Authenticity in an Age of Lies and Deception

-- By EdsonSandoval - 23 Feb 2024

Plato’s allegory of the cave provides a foundational understanding of the concept of reality. The symbolic representation of Plato’s writings reflects our perception of the world around us as we fail to see what makes a product authentic and what authenticity means. In the allegory of the cave, prisoners face a wall with their backs turned to a bridge with a fire on its opposite end. As people and items cross the bridge, the reflection of the items become the prisoners’ perceptions of reality, leading to the inability to understand what the actual item is. These faulted perceptions of reality are applicable to society as a whole, given our faulted perception of the world around us. This begs two questions: What is an authentic product? What makes an authentic person? The never-ending need for self-validation and social acceptance has led to a flawed perception of reality. In its simplest form, authenticity is known to be the true form of a product or person, consistent with our expectations and values. We can split the concept into three categories: authenticity in products, authenticity in people, and authenticity in our social relationships.

Our constant search for authenticity in the products we use creates a false perception of reality, as we prioritize our need to be perceived favorably by our peers. Using clothing products as an example, there is very little that differentiates a thousand-dollar coat from a hundred-dollar coat. Nonetheless, shopping in Soho with a Canada Goose coat in comparison to a no-brand article of clothing brings about a vastly different perception in your appearance and your social status. We are duped into believing that purchasing a Canada Goose product is necessary, as you are buying into a high-quality product and brand. Tools such as branding, marketing, and social media are to blame as large corporations work diligently to lead us to believe that we need to spend our monthly income on a jacket to provide an inherent social value rather than an effective product. This very concept is applicable in a variety of fields. We place an inherent value on things that ultimately have minimal significance, as we are influenced by the social understandings that large corporations have worked so hard to create. We have become puppets to large corporations, affected by their diligent efforts to influence our thoughts and actions. Large corporations work extensively to alter our form of thought, profiting upon exclusivity and building their social status. Nike’s $3.6 billion annual loss from counterfeit products leads to increased efforts to protect their physical and intellectual property. We are led to believe that these products provide an inherently different value from those that are produced in the very same factory. This is simply false. The fact that counterfeit products come from the same factories as the authentic ones highlights the flawed form of thought that stems from our constant search for authenticity. Growing up reselling sneakers and clothing, I spent a significant amount of time learning the intricate details that differentiate an authentic product from an unauthentic product. The difference between the two products is minimal. A single missing stitch or a slight discoloration can be the difference between the two products. Why is it that we place such a strong emphasis on the authenticity of the product?

My time in this class has allowed me to expand my mind, as I begin to question my social understanding in a way that I used to be afraid to confront. The search for authenticity in our products is reflective of the search for authenticity in people and social relationships. Do we really value our relationships with certain people, or do we merely maintain them for an inherent benefit? Authenticity in the people we meet is dependent upon the initial nature of our relationships. Think about the very first time that you meet someone. The very first meeting with that person plays a significant role in determining the nature of your relationship moving forward. My time in law school and in my professional career has led me to understand that the transactional nature of the legal profession creates an environment in which people’s intentions remain obscure. Why is it that we must remain obscure in our intentions and true thoughts? Why are we afraid to say what we really think? The truth is that we are afraid of the social repercussions that may result from being authentic with the people we interact with. The drawbacks of the social repercussions of saying what we truly believe outweigh the benefits. Our discussions in lecture make it clear that this remains apparent now more than ever. Society would benefit immensely if there was more transparency and authenticity in our actions. We must remain clear in our intentions and be confident calling bullshit on inauthenticity. Adding on, our social relationships determine the extent to which we are able to succeed in our daily lives. The ability to communicate effectively with others is an evolutionary trait, as only the species successful in maintaining effective communications have stood the test of time. Therefore, authenticity in communication is essential. As in the products we use and the personal relationships we maintain authenticity immensely benefits human sociability.

Identifying authenticity in the products we use, people we meet, and social connections we maintain in an inherently beneficial practice. Our constant search for authenticity creates a false perception of reality. Breaking from this understanding and shifting towards transparency will benefit society by breaking from the flawed perception that contributes to lies and deception.

Plato is just a brand you stuck to the top of this draft, to make you look better. You make no actual use of the philosophy; it's just an extended metaphor. You could get rid of it, could you not, without loss? Why not be yourself, rather than pretending?

Who is this "we" of yours? It certainly doesn't include me. I wear the same black, unlabeled, undifferentiated clothes to every class precisely in order to remove all those markers, to leave only the words and the music to stand with the ideas. That's my theatrical costume in this performance. If I go to do lawyers' work, whether in Silicon Valley, or Brussels, or Mumbai, or Shenzhen, as well as New York or Washington, I wear one or another multi-thousand dollar custom-made suit, in which every detail from fabric choice to buttonholes, cufflinks to suspenders, is meant to communicate something to the knowledgeful eye. Am I "authentic" in one costume, but not in another? We cannot know, because "authentic," a word you constantly use, you do not define.

Your underlying claim is that representation is anxiety, as though the only point in the making of our art is not to be thought less artful than someone else. But every poem is a lie, if that's the way you want to read. Where is the Goffman who Leff calls upon? We all play roles in society: our costume and makeup, our lines, the personality states we take on aren't lies and deceptions, they are life. Reducing complexity to inauthenticity, assessing everything we carry as an expression of fundamental insecurity, leaves us blinded by the light and yearning for the comforting darkness of the womb. Isn't that what the story from which you started is actually about?

Let's try a draft in which there is no fictitious "we," only the actual, multiple, conflicted "I." Let's see if you can find in yourself the person not "curating" his Instagram, and write from his point of view about what it means to be an actor with a theory of social action. You will be astounded at how much better the companionship of those persons can make you feel.