Wikipedia says there’s a debate about whether authenticity is a measure of the things you do or the way you do them. The former definition strikes me as degenerate: surely violating the rules of society just to be cool is not what anyone means by “authentic”. Non-conventional behaviour only appears authentic to the casual third party who doesn’t consider the possible benefits. So authenticity looks like a virtue ethical system: the reasons justify the ends.

Development of authenticity in a person could be similar to morality:

1. do whatever is easiest
2. do what everybody else is doing
3. do things for your own reasons

Apparently the authentic = counterculture definition came from the idea that Western society is inherently inauthentic, so anything against Western society must be authentic. But subcultures create and maintain themselves through appeals to specific authenticities, so it must be relative. An action is authentic if and only if the person doing the action has “pure” intent. Purity is a measure of adherence to a culture’s values.

Striving for authenticity is either trying to get at the “soul” of your culture, or trying to avoid inauthentic impulses that have infected your culture (such as from the dominant culture). Either way, it’s still within and relative to your place in culture.

Cravings for authenticity are not sacred, they’re just a cravings to be the best, deepest sheep. If you buy the rejection of authenticity you have three options:

1. accept that your culture is a game and decide to win it
2. decide to worship inauthenticity instead
3. stop considering some reasons for doing things better than others