: real or genuine : not copied or false

: true and accurate

: made to be or look just like an original

Thinking about authenticity in regards to life narratives, I found myself asking the following questions:Who has the authority to determine what is authentic? What qualifies an individual or collective to make such a decision? Are there varying degrees of authenticity or is it simply a matter of ‘it is’ or ‘it isn’t’?

In my opinion, authenticity is entirely subjective. What is authentic to one person, may be perceived as inauthentic to another. The personal and interpersonal human experience is unique to each individual. One may claim that life narratives are a more authentic form of literature in that they take into consideration reality and truth. However, truth itself is also subjective. An individual can keep a factual record of what is occurring internally – one’s thoughts, feelings, desires, physical sensations, etc -and this (in my mind) is something that I would consider authentic. When it comes to the external – primarily interpersonal relationships – I feel as though it is impossible to be fully authentic as no one is able to truly understand what is occurring internally with another individual or a collective. One may speculate or seek clarification but to try to understand is, in a sense, to manipulate a situation.

The idea of authenticity itself is a man-made concept. As seen above,  the first and third definition contradict each other. If definition one were true, only the first existing… anything really… would be truly authentic. Everything after that is a replication – a copy made to be or look like the original but still not the original. Is a life narrative composed of a compilation of journal entries more authentic than a life narrative written in a few sittings at the end of one’s life? One could argue either way. Is a diary filled, viewed by the author alone, and then destroyed any less authentic than a diary that is made public and widely circulated? Again, one could argue either way.

The fact that the terms ‘more’ and ‘less’ appear when putting my thoughts down suggest to me that there are varying degrees of authenticity. The fact that authenticity is debatable shows that is not a matter of being or not being but more a matter of being perceived as something that can be more or less than another based on a certain criteria (the criteria itself being something that can be influenced over time).

More questions that have come to mind as I’ve written include:

Does making a life narrative public decrease its authenticity? Generally when one writes with the intent of publishing their work it is because there is some motivation or driving force – some goal or intent. By attaching intention to one’s work does the author affect it’s authenticity?

I find questions being met with questions instead of answers. Please… Feel free to add your two cents – your answers, your questions, your comments or concerns. I’ll return to edit this post later should I come up with any more questions or have anymore to add to what has already been written.