To begin with, it’s important to recognize this generation’s “fatigue” with the term and the notion of authenticity. In “The Authenticity Hoax: Perpetual Coolhunts and the Law of Keeping It Real,” David Zahl –referencing “The Authenticity Hoax,” by Andrew Potter, and admittedly speaking for this generation—argues that for much of the population, authenticity is the standard by which everyone is measured, but it’s a “harsh mistress”—precisely because not everyone can have it. By competing against one another to see who is more authentic, we just become bigger phonies than we were before. “Not only can one never be ‘authentic’ enough, the more we try to be authentic, the more phony we become. . . . (and) the second we start trying to be “authentic”, we may as well hang it up.”

So, where do we go from here? I suppose I could find reasonable synonyms for authentic/authenticity and use those instead—e.g. indisputable/irrefutable/unequivocal; straitforwardness/trustworthiness—and the list can go on, and on—I can provide you with a website that will give you, literally, hundreds of them! Or . . . I could just acknowledge that most of the current generation—post-Millenials, GenZ, take your pick—has decided that conversations about “authenticity” are a waste of time and have chosen to brush off any notion of “being authentic.”Lay alongside that how unlikely it is that a member of the current generation would read any blog written by an 86-year old, and I’ll just choose to “shake the dust off my feet” and move on.

Let me do that first of all by noting that I have posed the topic as reflections on “a paradox,” which means, on the one hand, authentically “speaking the truth as I understand it” while, at the same time, diplomatically retaining “compassionate consideration for another person.” The paradox resides in holding these two commitments together in the “ceaseless tension of opposites”—not an easy thing to do.  But that is the task being proposed!

So, let’s begin by considering the authenticity that must lie behind the diplomacy that we want to practice. The word authenticity evokes an image of something “untainted” or, in the Merriam-Webster definition, a quality of being genuine. For example, it falls to experts who have been trained in the skill of “authentification” to establish the value of objects determined to be “precious”—because of age, reflections of a culture, beauty by some norm, etc.—as well as other kinds of memorabilia, documents, and similar rare items. So, a common standard for the authenticity of objects is available! And yet, although there is no problem finding a host of websites with thoughtful comments on the issue or even some suggestions to resolve it, the fact is that there exists no universal—or even cultural—standard for determining an individual’s authenticity!

Given that we are in some ways in uncharted waters, let’s return to where I started and suggest that being authentic can mean “to be able to say what I believe about someone or something,”—i.e. the ability to express and share what one thinks or feels in a relatively unadulterated form—or, simply “to speak the truth as I understand it.” Obviously, I am not setting out universally acceptable definitions but, rather, simply laying the foundation for the explorations that follow. It does bear saying here that some of us are too concerned with what others think of us to offer an authentically genuine sharing of our inner self, irrespective of the consequences. More to come, of course, on that issue. But for now, let’s consider some qualifications—or, in some cases, perhaps some obstructions—to genuine authenticity.

• The first thing to consider requires a story. It’s said that a sophomore student was working her way through college, cleaning rooms of some of her fellow students. She noticed that even among those with high SAT scores, no one was saying “please” or “thank you” and, on the contrary, were often rude. One day she was even propositioned by a bright, successful pre-med student, and she thought—this guy gets all A’s, I’ve taken two moral reasoning courses with him, and look how he behaves with me. She also took a course on the Holocaust and saw the irony of it being carried out by well-educated citizens, by brilliant, accomplished men. So she reached a breaking point—said this guy had taken courses about what’s true, important, and good, but what’s the point in knowing what’s good if you don’t try to become good? So, she quit her job and decided also to quit “fancy, phony Cambridge.” Now, while this is just a single incident—related as accurate and true—it does raise a question: does education, making good grades in courses on ethics and moral reasoning assure authenticity? In this one case, apparently not!
• But what about religious devotion? Does embracing Christianity or other religions guarantee much? Unfortunately, history provides examples of atrocious things done in the name of religion—war, murder, bombings, and back to the Holocaust—because someone “heard God’s voice.” Knowing admirable religious teachings doesn’t guarantee a person will adhere to them.
• But wait a minute. Is there a relationship between practicing moral behavior and understanding moral reasoning, even if the reverse is not true? Moral thinking clearly doesn’t always produce moral behavior. And yet, is it not crucial that we establish moral standards for judging behaviors? Even if it’s not a guarantee, I can’t be a good person if I don’t know what one is!
• So suppose it’s not a guarantee. What if authenticity isn’t an “either/or”—not something you have/don’t have, but something you are striving to cultivate—not “being” but “becoming?” And if that is so, at what point can you be expected to have “enough” authenticity to be recognizable?
• Now, just three more observations. First, is a “list of characteristics” important? Suppose, for example, we said that an authentic person should have courage, honesty, generosity, loyalty, respect, responsibility, fairness, integrity, and reliability. Is authenticity defined by possessing all of these? Or some other “list?” Is it even likely that anyone would have all of them? Or maybe it’s enough not to have them, but to pursue them?
• Suppose someone has all these qualities, or some other list we could agree upon. Is authenticity based on how that person’s behavior reflects those characteristics in public, or in private? in the light or in the dark? Is authenticity based on who you really are when no one is looking?
• Finally, what about a person who has most of a “list” of qualities agreed upon—e.g. is consistent, coherent, courageous, honest, reliable, and says that (s)he is “true to myself, and you don’t have to like me or agree with me.” But what if (s)he hates black people or white people, Asians, Jews, or homosexuals, but says, “being true to myself means that what you see is what you get.” Can we confirm this person’s authenticity while, at the same time, be offended by some of his/her moral choices?

I have no silver bullet that will slay all of the inconvenient questions I have raised, nor others yet to come!! I—and the readers of these reflections, assuming there are any—are simply on a quest for understanding, to which we bring our life experiences, our familiarity with our fields of learning, our personal introspections, and our own moral commitments. So, drawing from those personal resources—which I will claim as my own—I will venture the following inferences—also my own— regarding authenticity:

• Education, making good grades in courses on ethics and moral reasoning, does not necessarily assure authenticity!
• Embracing admirable religious teachings doesn’t guarantee that a person will abide by them.
• Moral thinking clearly doesn’t always produce moral behavior, and yet, if I choose to be a good person, I must know what a good person is!
• Whatever “list of characteristics” you choose to define authenticity, it isn’t likely that you, or anyone, would have all of them, but it’s important that you are pursuing them. Authenticity isn’t something you are, but something you are becoming.
• One’s authenticity sometimes needs to be practiced in public settings, but it is most importantly based on who you really are when no one is looking.
• One’s authenticity needs to have a clear and defensible moral foundation.

It’s now time to talk about diplomacy, which will be a much briefer, but extremely important, reflection. Let’s start by returning to an earlier observation that I will own—as you can also, if you wish—which is that while authenticity requires a genuine sharing of what we believe to be true, no matter what the consequences might be, there is also a place in that honest “speaking of our mind” for diplomacy, properly understood. And in those last two words is “the catch.”

For diplomacy to be “properly understood,” we must find its “middle ground” definition.

• On one simplistic side is diplomacy as mere political correctness, false flattery, people-pleasing—perhaps thinking to ourselves, “What’s the big deal? I’m only telling a little white lie, because I don’t want to hurt their feelings.”
• On the other side is what my wife calls “overthinking” what needs to be said, resulting in an over-complicated, excessively-nuanced explanation that leaves the person dizzied and unsure whether (s)he’s been complimented or insulted!
• The diplomatic “middle ground” is, in my estimation, an open and honest expression of one’s considered opinion regarding the case in point, that avoids the unnecessary use of insulting, over-judgmental language, and offers possibilities for corrective thinking and/or behavior. Learning how to communicate challenging matters authentically in a delicate and diplomatic manner is, then, the issue and therein lies the paradox that appears in the title of this meandering blog post!

So, again, What are our choices?

• Be as authentic as possible and let the “diplomacy chips” fall where they will?
• Be as diplomatic as possible and “swallow” what you really think?
• Attempt to optimize both authenticity and diplomacy—i.e. embrace the paradox?

And if the latter is our choice:

How can I “say what I think”/ speak the truth as I understand it

• in a generous, compassionate manner,
• without being callous or insulting,
• without losing consideration for the other person.

This is, indeed, “living within the boundaries of a paradox,” and if I choose to call it “the Paradox of Authenticity and Diplomacy,” the words themselves are not lost in the legitimacy of the question!

It has occurred to me that I “posed” the paradox of authenticity and diplomacy as the title of an already too long post, and have suggested (probably too mild a word) that our task is to “learn to live” with that paradox. But if I am imposing that expectation on others, some soul-searching inevitably happens on my part: if I cannot do this, what right do I have to expect others to do so? Which leads me, first, to a confession, and second, to a  (somewhat) brief story.

The confession is that the need “to communicate challenging matters authentically in a delicate and diplomatic manner” arose many times during my professional career—both in teaching and administration—but I disliked and was uncomfortable with the occasions that required being confrontational. Something in my personality required me to try to be honest about what I saw, while, at the same time, pressuring me to avoid being unnecessarily insulting and inconsiderate. I struggled with trying to hold on to those conflicting responses long before I thought through the paradox described here. To complete the confession, I, in no way, would offer myself as a model of having done this well!

The story, however, is an account of one of my no-doubt-flawed attempts to do so, which came from among a number of issues that arose in my 25-years as chief academic officer at two institutions.

This occurred when there were reports—some directed to me personally, others in the category of “say-so”—that a long-time, tenured faculty member in an academic department—from now on, “Prof. A”—was “bullying” a newly employed, non-tenure track faculty member—“Instructor B.” Since this was not the first time that I had heard that Prof. A had tended to “throw his weight around,” I took this report seriously. In a meeting with Instructor B, she confirmed, albeit hesitantly, that it was, indeed, true, particularly with regard to criticisms of her teaching and threats to report her unless she did certain “favors.” When I called Prof. A to my office to let him know I had received this report, he responded, convincingly, with utter shock and chagrin that anyone would so recklessly accuse him of such behavior. I let him know that I had to take this seriously since such conduct on his part had previously been conveyed to me, which he then waved off as jealousy because of his superior abilities and reputation as an award-wining teacher. I told him that, for the time being, I would accept his claim of good intentions to be helpful to Instructor B and would schedule a conversation among the three of us. In setting up that meeting, I informed Instructor B that nothing she said would endanger her employment as long as she spoke honestly about why she perceived Prof. A’s actions as bullying.

I won’t attempt to “replay” that conversation, but it soon became obvious that Prof. A’s claims of good intentioned attempts to correct certain classroom procedures and improve Instructor B’s teaching skills were undermined by his “blustering” defensiveness when Instructor B described the threats of reporting her as an ineffective teacher and a violator of basic procedures unless she promised special favors and gave extra attention and good grades to certain students who were, reportedly, “favorites” of Prof. A.  Since some conversations on my part had confirmed that Prof. A did, indeed, spend extra time with a select few favorite students, I thanked Instructor B and dismissed her from the meeting. I then began by crediting Prof. A with his long and, for many years, productive history with the university, but said it appeared that he had inadvertently “wandered off into the weeds” and it was crucial that he accept responsibility for these behaviors, apologize for them, and find his way back to the honorable position that brought him tenure, and other honors, in the first place.  While he had little to say, his body language was “defensive,” so I also cautioned him that tenure alone would not protect him from unprofessional behavior. I will never know what might have happened. While Instructor B continued to teach and eventually achieved tenure, Prof A soon took a position at another university and rumor had it that he was taking early retirement from there.

And that is my story, invited and available—with ample opportunities, no doubt—for critique by any who might read it.

We each have the choice to live examined lives or unexamined lives. The consequences of the latter are, in my opinion, heavy, including as they relate to the topic of this post! As Hari Prasada Das put it: ”What many of us want is to walk the line of being authentic while also being diplomatic so that we don’t lose regard for the other person or for our relationship.” Easy? No! Worth pursuing? Yes!

So it is, and so may it be!

Sources Consulted

“Seeking Authenticity: What’s the true path to happiness?”Excerpted from Mel Schwartz, The Possibility Principle: How Quantum Physics Can Improve the Way You Think, Live and Love, Posted August 2, 2012.

The Authenticity Hoax: Perpetual Coolhunts and the Law of Keeping It Real, David Zahl / 10.11.12 (Referencing The Authenticity Hoax, by Andrew Potter).

“The Thin Line Between Authenticity and Diplomacy,” Hari Prasada Das, May 26, 2021.