So, I have a confession to make: There’s a special place in my heart for gangsta rap. I know, what a tool, right? Yet another suburban white kid thinking he’s “hard” because he can quote 95% of the lyrics on Dr. Dre’s The Chronic, but hey, it is what it is. I’m mostly over it now, some 15 years out of high school, but I still pull out those albums once in a while: Tupac’s All Eyez On Me, Eightball and MJG’s Comin’ Out Hard, or Biggie’s Ready to Die.

I’m not exactly sure what it was I found so attractive about that stuff. Aside from the major league production talents those guys possessed, I thought there was something really raw about those albums. The way they depicted such dramatic, messy, ruthless lifestyles seemed, at least for a time, more authentic than my own sheltered, sterilized, upper-middle-class experience. Over time, however, the gangsta rap phenomenon began to seem more and more contrived. I still appreciate a well-produced beat, and certainly enjoy a well-spun lyric, but my fascination with their apparently raw, authentic experiences has mostly faded.

In the end, I find myself skeptical of anything trying to appear authentic, particularly if it has a sales pitch attached to it. Maybe that’s why I like this blog so much. Eric and Duff actively go after those who would feign authenticity. In the ubiquity of bullshit that is the Information Superhighway and mass-media marketing in general, we need more skeptics. It’s simply too easy for a person to declare himself an expert and go to town exploiting folks. The result for me is that all this marketing material just starts to sound like gangsta: a catchy hook portraying some sexy image, spun over a slick beat. Reminds of the old Agassi EOS Rebel commercials—“Image is everything.”

As long as you’re selling muscle gain and fat loss, I suppose this is a perfectly reasonable strategy. It seems appropriate to sell that sort of thing by projecting an image, authentic or not (real-live testimonial, airbrushed celebrity cover shot, or otherwise). Things get dicey, in my opinion, when folks start selling “authenticity” itself with a slick image — you know: enlightenment, spirituality, inner peace, that sort of thing. What you end up with is a big circle-jerk of gurus trying to out-remember the others’ Original Face. It’s gangsta rap for spiritual seekers.

Take my pitch, for example:

If ya lookin’ for peace, man, I got tha best plan.
Rememb’rin’ ya True Self ain’t never been easier.
You’ll never find another more holy deliverer.
So check me out on YouTube and give my free report a read.
I’m wearin’ mad mala beads, I’m sowin’ good karma seeds,
I wrote an eBook on Yoga, and I live engrossed in Samdhi!

Neti neti this, and neti neti that.
I’m not you, I’m not me, I’m all you ever fuckin’ see!
So let me be your guru. Let me be your master.
Just ten easy steps, from here to what you’re after.

If ya lookin’ for enlightenment, don’t expect to find it.
It’s never very far, yeah, it’s close proximity.
It’s right before your eyes, but you’re blinded by insanity.
I got your eyeglasses, yeah, I’ll restore your eyesight.
Just pull out your credit card and join my members-only site!
I got your mantra, I got your meditation.
I even got your sweet incense, so sign up for my mailing list, bitch!

Neti neti this, and neti neti that.
I’m not you, I’m not me, I’m all you ever fuckin’ see!
So let me be your guru. Let me be your master.
Just ten easy steps, from here to what you’re after.

That’s a little ditty I wrote back in the day, called “Ten Easy Steps, Y’all!” Whatchyou got now?!

Seriously, though, I think it illustrates the fine line we who deal in deep transformation walk. The nondual Alcoholics Anonymous speaker, Paul Hedderman is fond of saying the human mental mailbox is a conceptual one. That means if we’re going to point something out to others, we have to do so with images; but as we make clear over at myCreativeEvolution.com, spiritual practice as authentic expression of your True Self is precisely the opposite of image projection. The creation, projection, and maintenance of a neurotic self-image are activities that occupy the mind in its mechanical mode. True, authentic expression of Self requires the creation of a certain friction against this mechanical story-telling inertia.

And if you don’t buy that shit, by all means, seek on mutha-fuckas!

Philip Walter is a mad scientist of a yogi, seeking to make the insights of the world’s great spiritual traditions more meaningful to modern humans through the application of cutting-edge science. He is a Prasara Yoga instructor in Little Rock, AR, who created the blog at BrickhouseBodymind.com three years ago. He now explores the outer limits of human development at myCreativeEvolution.com.

The message in personal development, self-help, and the wider Western culture is clear—”be yourself.” We are told that being a conformist is bad. The marketplace demands creativity and innovation from passionate employees, consumers are bored of last year’s model, and many workers are tired of working meaningless jobs. But here’s the thing: if you obey this cultural demand, you are being a conformist—but if you don’t obey the demand to be yourself, you are also being a conformist!

The cultural demand for authenticity sets up a double bind. On the one hand, if you conform to social norms you are not being yourself and thus not acting authentically. “If you don’t have a plan for your life, someone else will” we are told. But yet advertisers selling “authentic” pre-ripped jeans (to help you be your laid-back self) and personal-development-marketing-lifestyle-gurus selling $197/month courses (to help you find your authentically wealthy self) both have a plan for our lives—to have us as their customers.

On the other hand, if you simply “be yourself” then you are obeying the cultural dictate, and thus not being yourself! Authenticity is said to be throwing off cultural conditioning and doing what is right for you. But this itself has become a social norm—hence the paradox.

Reactive rebellion doesn’t work either. The serial non-conformist and self-proclaimed rebel is completely controlled by social norms—he must do the opposite of whatever he believes the norm to be. In NLP this kind of person is called a “polarity responder” and is perhaps the easiest person to manipulate. Simply tell the polarity responder what you don’t want them to do or what they “can’t” do. For example tell a rebellious teenager “I don’t think you are capable of cleaning your room right now” with a sly smile and watch how fast that room gets picked up!

What is the way out of this double-bind? I propose that it is the same for every double-bind, or “be spontaneous paradox”—one must act absurdly, violating both poles. Family therapist Paul Watzlawick gives a classic example of the be spontaneous paradox from “two unhappiness experts” in his book The Situation is Hopeless, But Not Serious:

“Do you love me?”
“Yes.”
“If you really loved me, you’d say so without my asking you.”

Insomniacs tend to tell themselves something over and over in an anxious inner voice like “I’ve got to get some sleep!” Sleep is not something consciously controlled so this attempt to consciously sleep fails. One effective therapeutic intervention is for the therapist to require the insomniac to try to stay awake (while lying in bed, eyes closed) for as long as possible. When it works, this absurd intervention cuts through the double-bind by allowing the client to consciously “fail” at his task and thus succeed at unconsciously falling asleep.

One absurd option in the case of the authenticity paradox would be for the individual to decide after some reflection that obeying some social norm is authentic for them. For instance, a man might wear a suit and tie to express his authentic self in a business context, feeling no incongruence. He may choose to do this even on “Casual Friday’s” despite the peer pressure to conform to casual attire (thus conforming to one social norm while simultaneously disobeying another).

Another possibility would be to choose to be part of a rebellious counterculture, but rebel from some of the norms of the counterculture itself that do not fit the considered beliefs of the individual. Another would be to disavow the cultural ideal of authenticity entirely, choosing one’s own values which may or may not include authenticity, and perhaps are even context dependent. Another still is to examine the social nature of the self, coming to realize that no individual is separate from the culture, nor is culture separate from the individual, but there is a complex interaction between the two—thus the demand to be free from cultural conditioning is seen as absurd.

Of course if you just take my advice here, are you really being yourself or just following my suggestions?

Got other solutions to the paradox? Add them in the comments below. You can also subscribe for free to receive new articles in your email in the upper right of this page if you are not already subscribed.

At first this new, more authentic way of communicating was awkward as I found myself searching inside for an answer I felt was really authentic. But after a few days or weeks, it became more comfortable for me.

From this experiment I found that this more authentic way of communicating sometimes appeared to be refreshing to the other person, but at other times annoying or uncomfortable, and often led to the other person giving me unwanted advice! This experiment in authenticity lead me to understand experientially why inauthenticity is useful if not required in some contexts.

After some time, I went back to answering “how are you doing?” inauthentically by again saying “good, you?” like most people do. At first, I did so with some incongruence, for it took effort to repress the desire to spew my guts. But after some time, I was able again to be congruently polite and reserved. In other words, at first I was incongruently inauthentic, but with practice became congruently inauthentic again. In addition, I later found that experimenting like this, I could be more open and honest with people close to me by communicating more about my feelings, while remaining comfortably distant from strangers and acquaintances.

Authentic According to Whom?

If you agree that authenticity is always “according to whom?” then the story is a little bit different. In this case, I am authentic—according to me—to the extent that I feel congruent about my behaviors. Therefore, I was authentic up until I felt that small-talk is inauthentic, when I then felt incongruent and became inauthentic (despite my behavior being the same). Then when I was first learning to be more expressive emotionally, I was also inauthentic, because it didn’t yet feel congruent. Then I was congruent and authentic when being more open felt comfortable, and then I was inauthentic again until I had greater practice in being emotionally reserved, in which case I became authentic again. And finally, I became authentic by holding back with strangers and opening up to friends.

This is an unusual way to think about authenticity—that by repeating a new and uncomfortable behavior enough it can become authentic, that being emotionally reserved can be authentic or inauthentic depending on how it feels (which itself can change), etc., but how else are we to make sense of claims to authenticity? If instead we posit a typical definition of authenticity, which is to express whatever deepest feelings are being experienced in the moment, then we are stuck with the curious problem that sometimes it is best to be inauthentic. Or even worse, one could conclude that aspects of my self (e.g. my shy side) are inauthentic or not-me, thus leading to repression or projection (“other people are shy and reserved, but I’m not like that”).

Or let’s take the position of the other—when was I being authentic according to others? In this case, many would probably report that I appeared most authentic when I was congruently emotionally expressive, despite the fact that I both felt authentic being expressive and being reserved, depending on when you would have asked me.

Being recognized and celebrated for one’s “authenticity” usually occurs when authenticity conforms to certain notions but not others. Many people are acknowledged as being “the real deal” if they are very emotionally expressive to the point of being obnoxious or overbearing, but few are celebrated for their authentic tactfulness, authentic intellect, or authentically reserved emotional expression—at least in the U.S., for it’s different in collectivist cultures like Japan or China (“the nail that sticks up gets hammered down”). For example, shock jock Howard Stern is popular in large part because of his crass “authenticity,” but a subtle and wise spiritual teacher like Jack Kornfield is celebrated more for kindness or balance than authentic expression. We then tend to conform our feelings and behaviors to those that are rewarded by others, turning our quest for authenticity into a quest to be celebrated by others for displaying what is seen as authentic.

Reality Hacking Exercize

This week, try answering the question “how are you?” more openly and “authentically” than usual with both strangers and friends. Notice how you feel and how the other person responds. Continue doing so until it feels comfortable to be so open and expressive. Then try answering in a more reserved manner until it becomes comfortable. During both experiments, try to answer from the depths of your being, but the first time in a more brutally honest way, and the second time in a more reserved way. Post your results in the comments below.

I just watched the fascinating and beautiful documentary Pageant which follows several female impersonators on their quests for glory in the Miss Gay America competition. These gay men transform into stunningly beautiful women, and perform choreographed dances and songs that make Miss America look like a 5th grade talent show.

One thing that struck me in relation to the themes of this blog was that many of the competitors spoke about the importance of “being yourself,” i.e. authentic. Fascinatingly, many of these men have felt from a young age that part of their authentic expression in the world was to impersonate the opposite sex. If impersonating a different sex is authentic, than what is meant by authenticity?

Authenticity and Gender: WTF?

I’ve written several articles here on Beyond Growth critiquing pick-up artist gurus who teach men how to transform into “authentic” badboys and players. This movie got me thinking—to what extent are all gender displays impersonations?

It seems to me that putting on a believable gender display is what matters to be recognized as “authentic” masculinity or femininity by others, and feeling congruent about your display of gender is what matters to be felt as “authentic” by the individual. Is there more to it, or is authenticity just a convincing story we tell ourselves and others? Is one’s level of authenticity to be measured by how much we are convinced the story is true, or is there “really” truth above and beyond the story?

The Authentic Man Program teaches men  to have “a magnetic presence,” which is defined as “women just notice you and feel drawn to you, before you even say a word, and naturally just love to be around you” (from their marketing squeeze page). Being “authentic” in this context is for a heterosexual man to give a convincing, congruent display of a particular socially-constructed masculine gender identity that nonverbally elicts a certain response from (some?) heterosexual women. In this case “natural” means “cultivated to appear natural,” for authentic magnetic presence is made, not born. What these men are selling is basically how to adopt a particular gender identity in order to have sexual power in certain heterosexual social contexts.

In contrast, being “authentic” to the men who compete to be Miss Gay America is to put on many layers of thick makeup, padding to hide their crotch bulge, and a sequined evening gown to convincingly appear as a beautiful woman. In this case, such a man (woman?) might get heterosexual men to naturally notice them for their “magnetic presence”—at least until they learn the true sex of this lovely lady that has caught their eye. I wonder if any former Miss Gay Americas have created any information products on how to be an authentic drag queen? Unfortunately, there’s probably not as much of a market.

In my previous critiques, I have challenged the notion that the “authentic” pick-up guru is truly authentic. But now I don’t know if there is such a thing as true authenticity when it comes to notions of gender, besides that of a convincing display and inner congruence. Is the quest for authenticity simply to find a character we can convincingly play and feel good about it? To become typecast in a social role of our (apparent) choosing?

In an early part of the movie, contestants were interviewed by the judges as men. Some had quite a magnetic presence or charisma when displaying masculine gender, wearing a suit, etc. If a man developed the ability to both have a magnetic presence when displaying masculine gender identity as well as when in drag, would he thus be doubly “authentic”?

Just as a straight man might fail to appear “authentic” in his display of alpha male magnetic presence and thus lose a woman’s attention, a gay cross-dressing man might fail to appear “authentic” in his (her?) display of femininity on stage at Miss Gay America and thus lose the competition. Both fail tests of authenticity when they appear incongruent to others.

Authenticity FTW!

Here’s a question for you: who’s more authentic—the gay men who are impersonating women in Miss Gay America, or the women who are impersonating women in the regular Miss America competition? Both give a convincing display of a socially constructed notion of femininity, and I assume that both are convinced that they are “being themselves.”

The eventual winner of the Miss Gay America competition (spoiler alert!) was a woman (man?) who shared a heartfelt and authentic story of surviving a personal hardship. Other competitors inauthentically boasted of their guaranteed victory. One wonders if the winner was chosen due to his (her?) convincingly authentic story—or was it actually more authentic to communicate in this way?

Almost everyone would say that authenticity is about “being yourself” regardless of how you appear to others. Yet if our displays of authenticity aren’t seen as authentic, we will modify them until they appear convincing. To be authentic is to be praised by others for being so, as in “he’s the real deal.” Central to the notion of authenticity is a lie about what the very quest is about. I wonder if in order to “truly be authentic,” we must lie to ourselves about the reasons for doing so, or else risk incongruence and thus appearing inauthentic.

Personal development relies on the fact that who we “really” are is a personally- and socially-constructed narrative. If we are the roles, feelings, and behaviors we currently exhibit, they wouldn’t be possible to change. But most personal development gurus go further and posit that their preferred narrative is who you really are—then they sell you the means to convincingly display this new role in a way that promises to someday feel congruent. A new role is still an act, new conditioning still socially-constructed, new beliefs still limiting. My bias is towards greater flexibility and perhaps even wisdom in those roles, conditioning, and beliefs, but I’m not sure that “flexibility” and “wisdom” are less problematic than “authenticity”!

Consciously becoming something else is perhaps the greatest act of inauthenticity imaginable—yet we all do it all the time. Perhaps we can be honest about the lie, even if in order to function effectively in society we have to act as if we believe it. I wonder if this honesty about the lie inherent to the quest for authenticity can perhaps free us from the notion that our authentic self is found in someone else’s high-priced advice.

In any case, I highly recommend you watch Pageant and consider these questions for yourself.

If you’ve enjoyed this article, consider leaving a comment, sharing it on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribing for free at the upper right of this page.

I have several questions for you once you’ve watched the video, so if you’d like, please watch the video above and then answer any of my questions in the comments.

This video was done in the very same “authentic” style that I have critiqued on this blog. What was your reaction to the style? Did you find it engaging, repulsive, ironic, annoying, funny? Unlike Tony Robbins’ “authentic” videos, this is not part of a scheduled launch of an upcoming product (although in the interests of full disclosure, I do have some ideas in mind for building my coaching practice and website using video).

I noticed within myself that I was talking really fast, almost imitating other “authentic” speakers like Tony Robbins and other A-list bloggers. After watching the video again, it seems like the style was both authentic but also someone else’s, like it belonged to the style of authenticity.

(UPDATE: I found this prototypical example of what I mean by the style of authenticity. This $300/hour dreadlocked marketing coach probably wouldn’t object to or see any irony in the label of “authentic style,” as she herself has written a book entitled Style Statement: Live By Your Own Design which she quotes Body & Soul Magazine as saying “redefine[s] the concept of style.” No doubt, her book defines style as depth, fashion as authenticity. From Amazon.com: “STYLE STATEMENT is an inspiring take on the power of style and authenticity. Deemed ‘style psychotherapists,’ Carrie and Danielle are the creators of the Style Statement: a two-word compass that helps you make more confident choices in life — from your wardrobe to your relationships, your living room to your career plans.” The perfect marriage of consumerism and spiritual seeking comes in a self-designed mantra uniting sacred and profane. What Would Tyler Durden Say? The love of all forms of affluence proclaimed in big, bold text on her about page seems to me a recipe for reinforcing unjust economic structures, but perhaps that’s not what she meant to say….)

Beyond the “authentic” style, what did you think of the concepts I was describing (if you could hear them—the Macbook mic doesn’t pic up sound as much as I would like). Do you think there are contexts in which setting up an inner dominator hierarchy and “breaking through” are appropriate and useful?

And Now, A More Formal Video

After I made the video above, I got the idea to do a more formal version of the same content, to create some dialogue on my favorite topic lately, that of authenticity. Why has being casual become synonymous with authenticity? Here is the more formal version, “The 5 Keys to Accepting Unwanted Emotions”:

Embedded in the notion of authenticity—which is central to personal development—is the idea that we can and should throw off social conditioning in order to become free and unique individuals. But is this true, or even possible? To what extent can we throw off social conditioning? To what extent are we always bound by culture, even in our rebellion against it? And what exactly is the nature of one’s true identity?

Which is More Authentic: Casual or Formal?

The first, more casual video, apparently throws off the social conditioning of formality, of how speeches are given, of video production standards, and of how much preparation should be undertaken before creating a public recording. The inspiration for shooting a video this way came from to me from A-list personal development bloggers like Jonathan Fields (see this video on his blog where he’s going for his favorite walk just outside of New York City) and Merlin Mann—i.e., from the already very popular existing style of “authentic” video blogging. I spent no time at all preparing for this video. I attempted to capture the informal, chatty, and even voyeuristic style (“I’m just cooking some breakfast”) of popular YouTube videos and personal development vloggers. I didn’t shower, didn’t prepare even—just loaded up iMovie, shot for 5 minutes, and uploaded to YouTube. And it came out pretty darn well if I do say so myself.

The second formal video, adheres to conventional standards of giving speeches, presenting a professional image, etc. It could be much more formal and professional of course, with better lighting and video camera especially, but hey—I’m wearing a freaking tie. I did my best to follow the rules of giving speeches that I can remember, such as “tell them what you are going to tell them, then tell them, then tell them what you told them.” I wore more conventionally professional clothes, groomed well before the video, and framed the camera shot so I was centered. I wrote out what I was going to say beforehand, and went through three or four takes.

My question for you is whether the casual video style actually throws off any social conditioning, or merely adopts different conditions and trends—whether something can be more authentic or not due to style alone. I believe in the message that was expressed through both videos, and did my best to be authentic (and not ironic or mocking) within the casual style of the first and the formal style of the second. I am confident in my ability to present in either style, and to engage with criticism of the ideas I expressed. But what I’m most curious for the purposes of this post is not necessarily the content of my presentation (I would like to hear about that too), but the notion of authenticity and how it relates to style and trends in expression within personal development and media in our culture.

“Authentic” Gets More Attention…But Should It?

In a world of manufactured experiences, marketing hype, and broken political promises, a more “authentic” style tends to capture more attention and have greater influence. But is there any deeper truth to this tendency, or is it merely a fashion like pre-torn jeans? Should we pay more attention to the casual, apparently more authentic speaker, or should we look for truth in whatever style it is expressed? And are we giving something up by rejecting conventional social norms and styles of communicating?

Far from being free from cultural norms, there are many unwritten rules to the new, casual style. I expressed myself as charismatically as I could while still coming across as informal and casual as possible. If “ums” and “ahs” are missing, it almost seems suspicious. In the second video, I did the opposite—I expressed myself charismatically by being more formal and logical, without being stodgy or overly rigid. I monitored my speech for “ums” and “ahs.” Was this more or less authentic?

In the casual video, I let you in to my personal world, showing you that I am a multitasker who eats omelets and has creative bursts of energy—I presented a casual, but truthful face. In the formal video, I did not show my personal world at all, showing you only my professional face, but also truthfully I sometimes am more formal and withhold personal details of my life (e.g. in coaching sessions, at weddings, etc.).

In neither video was I trying to secretly manipulate you into buying something from me, although both videos hint that I do coaching sessions. Which face/video is more authentic, or are they both authentic, or are both inauthentic? And who decides?

Can We Climb Out of Social Conditioning through Irony or Integration?

Is there any escape from social conditioning by presenting multiple perspectives as I have done? Am I now beyond social conditioning? Hardly. I am now in the social role of the meta-thinker, someone who can present various perspectives, step back from them, and analyze them. This is the social role of the cultural critic, the philosopher, the politician, the comedian, or the actor. When you become good at acting—not just mimicking outer behavior but deeply playing the part—questions of authenticity become very complex. (Perhaps this is one reason why Hollywood actors often hire personal development guru life coaches like Tony Robbins.)

If we cannot escape from social conditioning, should we instead seek greater integrated complexity, as integral philosopher Ken Wilber and his community tend to propose? As any integral thinker will tell you (including Wilber), greater complexity lends itself to greater potential ways in which things can go wrong (dogs can get cancer, amoebas cannot). Are the risks worth the rewards, or should we instead seek healthy integration of the amount of complexity we can currently handle?

Questions of identity also become very complex when we introduce the “authentic actor” to our discussion. Who am I? Clearly I am not simply a casual guy, because I am also a formal guy at times, as well as a meta-thinking philosopher guy. Are any of these characters the “real” or “authentic” me? What does it mean to say “he’s the real deal,” a phrase often used to describe known scammers like Frank Kern, who sell their scams with their casual and “authentic” style?

Which persona is my “real” one? If a person consistently adopts a casual persona across all contexts, does that mean it is their “real” and “authentic” identity, or that they are simply attached to one way of being? Is it better to be consistent throughout all contexts or to have great flexibility and adapt to a context as appropriate? I can hardly count the number of “authentic assholes” I have met in various conscious communities, and indeed I have at times been that asshole (with apologies to my Twitter followers).

Authentic Men, Gurus, Bloggers, and Marketers

What is an “authentic man”? The “authentic man program” (warning: link goes to a marketing “squeeze” page that does everything it can to get your email address) or AMP presents the authentic man as having certain definite characteristics—e.g. an “authentic man” is highly sexual, emotionally “in touch” and expressive, not “stuck in his head,” powerful and dominant, charismatic, etc. By this definition, being shy, intellectual, formal, or interested in non-hierarchical relationships is “inauthentic” for men (in all cultures, for all ages, everywhere, apparently). And the aim of being an authentic man? To have “authentic sexual power” (warning: link goes to an aggressive long-form sales letter for a $435 product) with women (always spoken of in this unspecified generalization as if to indicate power over the entire sex).

Having seen the founder of the Authentic Man Program Bryan Bayer do his work in a group, it seems to me that he is a classic example of too much of a good thing—in this case “authentic presence.” Our no-limit personal development culture tends to swing from not enough to too much. While many of the things listed in the authentic sexual power course are good things, it seems clear to me that the course is designed to take men who are not sexually expressive enough to being far too sexually dominant and expressive. Do you really need to practice Taoist sexual alchemy in order to find a suitable romantic partner? A similar thing has been noted by many who participated in Gestalt and Encounter process groups since the 50′s (the tradition in which Bayer’s work springs)—groups of seekers get the notion that if a little catharsis is a good thing, than always expressing emotions in a dramatic way is the ideal. Being authentic becomes being dramatic. Indeed, the two-word “Style Statement” of our prototypical authentic style coach is “Sacred Dramatic.”

Tony Robbins was one of the first popular personal development gurus to talk in a more casual, yet dramatic hypomanic style. Before that, gurus like Brian Tracy and Robbins’ mentor Jim Rohn gave formal speeches, wearing blue or gray business suits, and spoke slowly and deliberately. Now gurus like James Arthur Ray speak and present in very similar styles to Robbins (Ray has even stolen one of Robbins’ jokes!), and many personal development bloggers and tweeters use Robbins’ catch phrases without attribution (which of course Robbins himself does when he speaks). This style of “authenticity” includes plagiarism as acceptable practice. Referencing the sources of your ideas is seen as stodgy and academic.

Havi Brooks, a popular personal development and marketing blogger, writes in a specific style that she claims she developed (and I believe her), having found her authentic voice as a writer. Her writing style includes making up silly words, writing “stream of consciousness,” often being sarcastic and cynical about personal development/spirituality/marketing, talking from various voices within herself and to parts of herself, using various font sizes for emphasis or de-emphasis, and sharing her “process” of personal growth. Is it then inauthentic that many of the people who read her blog have adopted very similar styles? I’ve seen many of the same stylistic elements in other quirky countercultural people, long before Ms. Brooks was writing online. Does this mean she isn’t being authentic, or hasn’t developed an authentic style, or that her version of authenticity already existed in the surrounding culture?

It is worth noting that Brooks charges nearly $500 an hour for her 1-on-1 marketing and life coaching services, and says herself that pricing can be a “super trigger-ey” subject. Her methods for pricing your services not only do not take into account what is a going fair market price, but actually consciously reject such market information as being irrelevant (“Comparison-based thinking will always get you down” and “The help you need on this is internal, not external”). The only relevant criteria for determining one’s prices are subjective and internal to business operations, reducing all structural factors to personal ones (i.e. working through “one’s money stuff”—and presumably those who succeed at this task all become libertarians!). As I’ve noted before, all this “authenticity” is expensive! And again, too much of a good thing. Many healers and coaches under-price their services—overpricing is not the solution to this problem.

Why is it that the most self-proclaimed “authentic” people charge several times that of market rate for mysteriously named services that are basically marketing coaching? Let’s be honest with ourselves here. None of these “authentic” marketing coaches and consultants are truly creating something new. Selling may appear different in the new economy, but how much of this different appearance is just a change in fashion to try and bypass the cynicism of the postmodern consumer, so that these individuals can charge exorbitant rates, all towards the aim of selling others on the dream of one day authentically overcharging their own customers?

Identity and Authenticity, or Who the Heck Am I?

What does it mean to accept all aspects of your being (the content of both of my videos) in light of these questions of identity and authenticity?

A Buddhist or neo-Advaitist might respond to the question of identity by saying that either a) I am empty, i.e. that all notions of self are ultimately false, or b) that I am consciousness itself, unborn and undying and pervading the entire universe, and that answering the question as either (a) or (b) is liberating when experienced phenomenologically (not just intellectually). These answers cannot be fully examined in this article, but my question is do either of these answers (the “nihilistic self” or the “I AM self”) truly give us any practical guidance for how to live and how to express ourselves authentically in the world?

If we realize there is no self in any of the phenomena that make up our experience, then knowing that, which video should we make—the formal or the casual? If we realize instead that what we truly are is luminous mind/rigpa/buddha nature/dharmakaya/atman-which-is-brahman, then which persona should we take on in order to find a suitable romantic partner? And being still and knowing that I am God, how much should I charge for my life coaching/marketing services?

More questions than answers in this post, I’m afraid. And there are unlikely to be any simple 5 keys to answering these questions for you. But I do believe that gaining comfort with uncertainty, or the ability to hold a question without compulsively seeking a solution, is an important part of the kind of personal development I encourage you to explore.

I invite you to add your thoughtful and intelligent comments below, to spread the word about this blog post on Twitter and Facebook etc. if moved. Also, subscribe for free at the top right for more videos, criticism, and commentary.

Also, please try out the following “exercize,” in the tradition of the late, great Robert Anton Wilson, to explore these ideas for yourself experientially:

Authenticity Exercize

Sometime in the next week, pick a day to act “authentically casual” for the day. Dress down, speak colloquially, let someone know about something you normally don’t share, and “keep it real” in your communications with others. Perhaps even write a casual-authentic blog post. Notice how people respond to you and how you feel inside.

The next day, act “authentically formal.” Dress nicely, put on makeup or groom especially well, use manners and be polite, present a professional edge without letting out too much about your personal life, but still be totally honest and authentic. Write a formal-authentic blog post. Again, notice how people respond to you and how you feel inside.

Be on guard during this exercise to not be ironic or feel like you’re putting on an exaggerated show on either your casual day or formal day. Keep it subtle and authentic on both days, to the degree that you can. Allow your actions to come from deep within, even as you act differently on the surface.

After you’ve completed the exercise, ask yourself which of the personas feels more like “you”? Which one feels more authentic? Which one had people responding to you as if you were more authentic? Which persona does it seem like would make you more money?

After the exercise is over, tell a couple people (or your blog readers) what you were doing, and ask which persona felt more authentic to them. Add your results of this exercise to this blog’s comments for others to reflect upon.

When I was looking up clips of Fight Club for my first blog post, I found an interesting related video on YouTube. In the clip below, the pick-up artist and personal development guru “Tyler Durden” is giving a speech about the importance of having an authentic identity.

“Tyler” starts off by talking about the liberation he has experienced ever since he decided to entirely stop caring about other human beings and unleash his inner asshole (he doesn’t put it in quite those terms, of course). He implies how this was a wonderful step forward towards becoming more authentic, and now teaches men to be authentic assholes just like him, for the purpose of having meaningless sexual conquests with HB’s (pickup lingo for “hot babes”). You too can become an authentic asshole by attending one of his “bootcamps”…yours now for only $2000!

The ironies run many, many layers deep.

This very confused man has given himself the name of the fictional character Tyler Durden from the movie/book Fight Club. Certainly assuming another person’s name and identity is not authentic (e.g. an Elvis impersonator). To assume the name and basic identity of a fictional character as “Tyler” has done is to copy something that was never real in the first place (e.g. trekkies dressed up as Klingons). This man’s “authentic identity” is a copy with no original, a simulacrum.

Tyler Durden is not only a fictional character, but a fictional character who himself is a fake-authentic projected identity of another fictional character, who–even more ironically–is unnamed and unidentified (without an identity), and is searching for an authentic identity (just like the unnamed pick-up artist in the video) while also inauthentically attending self-help meetings he has no business attending. Yes, my head is also spinning.

It gets worse. This “Tyler” is teaching men how to have an authentic identity in order to pick up women. In other words, his “authentic” image is a ploy to get something from others, the very opposite of what is meant by authenticity.

Clearly the unnamed man in the video above is deeply, horribly confused about what it means to have an authentic identity. This would be a hilarious joke if he wasn’t obviously very serious, and if he didn’t make big bucks as a well-known teacher of “inner game”–i.e. how to deeply transform yourself into an “authentic” pick-up artist just like him, so that you can deeply and authentically manipulate women into sleeping with you. Chicks dig “authenticity,” or so I hear.

“Tyler” is clearly not living his own authentic life but a well-crafted illusion based on Chuck Palahniuk’s imagination and the culturally constructed notions of a badboy player. The tears at and nervous laughter starting around 7:55, and the big, phony smile at 8:24 betray the cool, uncaring identity he has adopted for himself as his “authentic” self.

The Price of Authenticity: Now for Only $997!

Like it or not, “Tyler” is a personal development guru who teaches “authenticity.” While he is focused on “authenticity” in order to pick-up women, other personal development gurus focus on “authenticity” in order to become financially successful, to sell people things, to create fame, etc. Consider this testimonial from Laura Roeder’s “Creating Fame” sales letter:

Laura reframes personal branding in a way that was exactly what I needed to hear at the time, and gave me permission to market myself in an authentic, non-salesy, fun way.

Roeder’s personal branding course costs $997. All this authenticity is getting expensive! After I get back from the $2000 bootcamp where I learn to authentically trick ladies into having intercourse with me, I’ll be sure to fork over another thousand to learn to authentically name drop and starfuck my way to social media fame. Only $3000 more for Frank Kern’s course on pretending to give things away for free in order to create cognitive dissonance in customers and I’ve got lust, pride, and greed covered for only $6000.

Seeking fame certainly has a price, but usually it is not found in your wallet, but instead in how much it costs your soul:

“If you come to fame not understanding who you are, it will define who you are.” ~Oprah Winfrey

“Fame and tranquility can never be bedfellows.” ~Michel de Montaigne

One of Roeder’s “personal mentors” is Eben Pagan. Eben Pagan began his internet marketing career writing and lecturing as a pickup artist guru under the pseudonym David DeAngelo, using a fake name not unlike “Tyler.” Indeed Pagan even interviewed “Tyler” for his “Interviews with Dating Gurus” monthly CD series. (I know all this because I am not without sin myself! I purchased Pagan’s original eBook Double Your Dating as well as several other products. They always felt a bit sleazy to me, but seemed at the time like there were some good points amidst the slime. Now I’m not so sure.)

Pagan, like “Tyler,” teaches men to be “authentic” manipulators of women. He now makes over $20 million a year teaching men that women are “secretly wanting a man that is in control of himself, his reality, and them” (pg 13 of the Double Your Dating eBook, 2003 edition). Through his information products, Pagan teaches psychological tactics for controlling yourself, your reality, and other people–especially women, but also anyone whom you could get to give you money.

I wonder if Ms. Roeder, an independent businesswoman, would agree with her personal mentor Eben Pagan that she secretly just wants to be controlled by a man. In this social media interconnected age, there is no reason to guess, so I decided to just ask her on Twitter. I am eagerly awaiting her response. UPDATE FROM ROEDER: “I haven’t read anything from his dating business, doesn’t really apply to me! ” I guess Ms. Roeder is not a feminist then.

“Authentic” Marketing in a Culture of Lies

Whatever happened to simple honesty? Why the complex machinations of appearing to be authentic and “non-salesy”? I think it’s because of the ubiquitous matrix of lies our culture has become. We no longer trust marketing messages because we know we are being lied to, and we have become numb to all the lies that we no longer even get upset. Like “Tyler,” we have stopped caring.

Within marketing, the new buzzword is “authenticity.” From a review of a popular marketing book entitled Authenticity: What Consumers Really Want, we learn that…

“Goods and services are no longer enough,” the authors state in the introduction. What customers want today are experiences … But in a world increasingly filled with deliberately and sensationally staged experiences — an increasingly unreal world — consumers choose to buy or not buy based on how real they perceive an offering to be.

“Business today, therefore, is all about being real. Original. Genuine. Sincere. Authentic.”

Here we see the ideal of consumer hedonism in the notion that customers want authentic experiences, experiences that are crafted by marketers to be perceived as authentic. Perception is reality after all, right? This new Starbucks that appears to be an “authentic” locally owned coffee shop has already convinced a customer that “the culture is pushing back from the corporate establishment and moving toward more organic, small business.” This is of course the exact opposite of what is occurring, which is that the corporate establishment is pretending to be more like organic, small business, and successfully fooling us!

The notion of “personal branding” is an extension of the notion of the “authentic” brand to the selling of the self. Personal branding rigidifies the projected self-image, cultivating an appearance of authenticity in order to sell a product or service. Personal branding is currently quite popular amongst those in personal development, and is usually spoken of as equivalent to authenticity, as if managing how others view you is the height of being yourself!

Like the customer of the fake-authentic starbucks, we are being fooled by fake-authentic personal brands. A brand is a carefully crafted image that a company presents to the public in order to control the responses people have when they think about the company. Branding is pure public relations, and most people know and accept that brands (and the logos and taglines that are part of them) are generally empty of any real meaning.

“Tyler’s” personal brand is “authenticity.” He looks like he thinks you want an authentic badboy womanizer to look like, based on cultural ideas of what this means. Perhaps the deep and authentic selves we are seeking to find and create are just simulacra. As Gertrude Stein said about Oakland, “the trouble…is that when you get there, there isn’t any there there.” Can we really throw off the cultural conditioning we are so desperately trying to escape?

[Thanks go to MrTeaCup for the articles on Starbucks and fake-authenticity, as well as seeding many of my recent thoughts on this subject. Follow him on Twitter for more great Zizek-inspired social commentary.]

Your thoughtful and intelligent commentary is encouraged in the comments below. Stay tuned for part 2, “Personal Branding and the Standardizing of the Self,” to be posted tomorrow (probably).

Please help us become famous internet millionaire pick-up artists advocates for intelligent dialogue in personal development culture by spreading the word via Twitter, Facebook, etc. if you feel moved. Also subscribe for free if you haven’t already for more articles like this.