authenticity is bullshit
‘Rather
than seeking primarily to arrive at accurate representations of a common world,
the individual turns toward trying to provide honest representations of
himself.
It is
as though he decides that since it makes no sense to try to be true to the facts,
he must therefore try instead to be true to himself.
[But]
there is nothing in theory, and certainly nothing in experience, to support the
extraordinary judgment that it is the truth about himself that is the easiest
for a person to know.
Our
natures are, indeed, elusively insubstantial—notoriously less stable and less
inherent than the natures of other things.
And
insofar as this is the case, sincerity itself is bullshit.’
The above is a shortened version of the
closing remarks from Harry G. Frankfurt’s famous philosophy essay ‘On Bullshit’, first published in 1986 and still widely regarded as the closest
thing we have to unified theory of bullshit.
‘Sincerity
itself is bullshit’
Those closing remarks of Frankfurt’s theory
sprang to mind as we noticed an article on Salon.com this week entitled ‘Let’s all be a lot less Honest’ in which author R. Jay Magill Jr. asked
if it's time to:
‘...drop our authenticity
fetish and get real about the neglected art of playing social roles’.
Magill’s article begins by addressing a
piece by Duke University law professor Jedediah Purdy, in The Daily Beast entitled ‘Why Your Waiter Hates You’, in which
Purdy argues that modern capitalism performs:
‘...a pervasive intrusion on a key aspect of autonomy: the right to be yourself.’
Purdy means that many workers - low paid service workers e.g. waiters and
waitresses - are being extorted because they have to be nice to customers (presenting a
public self) in order to receive tips for insatnce, even though the act makes them betray
their real feelings (their private self).
Magill, however, contests this and argues
that to keep the private self and public self separate does not demean the latter
just because it is not ‘real’ or ‘authentic’.
He goes on to state that ‘the public self is as real as the private
self; it is our overvaluation of the latter that has thrown the long-standing
importance of the former into doubt.’
It is this idea of the overvaluation of the
‘private’ or ‘authentic’ self that crosses over into some of the popular ideas
in what seems to represent a significant portion of modern branding and
advertising theory.
Scarcely a week goes by without the deluge
of articles from marketing experts and commentators (most commonly from the digerati, curiously) demanding authenticity from
brands.
That a
brand should ‘provide honest and authentic representation of itself.’
And if that’s not enough, it’s claimed in
some quarters that these authentic brands should not even be concerned with the
grubby business of making a sale!
I’m not sure what industry some of these
people think they are in.
It is widely claimed that rather than being simply social and transactional brands should instead be concerned with
seeking a deep connection, engaging on a personal level with the individual.
And that advertising which attempts to put
memorable campaigns in front of mass audiences with the intention of getting a
brand thought of momentarily the next time the consumer wants to buy from the
category, is somehow inauthentic.
The commentators who espouse this theory
seem very certain that this is the way forward for brands, yet there is scant
evidence that any consumers out there even want to engage with brands at all, and
even thinking about brands is something that most people spend very little
mental energy over.
It's worth noting - with some irony - that many of those commentators who demand this of 'brand authenticity' are among the worst bullshit offenders.
Returning to Frankfurt's text briefly...
It's worth noting - with some irony - that many of those commentators who demand this of 'brand authenticity' are among the worst bullshit offenders.
Returning to Frankfurt's text briefly...
'Bullshit is unavoidable whenever
circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about.
Thus the production of bullshit is
stimulated whenever person’s obligations or opportunities to speak about some
topic exceed his knowledge of the facts that are relevant to that topic.
This discrepancy is common in [marketing journals],
where people are frequently impelled—whether by their own propensities or by
the demands of others—to speak extensively about matters of which they are to
some degree ignorant.'
This clamour for authenticity from brands
seems also to be connected to what Magill describes in his article as the ideology of intimacy.
‘The
ideology of intimacy promotes the idea that social relationships are only real,
authentic and meaningful the closer they approach the inner life and
vulnerabilities of a person.
[It] encourages
ever-increasing closeness - between people, nations and cultures - and decries
interpersonal or intercultural distance as cold, fake, distant or aloof.
This
assumption runs so deep in culture that we no longer see it, let alone question
its worth.’]
But do we really need this ideology of
intimacy to dominate the discourse around brands and consumer relationships?
Magill concludes ‘social culture is only “cold” or “distant” if you go in to social
interactions expecting warm and fuzzy feelings from people you do not know.’
It works in both directions too.
Modern marketers have a misguided obsession with knowing the details of consumers' private lives (principally driven by that other marketer fetish; big data) - believing this will make their efforts more effective.
In a social and market context however, impersonal behaviours are far more useful, simply because they create 'a boundary between one’s real feelings and the impersonal world of transactions'.
The principal difficulty with the brand authenticity lobby is that it crosses the streams.
If you're familiar with Ghostbusters then you will understand just how problematic this is...
As Dan Ariely pointed to in Predictably irrational, we live simultaneously in two different
worlds.
One where social norms prevail, and the other governed by market norms.
'Social norms are wrapped up in our social
nature and our need for community. They are usually warm and fuzzy. Instant
paybacks are not required: you may help move your neighbour’s couch, but this
doesn’t mean he has to come right over and move yours.
The second world, the one governed by
market norms, is very different. There’s nothing warm and fuzzy about it. The exchanges
are sharp- edged: wages, prices, rents, interest, and costs- and- benefits.
Such market relationships are not necessarily evil or mean-in fact, they also
include self- reliance, inventiveness, and individualism-but they do imply
comparable benefits and prompt payments'.
Emotional honesty may be a nice personal
quality to have, but it has nothing to do with solving anyone’s washing powder
problem, and by keeping things on a ‘social relation’ level – with all it’s
inherent fake-ness – is a more authentic relationship than any sincerity
bullshit.
Have a nice day.
Rather than pursuing the futile quest for brand authenticity we’d all (brands and consumers) be perfectly happy with brands that are ‘impersonal, but friendly’ (a phrase coined by social historian Peter Stearns about the American smile’) and allow us to transact without crossing the streams.
Have a nice day.
