningful privacy? Don’t be a slave to a culture of motivational speeches, but DO break free of the culture of sharing all details and discover that privacy is delicious?
@ Meg – Thanks so much for your thoughtful comment – I miss your blog! “Crusaders of truth” is such a great term for the trend, and it’s true that there’s so much more out there. I like my indulgences just like anyone else, but I wish there was more writing out there that actually makes me think instead of just showing how awesomely “authentic” the writer is (which of course I’m guilty of as well ; ).
@ Royce – I don’t fully understand your questions since they don’t match up with the points I was making. Sorry.
I agree wholeheartedly. Thank you.
[…] with all the value that’s placed on being genuine, consider Rebecca Thorman’s stance: You are not genuine because you told me of your heartbreak…or relationship or promotion or […]
I like this post and I mostly agree. I wouldn’t want to write about every detail of my relationships and insecurities for all sorts of people I have never met to read, especially in the name of authenticity.
However, I think that sharing personal details can go a long way in terms of connecting with people. For example, I love Halloween and everyone who knows me knows that I go all out on costumes made of random materials like trash bags and lipstick. Sharing this information usually provokes a fun conversation. It may not be particularly professional or serious, but I think it’s authentic.
I’m also working on a post that includes advice for Chinese professionals making speeches in English. I really like to hear how a speaker got interested in a specific field. I think the (dare I say it) authentic and personal answer to this question can make a speech so much more interesting.
Thanks for prompting an interesting discussion!
I agree that we need to move away from the “culture of nineties motivational speeches.” However, I think Penelope Trunk had a better take on blogs, writing and modern culture. While you may not like reading about heartbreak or personal success, it is more likely due to lack of talent by the writer, not because the subject lacks authenticity. It actually happened and affected the writer’s life enough that he or she wanted to write about it.
Jacques Derrida was talking about an individual’s inability to keep a secret within society. We still have the choice to reveal or not reveal any information we see fit. You have the choice to read a blog or to ignore it. Blog writers are like people standing on a stage speaking to the world. Some do it on a street corner and are ignored by passers-by. Some get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for giving lectures in large halls. You could even argue that the man on the street corner is more authentic and often more passionate. But the man getting paid is being paid for his talent. Why is The Last Lecture published and read by so many, yet many blogs written by cancer patients are not?
Did you remove the monthly goal meet-up posts? And, if so, does this post speak to part of the reasoning?
@ Molly – No, the Goal Meet-Up posts are available on the right hand sidebar for the moment, or here is the link. The goal meet-ups are a lot to handle administratively so I’m thinking about moving them permanently to the Brazen Careerist meet-up group so it’s more of a team effort. I’m not sure why this post would speak to any reasoning behind that thought-process. The two are unrelated.
Authentic is 5-minute oatmeal (vs. quick cook), Ghandi (vs. instant karma), Woody Gutherie (vs. the Jonas Brothers), Levi Strauss (vs. American Apparel).
I think it is important to understand that authenticity is not about spilling it all. Authenticity is about being who you are and living a life that is true to self.
I agree that the word has been so watered down, that even I, a truly authentic woman, try not to described myself in that manner. I prefer “genuine” or “real”.
I am also a very transparent person but I don’t tell it all. However, I understand my call in life and I know that God wants me to share my story because it helps others to see that they are not alone. There is someone who gets it!
I totally agree with you about the fluffy statements and all the positive energy. Nothing wrong with being positive but when it overtakes reality then it borders on being toxic to one’s being!
Thank you for sharing in such a truly (you are going to hate this but I am going to say it) authentic manner!
[…] Another share coming your way, this time from a blog I randomly stumbled upon while searching for something…. funny thing is, I can no longer remember what I was searching for – it’s a brilliant post which I have ranted about to other bloggers. Have a read, and enjoy the words of Rebecca Thorman from modite.com. The original post can be found [here]. […]
I wonder how authenticity comes in parallel with privacy. If this is the trend today then many are misleading themselves. One cannot be authentic by just spilling specific events that occur in their lives and I agree with you point here.
Though we cannot prevent some people to express their foolishness, rest assured that there are consequences for their actions. :-)
Penelope Trunk says: “A better way to think of this issue might be that there’s good writing and bad writing. ” and “Figure out who you want to read your writing, and if they are reading it, then the writing is good.”
I say bunk. “Good writing?” “Bad writing?” If people you want to read your stuff are reading it, then the writing is good?
Crowdsourcing has now turned into Crowdpleasing. The Romans had that down — in the colloseum. Trunk’s definition tells us that “reporters” for the National Star produce good writing since their audience reads it.
How about judging writing by whether and how it contributes to the quality of life of those who read it? Try John Gardner’s “On Moral Fiction.” The concepts apply to non-fiction, too.
The apologists for ephemeral crap need only measure how long it takes for the crap to dry up and blow away.
Ha! Love it.
It is amazing how blogging has impacted society. The idea of Bentham’s ‘Panopticon’ has evolved into a sort of ‘omnopticon,’ with everyone watching everyone and the sense of omniscience being so widespread that we little gods, each watching and judging each miniscule detail of each others’ lives, have no time for our own stories if we fully embrace the possibilities of our new-found powers.
It may not be long until all of us are writing about each other writing. Oh wait.
Love this! All the talk of authenticity, personal branding, etc is getting out of hand. Just because the gross over sharing of your personal life gets you traffic does not mean it’s any good.
The true meaning of authenticity is to be “true to one’s own personality, spirit, or character”. Being the same person online as you are offline. Couple that truth in who you are with a topic or message that will actually benefit others in their lives and you have the making of a success.
I hope that is where the focus will shift for people in 2010. I won’t hold my breath though.
Just now reading this post and I am digging it! This is especially timely for the New Year as bloggers are incessantly encouraging readers to post your goals for 2010 for the whole world to see. I’m all for accountability, but there are just some things that are meant to be private.
I think it’s important to be real….to be human. Sharing experiences can help paint pictures and get the point across. However, sharing every gory detail of your life certainly doesn’t qualify. Besides, people want to hear more about themselves, not about YOU.
[…] blogosphere who use the power of social media to over-share and then relish in the ensuing uproar, Rebecca writes her posts with a degree of restraint. She uses her life experiences as a springboard—instead of talking about herself and offering […]