Yesterday, during a conversation — telephonic! — with Jeneane, the question of what constitutes “authentic voice” arose.

I dislike the word “authenticity” although I use it because it gets at
something we all (?) sense is there: We know there are phonies, so we need
words to express non-phoniness. “Sincere” works when we’re talking about the
possible gap between feelings and expressions. “Integrity” applies to behavior that consistently matches principles. Authenticity refers to a
possible gap in our very being, whatever that means. (But it seems to mean something.)

While we need the word, applying it to voice gets straight at the difficulty. Authenticity implies that your visible behavior matches your innerness – or, more exactly, it implies a lack of distance between the two. But, our voices always contain some element of construction, decision, anticipation, drafting. That’s not a bad thing. It means that in speaking with you, I am aware of how I think you’ll hear me.

Conclusion: We need the term “authenticity” so we can talk about phonies, and simultaneously shouldn’t trust its implication that only “unfiltered” voice is “real.” But, then what marks an inauthentic voice from an authentic one?

(FWIW, I think the problem with the term “authenticity” is its presumption that we have inner and outer selves, and that the inner self is our real self. I personally find those ideas more misleading than helpful.)

Categories: Uncategorized dw