The Authenticity Bind
I have a complicated relationship with the concept of authenticity. It’s one of the themes for this month’s Two Piers Digest. I’ve discussed it in countless workshops. I even published an article about it in Oilwoman Magazine. Looking back at old journal entries, it’s clear I’ve been thinking about this topic for a very long time.
Authenticity As a Virtue
We strive for this ephemeral state of authenticity. As a society, we celebrate it as a good way to be. Just imagine a rare piece of art or an antique carpet. People pay a lot of money for certificates of authenticity, even though the provenance doesn’t change how the piece looks in our living room or on our walls. Yet the perception of authenticity completely changes our relationship with it and the value we place on it. We need look no further than the antonyms for “authentic” to understand how we conceptualize it within society. “Inauthentic” is the easiest to think of, but we also see words like fake, false, fraudulent, untrustworthy, counterfeit, insincere, and dishonest. Sheesh! Who wants to invite that into their lives?
The Conformance Code
So, authenticity is good, right? Well… I guess that depends. While we elevate it as a concept, we also reward conformance, particularly for certain segments of the population. Granted, these societal expectations vary widely by culture, yet despite the United States being one of the most individualistic countries on the planet, we still have deeply embedded norms around conformance.
That is particularly the case for young women and girls. Look at the shelves of any US toy store, and you’ll find activities that teach girls to cooperate with each other, to care for others, to be mindful of the welfare of the group, and, (importantly to this discussion), to role play, while the toys for boys encourage experimentation, building and constructing, risk-taking, strategic thinking, physical coordination, and competition. These trends are thankfully shifting over time and a quick ChatGPT search shows plenty of overlap in the toy recommendations for six-year-old girls versus boys, *and yet* the differences are telling and they paint a striking picture. Here are a handful of differences, including the ChatGPT-provided reasoning.
For girls:
Dolls and Dollhouses: Dolls and dollhouses encourage imaginative play and can promote empathy and nurturing skills.
Play Kitchen Sets: These allow for pretend cooking and role-playing, encouraging creativity and social interaction.
Dress-Up Costumes: Costumes and accessories allow for imaginative play and role-playing.
Stuffed Animals: Soft and cuddly companions that can provide comfort and companionship.
For boys:
Collectible Toys: Some 6-year-old boys enjoy collecting items like trading cards, mini-figures, or toy cars.
Action Figures and Playsets: Action figures based on favorite characters and playsets can promote imaginative play and storytelling.
Robot Toys: Programmable robot toys can introduce them to basic coding concepts in a fun and engaging way.
Toy Playsets: Playsets based on their favorite themes, such as dinosaurs, superheroes, or space exploration, can spark imaginative adventures.
Even where there are similarities, some of the subtle differences hold clues. Both girls and boys are recommended board games to promote social skills, but the list for girls includes Candy Land, Chutes and Ladders, and Memory to learn turn-taking, while the list for boys includes Snakes and Ladders, Connect Four, or Sorry! to foster strategic thinking. Girls are recommended “simple” remote-controlled toys and “interactive learning systems,” while boys are recommended “drones” and “building kits.” Girls are recommended hula hoops and jump ropes to “promote physical activity,” while boys are recommended skateboards and rollerblades to “promote active play and outdoor exploration.” Girls are recommended musical “instruments” like xylophones, while boys are recommended musical “toys” like drums. Girls are recommended books for “language development,” while boys are recommended books to “expand their imagination.”
So what does all of this have to do with authenticity?
I use the dimension of gender here because it provides an easily accessible analog as we broaden our look at authenticity, yet it is not just little girls who are given very strong messages to conform. Culture, ethnicity, race, sexuality, neurotype, disability, and gender identity all play a role in how we are (or are not) encouraged to show up in this world.
It’s not surprising that those of us who were taught to prioritize the well-being of the group rather than the well-being of ourselves would disproportionately look outward for information rather than inward. We become little feedback loops that are measuring the temperatures of interactions and adjusting, reading the risk in the room and mitigating. We become perceptive, adaptable, and agile — valuable skills to have in a constantly changing world, but often in tension with the concept of authenticity.
For those of us that learned early on that we were somehow broken or that our natural state of being was unwelcome or unsafe, many of these adaptations became second-nature survival mechanisms. The line between natural and contrived can start to blur. Behaviors like mirroring often occur subconsciously, building trust and signaling empathy, but they can also be used consciously and strategically. Is this deceptive manipulation or simply the golden chalice called “people skills”?
When we are forced to actively and consciously hide parts of ourselves, such as our sexuality, our hidden disability, or our socioeconomic status, it can lead to feelings of stress and anxiety over realistic fears that we may be “found out.” It can also lead to feelings of alienation. It’s no wonder we see so much spilled ink about Imposter Phenomenon. One of the most pernicious impacts of feeling forced to hide is the risk of seeing ourselves as liars and internalizing feelings of shame regardless of how necessary the facade may be. During the dark days of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the US military required gay service members to be untruthful about their personal lives while also listing virtues like honor and integrity amongst its branches’ core values, an ethical dilemma indeed.
Shedding the mask
So why do we hold on to these behaviors even after they take such a toll? Well, for one, they’ve kept us safe. Our brains naturally prioritize loss avoidance over gain achievement by a ratio of approximately 2:1, thanks to loss aversion bias. Even if we decide it’s worth the risk and we set an intention to “be more authentic,” it’s not as simple as flipping a switch. Parts of our assumed roles have become embedded in the fibers of our personalities. They are intertwined in the relationships and familial dynamics we’ve established. Despite the tension they may cause for us internally, there may be a comfort to be found in the familiarity of a known script.
So with that, I invite people stepping out on this path of self-discovery and self-actualization to be kind to themselves and to proceed gently, at the pace that feels right to them. Each of us will have a different balance that will feel sustainable and it will evolve over time. We can bring curiosity and compassion along with us as we explore what life could look like on the other side of our protective shields.
More Resources
Looking to read more?
If you’d like to read my more personal account of this unmasking and de-closeting journey, stay tuned. I have another article coming soon.
I’ll continue to praise the work of Jodi-Ann Burey, who discusses this topic in her TED Talk, as well as her co-authored article with Ruchika Tulshyan called “Stop Telling Women They Have Imposter Syndrome.” Go check her out.
Dr. Devon Price’s book Unmasking Autism also takes an intersectional view of the subject of masking and the complexities of unmasking.
We’re Not Broken by Eric Garcia takes a human-centered approach to the subject of Autism and Disability, as well as the ways these identities intersect with race and gender.
The Costs of Code Switching is a collaborative article by Courtney L. McCluney, Kathrina Robotham, Serenity Lee, Richard Smith, and Myles Durkee as part of HBR’s The Big Idea Series on Advancing Black Leaders.
