The Authenticity Paradox

“To thine own self be true.” Thanks to Shakespeare’s Hamlet, we have this little gem, and although it is gifted through Polonius’ hypocritical and somewhat inane perspective, the meaning is dimensional and worthy of further investigation and analysis.

I do not consider myself, by any means or shape, versed in Shakespeare, and so I will not sport with your intelligence by attempting to loosely paraphrase his meaning here.

Instead, I would simply like to take a quick, but curious, look at the paradox of being true to one’s self while remaining a conscientious and cooperative member of society, as well as attempt to unravel the tricky knot of what one’s authenticity and being true to thine own self looks like in practical application.

The Paradox of Truth

Having grown up in a certain Christian faith, being true to particular values, beliefs, ideals, and doctrine of this faith was, in many ways, second nature to me as a child and throughout my teen years, as I imagine this phenomenon of accepting certain truths as self-evident is for most people raised within any cultural structure, whether that structure be familial, religious, or secular.

However, like many cultures teach their youth, I was taught from a very early age to live comfortably, and sometimes uncomfortably, under the roof of a paradoxical structure.

Religious beliefs often clash with secular beliefs, and even within a religious structure, there will be seemingly contrasting elements to sort out and sift through.

For example, members of this particular faith are instructed to trust outer authority and doctrine, like prophets, church leadership, scripture, etc, while simultaneously using one’s heart, mind, and personal relationship with God to discern whether or not what one is being taught is right or true.

Why is that paradoxical, because despite the fact that many find their hearts and minds often relate to and align with church doctrine and prophetic counsel, there’s always the chance that one’s inner voice, mind, and even relationship with God, will not align with what one is taught. Hence, the contradiction.

In the case of misalignment or contradiction between one’s heart and church authority and doctrine, at least within this particular religion, one is directed to put one’s heart aside and simply follow the doctrine and leadership until one’s heart is able to be in full alignment.

The difficulty with this formula of putting aside one’s heart and being led by outer authority, at least for me, has been the authenticity paradox: my inner truth and experience, for some reason, clashes, at times, with outer truth.

Because of this misalignment, the question arises, which truth should I trust, and why should I mistrust my inner voice for an outer one?

I find this authenticity paradox arises in circumstances outside of my religious affiliations as well, especially with regards to politics.

In the secular world, one is also taught to put aside one’s inner truth (experience and values) for outer truth (experts and authoritarianism).

For example, the experts-know-best syndrome is well documented, especially during the recent pandemic.

Totalitarianism became law and one was publicly flogged and banished, at the very least on social media and at the very most (in certain countries) arrested and isolated when one disagreed with or opposed the narrative.

What one knew from experience to be truth, became heretical mis- and dis-information if it did not fully align with the so-called truth that had been put forth by government and its agencies.

Even those with decades of experience and distinguished careers who did not agree with or support the totalitarian narrative were defamed and stripped of their usefulness and expert authority.

Under these circumstances, many argued in favor of putting aside one’s truth—one’s experience and what one could even see with their own eyes and know with their own hearts and minds—to protect and preserve the so-called collective truth and greater good.

In my personal experience, which I find to be as accurate as anyone else’s personal experience, putting aside what one knows to be true to support what one knows to be false is not only dangerous, but is not very useful or beneficial long term for anyone, least of all those who make this sort of personal compromise.

Certainly, in situations where one’s knowledge is lacking it is appropriate and pragmatic to be guided by those whose experience and knowledge supersedes one’s own. In fact, it is foolhardy to consider oneself to be above reproach or guidance.

However, in circumstances where one can clearly see and feel, by both one’s experience and sense, that something is amiss, one is better off adhering to the adage, ‘To thine own self be true” until one is certain what the best course of action should be.

The Authenticity Paradox

Why on earth would I share all of this when trying to unravel the authenticity paradox?

Firstly, authenticity, like religious, scientific, or political faith, can seem somewhat abstract at times, because humans are a culmination of experiences, thoughts, influences, values, and potential.

What is authentic for one, will not be authentic for another—which is the definition of authenticity. Yet, it’s difficult to determine where culture and society end and the individual begins.

The Garden Of Authenticity

Authenticity is first a weeding out process, like removing the weeds from a garden, before it is a type of being there experience.

If the garden represents one’s personal authenticity and the vegetation symbolizes one’s values, gifts, and purpose, the weeds in the garden represent everything else, cultural traditions, religious beliefs, political frameworks and expectations, familial influence, secular education, and so forth.

In order to be a good person, does everything we experience in the outer world, or the inner world, need to inform all of our individual decisions and choices? In other words, what should influence our authenticity?

What distinctions does the individual need to make between the so-called fruits and flowers (individual values and purpose) of their authenticity garden and the weeds (outside expectation and opinion) that simply seek any old place to grow and assert their importance without offering anything in return?

The weeding out process—discerning and deciding what information and influence is useful and supportive, and what is not—is how one becomes authentic.

Discerning Weed From Flower, or Analysis From Bias

What one perceives to be authenticity within themselves is more often than not, cultural affiliation, like familial, political, or societal manifestos NOT one’s personal values and sense.

Most children adopt many of the beliefs of their parents, even into their adult years, often without even realizing they are doing so.

If you were raised by a Democrat, most likely you will be a Democrat as an adult. If you were raised to eat steamed vegetables, you’ll most likely steam them as an adult.

How one was raised isn’t a guarantee they will carry on the traditions, but it is certainly likely, as many do.

Despite one’s confidence in their level and ability for critical thinking, one is most likely being led by one’s cultural experience and upbringing over one’s ability to critically think themselves outside of these often rigid dendritical structures and native boxes.

Most of us assume our thoughts are our own, and therefore some authentic source of critical and objective thinking.

However, it is naive and arrogant to assume that just because one has the capacity to think for oneself, that they in fact are thinking for themselves outside of a cultural framework.

Critical thinking is so often influenced by where a person came from that is is hardly worth calling it critical, when it is more often cultural.

For example, those working within a secular framework may believe they are more capable of critical thought than one who is working within a religious one, and vice versa, yet the fact that one adheres to either a secular or religious framework is an admission that one is being influenced by outside opinion and is therefore not fully objective.

One’s common thoughts are a web of influences, least of which can be deemed authentic.

From birth on we gather data from our most prominent surroundings and influences.

For me, my most prominent influencers included religion, in the form of a particular Christian narrative, a variety of familial influences, some secular institutions, like school and work, as well as my own experience gathered in a multitude of sensorial ways.

When I was young, as most children do, I peered through a lens that was heavily influenced by family, and because my family was religious, I also peered through a religious lens that was highly saturated by my family’s interpretation of that religious tradition.

As I grew, my perception was challenged with new and interesting ideas, many of which I held within the framework of my adolescents.

In my early adult years, I found myself in a sort of authenticity reformation as the paradoxes grew and I couldn’t always rectify and resolve the contradictions.

This weeding out or reformation process is typically when we begin to materialize something that resembles authentic thinking, and we start drawing lines in the sand that become our individual faith, values, purpose, and so forth.

The Authenticity Filter

Where authenticity was more of a destination I was moving toward, now it is more of a filter I run everything I encounter through.

Yes, this filter is somewhat bias, because being authentic is a state of bias. But, it is biased toward my own goals and desires, not a haphazard grouping of weed-like ideals I’ve adopted from my experience.

For me, authenticity has become a divining rod rather than a list of to dos.

As I’ve uncovered and defined my own purpose and established a sort of desired destination for myself, both spiritual and physical, my authenticity has taken root and I can enjoy the fruits, instead of being overwhelmed by the weeds.

Because I have defined who I am and what I want to create long term in my life, everything I consider to be useful and helpful in supporting me to hit that personal or authentic target are being filtered in and everything that is not useful is being filtered out automatically.

Now, when I encounter outside information and influence in any form, I naturally run it through my authenticity filter, sometimes it aligns and sometimes it doesn’t.

If it is information or influence that does align, I vault it and reference it when I need it.

If it does NOT align, I take a little bit of time to analyze why and attempt to do my own kind of due diligence to be sure I am not rejecting it out of habit, prejudice, or apathy. Once I feel confident that piece of information or influence is unworthy of note, I reject it as unnecessary and move on.

Of course this process is not always cut and dried. In fact, I would say it rarely is. I have a tendency to agonize over things for much longer than I should. However, the more I define my purpose and align myself with my target destination, the less I worry about semantics.

Conclusion

To me, this is what authenticity and being true to oneself is all about:

1. Defining one’s individual purpose and function within the whole

2. Establishing a target destination—who you want to be and what you’d like to accomplish now and in the future

Seems pretty straight forward.

Yet, the authenticity paradox is not so straightforward or appealing. It is this:

When one makes decisions based on who they know they are and where they want to end up, they are going to run into a lot of contradictions and opposition. People, institutions, family, religions, politics, etc, will not always agree with, understand, or respect you.

To be authentic is to be wise enough to include the experience and expert advice of those around you to find a satisfying and fulfilling destination and purpose, but when that is decided upon, one also has to have enough sense and wisdom to ignore the outside opinion and expectation that disagrees with one’s choice and live with the paradox that one’s inner truth will not always align with outer truth.

As Bono shared recently in the Disney+ interview, Bono and the Edge, “You don’t have to resolve every contradiction.”

I love that, because despite how hard the bleeding-hearts and control-freaks of the word try, one cannot resolve every contradiction, nor would it be wise to do so.

To be authentic, and in my opinion fulfilled, one can only ever be fully responsible for and aligned with one’s own truth.

The best one can do is to daily consider that target destination one desires to strive for, and do everything in one’s power to reach that destination.

Hopefully, that target includes being a part of the greater whole and in serving others along the way.

But, that is for the individual to decide.

Perhaps, Polonius took his own advice and being true to himself was simply a selfish objective. Again, I am no Shakespeare scholar, but Shakespeare has a way of taking a platitude and raking it over the coals of its own stupidity.

One thing I do know, however, is that working to include MORE than simple outside influence, like cultural norms, religious ideals, or secular scientific or political analysis’ in one’s target destination, life’s goals and perspective, and purpose, is the best way forward.

To consider the depth and breadth of possibilities before choosing to naively or arrogantly land on a narrow concept of what is possible, is the best of authentic living.

The more one can see, the better the destination will be.

Share this post