The Process of Authenticity

The pursuit of authenticity is grounded on a continually self-transcending process. I interpret the notion of self-transcendence to include the adoption of a wider horizon of truth, which may be understood as universal. It is thus a transcendence of one’s social

191 conditioning (‘social I’) and of one’s personal perspective (‘individual I’) to tend towards universality. ‘Tending’ (streben) is characteristic of the Romantic Movement, but also of Hegel’s and Simmel’s conception of the individual. Human beings can transcend themselves through their awareness of being ‘this side’. This need not be a deep mystical experience or philosophical insight, but a process of understanding of oneself and the world around. Emic authenticity, emerging from my informants’ narratives, is trying to “be like Jesus”. It is a doing articulated communally as seeking to create an inclusive church (cf. chapter eight), individually as seeking to be true to one’s ‘better’ self (cf. chapter nine), and universally as incarnating compassion (cf. chapter ten). Etic authenticity is a process of constructing one’s identity by seeking to grasp – what is understood as – truth intellectually, emotionally and in practice. The identity results from the person’s attempt at being true to her understanding of truth. This is further explained in section four.

In this section, I want to reflect on the search for authenticity not being confined to morality. To illustrate this point, I draw from reflections on dramatic art. Dramatic acting allows me to draw a distinction between sincerity and authenticity (in contrast with Taylor and Trilling); to emphasise the processual and multidimensional nature of the concept, which does not solely depend on the subject, but is in dynamic relation with others and one’s interpretation of tradition; and to espouse a concept of truth experienced through the particularism of individuality and culture. Accordingly, authenticity in acting refers to the process of conveying what is felt to be true about being human through the particularism of the actor, the story, the character, but also of the acting tradition, such as that of Stanislavski, Brecht or Artaud, to name a few. To an actor, a specific acting tradition might

192 feel truer than another. Acting traditions presuppose specific interpretations of what is truly human, which may or may not be supported by empirical evidence.

There is nothing moral or immoral about an acting style. The dramatic actor expresses authenticity through the language of the style he or she values. For Simmel, dramatic art is not merely a convincing and emotional representation of reality; rather representation is only the first step the actor takes to transform their internal reality and the reality given in the play into a work of art (Simmel 1911/1968, p. 95). I build on this notion to provide an example of authenticity through the art of dramatic acting. The actor’s individuality is always present in dramatic representation. It is the source of the emotions used to animate the character, but also one’s manner of speaking and moving. The actor’s authenticity in dramatic art, however, does not lie solely in the projection of his or her personal feelings onto the character; rather it also rests on capturing something that may be deemed universal of humanity, which can be recognised by the audience. The conception of humanity is, however, always mediated by the actor’s social and individual identity; by the actor’s dramatic tradition, which provides interpretations of human characteristics and a repertoire of how to express them; and by the cultural and philosophical underpinnings of the play or script. For instance, the portrayal of mental illness may be informed by previous cinematic and theatrical representations, by the actor’s observation and wider cultural influences.

Authenticity, in dramatic acting, is thus not the elimination of the actor’s personal characteristics to replicate naturalistically a character in the story, but the portrayal of –

193 what are seen as – (universal) human traits through the actor’s individual and social identity. The actor, but also the author and director, have an understanding of human traits, on which basis they build a character. Therefore, humanity is performed through the construction of a character by the actor and director. Authenticity is thus more than the originality, or distinctiveness of the actor. Actors are not simply faithful to their individuality nor are they solely representing the individuality of a character, but adding a further dimension of ‘truth’, to which the audience can relate. An actor’s distinctiveness is part of the process of authenticity, for the self-transcendent aspect of authenticity requires it be expressed through the particularism of the actor’s individuality and that of the character.

However, when actors are true only to their own, or to their character’s distinctive characteristics, the acting crystallises in their distinctive manner of speaking and moving and results in mannerism. The actors, just as much as non-actors, are thus affected in their speaking and moving. Actors need to go beyond their own distinctiveness and that of the characters they are portraying to convey the human experience, in which the audience can participate. This is independent of the sympathy that a character or an actor might arouse or not. Dramatic art needs to induce empathy, an understanding of the reality being represented, but not necessarily sympathy¹³. Simmel wrote that acting is a crystallisation of a “spiritual reality” (Simmel 1911/1968, p. 95). I interpret this to mean that acting gives form to what is understood as true humanity by the actor, director, author, and by the audience. As mentioned, this may or may not be empirically founded. Thus, rather than

13 I am grateful to Dr Andrew Edgar for suggesting this distinction between empathy and sympathy in relation to dramatic art.