AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP

Authentic leadership

Authentic leadership

Introduction

The concept of authenticity -- the idea of `being oneself' or being `true to oneself' -- is central to modern moral thought. Yet it is a puzzling notion. This article discusses two accounts of it. Essentialism holds that each individual has a `true' nature or self. Feelings and actions are authentic when theycorrespond to this nature. This approachis contrasted with views of the self as a complex entity in which all parts are essential, and in which authenticity involves the harmonious functioning of all parts together. This approach is illustrated from Freud and Plato, and defended against the chargeof conservatism (Marcuse) andthepostmodernist rejectionof the very idea of an integral self (Rorty).

The Idea of an essential Life

This then is the modern moral concept of authenticity. What is involved in it? What is meant by it? I will first sketch out two contrasting kinds of answers to these questions; then I will indicate reasons for preferring the second of these and defend it from some common criticisms.

The firstsort of theoryinterprets the concept of authenticityin termsof the ideathat there is an `essential human nature' or `true self' which is located in each individual. This provides a

standard against which the authenticityof our actions, feelings or thoughts canbe assessed. I am

being authentic or true to myself when I am following my true self or essential nature. The

concept of truth involved here is the familiaroneof correspondencetoagivenobjective standard.

I am being true to myself to the extent to which my thoughts and actions correspond to my true

self.

Such an account may take different forms. Perhaps the most familiar is the hedonist

approach of simple instinct theory. According to this, we are pleasure-seeking pain-avoiding

creatures, driven by our instincts. These embody our true nature, which is purelyindividual and

self-interested. To some extent, therefore, these instincts have to be restrained and controlledfor

the sake of social life.

An influential account of the self along these lines is given by Freud, particularly in the earlier phase of his work, up to the end of World War I. In this period Freud views the self as divided into two main parts: the conscious and the unconscious. Only a small part of our psychologyis conscious. The larger unconscious part is the seat of the instincts, thedetermining forces of human life. At birth our instincts seek satisfaction in an uninhibited and unconstrained manner. We are governed by the pleasure principle. As a result of socialization we come to moderate our actions and thoughts. Our instincts are subjected to restraint and repression due to the demandsof `civilization' and `civilized' morality. The`realityprinciple' takes charge. Manyof our instinctive wishes are repressed. Important aspects ofour real desires and feelings B our true selves B aredenied active expressionand driven into theunconscious. Our consciousactions and thoughts become false and inauthentic.

Writers such as Reich (1968) and Marcuse (n.d.), for example, interpret Freud's workasimplying a critique of conventional morality for its repressive impact upon the essential, instinctive self. Similar views are forcefully expressed by Nietzsche. He portrays human beings as primarily creatures instinct and ...