Authenticization: Consuming commodified authenticity to become “authentic” subjects

Abstract

Research on authenticity continues to grow in diverse fields and under various definitions. I argue that the concept of authenticity has become a marketable self-branding strategy to meet the ends of neoliberal capitalism with often consequential and contradictory effects on subjectivity. Using Lehman et al.’s (2019) review of the various definitions of authenticity in the literature, I claim that a process I am calling authenticization overlaps the diverse and contradictory definitions to produce commodified forms of authenticity. The production and consumption of commodified forms of authenticity reflect the neoliberal norms of individualization, responsibilization, and self-governance, which, through the process of authenticization, become values that reshape “authentic” self-expression. Self-understanding and freedom are compromised in the production and consumption of commodified forms of authenticity with potential consequences for identity and mental health.

Authenticity seems like a dated subject that had its peak with existentialism, then a resurgence with positive psychology and by extension popular psychology and self-help. However, authenticity research continues to linger, indicating that the phenomenon persists in our social lives (Hewlin et al., 2020; Newman, 2019). A review by Lehman et al. (2019) looking at literature on authenticity in management, marketing, psychology, and sociology from 1990–2017, shows that in each field the literature doubled between the 2000–2009 bracket to the 2010–2017 bracket, suggesting growing popularity in research on authenticity.

Given the persistence of research on authenticity, it is worth investigating how this phenomenon is defined and what it pertains to in our social lives. In this article, I outline the various definitions of authenticity from a number of fields to examine how the phenomenon is perceived and appraised. I primarily rely on social media as a setting where authenticity emerges as a prominent social phenomenon both explicitly and implicitly in user content and evaluations. My aim is to engage in a critical understanding of the overlapping definitions of authenticity as they are enacted and commodified as products for consumption. Below, I argue that the demands of neoliberal capitalism have commodified authenticity into a process I am calling authenticization, which relies on poor and contradictory definitions of authenticity.

The process of authenticization is the consumption and reproduction of neoliberal norms within a social economy that demands authentic subjectivities while ironically subverting the possibility for autonomy in self-understanding to exist. Authenticization parallels Foucault’s (1982) objectification and subjectification as a process of self-understanding that is mediated by power relations in coconstructing notions of subjectivity. I thus argue that our discursive possibilities for self-understanding are mediated by neoliberal norms, which can have the existential consequence of reshaping our internal values and their external expression as marketable forms of commodified authenticity via a process of authenticization. I have chosen the term authenticization to disambiguate from other existing uses of authentication, authentification, and authentization. Before discussing the implications of authenticization, it is important to look at the definitions of authenticity over time, some problems with the original notions of authenticity, and how the philosophical construct became a popular social phenomenon.

Defining authenticity

Authenticity relates to the older concept of sincerity, which constitutes a moral approach to dealing honestly with others. Sincerity became internalized as authenticity in being true to oneself as a predicate to being true to others, however, the notion of contemporary authenticity is less concerned with social relations and is more so a virtue in itself (Varga & Guignon, 2020). The word authenticity has the same etymological origins as the word authority and part of the existential definition of authenticity includes “acting on one’s own authority” (Lehman et al., 2019, p. 6). Heidegger (1927/1962) and Sartre (1943/1992) conceptualized existential authenticity as a special type of autonomy. Existential authenticity was defined as a freedom in consciousness to act in accordance with one’s internal values, as opposed to acting in conformity with the ways others behave, the latter constituting existential inauthenticity (McBride, 1997). Nevertheless, this is an oversimplified definition, which will be discussed in greater depth later. It is sufficient to note here that authenticity is more than autonomy and it requires self-understanding (Taylor, 1992).

Lehman et al.’s (2019) review of contemporary research on authenticity reveals three categories of meaning: (1) authenticity as consistency between a person’s internal values and beliefs and external expression (subjective, uniqueness, relies on lay judgements, closest to existential definition); (2) authenticity as conformity to an assigned or chosen social category (subjective and objective, sameness, democratically negotiated); and (3) authenticity as connection to a place, time, or person (objective, unique or same, relies on expert knowledge). I rely on the definitions in this model later in this paper to discuss the overlap between authenticity as consistency, conformity, and connection in relation to the process of authenticization. First, a review of the traditional problems with the concept of authenticity will reveal some of the lingering issues that have not been addressed adequately as the concept gained popularity.

Traditional problems with authenticity

Despite the growing trend in authenticity research and the lay use of the term, some scholars have argued that the definitions are vague (Medlock, 2012) given the array of possible meanings, while others have related authenticity to moral relativism and narcissism (Lasch, 1978). These critiques are primarily concerned with the consistency notion of authenticity, which has its roots in existentialism and constitutes much of what the lay term describes as being true to oneself. This understanding of authenticity often suggests the existence of a “true self,” which proposes a metaphysically problematic essentialist structure that contributes to the definitional vagueness, narcissism, and moral relativism that has led some to propose abandoning authenticity altogether (Bialystok, 2014; Feldman, 2014; Varga & Guignon, 2020).

The notion of a true self is often synonymous with authenticity (Winnicott, 1996) or one’s internal values, which are idealized positive and moral overestimations of the self (Strohminger et al., 2017). The true self, I would argue, is a subjective set of qualities that are aspirational rather than intrinsic (Plesa, 2020). Furthermore, these qualities are neither solipsistic nor consistent over context and time, yet they are often referenced as one’s moral compass. This individualistic notion of a true self is not shared cross-culturally or traditionally in communal societies where shared values are considered the avenue toward a meaningful life (Audain, 1995; Gambrel & Cianci, 2003; Lehman et al., 2019). Notions of a true self also implicitly create a false dichotomy between the individual and the environment (including other people) where the self is viewed as a stable self-creation rather than the coconstruction between individual and society (Slater, 1970). The notion of a true and stable self implies that moral values originate within, rather than being learned in a communal cultural context.

If authenticity is idealized as a moral virtue that relies on one’s intuitions and gut feelings, it ignores irrational and violent tendencies in favour of an optimistic view of human nature. Freud (1923/1989) and Nietzsche (1886/1989) challenged the notions of a rational and moral human nature, and later psychoanalytic notions of truth became associated with the irrational, leading to the belief that the most spontaneous expression is authentic while the contemplated response is not (van Leeuwen, 2001). In this way, what would become regarded as authentic had more to do with intuition and spontaneity than morality. Disregarding the idealized ethic of authenticity poses the possibility that one can be authentically immoral so long as one’s internal values (which can be irrational) are consistent with their external expression (which can be spontaneous). However, this only discounts authenticity as a moral virtue and not as an existential and social phenomenon.

So far, we have seen that the traditional problems with authenticity rest on the assumptions of a true self and its use as an idealized moral virtue. Nevertheless, authenticity does not require a true self or moral virtuosity to be understood. Under the consistency definition of authenticity, one only needs their external expression to be aligned with their internal values. Those values can be learned in a given context, they do not need to be morally virtuous, and they do not need to originate within a true self. This brings us to the existential definition of authenticity.

Defining existential authenticity

To understand the relevance of authenticity outside of moral virtuosity and ideals of a true self, at least for the purposes of this article, a closer look at existentialism is required. I mentioned earlier that existential authenticity relies on autonomy and self-understanding. Heidegger (1927/1962) defines authenticity as a particular kind of freedom that assumes accountability, personal responsibility, and intentionality toward the meaning of one’s existence. It entails a commitment to own one’s actions in the world, which is a “virtue” only insofar as it creates the possibility for being a moral agent and defining the self through one’s actions over time (Guignon, 2004). In this way, Heidegger rejects a true self as well as an authentic self, because the self changes over time with experience and each experience is a moment that can be authentic or inauthentic (Steiner & Reisinger, 2006).

What is existentially authentic is a moment of accepting our freedom in our self-understanding as an act in accordance with our commitment to meaning. Existential freedom is established in consciousness as a choice to act in accordance with self-understanding or alternatively in conformity with others (Plesa, 2021). To behave in conformity with others or to pretend that the freedom to choose doesn’t exist is existentially inauthentic, which, for Heidegger (1927/1962), results in losing our identity. “The decision to be authentic or not is taken in the existential moment, in the moment of fundamental self-understanding, not in a psychological or behavioral moment when one decides how to respond to an experience or what to do” (Steiner & Reisinger, 2006, p. 306). What is existentially authentic then, is a state of being in the world determined by freedom and self-understanding, rather than the revelation of a true and stable self.

For Heidegger (1927/1962), authenticity involves courage in recognizing and acting on one’s own possibilities, rather than the conformist tendency to share in the possibilities of others. Authenticity is then not a moral question, rather it is about introducing one’s possibilities into the world and taking responsibility for them. Authenticity requires courage because it can lead to anxiety and alienation whereas inauthenticity often leads to being accepted by others in conforming to their possibilities and in turn sacrificing one’s identity (Heidegger, 1956/1958). Inauthenticity is based in human tendencies: to identify with others while also claiming some artificial uniqueness (e.g., status), making safe choices based on what others do, adopting a popular view of the world while assuming it is one’s own, and refusing the responsibility of one’s own perspectives (Steiner & Reisinger, 2006). For Heidegger (1927/1962), the importance of accepting one’s own possibilities is in seeing one’s future potential and discovering meaning in the world, which can also serve as an example for others to accept their own possibilities and be authentic rather than being dominated by a mundane and meaningless existence (Heidegger refers to the latter as an existentiell existence). Encouraging others to see their own future possibilities allows them to be authentic and constitutes what Heidegger calls “leaping ahead,” whereas “leaping in” for others by solving problems for them, even if well-intentioned, removes their possibilities for being authentic and discovering meaning (Steiner & Reisinger, 2006).

The project of existential authenticity is about meaning. For Heidegger (1927/1962), that meaning exists out there in the world ready to be discovered by people courageous enough to accept their own possibilities. For Sartre (1943/1992), meaning is something we are responsible for creating through authenticity, which accepts that the world is meaningless and yet has the courage to create a reason for existing. For both existentialists, courage is required to face the fear and responsibilities of being authentic.

The existential understanding of authenticity is rich and complex, which makes it difficult to neatly summarize and apply operationally. For these reasons, the use of authenticity is often oversimplified and mistaken. A brief history will elucidate the distinctions between existential authenticity and commodified authenticity.

Distinctions between existential authenticity and commodified authenticity

Existential authenticity is a philosophical concept that has been adapted into practical applications via the Human Potential Movement (Friedman, 1976), humanistic psychology (Maslow, 1962), positive psychology (Wood et al., 2008), therapy (May, 1960; Rogers, 1959), and self-help (McGee, 2005), resulting in a progressively neoliberal notion of authenticity by reifying individualization, responsibilization, and self-governance. Existential authenticity relied on freedom in consciousness and self-understanding to from a self-transcendence model of authenticity (Taylor, 1992). Transcendence is our freedom to reinterpret the facts about ourselves toward our future becoming, which is never complete and always changing (Sartre, 1943/1992). Self-transcendence, in being perpetually incomplete, produces angst, which explains why existential authenticity requires courage. However, this arguably negative view of existential authenticity was reframed through humanistic psychology as a cultural transition toward positive human flourishing. Humanistic psychology views human nature as intrinsically good and aiming toward self-actualization, which is facilitated by authenticity (Maslow, 1962; Rogers, 1959). Humanistic authenticity relied on the existential framework but described it as incongruities between the true self (experience), the noticed self (awareness), and the expressed self (behaviour; Barnett & Deutsch, 2016), which effectively internalized authenticity once more into a true self, contradicting self-transcendence and bringing about what I am calling self-transformation.

This transition between transcend yourself and transform yourself, as technologies of the self, was ushered in by humanistic psychology and became a cultural phenomenon with the Human Potential Movement during the spiritualism and psychedelic culture of the 1960s hippy era. Authenticity became popular toward self-transformation as an individualized endeavour of self-governance (see Barnett & Deutsch, 2016) that would ultimately make it more consistent with later neoliberal values than the existential self-transcendence model. Nevertheless, existential authenticity was arguably consistent with neoliberal values from its inception, considering the focus on the individual self being responsible for governing behaviours that align with self-understanding. Although some scholars have argued against such individualistic interpretations of existential authenticity (see Taylor, 1992), others point out how the translation from the philosophical understanding to practical and colloquial applications provokes an inevitable transition to a commodity for self-making (Genz, 2015; Green, 2019; Shepherd, 2015).

During the 1950s, some social scientists began writing critiques of what they considered a growing cultural trend of inauthenticity and conformity, ushering in a prevalent desire for existential authenticity (Varga & Guignon, 2020). Consequently, since the 1960s, authenticity also became conflated with nonconformity; a personal freedom to do as one pleases in defiance to obedience and authority (Taylor, 1992), which captures the counterculture of the hippy era. Nevertheless, a growing trend toward a poorly defined notion of authenticity leads to a culture of nonconformity with established norms and rituals, which ironically becomes conformist. For example, the recent alt-right conservative movement signals authenticity via the sloganization of freedom, nonconformity, and political incorrectness while falling prey to popular views of the world that individual members claim as their own and simultaneously consuming the commodified authenticity of their intellectual dark web heroes, like Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, and Dave Rubin, among others (Weiss, 2018). These intellectual “nonconformists” defend common sense views of the world that lack depth of understanding and are based on superficial judgements laden in faith and false dichotomies of what is natural/unnatural (Farrell, 2018). Furthermore, members of the alt-right are often reactionary to changing values and rather than expressing their own authentic possibilities, they reject those of others.

Authenticity retained its nonconformist and self-transformational qualities into the 1990s when positive psychology emerged as an empirical science to test the theoretical claims of humanistic psychology toward human flourishing, branding authenticity as a tool for happiness and positive well-being (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Wood et al., 2008). Simultaneously, a neoliberal turn had taken place in Western politics, with a shift toward laissez-faire free-market capitalism. With the new economic model, a cultural shift toward individualization, responsibilization, and self-governance arose (see Harvey, 2005), which became internalized as personal ideals of success in what Teo (2018) calls neoliberal forms of subjectivity. As neoliberal norms pervaded personal and public life, authenticity became instrumentalized in positive psychology as an avenue toward achieving neoliberal success. Using research on successful individuals and building taxonomies of character strengths, positive psychology fashioned “authentic” paths toward happiness and personal achievement (Gable & Haidt, 2005).

Positive psychology provided a seemingly scientific conception of authenticity within a neoliberal cultural ethos that emphasized resilience, personal responsibility, self-governance, competition, and individuality (Binkley, 2011). At the same time, the self-help industry was booming in the 1990s and early 2000s, with authenticity becoming a hot commodity toward the ever-evolving notions of growth and self-improvement (Rimke, 2000). One of the fathers of positive psychology, Martin Seligman (2004), helped popularize authenticity with his own self-help book appropriately titled, Authentic Happiness. The self-help industry banked on the scientific validation from positive psychology while ignoring the growing criticisms toward the “science.” Positive psychology has been criticized for false data, intellectual dishonesty, lack of reflexivity, naïve optimism, superficial knowledge, and falsified results, leading some to conclude that it is a pseudoscience (see Bacigalupe, 2001; Brown et al., 2013; Fernandez-Rios & Vilarino, 2016; Frawley, 2015; Held, 2004; Lazarus, 2003; Miller, 2008; Yen, 2010). Even Seligman (2011) had some reservations a decade after publishing Authentic Happiness, claiming he did not like the title (he wanted to call it Positive Psychology, but the publisher said “happiness” sells more books) or the overused word “authentic.”

The self-help industry, with the scientific aura of positive psychology, transformed authenticity into an instrumental virtue to meet the ends of capitalism as an economic commodity for marketability and employment (Varga, 2011). Becoming an authentic subject means internalizing the neoliberal norms of individualization, responsibilization, and governance to be economically viable for work, which becomes equated with success and neoliberal happiness (Davies, 2014; Schrecker & Bambra, 2015). In this way, the humanistic transform yourself more readily became a neoliberal commodify yourself technology of self. Furthermore, neoliberalism endorses a cultural ignorance which assumes a priori that any nonneoliberal subjectivities (i.e., people who are not “entrepreneurial selves”) are inferior (Teo, 2022). Thus, the consumption of authenticity fulfils a need to actualize the entrepreneurial self and thereby become marketable.

Authenticity has not only become a commodity, but as Taylor (1992) has suggested, it has become subjective, self-indulgent, and ultimately meaningless, contrasting the existential definitions, which required self-transcendence. He argues that reviving the self-transcendence model of authenticity, which relies on Sartre’s work, is necessary to combat the contemporary culture of trivialized authenticity. This involves a relational approach that accounts for a collective understanding of social good. Authenticity must be a collective social project that includes the maintenance of a free society in which shared social virtues are possible (Guignon, 2004). The ability to find or create meaning for oneself in the world rests on this possibility, and hence makes up part of one’s commitment to meaning as an intersubjective enterprise. Consequently, the self-transcendence model of authenticity is much harder to realize than the inane types of authenticity circulating in popular psychology and the self-help industry.

Although I agree with Taylor’s (1992) approach toward a relational form of existential authenticity, my aim here is not to salvage authenticity, but rather, to apply a hermeneutic of scrutiny toward what I am calling a process of authenticization. This process internalizes neoliberal values and externalizes a performance of commodified authenticity for others to consume and replicate. Commodified authenticity is instrumental toward economic ends; however, it usurps other possible meanings of authenticity, which consequently obscures (but not eliminates) the possibility for authenticity to exist as consistency between internal values and external expression (see Lehman et al., 2019). This disruption between the internal and external expression parallels Hochschild’s (1983) notion of deep acting in emotional labour, which is a way to commodify emotions by changing one’s internal feelings to align with a company’s expectations for positive and authentic emotional expression that has the consequence of estranging employees from their own feelings at work. Similarly, authenticization has the possibility of reshaping our internal values to coincide with the demands of neoliberalism, thereby alienating us from the process of self-understanding that helps us determine what our values are and why we have them. This process has the potential to make authenticization indistinguishable from any other notions of authenticity. Authenticization creates authentic subjects via the consumption of commodified authenticity, which obfuscates possibilities for autonomy in self-understanding. As part of subjectivity-making, authenticization serves to alienate us from ourselves and lose our sense of identity (see Heidegger, 1927/1962) as we become neoliberal subjects (see Teo, 2018).

Authenticization

Authenticization functions to create authenticity under neoliberal power dynamics, much like Foucault’s (1961/1988) objectification and subjectification creates subjectivity under systemic power dynamics. For Foucault (1982) the subject is objectified through dividing practices (e.g., marginalized groups, criminals, prisoners, mental patients) and scientific classification (e.g., sex, sexuality, intelligence, diagnosis), which turns the subject into an object of knowledge that institutions can observe and classify. Institutions use dividing practices and scientific classification to create bodies of knowledge, which act as the truth conditions for the discursive possibilities we have in understanding ourselves. The neoliberal market economy acts as a site of truth, in what Foucault (1979/2008) called a regime of truth, which is a power to give reality to something nonexistent (e.g., madness), in this case authenticity, and then submit it to a division between truth and error. The sets of practices that make up authenticity together with the regime of truth form a knowledge–power dynamic that obliges us to submit to that truth by virtue of truth’s subjectifying power (see Lorenzini, 2015). We thus become subjects, meaning that our identities are formed, through a process of self-understanding mediated by power relations to external authority (i.e., institutions, the market), in other words, subjectification (Foucault, 1975/1995). We take part in creating our subjectivity using the institutional knowledge available to us within a social and political context. Where objectification and subjectification create the conditions for becoming subjects via knowledge–power relations, authenticization creates the conditions for becoming authentic subjects via knowledge–power relations.

Institutions hold bodies of knowledge within a social and political context. As such, institutions are subject to the neoliberal norms of contemporary capitalism, which propagate the values of individualization, responsibilization, and self-governance (Harvey, 2005). These norms are then replicated in our subject-making possibilities and condition what it means to be an authentic subject within neoliberal capitalism (see Teo, 2018). The neoliberal market as a regime of truth is also a site of veridiction, which Foucault (1979/2008) describes as producing not only truth, but also, the conditions for judging true from false. As I mentioned earlier, the commodification of authenticity under neoliberal power aims to meet the demands of capitalism, which hold the truth conditions (i.e., veridiction) for authenticity based on market demands. Under neoliberalism, authenticity is part of the commodify yourself technology of self. Treating authenticity as a commodity toward the marketability of the self effectively relies on the definitional vagueness of the term, to easily transition between consistency, conformity, and connection models of authenticity. Returning to Lehman et al.’s (2019) review, we can see how the process of authenticization relies on the various and contradictory definitions of authenticity, framed instrumentally within a neoliberal cultural matrix, and with problematic consequences.

Authenticization as consistency

Lehman et al.’s (2019) first definition of authenticity, namely consistency (between internal values and external expression) appears in three themes in the research: self-concept, self-presentation, and organizational and brand identity. Self-concept is focused on classical philosophy dealing with the “backstage” of identity, namely the notion of a true self (contrasting the front stage, which is the outward appearance). Notions that align with the concept of a true self are typically associated with autonomy, which has positive outcomes in work environments when individuals feel their work is meaningful and they are part of a good team, such as increased well-being and self-esteem. This follows from the operationalization of authenticity in positive psychology that sees the autonomy of the true self as a characteristic to be nurtured toward productivity, workflow, employability, success, and happiness (see Davies, 2015; Seligman, 2004). Within the process of authenticization, it is advantageous to imagine we have an autonomous, true, and stable self that is individually unique, responsible for its own creation and governance, and highly competitive for achieving success in work and life.

Self-presentation deals with the “front stage” of identity, which is the external expression of one’s internal values, or sometimes, surface acting. The front stage work is most often studied as inauthenticity because surface acting is the display of an external expression that is incongruent with internal feelings, and this regularly leads to negative outcomes in the workplace when clients/customers sense “inauthenticity” (Gino et al., 2015). As such, for effective observable authenticity, the emphasis must be on revealing one’s true feelings and intentions, like Hochschild’s (1983) deep acting in emotional labour, which is also reminiscent of the psychoanalytic notions that the most spontaneous expressions are the most genuine (see van Leeuwen, 2001), whereas the well-thought-out expression may be read as surface acting. Authenticization as a process of authentic subject making then encourages an unrehearsed self-presentation that is demonstrative of one’s intuitions and internal values.

Organizational and brand identity research focuses on how a brand is perceived as consistent with its core values (e.g., the founding members or mission statement), its delivery to the public, and consistency over time. Emotional branding tactics such as storytelling, craft production methods, and relations between owners and employees or consumers engender attachment and positive associations that people perceive as authentic (Varga, 2011). However, if a brand touts its own authenticity, it can backfire. Brands are judged as authentic based on their sincerity, consistency between delivery and core values, and consistency over time even with changing values, where inauthenticity is conceptualized as betrayal (Lehman et al., 2019). Authenticization internalizes organizational practices within the self, creating the possibility of turning the self into a brand to sell to a prospective buyer, whether it is an employer or a consumer.

On social media, the self as a brand faces these same pressures of consistency in values over time and delivery to the public. Nevertheless, knowing the emotional branding tactics that work, along with the value of authenticity as determined by public approval, the consistency between internal values and external expression is compelled by what is marketable (Plesa, 2021). The self as a brand is subject to authenticization in manufacturing authenticity under neoliberal power relations. The neoliberal market produces the truth condition for authenticity, normalizing it based on “natural” forces of supply and demand. As such, the market is the site of veridiction that provides the conditions for verification–falsification of authenticity (see Foucault, 1979/2008).

Actualizing the neoliberal commodify yourself technology of self indicates that one must emphasize the marketable aspects of the self and conceal the unmarketable to participate in a competitive online economy for often precarious work (e.g., social media influencer), while imaging oneself as an autonomous true self with freely chosen or inherent values (Illouz, 2008; Sugarman, 2015). Consistency authenticity can be commodified, usually by gatekeepers, to meet the demands of audiences (Peterson, 2005). For example, Armstrong (2004) found that the increasing popularity of rap among White audiences created a demand for harsher lyrics, vulgarity, and the packaging of rappers as violent Black criminals, with companies like Coca-Cola creating a $20-million ad campaign presenting rappers with a “being true to oneself” theme. What is commodified as authentic is based on the demands of audiences, providing the truth conditions for the market (see Foucault, 1979/2008), thereby verifying that form of authenticity to be fabricated for profit (e.g., increasing violent lyrics despite no actual increase in violence).

Authenticization as conformity

Lehman et al.’s (2019) second category of authenticity is conformity, which refers to an entity’s correct classification, group membership, or genre, and has two research themes: category membership and category reinterpretation. Category membership is a form of authenticity granted by an audience that determines if one fits the particular category through appraisal, rewards, and critiques. Along with audiences are critics, regulators, and professional bodies, which collectively help determine the authentic category membership of an entity, acting as a site of veridiction (see Foucault, 1979/2008). An authentic entity then has more legitimacy, is more trustworthy, people are more likely to invest, and the entity may garner support from other established category members for greater authenticity. Category reinterpretation sees authenticity as a social category that is being created to suit the tastes of audiences and also redefine them. As such, conformity authenticity can be manufactured to signal authenticity or create and redefine authenticity claims for a specific category, group, or genre.

Peterson (2005) argues that authenticity is socially constructed, whether applied to genuine objects, arts, or people. He acknowledges the value of authenticity and describes what he calls “authenticity work,” or what we do to signal authenticity. The simplest form is authenticity through group membership, which he explains may have drawbacks, such as celebrated Black, Jewish, and European authors only being commended when they write about their own group and derided when writing about other groups. Peterson (2005) also comments on the elasticity of group membership as a stretching to the limits of what can constitute membership in a particular group, such as people doing the “authenticity work” in referencing their mixed ethnicity, hot bloodedness, or natural dancing abilities to participate in the Salsa dance community, or vague spatiotemporal ties to a geographic location to justify using an artform that is traditionally from that place.

In attempting to become authentic subjects via the process of authenticization, conformity to a category, group, or genre is often beneficial for social and financial capital. For example, the #StayWoke movement on social media, which originated in the Black community as a term describing sociopolitical awareness, became appropriated as a group identifier for anyone (and especially White people) seeking the social capital associated with being enlightened on sociopolitical problems (Whiteout, 2018). “Woke culture” emerged as an unintentional parody of progressive politics spurred by phenomena like virtue signalling, which refers to overt proclamations (and exaggerations) of one’s moral righteousness by signalling how aware (woke) one is, sometimes in the absence of moral action (Westra, 2021). Virtue signalling and woke culture became a type of authenticity work to signal one’s affiliation to a group. Furthermore, that group membership becomes the authenticator for expressing certain values and beliefs that belong to that group.

Authenticization creates perverse incentives to stretch the limits of group membership when individuals stand to gain personal social or financial capital online, for example, increased followers on social media, sponsored posts, advertising deals, paid content, merchandise, and employment opportunities. Social and financial incentives to attach oneself to sociopolitical problems via group affiliation or “allyship” undermine the sociopolitical goals of those groups, which demand systemic change through action rather than individuals signalling awareness (i.e., authenticity work). For marginalized groups, “visibility” and “exposure” may present some immediate material benefits, however, these “opportunities” are often given to select and marketable individuals rather than groups, which simultaneously works to diffuse the sociopolitical aims of the group (Rushing, 2016). For example, the girl power movement in the 1990s promised liberation through personal responsibility, individualism, and overt sexuality, simultaneously engendering a postfeminist ideology that only permitted freely chosen sexual autonomy, which meant any association with victimhood must be considered shameful (Rutherford, 2018). Under neoliberalism, liberation from oppression is idealized through autonomy and personal responsibility by focusing on authentic and liberated individuals as the role models for marginalized groups to emulate, despite the systemic impediments preventing groups from attaining liberation (Bay-Cheng, 2015; Toffoletti & Thorpe, 2018).

Authenticity through status identity also determines worth based on obscurity and marginalization (Peterson, 2005). Niche identities become commodified as the authenticity being sold (for profit) in their art, or perhaps words, or performance based on their marginalization. Here we have a more explicit example of neoliberal capitalism functioning through authenticization as a commodify yourself technology that incentivizes the selling of one’s identity as authentic while obscuring the distinction between consistency and conformity authenticity. Not only does authenticization sustain contradictory definitions of authenticity but it can also have contradictory effects. When marginalized groups fight for political power by challenging the oppressive power structures of capitalism, the aims are to dismantle the systemic problems that produce and maintain that marginalization (Ahmed, 2006; Downs & Manion, 2004; Sweetman, 2013). Nevertheless, a threat to capitalism is merely an opportunity. As Fisher (2009) points out, capitalist realism commodifies the real and turns it into a for-profit spectacle. For example, the real in hip-hop was critiquing the problems of capitalism, which became commodified as gangster rap and sold to the public, defusing the critique into an aesthetic. The rapper no longer lives the “real” life, the rapper makes art about the “real” life for money (Fisher, 2009).

It may appear contradictory to sustain anticapitalist beliefs, commodify them into art, and then sell them for money in a capitalist market. However, capitalist ideology permits dissonance by overvaluing beliefs, where our external behaviours can be justified even if contradictory to our values so long as our beliefs align with our values (Žižek, 1989). In this way we can despise capitalism and money while continuing to participate in capitalistic exchange and fetishizing money (Fisher, 2009). This is not a critique of any individual’s cognitive dissonance, but rather, a demonstration that capitalism has the power to commodify the otherwise uncommodifiable. For example, the marginalized subject has consistency authenticity in externalizing anticapitalist values and conformity authenticity in belonging to the marginalized group. Capitalism creates the opportunity to transform that individual’s authenticity into a commodity (e.g., an aesthetic, a spectacle) for public consumption via the process of authenticization. Authenticity is then reduced to a marginalized identity where anything that individual produces is celebrated so long as it reifies that identity. If that identity is defined by marginalization, then it only has market value so long as it is marginalized or maintains the aesthetic of marginalization. In other words, commodifying individual marginalization for profit does not incentivize solutions for the marginalized group. Furthermore, as with the previous example of “ethnic” authors, they are only celebrated for their “ethnic” work, not their work in general, or in this case, their humanity (Peterson, 2005). Their humanity is seen through a single lens (marginalized, different, bizarre, exotic, Other), which operates to magnify profitability rather than their humanity.

The problem with authenticization is that it disrupts an essential part of self-creation by capitalizing on some “authentic” part of the self and commodifying it into a performance, a spectacle, an aesthetic (see Fisher, 2009). On the one hand, it can produce income, but on the other hand, it can become hard to separate the performance from the self, sometimes with tragic consequences (e.g., suicide). For example, some musicians portray a destructive part of the self on stage (e.g., reckless, alcoholic, drug user) that becomes inseparable from the self and ends up being self-destructive (e.g., Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain, Amy Winehouse; Peterson, 2005). The aesthetic performance of one’s authenticity as a commodity for consumers becomes the catalyst to the loss of that person’s sense of identity, as consistency transgresses into conformity.

Authenticization as connection

Authenticization not only relies on consistency and conformity to commodify yourself, but also, connection authenticity to create opportunities for others to become authentic by consuming authenticity. Lehman et al.’s (2019) final category—connection authenticity between a valued object and a person, place, or time—has three research themes: provenance, transference, and symbolism. Provenance is the spatiotemporal connection between a valued object and its author (e.g., a Picasso painting), with the addition that authenticity may be transferable from that object onto the owner (i.e., the current owner of a Picasso painting). Transference is similar to provenance, however, it refers to a spatiotemporal connection between an object and a value (e.g., a celebrity’s birthplace or article of clothing), where the value is not imbued by the creator of the object but by association to something meaningful. Symbolism refers to an object that is deemed authentic in representing the original qualities of an entity, place, or object (e.g., a religious icon, a restored car).

Relying on connection, authenticization imbues individuals to commodify and consume authenticity in order to become authentic subjects. This resembles what some scholars have called authenticity contagion (Newman & Smith, 2016; Rozin et al., 1989), which is a type of magical thinking where the immaterial qualities of a person, usually a celebrity, are transferred onto objects or places they’ve come in contact with (e.g., memorabilia, their place of birth). Authenticization makes authenticity contagion possible beyond connection to physical objects. On social media, connection via replication of behaviours and content (e.g., virtue signalling, dances) is endemic. Here, authenticity contagion is generated through replicas and homages that symbolically represent or point to an original, while it is evident that the replica is indeed not the original. This applies to the replication of template memes and the colloquial humour used in them, viral videos and the reactions to them, online challenges and dances, and many other forms of reproduction intended to piggyback on the social (and sometimes financial) capital of some original content. In fact, replicability is the logic on which one of the newest social media platforms, TikTok, was built, where users are encouraged to react to, and imitate, each other’s content to gain social and financial capital (Zulli & Zulli, 2020).

Contagion is an important part of why people consume authenticity, because it brings a sense of social inclusion and belonging. Conversely, those most excluded may be most susceptible to consuming authenticity via contagion, where studies found that, for example, individuals with a stronger need to belong will value and pay more for celebrity memorabilia (Newman & Smith, 2016). Another particularly potent example is tourism, where agencies often attempt to offer authenticity via a spatiotemporal connection to the past by trying to capture authentic objects (e.g., sites or places like Venice) before they’re gone, while ironically contributing to their destruction via rampant tourism (Howard, 2016). Travelling is linked with capitalist consumer culture and the search for authenticity. Howard (2016) found that

travellers in Nepal and Northern India often expressed a set of projections and contrasting attitudes that were typically critical of Western culture and life at home, while often demonstrating positive, yet uncritical appraisal for people and places perceived as exotic, non-modern and natural. (p. 357)

Such travellers attempt to obtain authenticity contagion and reconnect with their prediscursive “true selves,” which are idealized as equally nonmodern and natural.

Furthermore, through authenticization, we fetishize the Other (or an exotic place or time), turn them into commodities, consume them, and simultaneously convince ourselves we are critical of the process of capitalist commodification. Nevertheless, as mentioned previously, capitalist ideology permits this contradiction by overemphasizing beliefs over actions (Žižek, 1989). This is perhaps further obscured by the fluid experience of turbo-capitalism, where “both the age of authenticity and consumerism centre on a restless individualism and the value of choice in an ever-changing market of consumable objects and experiences” (Howard, 2016, p. 362). We become consumers of sensations (see Urry, 2002) and authenticization offers us reward sensations for performing commodified authenticity for others to consume. The regime of truth governing authenticity provokes the question of whether the citizen–consumer can change social dimensions of the market via consumption alone (see Peters, 2007).

Lehman et al. (2019) argue that consistency authenticity, which pertains to one’s subjective appraisal of self, is enhanced by the consumption of any of the three categories of authenticity (i.e., consistency, conformity, or connection) in order to satisfy an absence of authenticity and uncover the “true self.” If the easily commodifiable forms of authenticity conform to neoliberal values, which is what I argue the process of authenticization is, then over time one’s subjective authenticity becomes a reflection of those values. Essentially, authenticization not only produces commodified and easily consumable forms of authenticity with contradictory definitions and consequences but has the potential to modify one’s internal values to align with neoliberal norms in the process, in a similar way that deep acting in emotional labour estranges one from their own feelings (Hochschild, 1983).

In attempting to turn ourselves into authentic subjects, we consume commodified forms of authenticity that eventually reshape our internal values to align with the neoliberal norms of individualization, responsibilization, and self-governance (see Harvey, 2005). We lose the opportunity to create our own authentic possibilities by the allure of performing highly marketable forms of commodified authenticity for social and material prosperity. This allure is tied into the regime of truth governing authenticity, where truth contains within it an obligation for us to submit with a simple uncritical logic: if X is true then I must submit to it (Lorenzini, 2015). Foucault (1980/2014) suggests that understanding truth in relation to regimes of truth and veridiction provides the possibility for resistance, to choose not to submit to a truth but to a different value that may not be upheld as true.

However, unlike implicit forms of subjectification that internalize capitalism in subjectivity, authenticization presents the illusion of choice and neoliberal prosperity via the elusive desire to become authentic subjects. This illusion of choice obscures the possibility for understanding the truth conditions of authenticity, especially when they are contradictory. The poor and overlapping definitions of authenticity carry vague nuances of existential depth (self-transcendence), being true to oneself (moral value), discovering one’s true self (self-transformation), being likeable and accepted (belonging), and marketable value as a self-brand (commodify yourself). As such, we willingly participate in authenticization as an “autonomous” choice driven by a culture of self-improvement and the desire to be unique individuals who simultaneously belong with others in categorical groups. In the process, questions of identity, freedom, and meaning linger with potential consequences for mental health.

Consequences of authenticization: A conclusion

Authenticization relies on reliable forms of authenticity with roots in existentialism, humanistic psychology, and positive psychology, such as consistency, conformity, and connection, especially as symbolism and authenticity contagion (see Lehman et al., 2019), however, the incentives for attaining authenticity are coercive. Social media incentivizes the reproduction of neoliberal norms via authenticity as a marketable appendage to one’s self as a brand. Authenticization becomes a process of self-governance for the marketability of the self, obfuscating the possibility for choosing what one finds personally authentic. Furthermore, the definition of authenticity is itself obscured by the regime of truth that conditions its verification and falsification (see Foucault, 1979/2008). “Even if authenticity itself may be at times difficult to define or verify, there seems to be clear proof that it has a powerful pull on audiences and markets, regardless of whatever meaning is invoked and wherever it arises” (Lehman et al., 2019, p. 31). Indeed, authenticity seems to exist, and more than that, it is highly valued. What I am suggesting is that the connection between one’s internal values and external expression is compromised via the coercive power relations that incentivize commodified authenticity to become part of self-governance, as authenticization.

When power relations operate through subjectification and objectification, they delimit the available discourse for self-making and self-understanding (see Foucault, 1982). As such, the process of authenticization engenders a real and valuable authenticity that affects both internal values and external expression via neoliberal norms. Through neoliberal norms and power relations what is authentic is what can meet the demands of capitalism, even if the expression of authenticity contradicts capitalist and neoliberal values (e.g., nonconformists). Whatever is threatening to capitalism becomes a niche investment market for social and economic capital, until it is absolved of its power to challenge capitalism from the outside and becomes assimilated to a critique that is sustained within capitalism and sponsored by its dominant members. Here we can recall the commodification of gangster rap (see Armstrong, 2004; Fisher, 2009), the girl power movement (Rutherford, 2018), but also consider, for example: the love your body movement, which has been criticized for compelling women to perform heterosexy femininity as signifiers of women’s liberation (Toffoletti & Thorpe, 2018); gay pride parades, which have become emblematic of corporate sponsorship (referred to as rainbow capitalism) without addressing the continuing systemic oppression faced by the LGBTQ+ community (Chasin, 2001; Mowlabocus, 2021); and the use of BIPOC identities and activism as living diversity statements for companies using co-opted progressive language to sell products (McKellar, 2021; Mirzaei et al., 2022; Mukherjee & Banet-Weiser, 2012).

What is initially authentic as a freely chosen nonconformist purview of the world becomes commodified, especially on social media, as a consumable authenticity that others can invest in, perform, and capitalize on. This effectively alters what is subjectively authentic (or consistent with one’s set of values) into a categorical form of authenticity (conformity), which becomes contradictory. People whose identities become niche expressions of commodified authenticity lose their sense of self in the process as they conform to neoliberal norms. Neoliberalism sells the ideals of individualism, responsibilization, and self-governance, however, we can argue that the individualism it purports is compromised by its very assimilating nature into a conformist individuality that is sold as a commodity with the mere appearance of uniqueness. On the other hand, we are responsible for governing the appearance of the highly unique and marketable aspects of the self as authentic, in order to compete with others for resources in a market driven by demand and the illusion of scarcity (see Figueroa, 2019). Authenticization ensures that the objectifying and subjectifying power relations that coconstruct the self are hidden behind a façade of individual freedom, autonomy, choice, meaning, self-making, or, in other words, authenticity.

Furthermore, authenticization relies on connection authenticity to produce, reproduce, and encourage the consumption of commodified authenticity to become authentic subjects. Parroting other people’s authenticity on social media by imitating their performances of authenticity has become a popular form of pastiche (see Zulli & Zulli, 2020). Over time, some imitations can caricature or stereotype the original entity or event. For example, performative outrage is an instance of caricatured authentic outrage on behalf of marginalized communities via the desire for authenticity contagion and fueled by the moral pressure to conform (see Clark, 2020). Performative outrage stems from beliefs rather than values and can often be appraised as inauthentic, however, moral pressures exist to encourage instances of performative outrage and simultaneously discourage both internal and external criticisms, lest the critic become the target of outrage and face cancellation (see Gharavi, 2020; Velasco, 2020). Once more, this is supported by a capitalist ideology that places more value on beliefs than actions (see Žižek, 1989).

Nevertheless, performative outrage serves as an example of capitalist realism, which holds it as a virtue that its processes “turns belief to aesthetics, [and]. . . engagement to spectatorship” (Fisher, 2009, p. 5) because it allegedly protects us from fanaticism. It says, capitalism may be imperfect, but at least it’s not like dictatorships (often pointing to communism). This has the effect on people that an actual positive state of the world can only be an illusion, which Fisher (2009) compares to the symptoms of a person living with depression. One cannot imagine what it is like to exist in a positive state of affairs and accepts that life must be meaningless. For Heidegger (1927/1962) also, anxiety is a response to meaninglessness that can imbue the courage to face that anxiety through authenticity. The existential project is to discover or create meaning, which requires authenticity as a commitment to act with freedom in a state of self-understanding (see Heidegger, 1927/1962; Sartre, 1943/1992). On the other hand, authenticization commodifies a facsimile of existential authenticity (consistency) into categorical and symbolic forms of authenticity (conformity and connection). If authenticity is commodified under neoliberal power, we lose the freedom to be ourselves by becoming consumers of authenticity. We cannot discover or create meaning, only consume it as commodified authenticity as we lose our sense of identity. Authenticization is then also similar to Heidegger’s (1927/1962) existentiell authenticity, which is described as coping with the mundane in the absence of freedom.

The response to a mundane and meaningless existence can manifest as anxiety and depression, which have been on the rise globally (Ormel et al., 2020; World Health Organization, 2017). Capitalism produces the conditions that give rise to anxiety and depression and then treats mental health conditions as natural facts rather than conditioned responses (Fisher, 2009). We are encouraged to take individual responsibility for our own mental health, coping, treatment, and recovery (see Harvey, 2005). Moreover, the promise of well-being in capitalism operates on indefinite postponement (i.e., a lifelong process), much like work, education, and training, where “a consequence of this ‘indefinite’ mode of power is that external surveillance is succeeded by internal policing. Control only works if you are complicit with it” (Fisher, 2009, p. 22). The internalized neoliberal values become our indefinite mode of internal policing.

Autheticization is also a lifelong process of indefinite postponement where the authentic ideal is never achieved, but always striven toward via modes of self-governance. Likewise, it is socially constructed under neoliberal norms and therefore aims at assimilation to those norms. The power of those dominant norms is reprogramed into self-surveillance (i.e., internal policing) to perform the authenticization of self in alignment with neoliberal social norms. Fisher (2009) also argues that neoliberalism has dispensed with ethical values in favour of a business ontology that makes it appear obvious that everything ought to be run like a business. Authenticization, as a neoliberal process of self-governance, also adopts this business ontology toward authenticity as a consumer commodity in the buying and selling of authentic selves. Through authenticization we commodify ourselves, consume commodified authenticity, and reshape what it means to be authentic—based on internalized neoliberal values—while potentially losing sight of who we are and what possibilities we have to discover meaning.

My aim here was to critique the process of authenticization and point out the potential consequences it has on understanding ourselves, meaning, and mental health. I have not committed to providing any solutions, though I have pointed to Taylor’s (1992) use of Sartre’s self-transcendence model of authenticity as a viable alternative to authenticization, which focuses on the relations we share with others in the world as a source of intersubjective meaning rather than the traditional subjective and individualistic forms of authenticity. Furthermore, it may be possible to undermine the performance of commodified authenticity using Butler’s (1990) notions of subversion, which must remain vaguely defined if they are to be subversive at all, but do hint at transgression of norms and expectations, irony, and the condition that changes in boundaries and definitions are indispensable toward liberation from oppression. In this way, it parallels Foucault’s (1980/2014) suggestion for resisting the regime of truth by first understanding the production of truth, and then choosing not to submit.