The Authenticity Paradox
I am an example of a person that “dropped out”, of my University Course, on psychology, basically, because my high level of personal knowledge, was treated with suspicion, and I was told, in effect, not to speak of it, via many different signals. I felt that I was being excluded, and undermined, in front of my fellow students, and most importantly, that I was effectively being told, that I could not be authentic, while I was being “professional”, that I had to do things such as pretending to being friendly, while enforcing a strict rule to never be that persons “friend”, and that, I’m afraid, is not how authenticity works. The invitation, was to de-authenticate myself, and call it “healthy”. Scapegoating in order to obtain obedience, to shut down the challenging conversation, is alive and well in psychological educational circles, I have to say.
The message was clear, right from day one; I was here to be authentic, while conforming to rules, that meant you had to be inauthentic, and, ideally, pretend that I agreed, and that it is natural, to act like a slave.
This got me thinking, about this paradox, that we have: That of inauthentic people, claiming to be authentic, while wearing mask upon mask of delusional projections, which all come together, in confidence, to claim an authenticity, that is a tried and tested copy of someone else’s ideal behaviour. What was needed, to attain that certificate or trophy, that confirmed our need for confidence had been sated.
What is Authenticity?
I think this illustrates the difference of what I call authenticity, and the often hidden truth, that those that do not know themselves, cannot be authentic.
And if authenticity becomes a desirable trait, then the inauthentic will finds ways to prove to themselves, and others, not only that they are “truly” authentic, but also, that they are the expert, or course, and redefine that true authenticity, into a statement, that can be learnt, and claimed, as part of a course, that only they can run.
However, as I have delved into this topic, I found that much of what we come to think of as our authentic-self, is actually based on our DNA, and this makes things quite a bit more complicated
DNA-based Authenticity
Recently, I have been working on a Theory, which I call the DNA-Self.
This stems from the patently obvious assertion, that the entire self-concept of a new-born baby, will almost entirely come from it’s DNA. That in effect, those data locations on our brains and elsewhere, that hold the instructions that allow us as a lifeform to self-regulate with intelligence, must, come pre-loaded, in compartmentalised memory locations, ready to do the job they were built for, when that child needs to explore that skill or ability.
The Authenticity of the DNA-Self
What this means, is that sitting quietly in the unconscious mind of a child, is a plethora of mostly yet to be discovered connections to allow that child to self-actualise, quite literally. They have to, for example, understand, before being able to speak. How to move it’s arm in a controlled and coordinated way.
What this means, is that, through self-discovery, the new-born infant will naturally grow into it’s authenticity. Step, by step, at it’s own natural pace. And, to a large extent, we need to understand that this new child, should naturally have the drivers and thinking processes needed, to do that self-discovery on it’s own. All that it needs, is warmth, understanding, and comfort. coupled with protection, and nurture, etc.
A child should, without too much adverse interaction, grow into its fully authentic self.
Born into Adversity
However, that idyllic and simplistic statement of how we can grow into authentic beings with ease, takes quite a dark twist, when we are honest about our “human disease”.
Almost every household, is actually, a hot-bed of toxic attitudes and different variations of “blame Games, Scapegoat Games, and even, the often deadly, Gaslight Games, that parents play with their children, that children play with each other, and friends, that society plays with those parents and children, almost from the moment that they step out of the door to the last time that they come in, at night. Then, of course, they watch their toxic TV, each subtly being told, that they should find someone to blame.
Now, we can see our new baby arriving, in that context, we might see that new mother, as perhaps, being the one that the family is blaming and shaming, as always, to avoid it themselves. And she might develop a secret ambition, to find someone else, to use, to pin that blame.
Enter our baby, in the middle of this toxic mess, and instead of being the cuddly and joyful liar that family expected, it becomes anxious, it starts to demand extra attention. All the while, it’s DNA-derived protective processes, asking it to check and confirm, that it is still safe.
Core-self Pruning
I can now introduce another DNA-Self concept – Core-Self pruning.
Ego Pruning
Many have heard of the practice of “ego pruning“, which often thinks of the maladaptive ego, as a data-tree, with leaves that are symbolic of false decisions and understandings of self, which cause the ego to enforce maladaptive behaviours and coping strategies. And that the most recent, “poor decisions”, the highest leaves, on the highest branches, are often made necessary, by earlier “poor decisions”, which later, need further rational justifications. This has the effect of pushing the individual further and further from their true-self.
Therefore, if, like myself, you are able to remember that decision that you made, to regard myself as totally broken, and then prove that decision to be incorrect. Then that tree of bad choices, from the age of 15, will collapse, and you do, indeed, loose much of those adopted needs, and copy-cat imposter human-like moves.
The concept with Ego Pruning, is that the lower down the tree of the ego that you can prune, then the more of that false, delusional tree of self-knowledge will fall, revealing, in theory, one’s true, authentic self.
Pruning the Original Authentic Self
The concept of Core-Self Pruning, comes at the same issue, from the opposite end of that same tree. It asks: “Where does our authentic self come from?”, and, “How can we prevent the build-up of ego, so we do not lose that authentic self in the first place?”.
This is where our view of the DNA-self as being an entirely “authentic” starting point, one that the infant can grow into, serves to help our understanding of that aspect of a child’s development. We can see now, that as that child grows, and explores it’s “Tree of DNA-Derived Authenticity”, that signals from it’s environment may cause that tree from developing, and, if that child chooses to reject any aspect of that authentic self, then, it will become an aspect of their inauthentic, false, ego self.
Do you see? That tree of authenticity, it’s branches and leaves can be put into an oppositional shadow mode, simply because, every time that child chooses to use that ability or function, it becomes the target for ridicule, abuse, scapegoating, or any potential, learnt perceived threat to its survival. Dark Behavioural Conditioning techniques, used intuitively by the family against each other, will cause that child to reject, and possibly never explore that aspect of their authenticity.
This aspect of a child’s authenticity, being DNA-Derived, includes deep systematic functions such as self-regulation, even the ability to use entire metacognitive, survival centric functions.
I speak of the impact of this long-term microaggression based social conditioning in my article on Core-Self Pruning, and how it can effect attachment styles and related disorders, as the child develops into an adult.
Measuring Authenticity
That article points to a potential method for measuring an individuals authenticity. Within it, three distinct stages of post-birth authenticity are identified, together with additional terminology:
Original DNA-Self: The new-born child, prior to any significant external influences. We think that some of the mothers genetic model will be included in this Schema architecture, as well as the father, and the grandmother. Clearly, the act of birth is the beginning of that external influence, so this is more of a theoretical straw-man, in practice.
Visible, Known Layer 2 Mask: This is what most people think of as their entire mask, as it is all that is known. These are currently conscious coping behaviours that are being wilfully enforce by the individual. We now see that masking, is also a process of forgetting. That over time, masking behaviours will become automatic, and will be forgotten as specific known coping patterns, and will become thought of, as an aspect of ones authentic self. This process of forgetting, is what creates our first, or original layer of masking. The Layer 1 Mask that has been forgotten.
Hidden Layer 1 Mask: In the pre-verbal stages, and some way beyond, the baby cries and sleeps to forget, in cycles of experimentation, until a pattern is seen, and the baby, unconsciously understands what should not be done, in order to have it’s cuddle, attention, food, comfort, peace. The forgetting is due to the infant lacking the higher understanding and processes that allow them to mentally mitigate the challenge to their survival.
Understanding the Mask
We are therefore able to suggest, that there is a spectrum of awareness that the individual can apply to their layer 2 mask. This is visible to them, but often, they feel that they need to continue masking.
This is because what they secretly think of themselves as their authentic self, is purely based on observing that they have been conditioned to accept as their true-self, their hidden layer 1 mask. They may see this concept of authenticity to be even more toxic that the person they are projecting, through their current coping measures.
This observation gives a clue as to the origin of life positions, in Transactional Analysis Theory.
From this, we can see that people may well be very reluctant to remove their Layer 2 coping styles and strategies, for fear of even more compulsive and potentially life-destructive behaviour.
Any therapy must therefore have a framework that allows the individual to transition through discovery of layer 2 mask coping styles, and their removal, within a safe working environment, that will not cause them to spiral out of control with overwhelming feelings and thoughts.
Measures
With the above in mind, we can see that a client should be able to estimate the amount of time that they are aware that they are masking at Layer 2, and the extent of the mask that they are wearing, in different environments. That, as part of the therapeutic process, this can be discussed, and the therapist can choose to use observational questioning in order to help the client see aspects of their mask that are on the verge of being forgotten, and may be retrievable, before they go into the Hidden Layer 1 Mask.
This is also a clue as to one way that the Layer 1 Mark can be revealed – by peeling back each layer through time, through a more psychodynamic style of therapy. However, our goal, is to try and avoid that costly, and difficult form of therapy.
The Unknown, compulsive mask.
We can say, that the Layer 1 mask, is often the reason for the layer 2 masking functions to exist. That the individual has somehow spotted their compulsive behaviour, and has adopted coping techniques to hide, deny or even defend that original, and unchallenged masking behaviour, now regarded as something that cannot be changed, and must be somehow, authentic, and simply needs to be hidden, denied, or rationalised as positive behaviour that should be encouraged.
What this means is that these compulsive behaviours are actually available to be seen, once that person is able to move beyond their often, also compulsive need to justify or distract observation away from the “trait”, that they were trying to hide with their mask. The simple exposure technique can be used to test for confirmation of compulsiveness, and that this personal mindful behaviour can allow the client to understand, to some extent, just how authentic they actually are.
Other features of the DNA-Self view of masking
We can also name some other features of this process:
Sleep Memory Helper Function: We propose that there is, within the sleep cycle, an intelligent function that is able to modify memory information, this helper function, therefore has taken the decision to remove all of that stress from the baby.
Compartmentalisation Rules: The Helper Function, in this instance, has created another tiny part of that hidden mask, held within that ego structure.
If we think of these masks as schema compartmentalisation rules, and we can imagine, one level of that schema data to have simply been one long logical list, in the form of:
Feature One – OR – Feature Two – OR – Feature Three
This simple logic string, would be the original DNA-Derived pattern, for all inherited functions, memories, etc., being available.
However, if the child matched a pattern that told it that Feature Two was threatening to its survival, Then during sleep, our Helper Function, having seen that pattern, they may place an overlay, a mask, on-top of this information, to the extent of:
Feature One – NOT – Feature Two – Or – Feature Three
Now logically, that feature is turned off, or is it?
Oppositional logic of self-denial: An interesting aspect, about the logic of self-denial, and how this creates those aspects of our psyche Jung called the Personal Unconscious, and some of that, to be Personal Shadow, is that a denial, when that logic gate “NOT” is placed in front of a feature – It becomes, an “Anti-Feature”, it turns into a part of self that predicts when the self is likely to try to use that denied DNA-Derived natural authentic feature, and it will then sabotage that attempt.
Hidden C-PTSD: This forgetting of micro and more significant traumatic events in early childhood, however, means that each of those tiny self-conceptual adjustments, becomes completely hidden, with no available pointers within the child’s “working memory”. This lost memory space becomes a drag on the system, overall.
As this now hybrid of the Ego-Self and the remnant DNA-Self, develops, the child may, for example, find that they have irrational attention needs, exactly how these present, being very specific to the aspect of the authentic DNA-self that is being silently suppressed.
The longer the child is fending off those micro-traumas with personality and self-truth changes, the more that sheer bulk of hidden memories will gather together to have the same impact as very significant C-PTSD. This can cause all kinds of heightened levels of defensive, proactive, coping strategies.
Hidden Attachment Issues: Seen in this context, it is quite obvious that a child has needs, and those include needs to bond, to be protected, to be nurtured. These are not rational, they a part of that DNA-Self, and it’s authentic needs, for survival.
If the child’s care-givers and family, etc. cannot provide those needs, then the child will start making negative assumptions about itself. It will see that others may get their needs met, but not itself, and it will increase it’s levels of self-blame, making it more susceptible to “shame” attacks, and gaslighting, etc.
All this drives internalised needs to become externalised in external people, or other sources of support (pets, etc.), until eventually, these hidden, and deeply denied needs, tend to be projected on objects, certificates, collectables and status symbols. All tokens of self worth from without, in order to appease a nagging pain from within.
False-Core-Self: When the forgetting of those traumatic memories happens, such functions as their coping patterns that seek their externalised projections of need, will becomes denials of the satisfaction of that need, and they will become entirely autonomic and seem to be natural behaviours.
Whilst the outside world may call some of those behaviours to be beneficial, we need to remember that they are all born of a constant need to change, to deny their true self, for fear of pain, to become a different, “better”, yet false, self. This helps to form a complex sets of attachments needs.
These are driven be a need to express, what cannot be perceived. Something that is missing, yet undefined, on the inside, which people become trained and conditioned to seek on the outside.
The Authentic Self
Authenticity, I suggest, is a continuum, a spectrum of stages, that may never end, since the self is a largely unknown thing, and that exploration of self, if done with regular determination, is always going to be revealing “new stuff”.
So, authenticity, then, is a scale, that could be thought to start with “inauthentic”. (-1), possibly unachievable, travels through a neutral point (0), and end with a “fully authentic”, possibly unachievable point.
I’d suggest, that a completely inauthentic person, cannot exist, and that this is a paradoxical collapse point, a place where, if one comes to believe it, would tend to cause existential collapse. This can therefore be related to Rogers’ Window of Tolerance model, since it also measures lack of trust in the self, and is also a major source of fear.
We should suggest, that Carl Rogers‘ Window of Tolerance Model is multidimensional in the sense, that we actually have a number of different measures that all contribute to our sense of wellbeing and resilience, as well as our sense of insecurity and threat.
This allows us to suggest that if a persons sense of authenticity is undermined sufficiently, then that is a form of trauma, and that the need to escape the approaching existential crisis, may cause the individual to adopt incongruent coping behaviours that would “prop-up”, that sense of authenticity, to the detriment of their true authenticity.
As we start in life, we might think of ourselves as fully authentic to the “known self”. There is much about oneself that is yet to be discovered, but, we are not hiding parts of ourself, and equally, we are not pretending to be something that we are not.
However, through that childhood, we are told, many times, to hide parts of ourself. And, if we don’t, we learn that we will become a scapegoat, and potentially, have that aspect of self targeted with trauma, until that child dissociates itself entirely from that aspect of the self. This means that society is teaching that child to have false authenticity, it rewards the suppression of uniqueness, to the point of denial and dissociation. When that child accepts it was “wrong”, to be authentic, then society will reward it.
However, as that child grows up further, it starts to notice that it has “lacking”. It may start to notice that its art, is not what it once was, for example, and may choose to focus on something else, rather than push that heavy stone, up that hill. But, that art was part of its authentic self, and now it has no expression, and that means, no joy, from art, anymore, perhaps? a hole in ones heart has formed, a new crack in ones smile.
This is where the second aspect of our inauthenticity is built. The child has now been taught, to deny its true self, and in that rejection, to create a false expression of itself, which is rewarded, externally. This means that internally, there are unexpressed feelings, and that will express itself as that empty, hollow, gnawing feeling that we get in later years, when everything we do reminds us of our lacking.
This is where, we start projecting a false image of ourselves. Again, society leads the way, by having all those other children around us, pretend that they are happy. Of course, the same thing has happened to them, they are sad inside too.
Society has told them that unhappy people are not welcome. People who try to be authentic about their perceived brokenness, will get labelled and scapegoated, yet again.
So this is avoided, by adopting that false smile, by doubling down on our embracing of this societal conditioning, that authentic is bad, and everything will be fine, so long as we can continue to pretend that you are happy, and a fun person to be around.
Two continuums
I’m starting to see that there are two continuums working alongside each other. One is authenticity, and the other is inauthenticity. So, at any one time, one is both authentic, to some degree, and also inauthentic, to some degree.
One could suggest that these inauthentic expressions have been relabelled as “normal”, coping responses, and in so doing, we have normalised the idea that inauthenticity is normal, and often, desirable. Furthermore, we get confused, and tend to regard these coping responses as part of our “authentic” behaviour.
However, the organism of the self, it knows the truth. Furthermore, it expects us to listen to it, and act in harmony with it. Therefore, those normalised coping responses that we think are “our true-selves”, cause us to ignore “the organismic self, and fall into a state of increased self-rejection. That internal connection to the authentic self, is further diminished.
It therefore follows that it is possible, to get to a point, where the measure that is being used, to “prove” one’s authenticity, is actually, the inauthentic scale. And that the individual with enough money or effort (locally subjective), can attain sufficient “tokens of authenticity”, to feel themselves authentic, self-actualised, even, whilst actually, only repeating normalised and pre-approved behaviour.
So this is the “Authenticity Paradox”.
How one can come to see their authenticity, as something that has been collectively imposed on oneself, by ones environment.
The wearer becomes the mask. The patient becomes the diagnosis.
0 Comments