Authenticity vs. credibility
Posted on:: August 17th, 2004
Evelyn Rodriguez usefully distinguishes authentic voice from credible voice. I still think, however, that the concept of authenticity is a failed attempt to express something important. We’ve gotten the terms of the equation wrong so no concept quite fits. That’s why we have so much trouble defining “authenticity” or even agreeing on it.
BTW, Evelyn here links to Tom Peters’ candid talk about what’s gone wrong with his life and the path he’s taking to make it right. It won’t be everyone’s path, but, then, what is?
The authetic is what *is* real.
The credibile is what *will be accepted* as real.
These two are not the same. Sometimes they’re not even close. Simple.
The problem is that a well-defined statement often isn’t very pretty – or, depending on the context, will work against the speaker’s goals.
Interesting synchronicity in this article of Tom’s, as I’ve been reading lately of the crisis that is currently sweeping the psychotherapy world. All of the things that have allowed Mr. Peters to “get authentic” and feel truly good about himself and live a soulful life are being attacked in the psychotherapy world. On one side you have these very controlled “scientific” studies that emphasize quick fixes using Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, versus the “art” of the therapeutic process given by gifted therapists. In my experience what Toms went through works, while this cognitive model works only at the superficial level. So the irony of all of this, is that insurance companies are more apt to support the superficial behavior models rather than than the deep “soulful” methods outlined by Tom, simply because they only deal with one narrow variable of behavior. End result, will be a radical decrease in mental health care in the United States. Lucikly for Tom he has the money to afford these top-notch treatments.
authenticity transcends reality most of the time.
Hmmm. I find myself agreeing with Seth. Hmmm.
I seem to recall that “authenticity” was something we wrestled with in the ’60’s. In certain circles, authentic criminality seemed to be preferred to calculated or assiduous blamelessness.
Is one of the results the current emphasis on political “charisma,” which lately seems to be taking on similar connotations? Thus Kerry and the elder Bush are faulted by some for their lack of “genuineness,” almost regardless of the policies they may or may not favor.
Great discussion…
Real? What’s that? I’m not being facetious. But what’s real to you is not necessarily what’s real to me, and vice versa. And how can one judge what I would and would not find “acceptable”?
That’s often a problem in communication – too many assumptions that don’t get put out in the open.
These are useful distinctions for me as I talk about authentic voice on my blog from an entirely different context and then I turn around and discuss transparency and authenticity in corporate blogs – but the two are not the same.
So I’m coining these terms and defining the differences as I think I’ve thoroughly confused my readers by overloading “authentic” so much.
So for me, I use “authentic voice” to imply something internal – and yeah, sometimes I’m not even honest with myself ;-)
Intimate is just what it sounds like – some personal blogs fall in that space – not likely to see (or need) this in corporate blogs. Tom Peter’s article falls in that category.
Credible voice as I coin it is not necessarily “credible” as everyone else has defined it. It’s fairly rare – it’s probably what much of the blogosphere calls “authentic voice”.
And then we have where corporate “communications” has languished – artificial, stilted and contrived voice – simply because most think that’s the only voice that will be heard and accepted.
Hard to track down Tom Peter’s blog entry that actually links to his candid article, but in it he explicitly states he is sharing his experience in the off chance it speaks to someone else.
“Authenticity of experience” was what we sought when I was a lad. In kneepants. Snow so deep we walked uphill to school both ways. Or something. “Credibility” may be what some of us earned by demonstrating some level of personal integrity. A commitment to truth would generally earn you some credibility points.
An “authentic voice” I think reflects some authentic experience credibly. Take Studs Terkel. Not a Henny Youngman joke.
Or take Stephen Crane… here’s an undergrad cheat sheet that says a lot about authenticity:
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/redbadge/context.html
Real?? I have to agree with Evelyn that bringing that in to define “authentic” just makes matters worse.
Part of my problem with the term “authentic” is that we import it from a context where it makes good sense and apply it to our selves where it doesn’t make sense. It is clear what an authentic Cabbage Patch doll is. But how do I tell if you’re an authentic person? Look for the label and the stitching?
Yet we sense that there’s a type of phoniness in humans that seems akin to counterfeit dolls. We try to explain it often by resorting to an architecture that says that we have an inner and and outer self. But that seems wrong in so many directions, as psychologists, literary critics, historians, sociologists and philosophers have been pointing out for 40 years. We’re way more complex than that. Our sociality is so tangly that I don’t believe we can find a self apart from it.
So, we use “authenticity” to name a phenomenon that we need to be able to talk about, but the way we talk about it seems to me to be inaccurate and inadequate.
And, no, I don’t have a better way to talk about it.
Yes, we are intertwiny, indeed, and just like twine, we have two loose ends. Silly simile, so smile.
“Part of my problem with the term “authentic” is that we import it from a context where it makes good sense and apply it to our selves where it doesn’t make sense.”
Good point. Yeah, let’s start from premise that we are authenticly us. I’m authentically me. You’re authentically you.
Now I’m thinking aloud. I still think too many people are making way too many assumptions about what the ‘other’ finds acceptable and attractive and then start working backwards from there RATHER than starting from their own convictions and working forward from that point.
One of the assumptions that companies make is that they need to come across as impeccably flawless (a tough standard to achieve) because that’s what gains them market and peer acceptance. But I’m starting to hear and that’s what I’ll write more about, is that’s not necessarily the case.
“Authentic” seems like another one of those nouns acting as placeholders for verbs (like “identity” in relation to “identify”).
Being able to be (or, having been) authenticated seems like an essential requirement of anything labeled “authentic”.
Of course, I am *the* authentic authenticator of the authentic–so, I know such things.
Main Entry: au·then·tic
Pronunciation: &-‘then-tik, o-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English autentik, from Middle French autentique, from Late Latin authenticus, from Greek authentikos, from authentEs perpetrator, master, from aut- + -hentEs (akin to Greek anyein to accomplish, Sanskrit sanoti he gains)
1 obsolete : AUTHORITATIVE
2 a : worthy of acceptance or belief as conforming to or based on fact b : conforming to an original so as to reproduce essential features c : made or done the same way as an original
3 : not false or imitation : REAL, ACTUAL
4 a of a church mode : ranging upward from the keynote — compare PLAGAL 1 b of a cadence : progressing from the dominant chord to the tonic — compare PLAGAL 2
5 : true to one’s own personality, spirit, or character
– au·then·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb
– au·then·tic·i·ty /”o-“then-‘ti-s&-tE, -th&n-/ noun
synonyms AUTHENTIC, GENUINE, BONA FIDE mean being actually and exactly what is claimed. AUTHENTIC implies being fully trustworthy as according with fact ; it can also stress painstaking or faithful imitation of an original . GENUINE implies actual character not counterfeited, imitated, or adulterated ; it also connotes definite origin from a source . BONA FIDE implies good faith and sincerity of intention .
The problem here, I think, is that authenticity proper involves both a judgment (of another) and a decision (on the part of another). Without the other, nothing would be either authentic or inauthenic. Recall Plato’s Sophist? What is an angler? The problem with our kind is that we are never something in the eternal sense, even as a kind (!), qua being authentic, but always becoming otherwise more or less so in time.
David, this is more a thanks than an observation/comment on the issue of authenticity and credibility (have already been some wonderful observations above).
The thanks is for the link to Tom Peter’s “Summer of Soul” observation. I first met Tom back in the 80s when I was young enough to think I had the world by the ass, and old enough to believe the hard-baked biz philosopher dispensing healthy doses of “Thriving on Chaos” was the one and only face of Tom Peters.
Never would have thought this kind of “outing” was possible, and it’s about time. I’m sitting at home now with a blod clot in both my leg and my lungs, for the third time in 10 years, in pretty much the same headspace that Tom was in when he had his “Aha!”. That special brand of hell isn’t only saved for men, but also for women, like me, who are on a track that often insists we behave in the same buttoned-up fashion that took Tom to the edge.
As you pointed out, and so did Tom, his way of coming to terms with restoring the balance in his life may not be for everyone, but it’s a damn bit smarter than the routes that many of us have tried before.
In terms of our being socially programmed to hide our “authentic selves”, I think we need only ask one question: Is it working for me? No? Then better try something else …
Thanks for the link, and some thought-provoking stuff again, David.
Sue.
“Real? What’s that? I’m not being facetious.”
Roughly (since this is a blog comment, and not a philosophical paper), the events as would be related by an omniscient observer.
“But what’s real to you is not necessarily what’s real to me, and vice versa.”
Ah, this is the philosophical question – it’ a very basic assumption that what is real to me IS real to you, as in, we do not have our own personal laws of physics (“My personal acceleration constant is 64ft/sec^2, and if I want to believe that, who are you to tell me differently!”)
One can break that assumption, but it’s not clear that doing so yields anything meaningful, since obviously if nothing is real, that’s almost like saying nothing exists, so what’s the point of anything (very well-trodden path, not clear if it leads to anything at all).
But I think what is meant in the above is *credibile* – what one would *accept* as *describing* the real.
A big problem is that the English words are used in so many different senses that whole papers – nay, books – can be generated by approximately the procedure of “This word is used in sense-1. But it’s also used in sense-2. But – gasp, horror – sense-1 is not sense-2 – What Does It All Mean?”
Avoiding this problem is known as “Keeping It Real” (:-)!)
Strwaberry fields forever.
rock on
Authentic is as authentic does, no ? And so what is it that we do when blogging … some teach, some advertise, some promulgate, some examine, some explore, some play …
I think that more often than not people in the 3D world get quickly a sense as to someone’s “authenticity” (unless that someone is a good actor, or so role-bound that personal authenticity is indistiguishable from the role) ,,, and I believe I get a similar sense from reading someone’s blog over time. I get a sense as to what they are up to, and then that helps me get a sense as to their authenticity … little things, like the twists of phrases or odd stories, that let me see the human behind the words.
Credible or authentic voice
Evelyn Rodriguez of Crossroad Dispatches makes a thoughtful distinction between authentic and credible voice: In my blog, I speak with a credible voice that’s informed by my authentic voice -but it’s certainly not my authentic voice directly. In rare i…
Given this a lot more thought, but it’s an entire post that I won’t get to until the weekend.
I’m looking at what is called human or authentic voice (as distinguished from business voice) in Cluetrain as more of a continuum. It’s a continuum of how much we will reveal. They all are different levels of letting our guard down.
What I call credible voice is probably more acceptable in a business setting, but still quite a stretch for many. For own self, credible voice is STILL not naturally me. I would love to sink deeper into intimate voice in my blog which is what feels ‘real’ to me – but to be perfectly honest, I do worry it freaks other people out.
Seth-I didn’t mean ‘real’ in terms of physical or even metaphysical reality. For instance, it feels real to CEOs that I know that the corporate world will judge you as ‘weak’ if you display any vulnerability, display certain feelings in public, reveal any crack in your fortress/facade of flawness perfection. I wanted to quote snippets of a speech I heard given at a company meeting. The CEO said no, it was too ‘soft’ to share publicly.
Is this real? Would the corporate world condemn us for being soft = weak? Would you still respect them? Respect me? Would I lose credibility? Some say yes, others no. Which is ‘real’? Does it matter? It’s seems real to THEM. And although I know in my heart that ‘soft’ = strength (that level of fearlessness = strength), it quite often stops ME from expressing myself fully in public too.
Intimate Voice and Deeper Conversations
Recently, Mark Pilgrim announced he would also have a corporate IBM blog in addition to his personal blog. So on his personal blog he explains the difference this way: A corporate blog is just like a personal blog, except you
only the shadow knows… no, but really (note the take on “real”), authenticity is a rare, and fleeting, moment with anyone.
Evelyn, I think the problem is that the English statements are confusing. Consider:
“If I shed tears, people won’t respect me”
Is this real? As a statement of fact, some will, some won’t. “All people won’t respect me” is false. “Some people won’t respect me” is true.
“If I shed tears, my estimate is that the number of people who won’t respect me is worse than the number who will”.
This estimate can be true or false. “real for me”, in this case, means something like “I am making an estimate of numbers and what is acceptable to me”.
Which numbers are acceptable is a personal choice. Whether the numbers are correct or not is objective reality.
whaaa? ok.