we need to talk about 'authenticity'

Has the oft-used catch phrase lost its meaning? What is an authentic self anyway?

As therapists we are trained to understand transference. A type of “projection”, specifically in the clinical space, transference is the meaning a client makes of their therapist, based on generalisations informed by the client’s own life experience.

Often times, what provokes these generalisations is non verbal. For example, the physical presence of a large human male may evoke all manner of feelings, from desire, to contempt, or even terror. Other times a phrase, an intonation or a particular word can evoke certain meanings and associations. Whatever the stimuli, therapists who work with transference are tuned into these evocations. What is particularly intriguing is when a word starts to bring with it a new or unexpected transference, which appears to be a result of changes in the broader culture.

Around five years ago it became that if I used the word ‘authentic’ a new transference would come at me. If I used the word, clients and some colleagues might assume I was absorbed by a progressive political agenda or that I meant a sexuality or gender identity. What I actually mean by “authentic”, is something quite different to these cultural meanings. I fear though, that my understanding has become somewhat idiosyncratic, even slightly revolutionary in our culture.

You see, I see “authenticity” as being attuned to yourself. On a level deeper than identity, behaviour, culture or labels. Authenticity isn’t something that can be fully known or is concrete. It’s ever-deepening and at first it’s often fleeting. Quite necessarily, it’s also incredibly subjective.

Let’s explore.

Psychoanalytic musings v. cultural superficiality

The modern war cry of “living as your authentic self” is perhaps a good place to start exploring how the culture is operating around this topic. So let’s begin our examination where many modern explorers might start.

It doesn’t take a particularly trained eye to see that these definitions are quite superficial. They quickly relate to broad terms such as “personality” or observable expressions, such as things we do (interests, abilities, mistakes) or aspects of conscious identity (beliefs, values, ideals). This observable bias is quite problematic. It implies that authenticity is definable, and can be observed by another. This is probably not a huge surprise, in a day and age lived with an orientation to social media perception. Where tribal identity has become intrinsically linked to personality. But it dismisses much subjective nuance. It dismisses that even if we don’t demonstrate, or even necessarily know something about ourselves, that it may still be part of who we are.

The conflict between externally perceived identity and an innate sense of self is a problem which psychoanalysis has attempted to solve for since it’s inception.

Freud, in his seminal theories, posited that human personality could be thought about as having three broad components. One of these was the superego, which is a categorisation which captures that we internalise family and cultural values. If we are unconscious of this, we may have unknowingly sacrificed aspects of who we truly are in favour of the opinions or values of those around us. This can be psychologically troublesome, as values held within superego can often be in conflict with those that are instinctual (belonging to the id), or in some cases, conflictual with our individual identity (the ego). In our time, where cultural tribes often adopt pop-psychological tropes, superego can be particularly pernicious.

Jungian thinking, understands the tension that exists between the person life has led us to be (the ego) and the being we are at an eternal or soul level (the Self). In the first half of life we often believe that we are our ego. However, the Jungian notion is that there is also a transpersonal and transcendent aspect of individuality. It is in the latter half of life that we are called to realise the Self in both our identity and how it is expressed through the choices that we make.

Winnicott paid close attention to the quality of the infant care environment. He understood that there are innate aspects of personality, including “undesirable“ emotional states, such as rage, narcissism and intolerance. They are made undesirable as the infant environment didn’t allow them to be expressed. Before we even have words, we begin to develop a false self, which is an adaptation which we think will be well received by a care environment. This leaves aspects of the true self unconscious, and possibly without expression, except in uncontrolled moments. So when you express your rage or narcissism in therapy, a therapist who works with this concept will likely be very welcoming of those states. They are welcoming in aspects of your true self.

There is something that unites, all of these perspectives. In each, a distinction is made between the intrinsic (either a biological inheritance, or something more essential/spiritual) and the adaptive. This is important as it recognises that the personality which is demonstrated or expressed every day, is an adaptation. It is only when we choose to see personality as constructed and instead we attempt to unearth the innate, that we are exploring what depth psychological perspectives might call “authentic”. To differentiate this, I’ll use the phrase “depth authenticity” when referring to this more psychologically minded definition.

At this core level, we are in a territory which is necessarily vague and somewhat ineffable. This is in part because depth authenticity is not a concrete, literal thing. It is a state of self-relatedness that, like many depth phenomenon, is best described metaphorically. When we are in depth authenticity the vibration of the Self, is in accordance with the vibration of our day-to-day ego. This is far from a behaviour, or an identity, it is a state of being. And as such, it isn’t a destination. It is a state we can drift in and out of, as life progresses.

The philosopher and psychiatrist Ian McGilchrist, who explores consciousness and neuroscience, makes a similar point regarding the paralleled idea of purpose. He suggests a sense of purpose isn’t a discernible behaviour we undertake, or a fixed vocation, rather it’s a state of vibratory alignment. He essentially suggests, that consciousness will tell us through feeling, when we are in alignment with our purpose. In my words, we’ll feel a cosmic yet grounded resonance which, at least for a moment, calmly but unequivocally sings “this is why I’m here”, when we’re in that purposeful alignment.

The intersection of trauma, depth authenticity and ‘healing’

Psychologically speaking, we find this state when our unconscious identifications and traumas are sufficiently resolved, that egoic adaptations which distanced us from Self, are no longer necessary. But to be clear, the traumas I’m speaking about are not just the typical shock trauma type that our culture is familiar with, I’m speaking also of the subtle, developmental and often pre-verbal traumas which psychoanalysis has long been concerned with. The concern is for a reason, working at this level has the power to bring about potent changes in personality, unlocking depth authenticity that has hitherto been masked. In fact, psychoanalysis can reach depths that might be causal in creating confusion around sexuality or gender identity. Some psychoanalytic thinking frames some gender identities as possible trauma responses, without labelling them as dysfunction, or of needing repair.

This is a complex and nuanced area, but an important one. The question we might end up asking, is to what extent does trauma (or its resultant personality formations) require our healing attention, and to what extent might a creative use of a traumatic injury now be intrinsic to an individuals life and choices?

The simple answer to this question is that there is no answer. Each individual must make up their own mind, and each therapy must be prepared to enter into that process of examination and determination together.

I have learned to hold an open mind when someone uses a phrase like “authentic self”. I have come to see the idea and the energy around it, as an important space. A space which is often fighting against oppression, and making space for what may well be an aspect of that individuals innateness. But nuance is everything, so when someone says their “authentic self is x”, I might silently hold the words “right now” in mind, without judging or validating that identification. To be clear, this doesn’t mean challenging nor does it mean affirming. It simply means being open, present and non judgemental, to what’s in front of you. But importantly, doing so in an honest relationship, without colluding with any concretisation that the client may be caught in.

Context is everything in such situations and challenging what might be an important transitional or ongoing identity, would be counterproductive and perhaps unethical. Instead we need to maintain that open space, surfacing and exploring the dynamics around such identifications. And if we do come across situations where identifications have become concretised, we need to get very curious. In working through these blocks, we can allow a more free flowing alchemical process into the space.

This in itself can be difficult work. As Klein pointed out, very early disturbances often lead to adult splitting and otherising in the paranoid-schizoid position. Holding the open space means being prepared to be attacked. To this end, the relationship must be strong enough to hold negative projections. But often, holding and working through the defensive attack is an important and formative part of the development of something more - dare I say it - truly authentic.

The privilege of depth authenticity, at a time of deep global challenge

The cultural perception of authenticity as a superficial concept, although limited, is quite understandable. Our culture is in tumultuous times, with plenty of stormy seas ahead. This environment stirs up infantile complexes full of anxiety and one of the defences to that anxiety, is to attempt to simplify, concretise and control. Across our globalised cultural landscape, between the work of Hollywood, the Kardashian’s and now TicTok, superficiality has become the norm. This makes staying alive to the vagaries of depth authenticity, a challenging proposition!

There’s a more socio-economic consideration too. Depth exploration, such as long-term psychotherapy or psychoanalysis, takes time and money. It’s not accessible to everyone, and not everyone is inclined to make the commitment to such a nuanced and prolonged self-examination. There are of course other ways to similar destinations and individual choice about how far to examine. To my mind the real question we are left with is who get’s to say what authenticity is? One response that comes to mind, is that the journey to authenticity is as long as a piece of string. We never really reach an end, we just run out of road, in one way or another.

Like sunflowers growing in a field, there is a universality to being human. We are all dependant on the Earth, we all grow toward the sun. There is however, an awful lot of difference within the patch. And that difference is what makes us interesting and drives forward the creativity and evolution of our species. My fear is that authenticity made observable, labelled and superficial, might actually mean more conformity and ultimately, more banality.

Psychoanalytic perspectives were developed at a time of great social upheaval. Both Jung and Freud, while far from saints, were disturbed by the horrendous potentials of different world wars. It could be argued that the legacy of both of their contributions is an avenue toward inner work which has the capacity to drive further collective transformation. Humanistic and Transpersonal perspectives hold similar values: that in unlocking human potential in the individual we are contributing to a broader evolution of consciousness. I think this is true, but we also have to remain grounded in reality and connected to the limitation of individual contributions. If we can hold that tension, then we are able to see that the emergence of depth authenticity in an individual is making an incremental difference to humanity. Depth authenticity, when activated, tends to send loving radiants of truth outward, affecting the whole.

As a therapist who works at depth, I can say from experience, that’s there’s a beautifully numinous moment when an aspect of depth authenticity emerges. It is often both hard fought for, and joyfully received. It’s an authenticity that needs no label, or validation and often no interpretation. When an aspect of the eternal is making its way into the world, it’s an undeniably authentic moment. And that is, I think, an authenticity worth fighting for.