Belonging and Authenticity

 From a recent DEI training: 

"

Belonging: Feeling secure, supported, accepted and included

- Ingredient that allows for authenticity

- "True belonging is the spiritual practice of believing in and belonging to yourself so deeply that you can share your most authentic self with the world." 

- "True belonging doesn't require you to change who you are; it requires you to be who you are" - Brene Brown 

"

I am going crazy. I have a feeling most social scientists have read little to no ethics at all. The same can be said about those in the political sciences -- specifically, policy-makers and the like. Most papers in the social sciences are chock full of normative statements that are taken as brute facts. Most policy is consequentialist with little to no restraint or consideration for anything other than bare utilitarianism. 

But this isn't the point of this post. I wanted to critique their conception of what authenticity is and should be. 

Their initial point is as such: belonging is an ingredient that allows for authenticity. This obviously wrong. Belonging is neither sufficient nor necessary for authenticity. First, the former: belonging is not sufficient for authenticity. I can feel as if I belong but not be my authentic self. Consider the career-driven boss who comfortably takes advantage of his subordinates' work. 

Second, the latter: belonging is not necessary for authenticity. Not only is belonging not necessary for authenticity, but the entire project of existentialism is a work on authenticity in spite of belonging. 

Kierkegaard writes: 

“When I was young, I forgot how to laugh in the cave of Trophonius; when I was older, I opened my eyes and beheld reality, at which I began to laugh, and since then, I have not stopped laughing. I saw that the meaning of life was to secure a livelihood, and that its goal was to attain a high position; that love’s rich dream was marriage with an heiress; that friendship’s blessing was help in financial difficulties; that wisdom was what the majority assumed it to be; that enthusiasm consisted in making a speech; that it was courage to risk the loss of ten dollars; that kindness consisted in saying, “You are welcome,” at the dinner table; that piety consisted in going to communion once a year. This I saw, and I laughed.”

It is his alienation from his friends and their authenticity (or lack of) that pushes him towards disillusionment. For Kierkegaard, authenticity is rejecting the essentialist nature of following the complacent flow of society. Authenticity, then, is being true to oneself despite feeling as though one does not belong. Perhaps it is easier to be authentic if one belongs -- society conforms to individuals, rather than the individual conforming to society. But we might wonder whether it is better for our character that we are able to encounter the authentic in an environment that facilitates it, rather than one that denies it. And we might wonder whether it is even possible to become authentic without disillusionment with our present self. I believe this to be the case. The talk of spirituality at my school is a pale imitation of what true spirituality is. 

Camus' conception of authenticity is similar in nature. He calls us to "live without appeal" -- such that when we are called to give an account for our actions, we cannot say "society compelled me to" or "I am a product of my parents and my environment" or "God made me do it". No -- the only answer is that "I did it" and "I chose it". Camus' authenticity is radical moral responsibility. 

If authenticity is moral responsibility, and we have a duty towards authenticity (as a virtue), then it seems to be the case that belonging is not necessary for authenticity. Like other affections, belonging is an inclination -- contingent, based on circumstances, partial, and personal. But our moral obligations are the opposite: necessary, objectively binding, impartial, and impersonal. Kant argues that we should not be motivated by our inclinations, but by rational reflection on the moral law. If he is correct, then authenticity is a virtue we ought to pursue regardless of whether or not belonging exists. 

If belonging is neither sufficient nor necessary for authenticity, then it has no intrinsic connection to authenticity. If this is the case, it is divorced from it.