Passionate and well-spoken article, however I must say, CaaG (complaining as a genre) is even more tired than AaaG, for me.
Your definition for Authencity also feels somewhat inauthentic (not to be ‘punny’): “development and healthful understanding of the united front you (or your organization) presents” feels in its very essence, strategic, scripted and not purely genuine (authentic). I used to be CEO of a startup — this was the essence of my job. Most CEOs would agree. Yet, the CEO is many times (and somewhat inherently) the antithesis of authenticity.
However, expressing authenticity, at is purest, is simply expressing “intention, pre-agenda” is it not? Are not babies and animals the most authentic of beings, something most people seem to agree on in an unspoken way? Perhaps it is no coincedence that their ability to create and hide behind “an agenda” is also very limited.
I believe what you are expressing is fatigue of “the idea of authencity”…which is understandable, as all fads, when past maturity, become caricatures or shells of their pure, initial intention.
Frustration about the ability to criticize the ‘bulletproof’ quality of authenticity, seems to belie an agenda in itself…and I’m not implying anything or slighting here…but it ironically creates the whiff of a hint of inauthenticity. Which due to your passion on the subject and the thoroughness of your article, I feel obliged to opine about.
Thanks for your time writing this and reading this. My email in case you wanted to reply (or steal to add to a list haha, jk) is neal.liggins (at) gmail