5. Contents
1 Authenticity: A Polemical Concept 1
1.1 Introduction 2
1.2 What Is Authenticity? 3
1.3 Etymologies of “Authenticity” 4
1.4 The Historical Development of the Concept
of Authenticity 6
1.5 Authenticity Now 9
1.6 Conclusions 11
References 11
2 The Concept of Authenticity in the Broader Literature 15
2.1 Introduction 15
2.2 Art and Authenticity 16
2.3 The Concept of Authenticity in Philosophy 20
2.3.1 Authenticity in Greek Philosophy 21
2.3.2 Authenticity in the Modern Philosophy 23
2.3.3 The Concept of Authenticity in Existentialist
Philosophy 26
2.4 Authenticity in Sociology 29
2.4.1 The Institutional Theory Perspective 32
2.5 Authenticity in Psychology 33
2.6 Conclusions 34
References 36
v
6. vi CONTENTS
3 Authenticity in Marketing: Reality or Oxymoron? 41
3.1 Introduction 41
3.2 Conceptualizations of Authenticity in the Marketing
and Tourism Literature 43
3.2.1 Authenticity as an Intrinsic Attribute
of Objects: The Modernist/Objectivist Perspective 44
3.2.2 Authenticity as a Subjective Perception:
The Constructivist, Postmodernist,
and Existentialist Perspectives 47
3.2.3 Negotiated Approaches to Authenticity 50
3.3 Conceptualizations of Authenticity in the Marketing
Literature 52
3.4 Definitions of Authenticity in the Marketing Literature 53
3.5 Classifications of Authenticity 60
3.6 Conclusions 64
References 66
4 Building Authenticity: The Managerial Perspective 73
4.1 Introduction 73
4.2 Authenticity in Branding 75
4.3 Authenticity in Advertising 77
4.4 Authenticity in Public Relations and Communication
Studies 79
4.5 Authenticity in Tourism 81
4.6 The Manager Perspective: A Qualitative Study 82
4.7 Methodology 83
4.8 Results 83
4.8.1 Aura 83
4.8.2 Back to the Origins (Arcadia) 84
4.8.3 Antinomy 85
4.8.4 Allegory 86
4.9 Managerial Implications 87
4.10 Conclusions 88
References 90
5 Authenticity: Is It Really What Consumers Want? 95
5.1 Introduction 95
5.2 Authenticity in Consumer Culture 96
5.3 Consumer Perceptions of Authenticity in Adventures 103
5.4 Authenticity in Communication 104
7. CONTENTS vii
5.5 Consumer Perceptions of Authenticity in Tourism 105
5.6 The Measurement of Consumer Perceived Authenticity 106
5.7 How Do Consumers Define Authenticity? A Study
on Consumers 109
5.8 Conclusion 112
References 113
6 The Study of Authenticity: Implications and Future
Research 119
6.1 Introduction 120
6.2 Conceptual Gaps in Marketing Literature
on Authenticity 120
6.2.1 Issue #1: Prevalence of a Modernist
Conceptualization of Authenticity 121
6.2.2 Issue #2: Absence of a Generalizable
Definition of Authenticity 122
6.2.3 Issue #3: Predominance of a Taxonomic
Approach to the Concept of Authenticity 124
6.2.4 Issue #4: Partial Inclusion of the Dimensions
of Authenticity Identified in the Broader
Literature 125
6.2.5 Issue #5: Marketing Research Does
not Address the Active and Co-Creative Role
of the Consumer in Constructing Authenticity 129
6.2.6 Issue #6: Marketing Research Adopted
an Institutional Perspective on Authenticity 131
6.2.7 Issue #7: Marketing Research Does not Address
the Experiential Nature of Authenticity 132
6.3 Methodological Issues 133
6.3.1 Issue #1: Research Methodologies to Study
Authenticity Are Mainly Modernist 133
6.3.2 Issue #2: Authenticity is Studied in Very
Specific Contexts of Analysis 134
6.3.3 Issues #3: Lack of an Operational Definition
of Authenticity 135
6.3.4 Issue #4: The Study of Relationships Among
Factors of Authenticity is Scant 136
6.3.5 Issue #5: Soundness of the Measures 138
9. List of Tables
Table 1.1 Etymologies of “authenticity” 7
Table 1.2 Conceptualizations of authenticity in different historical
phases 9
Table 2.1 Etymologies of authenticity and related dimensions 35
Table 2.2 Characteristics of modernist, constructivist,
and postmodernist approaches 36
Table 3.1 Dichotomous classifications of authenticity 62
Table 3.2 Classification of authenticity 64
Table 4.1 Dimensions of authenticity for an index or scale
of authenticity 80
Table 5.1 Authentic brands 110
Table 5.2 Inauthentic brands 111
ix
11. 2 M. MASSI
1.1 Introduction
The notion of authenticity is one of the most debated across different
disciplines and fields and has been the subject of myriad conceptualiza-
tions in the broader literature to the point that “there are as many defi-
nitions of authenticity as there are those who write about it” (Erickson,
1995: 123). Some scholars have emphasized the inherent paradoxes of
the notion (Straub, 2012) and have criticized the concept of authenticity
as being a hoax (Potter, 2010). Authenticity has been described as an
exclusionist notion and “a contrastive term” (Potter, 2010: 6), apophati-
cally defined by what it is not, not by what it is, and incapable of picking
out the “real properties in the world” (Potter, 2010: 14).
In fact, the notion of authenticity, as developed in other disciplines, is
only partially employed or considered in the work of marketing scholars,
who have often neglected insights contributed from other fields (Granville
Starr, 2011). There is therefore a need to go back to the broader literature
on authenticity in disciplines outside of marketing to examine how the
notion was originally conceptualized and developed in order to gain a
better understanding of the complexity of the concept (Rose & Wood,
2005).
Authors have often stressed the difficulty of defining such a multi-
dimensional concept in an unequivocal way. Trilling (1972: 11), for
instance, observed that “the word authenticity comes so readily to the
tongue these days and in so many connections that it may very well resist
such efforts of definition”. For Jacobson (2007: 295) “the definition must
be sufficiently open to embrace the fact that the term is infused with
meaning by every living person in his or her unique way”. Golomb (1995:
12) took a more pessimistic stance on authenticity, stating that it “defines
itself as lacking any definition”.
Dutton (2003: 258) was likely correct to argue that “‘authentic’ like
its near-relations, ‘real’, ‘genuine’, and ‘true’ is what J. L. Austin called
a ‘dimension word’, a term whose meaning remains uncertain until we
know what dimension of its referent is being talked about”. Owing to
the controversial nature of its etymology, the word “authenticity” has
experienced both terminological and conceptual confusion over the years.
An article recently published in Harvard Business Review defines
authenticity as a paradoxical concept with reference to leadership. In fact,
“a too-rigid definition of authenticity can get in the way of effective
leadership” (Ibarra, 2015: 4).
12. 1 AUTHENTICITY: A POLEMICAL CONCEPT 3
This chapter will review some of the various etymologies of the term
“authenticity” to trace its historical and cultural evolution. Such a study is
particularly important because it will allow us to recognize what meanings
and dimensions of the concept have been preferred in the common use
of the language and in different disciplines. In particular, the chapter will
examine how the concept of authenticity has been conceptualized in the
arts, philosophy, sociology, and psychology, since these disciplines provide
interesting insights that could be developed and employed in the field of
marketing.
1.2 What Is Authenticity?
To gain a preliminary idea of the terminological redundancy, it is prac-
tical to examine how most popular English dictionaries define the term.
Such a review reveals that the term has accumulated a mare magnum of
meanings over centuries. The Oxford English Dictionary (1997: 45), for
instance, defines the noun “authenticity” as (1) “Being authoritative or
duly authorized”; (2) “Being what it professes in origin or authorship, as
being genuine”; (3)“Being real, actual”; (4) “Being entitled to acceptance
or belief, accordance with fact, or as stating fact, reliable, trustworthy, of
established credit”. Although these expressions have overlapping mean-
ings, they have been employed heterogeneously in very different contexts
and disciplines.
In addition, publications on authenticity have expanded the meaning
of the term. For instance, Boyle (2003) included terms such as ethical,
natural, honest, simple, unspun, sustainable, beautiful, rooted, and
human. Similarly, Potter (2008) pointed out that “authenticity these days
appears to have something to do with ideas like organic and natural
and artisanal and local”. The rationale behind such a clutter of mean-
ings is that the word “authenticity” has more than one etymon, resulting
in different interpretations of the term. Thus, scholars have emphasized
different aspects or nuances of the term in each instance.
The etymology of a term is not only the research of the true and
genuine (or authentic) meaning of a word/expression (i.e., the eτυμoς
= étymos) but also a tool of cultural and historical research (Crevatin,
2002). To trace the evolution of the term and to understand its applica-
tions to the marketing field, it is necessary to go back to the origins of
the word and outline what aspects of the authenticity concept have been
emphasized or neglected over the years and how the focus on different
13. 4 M. MASSI
etymons has affected the development of definitions of authenticity in
various fields. It is certainly paradoxical that the “authentic” etymology
of the word “authenticity” is still neither clear nor well-defined.
However, it is important to keep in mind that authenticity is an opposi-
tional notion (Trilling, 1972) because, as Dutton (2003: 259) observed,
“whenever the term ‘authentic’ is used in aesthetics, a good first ques-
tion to ask is, Authentic as opposed to what?” Consequently, authenticity
is often defined apophatically (or via negativa) by stating what it is not
rather than what it is. Going back to the “authentic” meaning of “authen-
ticity” is not only a linguistic meta-exercise or a pun but also an obligated
choice to understand the essence of such a critical concept that has gained
increasing attention in popular culture.
1.3 Etymologies of “Authenticity”
A review of the literature reveals four main etymons of the term “authen-
ticity”. Based on the first etymology, “authenticity” derives from the
Greek adjective αÙθεντικóς (authentikòs), which is made up of autos (self)
and entos (inside). Thus, the first meaning of authenticity is “truth to
oneself”, broadly speaking (Trilling, 1972). “Authentic” therefore means
“our true self, our individual existence, not as we might present it to
others, but as it ‘really is’, apart from any roles we play” (Handler, 1986:
3).
This etymology is rooted in ancient Greek philosophy, particularly in
the maxim “Know thyself” (γνîθι σεαυτóν), the famous inscription in
the forecourt of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, which is also credited
to Socrates (469 BC–399 BC). The tenet of “Know thyself” represents
a topos or leitmotif in philosophy and literature. For instance, in Shake-
speare’s (1997) Hamlet (Act 1, scene 3, 78–82), the character of Polonius
pronounces the famous maxim “To thine own self be true” as a piece of
advice to his son Laertes.
In practice, authenticity as “truth to oneself” is based on a criterion
of “identity or correspondence (content)” (Lindholm, 2008: 2). This
meaning also reveals a link to the issue of the ambiguity of human nature,
a subject that many authors and writers have dealt with in the literature
(e.g., Dostoevsky, 1985 [1865]; Pirandello, 1926; Shakespeare, 1997;
Stevenson, 1886) and that has been very emphatically summarized by the
French poet Rimbaud (1871) with his famous statement “Je est un autre”
(“I is someone else”). Moreover, the etymology of authenticity as “truth
14. 1 AUTHENTICITY: A POLEMICAL CONCEPT 5
to oneself” has favored the development of authenticity as a subjective or
personal characteristic.
Based on the second etymology of the term, “authenticity” derives
from the Greek verb αÙθεντεω (authenteo), meaning “having mastery
of” or “to have full power over” (Trilling, 1972). The corresponding
noun αÙθεντία (authentia) means authority (auctoritas in Latin), while
αÙϑšντης (from autos = self + hentes = doer, being) stands for author,
i.e., one acting on one’s own authority or having authority on him/herself
(Trilling, 1972). In this sense, authenticity refers both to authority
as authorship and originality (i.e., authentic is something that has the
authority of its original creator), and to legitimacy, i.e., something is
authentic because it has been “duly authorized, certified, or legally valid”
(Bruner, 1994: 400).
This etymology, however, remains controversial and debatable. An
example of such an uncertainty is represented by the considerable debate
that scholars have had over the last twenty years on the meaning of the
verb αÙθεντεω in Saint Paul’s first epistle to Timothy in the New Testa-
ment. The verb αÙθεντεω appears in its infinitive form (αÙθεντε‹ν) only
once within the New Testament and is therefore regarded as a hápax legó-
menon. The extract, in which the verb appears, is particularly meaningful
because it refers to the role of women in the Church. In the first epistle,
Saint Paul stated “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority
over (=αÙθεντε‹ν) a man. She must remain quiet”. The Greek verb has
been translated as “exercise authority” in most English Bible translations;
however, there is no agreement on the meaning of the word, which has
had a problematic lexical history. Perriman (1993: 137) concluded that:
It is ‘authorship’, not ‘authority’, that is at the heart of the meaning of
αÙθεντšω. This distinction is crucial. The idea of authority comes into play
only when the object of the verb is not an action or state of affairs but
a person: one cannot ‘author’ a person, but one can exercise an ad hoc
authority over a person in such a way that he or she becomes instrumental
in bringing about an action or state of affairs.
This etymology also evokes some of the violent meanings associated with
authenticity. As Trilling (1972: 131) explained, αÙθεντεω also means “to
commit a murder”, and αÙϑšντης stands for a “perpetrator, a murderer,
even a self-murderer, a suicide”. According to Bendix (1997: 14), “such
etymological layers need not reverberate fully in the present usage of the
15. 6 M. MASSI
term, although the violence caused in the name of, say, ethnic or reli-
gious authenticity are painful present-day realizations of such old Greek
meanings”.
The third etymology of “authentic” is handcraft (from autos =
himself and éntea = arms), which means “made by one’s own hands”,
thus linking authenticity to the dimension of originality. The fourth
etymology of authenticity links authenticity to “thesis”. According to
Ferrara (1997), “authentikós” derives from the conjunction between
“eautón” and “theto”, which in turn has the same root as “thesis”. In
this sense, authenticity means to “posit themselves” or “to set them-
selves as a thesis” (Ferrara, 1997: 81). As the author explained, positing
oneself is “the capacity to express that uniqueness which has been socially
constituted through the singularity of the formative contexts but which
no formative social context as such can enjoin us to express” (Ferrara,
1997: 81). Thus Ferrara (1997: 84) conceived authenticity as a kind of
synecdoche that brings together “the universal with the particular aspects
of an identity”. This etymology brings about two further dimensions of
the concept of authenticity, i.e., uniqueness and difference.
The complexity of the etymology of authenticity has led to multiple
uses of the term in different fields, resulting in ambiguous meanings
(Golomb, 1995). In general, the “truth to oneself” dimension has been
stressed in existentialist philosophy and psychology, which study how
individuals relate to their self and to their ability to behave authentically.
Authority as originality and legitimacy, instead, has been mainly
stressed in fields such as the arts, where the authenticity of objects is
assessed as compliance with reference standards. Table 1.1 illustrates the
meanings that can be traced back to different etymons of authenticity.
1.4 The Historical Development
of the Concept of Authenticity
Authenticity has been defined as a historically and culturally embedded
concept because “any attempt to trace the concept’s meaning across time
constantly encounters problems of definition” (Erickson, 1995: 123).
Thus, a chronological approach would be appropriate to trace back
the different uses of the concept. In particular, three main historical
stages can be identified: the Ancient era (Premodernity), Modernity, and
Postmodernity.
16. 1 AUTHENTICITY: A POLEMICAL CONCEPT 7
Table 1.1 Etymologies of “authenticity”
Etymologies of authenticity Meanings Criteria
αÙθεντικóς (authenticós) True to oneself Identity or correspondence
(content)
αÙθεντεω (authentèo) Authorship/Originality Genealogical historical
(origin)
To have mastery of, to have
full power over
Power/legitimacy
αÙτóς (autós)
+
éntea (arms)
Made by one’s own hands,
craft
Genealogical historical
(origin)
εαυτóν (eautón) and
“theto”
Posit oneself or, set oneself
as a thesis
Separation
Authenticity is considered a Western cultural concept (Handler, 1986)
that emerged as a subjective notion in Ancient Greece. The Greek
philosophical ideal of being true to oneself can indeed be related to
authenticity. In particular, the Socratic Method leads to authenticity of
the self through the art of maieutic. As a midwife (μα‹α = maia), Socrates
helped his disciples give birth to their authentic selves. In the ancient
world, philosophers believed that the real or authentic self of an indi-
vidual was his or her soul. For instance, Saint Augustine (354–430 A.D.)
posited: “Do not look outside yourself but turn, rather, inside yourself.
In the inner man dwells truth” (De Vera Religione, 39, 72). Thus, the
notion of authenticity, as developed by the Ancient World philosophers,
can be conceptualized as “truth to oneself”.
The modern meaning of authenticity emerged with the shift from
the medieval to the modern world (Trilling, 1972). In the Middle
Ages, individuals did not experience tension with regard to their social
roles (Baumeister, 1987; Kellner, 1992) because there was no separa-
tion between the private self and the public self. Starting from 1650,
with the advent of modernity and the diffusion of empiricism as the
main epistemological paradigm, the congruency between the individu-
al’s outer position and the individual’s inner or true self became critical.
Whether or not the individual was living authentically became an issue
for the first time (Handler, 1986). At the same time, individuals began
to think that their real selves could be hidden from other individuals, and
not correspond necessarily to the role they played in society. The works of
17. 8 M. MASSI
Shakespeare and Machiavelli show this incongruence between the private
and the public identity of individuals (Kellner, 1992).
The development of capitalism, the disintegration of feudalism, and
the resulting loss of the importance of Christianity put into crisis the
value that dominated the premodern era, i.e., sincerity. In fact, authen-
ticity came into play “to suggest the deficiencies of sincerity and to
usurp its place in our esteem” (Trilling, 1972: 12). The etymology
of “sincerity” (from Latin sine cera = without wax, thus not adulter-
ated/sophisticated) suggests that the word originally referred to objects
(Trilling, 1972). Alternatively, with respect to individuals, sincerity refers
to the correspondence between “the public appearance of the person and
the inner self that is presumed to be hidden behind or underneath that
appearance” (Baumeister, 1987: 165). “Sincere”, in this sense, is synony-
mous with “genuine”, “true”, and “honest” (Golomb, 1995). Although
Erickson (1995) warned of confusing sincerity with authenticity, sincerity
(or genuineness) is usually considered as a dimension of authenticity.
Unlike sincerity, authenticity is a self-referential (Erickson, 1995;
Trilling, 1972) and inward-looking notion (Jones, 2010). In fact, if
sincerity corresponds to being true to others, authenticity corresponds
to being true to oneself and therefore represents:
A more strenuous moral experience than “sincerity” does, a more exigent
conception of the self and of what being true to it consists in, a wider
reference to the universe and man’s place in it, and a less acceptant and
genial view of the social circumstances of life. (Trilling, 1972: 12)
During the Enlightenment era, the notion of authenticity was linked to
objective thinking (Taylor, 1991). Enlightenment thinkers emphasized
rationality and logic and as a consequence, authenticity was interpreted
as an objective quality of things based on the Cartesian dualism between
object and subject (res extensa vs. res cogitans).
With the advent of nineteenth-century Romanticism, the modern
conception of the self was characterized by an emphasis on self-reflexivity
and on “the self being positioned as the Archimedean point of exis-
tence” (Rae, 2010: 25). This shift in the conception of the self led
to increased importance attributed to feelings and emotions in human
affairs. A romantic notion of authenticity was therefore introduced,
emphasizing the virtues of creativity, genius, intuition, imagination, and
feelings. Romantic poets and later existentialist philosophers (Heidegger
18. 1 AUTHENTICITY: A POLEMICAL CONCEPT 9
Table 1.2 Conceptualizations of authenticity in different historical phases
Historical phases Concept of authenticity Dimensions of
authenticity
Premodern Era Philosophical ideal of being
true to oneself
Truth to oneself or
Self-reflexivity
Middle Ages Medieval connection between
authenticity and authority
Authority (legitimacy)
Modernity/Enlightenment Authenticity as an objective
characteristic of objects
Authority (originality)
Romanticism/Existentialism Romantic notions of artistic
originality and creativity
Self-reflexivity as
Creativity
Postmodernity Authenticity is a myth in a
world where it is impossible
to distinguish between the
originals and copies
/
and Sartre, for example) rejected the “unnatural and alienated perceived
modern social order” characterized by the urban, industrial environment
and mass production (Aupers et al., 2010: 4). Rousseau (1712–1778)
anticipated this stance in his glorification of the noble savage who is in
touch with his natural instincts.
A final conceptualization of authenticity comes out of postmodernism.
One of the consequences of the advent of the postmodern era is the
crisis of universally established grand metanarratives (Lyotard, 1984).
In the postmodern context, there is no one single universal reality or
worldview, but many different Weltanschauung, which are all legitimate
and acceptable. As a result of such “incredulity toward metanarratives”
(Lyotard, 1984: XXIV), there is a shift from one objectively and univer-
sally established episteme to multiple subjective stories or myths. As a
result, postmodern thinkers (Featherstone, 1991; Firat & Schultz, 1997;
Kellner, 1992) contend that authenticity does not exist anymore since it
is impossible to distinguish between the original and its multiple copies
(Lyotard, 1984). Table 1.2 summarizes the different conceptualizations
of authenticity throughout various historical phases.
1.5 Authenticity Now
The history of authenticity shows how the concept has evolved from
a desired state of being (true to oneself) to something unattainable (a
postmodern myth). The notion of authenticity has taken on increasing
19. 10 M. MASSI
importance in contemporary society where the technological and digital
revolutions have gradually corroded the sacred aura of originals or proto-
types (Benjamin, 2008 [1936]), providing copies with new legitimacy. In
fact, the need for authenticity is currently emerging as a growing concern
for individuals.
A clear sign of this phenomenon is the shift of the concept of authen-
ticity from the realm of high culture (such as the fine arts or philosophy)
to that of contemporary popular or low culture.
Popular culture is full of references to the human need for authen-
ticity. Novels abound with characters dealing with the issue of authen-
ticity and the authentic self, such as Flaubert’s (1965 [1857]) Madame
Bovary or Stevenson’s (1886) Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Film directors
such as Ingmar Bergman (1918–2007) have dealt extensively with the
topic of authenticity, analyzing and contrasting between the authentic
and the inauthentic in movies such as Persona (1966) or Fanny and
Alexander (1982). In 1998, the Academy award-winning film The
Truman Show brought to the audience’s attention the theme of authentic
life. Conversely, reality television shows can be paradoxically read as a need
for more authenticity in the broadcasting industry (Rose & Wood, 2005).
Contemporary social media such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and
Tumblr have been increasingly used as a means to gather authentic narra-
tives around identity since they allow for a more authentic disclosure of
individuals’ perceptions and feelings (Henderson & Bowley, 2010). Even
advertising campaigns are based on the “rhetoric of real” (Duffy, 2013).
Launching the “Real Beauty” campaign developed by Ogilvy &
Mather in 2004, Dove has been one of the first brands to jump on the
authenticity bandwagon. By promoting an authentic, therefore imper-
fect, female body based on the payoff “Everybody is beautiful”, Dove
has fulfilled consumer need for authenticity.
Consumers are more and more interested in authentic, uncon-
taminated, and real consumption experiences, products, and services.
Increasing consumer interest in organic and non-adulterated foods, the
success of ecotourism and sustainable consumption practices, growing
consumer enthusiasm surrounding “retro brands” such as the Volk-
swagen New Beetle (Brown et al., 2003) and increasing preference for
“high touch” over “high tech” experiences and practices (Naisbitt, 1982)
provide but a few examples of such a tendency.
20. 1 AUTHENTICITY: A POLEMICAL CONCEPT 11
At present, individuals long for authenticity as they increasingly
struggle at distinguishing the real from the fake. Authenticity has become
the “word of the decade” (Byron, 2016).
1.6 Conclusions
The need for authenticity has not always been present. Its emergence is
in fact a “quintessentially a modern problem” (Gecas, 1994: 139). As
Feuerbach (1990 [1843]: xi) noted in the nineteenth century, the value
of authenticity has been appreciated with the advent of the modern age,
“which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original,
fancy to reality, the appearance to the essence” since “in these days illusion
only is sacred, truth profane”.
This chapter has described the evolution of the concept of authenticity:
from the philosophical ideal of being true to oneself in the premodern era
to the myth in the postmodern era where it is impossible to distinguish
between the originals and the copies. The evolution of the concept follows
the lines of an increasing popularization of authenticity that has emerged
as a topic in marketing and consumer culture.
References
Aupers, S., Houtman, D., & Roeland, J. (2010). Authenticiteit de Culturele
Obsessie met Echt en Onecht. Sociologie, 6(2), 3–10.
Baumeister, R. F. (1987). How the self became a problem: A psychological
review of historical research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
52(1), 163–176.
Bendix, R. (1997). In search of authenticity: The formation of folklore studies.
University of Wisconsin Press.
Benjamin, W. (2008 [1936]). The work of art in the age of mechanical
reproduction. In H. Arendt (Ed.), Illuminations (pp. 19–55). Fontana Press.
Boyle, D. (2003). Authenticity: Brands, fakes, spin and the lust for real life.
Harper Perennial.
Brown, S., Kozinets, R., & Sherry, J. (2003). Teaching old brands new tricks:
Retro branding and the revival of brand meaning. Journal of Marketing,
67 (3), 19–23.
Bruner, E. M. (1994). Abraham Lincoln as authentic reproduction: A critique of
postmodernism. American Anthropologist, 96(20), 397–415.
21. 12 M. MASSI
Byron, J. (2016). Brand authenticity: Is it for real? Three tips for marketers to
reach millennials by being truly authentic. Accessed 20 February 2023 from
https://adage.com/article/digitalnext/brand-authenticity-real/303191
Crevatin, F. (2002). L’Etimologia come Processo di Indagine Culturale. Dip
Mondo Classico.
Dostoevsky, F. (1985 [1865]). The double. Ardis.
Duffy, B. E. (2013). Manufacturing authenticity: The rhetoric of “real” in
women’s magazines. The Communication Review, 16(3), 132–154.
Dutton, D. (2003). Authenticity in art. In J. Levinson (Ed.), The Oxford
handbook of aesthetics (pp. 258–274). Oxford University Press.
Erickson, R. J. (1995). The importance of authenticity for self and society.
Symbolic Interaction, 18(2), 121–144.
Featherstone, M. (1991). Consumer culture and postmodernism. Sage.
Ferrara, A. (1997). Authenticity as a normative category. Philosophy and Social
Criticism, 23(3), 77–92.
Feuerbach, L. (1990 [1843]). The essence of Christianity. F. Ungar.
Firat, A. F., & Schultz, C. (1997). From segmentation to fragmentation: Markets
and marketing strategy in the postmodern era. European Journal of Marketing,
31(9/10), 183–207.
Flaubert, G. (1965 [1857]). Madame Bovary. Norton.
Gecas, V. (1994). In search of the real self: Problems of authenticity in modern
times. In G. M. Platt & C. Gordon (Eds.), Self, collective behavior and society
(pp. 139–154). Jai Press.
Golomb, J. (1995). In search of authenticity. Routledge.
Granville Starr, R. (2011). The certification of authenticity effects on product
perception (Doctoral Thesis). University of Auckland.
Handler, R. (1986). Authenticity. Anthropology Today, 2(1), 2–4.
Henderson, A., & Bowley, R. (2010). Authentic dialogue? The role of “friend-
ship” in a social media recruitment campaign. Journal of Communication
Management, 14(3), 237–257.
Ibarra, H. (2015). The authenticity paradox. Harvard Business Review, 93(1/2),
53–59.
Jacobson, B. (2007). Authenticity and our basic existential dilemmas: Foun-
dational concepts of existential psychology and therapy. Existential Analysis,
18(2), 288–296.
Jones, S. (2010). Negotiating authentic objects and authentic selves: Beyond the
deconstruction of authenticity. Journal of Material Culture, 15(2), 181–203.
Kellner, D. (1992). Popular culture and the construction of postmodern identi-
ties. In S. Lash & J. Friedman (Eds.), Modernity and identity (pp. 141–177).
Blackwell.
Lindholm, C. (2008). Culture and authenticity. Blackwell.
22. 1 AUTHENTICITY: A POLEMICAL CONCEPT 13
Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Manch-
ester University Press.
Naisbitt, J. (1982). Megatrends: Ten new directions transforming our lives. Warner
Books Inc.
Oxford English Dictionary. (1997). Authenticity. Oxford University Press.
Perriman, A. C. (1993). What eve did, what women shouldn’t do: The meaning
of Authenteo in 1Timothy 2 (12). Tyndale Bulletin, 44(1), 129–142.
Pirandello, L. (1926 [1992]). One, no one and one hundred thousand. Marsilio
Publishers.
Potter, A. (2008). Can one be authentic without being a snob? Maclean’s,
121(22).
Potter, A. (2010). The authenticity hoax: How we get lost finding ourselves. Scribe.
Rae, G. (2010). Alienation, authenticity and the self. History of the Human
Sciences, 23(4), 21–36.
Rimbaud, A. (1963 [1871]). Poésies Complètes. Gallimard.
Rose, R. L., & Wood, S. L. (2005). Paradox and the consumption of authenticity
through reality television. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(2), 284–296.
Shakespeare W. (1997). The tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. In G. Blake-
more Evans (Ed.), The riverside Shakespeare (pp. 1183–1245). Houghton
Mifflin.
Stevenson, R. L. (1886). The strange case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. London.
Straub, J. (2012). Introduction. The paradoxes of authenticity. In W. Funk (Ed.),
Paradoxes of authenticity: Studies on a critical concept (pp. 9–29). Zeitschrift
für Englische Philologie.
Taylor, C. (1991). The ethics of authenticity. Harvard University Press.
Trilling, L. (1972). Sincerity and authenticity. Harvard University Press.
24. 16 M. MASSI
In particular, the chapter will point out how the first usage of the
word authenticity is in the arts context, specifically in the museum “where
persons expert in such matters test whether objects of art are what they
appear to be or are claimed to be, and therefore worth the price that is
asked for them or, if this has already been paid, worth the admiration they
are being given” (Trilling, 1972: 93).
The chapter will outline two main perspectives on authenticity, namely
modernist and constructivist approaches. On the one hand, modernist
(or essentialist) approaches are rooted in positivism and are based on
the assumption that there exists only one universal truth that is achieved
through scientific measurement (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). On the other
hand, constructivist approaches are based on relativist ontology and
assume that reality is socially negotiated (Berger & Luckmann, 1967).
Based on these premises, the chapter will review the broader literature
on the concept of “authenticity” to identify some of the main themes
and dimensions of the concept and to garner a greater comprehension of
why and how varying approaches to and understandings of the concept
are relevant to the marketing field. This chapter will set the stage for the
following chapters, which focus on authenticity in marketing and related
subfields.
2.2 Art and Authenticity
The concept of authenticity has referred both to objects and to subjects.
While the development of authenticity as a subjective notion dates back
to ancient Greek philosophy, the authenticity of objects pertains to the art
world, particularly to fine arts and to the museum as a context. According
to Trilling (1972: 93), the first usage of the word authenticity is in the
museum,
Where persons expert in such matters test whether objects of art are what
they appear to be or are claimed to be, and therefore worth the price that
is asked for them or, if this has already been paid, worth the admiration
they are being given.
In the context of art and heritage, two main perspectives on authen-
ticity have emerged, namely modernist and constructivist approaches.
Modernist (or essentialist) approaches are rooted in positivism and are
based on the assumption that there exists only one universal truth that
25. 2 THE CONCEPT OF AUTHENTICITY IN THE BROADER … 17
is achieved through scientific measurement (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). On
the other hand, constructivist approaches are based on relativist ontology
and assume that reality is socially negotiated (Berger & Luckmann, 1967).
Modernist perspectives stress the dimension of originality. In this
sense, only original objects, as opposed to copies, are considered authentic
(Benjamin, 1936; Dutton, 2003). Under the modernist perspective, the
authenticity of an artwork depends upon and “requires a connection
to the artist, not necessarily the objective elements of the work itself”
(Moulard et al., 2014: 578).
No genuine reproduction can be considered authentic (Bruner, 1994)
because its origin (i.e., the unmediated contact with the author) cannot
clearly be traced. In addition, what makes an artwork authentic is its
“aura”, i.e., “a strange tissue of space and time; the unique apparition
of a distance, however near it may be” (Benjamin, 2008: 23/orig. 1936).
Thus, the aura provides objects with uniqueness, a characteristic lost in
the age of mechanical reproduction where infinite copies can be extracted
from an original prototype (Benjamin, 1936). The aura is the hic et nunc
(here and now) of an object, that is “its unique existence in a partic-
ular place”, which is missing “in even the most perfect reproduction”
(Benjamin, 2008: 21/orig. 1936). Similarly, Trilling (1972: 11) stated
the “here and now” rather than “some shadowy there and then” is a
dimension of authenticity, and Golomb (1995) argued that the authentic
self focuses on the present and “being-in-the-world”.
In addition, the aura of an object also carries a sacred value. As
Benjamin (2008: 24/orig. 1936) observed, “the unique value of the
authentic work of art always has its basis in ritual”. Before the Renais-
sance, art was always ritual or religious and then became increasingly
secular. Thus, Benjamin (1936) identified uniqueness as the main crit-
ical dimension of authenticity. Uniqueness, in turn, implies five semantic
areas or sub-dimensions, namely, Sacredness/Rituality, Exclusivity, Non-
Standardized Production, Exceptionality/Rarity, Scarcity and Hic et
Nunc. Indeed, an authentic object that is also unique is arguably exclu-
sive and not mass-produced. Being handcrafted, authentic objects are
also scarce and rare as opposed to commodified and mass-produced. In
addition to being unique, original objects are also perceived as “made
for eternity” (Benjamin, 2008: 27/orig. 1936). Longevity is therefore
another sub-dimension of authenticity. This also reflects the antinomy
between the world of ideas made for eternity and the ephemeral world
of copies as described by Plato (Nehamas, 1999).
26. 18 M. MASSI
Thus, modernist approaches to authenticity develop the dimensions
of originality (i.e., the unmediated relationship to the origin/source)
and uniqueness (the presence of the aura). They apply objective criteria
to distinguish between authentic and inauthentic objects. In this sense,
the separation (difference) dimension of authenticity is also addressed.
Authenticity deals with “the recognition of difference” (Fine, 2003: 155)
and has a differentiating function because authentic objects possess an
aura that inauthentic objects cannot afford (Benjamin, 1936).
The modernist perspective on authenticity is represented by the decla-
ration of UNESCO’s 1972 World Heritage Convention, which estab-
lished a “test of authenticity” that monuments and sites must pass in
order to be included on the World Heritage List. Authenticity was defined
based on four parameters: design, material, workmanship, and setting.
By contrast, constructivist approaches consider authenticity as a cultural
construct, regardless of the originality and uniqueness dimensions. A
reproduction can still be considered authentic (Bruner, 1994).
The Nara Document on Authenticity (1994), a 13-point docu-
ment prepared by international experts meeting in Nara, Japan, took a
constructive stance on authenticity, emphasizing that authenticity cannot
be assessed based on objective criteria. In particular, Article 11 of the
Nara Document stated:
All judgements about values attributed to heritage as well as the credibility
of related information sources may differ from culture to culture, and even
within the same culture. It is thus not possible to base judgements of
value and authenticity on fixed criteria. On the contrary, the respect due
to all cultures requires that cultural heritage must be considered and judged
within the cultural contexts to which it belongs.
Thus, the Nara Document shifted the focus from material parameters to
assess the authenticity of an object/site to the “conditions of authen-
ticity”, establishing a more relativist definition of authenticity based on
criteria such as “traditions, techniques, language and other forms of intan-
gible heritage, as well as spirit and feeling or other issues” (par. 82).
By pointing out the historical and cultural contingency of the concept
of authenticity (Jokilehto, 1995; Lowenthal, 1995), the Nara Document
marked a turning point in the conceptualization of authenticity in the art
field.
27. 2 THE CONCEPT OF AUTHENTICITY IN THE BROADER … 19
The modernist concept of authenticity is the foundation of indexical
authenticity (Grayson & Martinec, 2004) based on which an artwork is
deemed authentic only if its provenance can be proved. Indexical authen-
ticity is crucial in the art market as the price of an artwork depends on it.
There are plenty of examples of artworks that have been devaluated as a
consequence of the assessment of their inauthenticity. Recently, a major
Amedeo Modigliani exhibition at the Palazzo Ducale in Genoa, Italy, was
halted by the authorities three days before its planned closing because 21
out of the 30 works in the exhibit were forgeries.
Indexical authenticity is fundamental in the art market as prices are
determined based on it. An artwork which is proved to be a fake by
experts has no economic value just as the Rothko fake sold in New York
in 2004 for $8.3 million (Raymond, 2016).
Constructivist approaches to authenticity also conceptualize authen-
ticity as an emergent or in fieri notion (Cohen, 1988). In this sense,
authenticity is not a synonym for fixity, but rather for vitality, fluidity,
and dynamism. In fact, an original object can change and lose elements
of its aura over time and still be considered authentic, such as restored
artwork. In addition, constructivist approaches introduce a new dimen-
sion of authenticity, i.e., conformity. An object can be deemed authentic
if it conforms to or matches specific norms. Bruner (1994) identified
two types of conformity, i.e., historical verisimilitude and genuineness.
An authentic reproduction is authentic not because it is an original, but
because it resembles the original and is historically verisimilar (Taylor &
Johnson, 1993).
Alternatively, a genuine reproduction does not merely resemble the
original but is “a complete and immaculate simulation, one that is histor-
ically accurate” (Bruner, 1994: 400). Being based on congruence, i.e.,
“the essence of sincerity” (Golomb, 1995: 5), genuineness corresponds
to sincerity. As a result, objects are considered authentic not only when
they are original and unique but also when they are genuine or verisimilar
reproductions that conform to standards and are therefore legitimized. A
corollary of the dimension of conformity is the referentiality. In order to
conform or be legitimate, an object can incorporate myths or ceremonies
(Meyer & Rowan, 1977) including historical, place, and time referents,
or stories, metaphors, allegories, etc.
In this sense, an artwork is deemed authentic when it “conforms to
traditional forms” as in the case of African art (Cornet, 1975: 55) or of
28. 20 M. MASSI
the Chartres Cathedral, which is an “authentic instance of Gothic style
architecture” (Baugh, 1988: 477).
The two perspectives on authenticity (modernist and constructivist)
are exemplified by Dutton’s (2003) taxonomy, i.e., nominal vs. expres-
sive authenticity. The former addresses the positivist need for objective
criteria to assess authenticity and is defined as “the correct identifica-
tion of the origins, authorship, or provenance of an object, ensuring,
as the term implies, that an object of aesthetic experience is properly
named” (Dutton, 2003: 259). By contrast, the latter addresses subjectivist
perspectives and relates to “an object’s character as a true expression of
an individual’s or a society’s values and beliefs” (Dutton, 2003: 259).
Recently, the concept of artist authenticity has emerged, i.e., defined
as “the perception that the artist is intrinsically motivated, in that s/he is
passionate about and committed to her/his craft, as opposed to being
extrinsically motivated, where interest in art would be commercially
driven (e.g., ‘sellout’ to industry or ‘consumer’ [Moulard et al., 2014:
577]). The issue of artist authenticity is more than ever timely owing to
the success of artists being accused of using marketing and branding over
their arts orientation.
Artist authenticity occurs when an artist is “perceived as true to one’s
artistic self” (Dutton, 2003; Moulard et al., 2014: 578) and as not driven
by economic interests. In this sense, artist authenticity is similar to brand
authenticity as consumers perceive brands to be authentic when they are
disinterested (Holt, 2002). In a research conducted by Moulard et al.
(2014), artist authenticity proved to have a crucial role in influencing
attitudes toward the artist, which in turn affects consumers’ evaluation of
the artist’s work and behavioral intentions.
2.3 The Concept of Authenticity in Philosophy
The notion of authenticity is also central to philosophy, which has been
the first discipline historically to explore the concept. Ancient Greek
philosophers, Enlightenment authors, existentialists, and contemporary
philosophers have dealt extensively with the concept of authenticity,
conceptualizing it mainly as a subjective characteristic rather than a char-
acteristic of objects. Authenticity has emerged as a “protean concept
in philosophy”. This section reviews the main philosophical conceptu-
alizations of authenticity with digressions in other fields, e.g., poetry, to
outline some common dimensions/themes of the term.
29. 2 THE CONCEPT OF AUTHENTICITY IN THE BROADER … 21
2.3.1 Authenticity in Greek Philosophy
The first references to the concept of authenticity appear in Socrates
(469 BC–399 BC) as per Plato (428 BC–348 BC). Even though the
Platonic dialogues paradoxically do not explicitly develop an argument
per se for authenticity, they “successfully and comprehensively communi-
cate authenticity as a foundational theme” (Torrey, 2007: 24). Socrates’
maxims “the unexamined life is not worth living” and “‘Know thyself’
summarize the tenets of the Socratic method aimed at maieutically
persuading his disciples” authentic selves to emerge through self-inquiry
(Brickhouse & Smith, 2000).
In this sense, Socrates acted like “a midwife of authenticity” (Torrey,
2007: 18), who, as opposed to Sophists who usually tried to inculcate
theories or doctrines, did not intend to teach others his knowledge but
rather to push them to pursue self-knowledge through self-inquiry. Not
coincidentally, “authentic” is also the antonym of “sophisticated” (from
Sophists adulterated, altered, artificial), since Sophist oratory is known as
refined and artificial. Authenticity for Socrates was therefore a process of
both “questioning social discourse and gaining self-awareness” to achieve
an authentic mode of being (Torrey, 2007: 19).
Socrates’ notion of authenticity was characterized by some critical
dimensions of the concept, namely difference, balance, and unmediated
relation. First, Socrates conceived of authenticity as difference (from Latin
differre = to separate) as a way of separating authentic and true knowl-
edge (i.e., episteme) from common beliefs or opinion (i.e., doxa), the
world of Ideas from the inauthentic world of the copies. Many concep-
tualizations of authenticity have stressed the dimension of difference for
authenticity, i.e., it is being separated from and not conforming to social
and cultural rules or not responding to the individual’s authentic self
(Golomb, 1995; Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Taylor, 1991; Trilling, 1972).
The authentic way of being corresponds often, as in the case of Socrates
(who was sentenced to death for his opinions) with being different by
“contesting power through opposition” (Torrey, 2007: 21). Authenticity
therefore reveals itself as “implicitly a polemical concept” because it fulfills
its nature “by dealing aggressively with received and habitual opinion”
(Trilling, 1972: 94). Similarly, Golomb (1995: 5) observed that, “the
birth of authenticity is rooted in revolution”.
Artists and poets also emphasized the dimension of difference in the
second half of the 1800s to mean the separation or decoupling from the
30. 22 M. MASSI
inauthenticity of reality characterized by industrialization and scientific
progress. Intellectuals perceived the negative aspects of the materialistic
society and expressed their feelings of alienation and oppression. For
instance, the theme of travel, which appears frequently in the poetry of the
French Symbolists (e.g., Charles Baudelaire, Stéphane Mallarmé and Paul
Verlaine, Arthur Rimbaud), represented the desire to escape from a hostile
and unbearable reality to find refuge in a world of freedom and authen-
ticity. Charles Baudelaire (1821–1867) often used the topos of travel to
describe the escape from the corrupt and inauthentic industrial society
(dominated by the “Spleen”) to authentic exotic seas and forests.
In Albatros, Baudelaire (1857) compared the poet to the bird that is
derided by humans on the Earth and would like to fly away to reach
a more authentic dimension, but he is “exiled on earth amid a jeering
crowd” and “prisoned and palsied by his giant wings”. Just like the
artwork, the poet has lost his aura, his religious function. In the Perte
d’Auréole (Loss of a halo), Baudelaire (1869) described a dialogue with
a friend who is surprised to see him in a Parisian slum. The poet says he
can attend those places as a mortal because he lost the aura that marked
its sacredness:
Just a little while ago, as I was crossing the boulevard very hastily and
jumping about in the mud, through that moving chaos in which death
comes galloping toward you from all sides at once, I moved abruptly and
my halo slipped from my head into the mire on the pavement. (emphases
added)
Thus, the search for authenticity is associated by nineteenth-century
artists and intellectuals with the will to escape from and fight the inau-
thentic reality and a response to their “fallen condition, [their] anxiety
over the credibility of existence and of individual existences” (Trilling,
1972: 93).
Balance is a second dimension of the Socratic concept of authen-
ticity. The idea that balance is an ideal to achieve by human beings is
a topos in Ancient philosophy and literature. For instance, in the Nico-
machean Ethics, Aristotle (384 BC–322 BC) stated that “balance is the
best thing” (“μšσoν τε καὶ ¥ριστoν”). In the Satires, Horace (65 BC–
8 BC) argued that “there is balance in things” (“est modus in rebus”).
Similarly, Socrates suggested that the art of measurement “would make
the appearances lose their power by showing us the truth, would give us
31. 2 THE CONCEPT OF AUTHENTICITY IN THE BROADER … 23
peace of mind firmly rooted in the truth and would save our life” (Plato
785, 356). As Torrey (2007: 21) explained:
The art of measurement, the balancing of the large and immediate desires
with the small and distant reasons, leads the individual toward an authentic
mode of being. The power of appearance, on the other hand, leads the
individual to a position within a significant set of power relations in which
her authenticity is constrained.
Plato equated authenticity with a balance between the higher and the
lower parts of the self. i.e., reason and sensible appetites. In the Phae-
drus, Plato described the “Chariot Allegory” in which a chariot is pulled
by two horses, one white and one black. The former represents the part
of the soul dominated by spiritual feelings (thymòs), which is directed
toward the Hyperuranium, while the latter represents the concupiscible
part of the soul (epithymetikòn) oriented toward the sensible world. The
charioteer, who represents the reason (lògos), must be able to ride the
horses in the same direction (the Hyperuranium), holding off the black
and urging the white one.
Similarly, Freud (1923) described authenticity as a balance between
the id, the ego, and the superego. In addition, existentialist philoso-
phers (e.g., Heidegger) described the authentic personality as a coherent,
congruent, and harmonious whole. They emphasized how the term “indi-
vidual” derives from individuum, meaning not separable and “which
rejects any symptom of dividuum within one’s authentic self” (Golomb,
1995: 5).
Third, Socrates conceptualized authenticity as unmediated relation. In
the Republic, for instance, Plato described the most human experience
as inauthentic because it is mediated. The medium is like the cave in his
“Allegory of the Cave” where imprisoned men get to know reality only
through the mediation of shadows projected in the cave and are therefore
brought to believe that the shadows are real. Plato believed that some
experiences can be unmediated and therefore real, and one can arrive at
them through philosophy.
2.3.2 Authenticity in the Modern Philosophy
In the modern era, one of the first philosophers to deal with the notion of
authenticity was Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778), who is regarded as
32. 24 M. MASSI
“the inventor of authenticity in both its personal and collective guises”
(Lindholm, 2008: 8). In agreement with ancient Greek philosophers,
Rousseau believed that authenticity stems from the natural self and that
“what destroys our authenticity is society” (Trilling, 1972: 93). The
search for authenticity in modern society is interpreted by Rousseau as
a desire to return to a primordial state of innocence. The myth of the
savage, who preserves his/her instincts and feelings from the artificiality
of modern life, embodies the authentic experience.
Such a conceptualization of authenticity emphasizes a number of
semantic areas of the concept. Authenticity as naturalness and purity
(Postrel, 2003) can be considered as a sub-dimension of originality.
In this sense, only original objects are perceived as uncontaminated,
unspoiled, untouched, spontaneous, and sinless. Authenticity is linked to
naturalness and is not metaphysical or hyperreal (Eco, 1986). The natu-
ralness dimension, for instance, was propagandistically and instrumentally
emphasized by regimes such as German Nazism and Italian fascism to
exalt the authenticity and attachment to traditional customs of the rural
world.
Cultural references of authenticity as naturalness include the topos of
aurea aetas (Golden Age), a mythical time of primordial peace, harmony,
stability, prosperity, and abundance described by ancient Latin and Greek
poets, the Old Testament, Renaissance, and Neoplatonic philosophers and
German romantic poets (e.g., Hölderlin). For instance, in the Works and
Days, Hesiod (700 BC) described the Golden Age as the first mythical
age when:
[Men] lived like gods without sorrow of heart, remote and free from toil
and grief: miserable age rested not on them; but with legs and arms never
failing they made merry with feasting beyond the reach of all devils. When
they died, it was as though they were overcome with sleep, and they had
all good things; for the fruitful earth unforced bare them fruit abundantly
and without stint. They dwelt in ease and peace. (Works and Days, lines
109 and following).
Thus, the desire for authenticity originates from the regret for the lost
paradise and nostalgia for the Utopia of the Golden Age, a legendary
and ahistorical era when men lived authentically in a mythical child-
hood of humanity characterized by eternal time. In particular, nostalgia,
whose etymology (from nostos = coming back and algos = pain, Online
33. 2 THE CONCEPT OF AUTHENTICITY IN THE BROADER … 25
Etymology Dictionary 2018) expresses the feeling of pain or regret for
the distance from people, places, or events placed in the past, which is
related to authenticity. Indeed, nostalgia can only be truly provoked by
authentic objects that belong to an individual’s past (Belk, 1990).
The Golden Age has also been referred to as Arcadia (Sannazaro,
1502). An earthly paradise and an idyllic lost paradise of perfect harmony
and uncontaminated Nature (locus amoenus), Arcadia has been a subject
both in the visual arts and in classical literature. The Golden Age or
Arcadia is the locus of vitality and fluidity because nothing has yet stabi-
lized, no laws have yet been promulgated, no forms or identities are fixed
and time is cyclical. The dimension of vitality as a characteristic of subjec-
tive authenticity is also common to other philosophers, such as Pirandello
(1926) and philosophers affiliated with the Lebenphilosophie or philosophy
of life (e.g., Henri Bergson and Friedrich Nietzsche).
To return to this age of humanity corresponds with finding sacred unity
with Nature and the Cosmos, which is to become children again. In the
IV Egloga, Virgil (70 BC–19 BC) described the advent of the Golden
Age with the birth of a child (puer). The metaphor of the child refers to
the simplicity, innocence, and purity of the authentic human being and
is a topos itself that many poets have used to describe the stage of life at
which individuals are not yet incurred in Heideggardian “being toward
death” (Heidegger, 1927). The first reference to the child as a symbol of
purity is in Plato’s Phaedo where Cebes of Thebes, thinking of the death
of Socrates, who was about to drink the hemlock, begins to cry. Repri-
manded by Socrates, Cebes apologizes, saying that it is the child within
him and that he is not crying. A reference to the purity of children also
appears in the Gospel of Mark (10: 14), when Jesus invites his disciples
to let the children come to him (“Sinite parvulos venire ad me”) because
only those who are pure and innocent like a child are allowed to enter
the kingdom of heaven.
Moreover, for Nietzsche (1883: 139) individuals achieve authenticity
when “the spirit becomes a camel; and the camel, a lion; and the lion,
finally, a child”. To achieve authenticity, individuals have to be free from
all external conditionings imposed by society (i.e., the camel). Similarly,
the Italian poet Giovanni Pascoli (1907) compared the poet to the child
(fanciullino) who, by virtue of his intuitive and irrational nature, looks
at all things with astonishment and dawning wonder, as if for the first
time. The poet-child arrives at the truth in an irrational and intuitive
manner and finds meaning in a “forest of symbols” like in Baudelaire’s
34. 26 M. MASSI
(1857) poem Correspondences. The language of the poet–child is made
of symbols, analogic and evocative correspondences, synesthesia, and
allegories.
This idea of authenticity reflects the need for a more intuitive and expe-
riential approach to reality (e.g., Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982), which
relies on different sensory levels. Emphasizing the scenic and spectac-
ular dimension, in contrast, is a characteristic of modern Western societies
where “sight has long been regarded as the noblest of the senses…viewed
as the most discriminating and reliable of the sensual mediators between
humans and their physical environment” (Jay, 1986: 178). With new
technologies, people observe spectacles, and instead of the real, they
experience simulations and simulacra (Baudrillard, 1983). The Golden
Age ends with the creation by the gods of the first woman, Pandora,
as a punishment for humanity for Prometheus’ theft of the secret of fire.
Similar to Eve, the first woman in the Bible, Pandora causes the end of
a paradisiacal or Edenic authenticity state. The secret of fire stolen by
Prometheus is a representation of technology and progress. Authenticity
is perceived as the opposite of technology, and the search for authenticity
is a symptom of the disillusion about the myth of progress (Benjamin,
1936). In conclusion, the myth of the Golden Age represents a metaphor
for an authentic state of being and allows the identifications of some sub-
dimensions or semantic areas of the originality dimension of authenticity,
namely Naturalness/Organicity, Vitality/Fluidity, Child-like Purity and
Innocence, Simplicity, Unmediated and Experiential Relation, Nostalgia
and Sense of Loss, Instinctual/Emotional, Symbolic/Implicit, and Eternal.
2.3.3 The Concept of Authenticity in Existentialist Philosophy
Existentialist philosophers have also dealt extensively with the notion of
authenticity, conceptualizing it as self-authority as opposed to societal
authority (Golomb, 1995). Existentialists regarded authenticity as “truth
to oneself” or self-reflexivity, an inward-oriented notion of authenticity,
arguing against the tenets of positivism and the objectification of reality.
German philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889–1976), for instance,
examined the concept in Being and Time (1927) where he defined
Eigentlichkeit and Uneigentlichkeit (authenticity and inauthenticity) as
the two main possibilities of existence. For Heidegger, “authenticity is
a process of being true to one’s own self, of living life according to one’s
own being” (Zickmund, 2007: 407). In particular, Heidegger identified
35. 2 THE CONCEPT OF AUTHENTICITY IN THE BROADER … 27
Dasein or “being-in-the-world” and “being-toward-death” as the condi-
tions for authenticity. For Heidegger, an individual is deemed authentic
only if he/she is able to make independent and autonomous value-
based choices instead of accepting pre-programmed or socially imposed
values and rules. According to Heidegger, indeed, individuals can be
authentic only by living “a rigorous and self-sufficient existence wrenched
away from the ‘they’—that is the world of the ordinary and everyday”
(Heidegger, 1962: 307/orig. 1927). Thus, authenticity is conceived of
as inward-oriented and self-reflexive because it implies a distance from
the external world and a focus on the self.
Heidegger conceptualized living authentically as a narrative, “a well-
crafted story” with “a beginning, a development, and an ending that
gives the whole its point” (Guignon, 2000: 85). Authenticity is therefore
defined as a coherent and cumulative narrative that defines the individu-
al’s identity, an identitarian project that is not dictated by the world but
decided by the individual and in which both an alternation of authen-
ticity and inauthenticity occurs since both possibilities cannot be separated
(Guignon, 2000). The external world provides the symbolic material that
individuals can use to build their authentic identities (Ferrara, 1997;
Golomb, 1995).
French philosopher and playwright Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980)
defined authenticity as “having a true and lucid consciousness of the
situation, in assuming the responsibilities and risks that it involves in
accepting it in pride or humiliation, sometimes in horror or hate” (Sartre,
1948: 60). In Being and Nothingness (1943), Sartre dealt with the notion
of authenticity by describing its opposite, i.e., mauvaise foi (bad faith),
which occurs when individuals objectify their selves. Similarly, in Nausea,
Sartre (1934) postulated that the internalization of the values of an
oppressive society prevents the individual from achieving authenticity.
German social psychologist Erich Fromm (1900–1980) expressed a
different perspective from that of Sartre. For Fromm (1942), individuals
can still live authentically, even acting in agreement with social rules to the
extent that they approve such rules instead of accepting them passively.
Thus, with the exception of Fromm, for existentialists, authenticity is
mainly a subjective and self-reflexive notion, implying a moral dimension
(Taylor, 1991), i.e., the moral law of the individual which supersedes the
normativity of other social and cultural institutions. The authentic indi-
vidual is one who follows his/her own moral law instead of being under
the thumb of the general ethics of the world.
36. 28 M. MASSI
For Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900), authentic living corresponded
with the celebration of instinct and vitalism. In The Birth of Tragedy from
the Spirit of Music (1872), Nietzsche argued that the Dionysian model of
subjectivity, based on irrationality, creativity, pleasure-seeking, and exal-
tation of life, leads to authenticity. In particular, Nietzsche refused the
deterministic and ordered conception of the universe expressed by the
Apollonian spirit. Nietzsche explained his understanding of authenticity
through the metaphor of art and artistic creation: “The individual is a
kind of artist who freely shapes his self as a work of art” (Golomb, 1995:
47). Thus, for Nietzsche, authenticity is essentially vitalism and creativity,
or the spontaneous and vital “creation of one’s self and life” (Golomb,
1995: 144).
In The Jargon of Authenticity (1964), Theodor Adorno (1903–1969),
an exponent of the Frankfurt School, criticized existentialist philosophers
(particularly Heidegger) for their conceptions of authenticity. In partic-
ular, Adorno (1964: 6) argued that the jargon of authenticity “is just
as standardized as the world that it officially negates”. Thus, Adorno
dismissed the existentialist inward-directed and determined concept of
authenticity to redeem the dialectical relationship of object and subject
and restore the objective social context where the self is historically
shaped.
Similarly, Ferrara (1997: 80) contended that existentialist conceptual-
izations of authenticity downplay the relational dimension of authenticity
and advocated for a re-evaluation of “the intersubjective moment of
relating to the other”. For Ferrara (1997: 80), most existentialists devel-
oped a substantialist notion of authenticity based on the “assumption that
the self possesses an essential core, a kind of psychological DNA, which
it tries to assert through its interaction with others, even if such core is
conceived as an essential tension toward self-transcendence”. In general,
existentialists interpreted contact of the self with otherness (the external
world) negatively because it leads to a loss of authenticity. According to
Ferrara (1997: 82), most existentialists emphasized the different dimen-
sion of authenticity, developing an antagonistic conception of the notion.
Existentialists developed a polemical aspect of authenticity and concep-
tualize it “as something to be attained in opposition to the demands of
society and of culture” (Ferrara 1997: 82). In this sense, they stigma-
tized the external world and institutions as disciplinary and repressive.
In contrast, other philosophers, such as Rousseau, Schiller, Herder, and
Kierkegaard, valued the relational dimension of authenticity proposing
37. 2 THE CONCEPT OF AUTHENTICITY IN THE BROADER … 29
an integrative version of authenticity that reconciles individuals with the
world.
Addressing Adorno’s criticism, Ferrara (1997: 84) advocated for the
development of a reflective (as opposed to self-reflexive) notion of authen-
ticity based on a dialectical movement. Ferrara (1997: 84) suggested that
authenticity be reconceptualized as a synecdoche that unifies “the unique
way in which an individual brings together his or her ‘difference’ with
what is shared, the ‘thick’ with the ‘thin”, the universal with the partic-
ular aspects of an identity”. According to Ferrara, Georg Simmel (1968
[1913]) provided the best conceptualization of reflective authenticity: “If
a life individualized in a certain way exists, also its corresponding ought
(Sollen) exists as objectively valid” (Simmel, (1968 [1913]: 217).
A reflective version of authenticity that presupposes an intersubjective
moment would be necessary to allow authentic identities to be recog-
nized. Recognisability is therefore the final dimension of authenticity that
emerges from the study of existentialist philosophy. As Ferrara (1997:
81) argued, “all authentic identities necessarily presuppose a moment
of recognition on the part of another human being” because it would
be “contradictory to call an identity authentic and at the same time to
maintain that no one can ever recognize it as a felicitous human identity”.
Despite their varying philosophical views on authenticity, existentialists
conceptualized authenticity as a self-reflexive notion, thus developing the
“truth to oneself” dimension of the concept. In particular, the review of
the literature makes it possible to identify eight sub-dimensions of Self-
Reflexivity, namely, Self-expression, Socialness, Morality, Projection/Identity
Building, Creativity/Genius, Narrativeness, Vitality/Fluidity (including
freedom and hedonism) and Recognisability.
2.4 Authenticity in Sociology
Sociologists have studied authenticity mainly as correspondence between
individuals’ authentic behaviors and their identity, but also as an impres-
sion that individuals want to give to others (Erickson, 1995; Goffman,
1959; Vannini & Williams, 2009). In this regard, one of the best descrip-
tions of such mechanisms is provided by Erving Goffman (1959). In his
classic work The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Goffman (1959)
showed how individuals manage the impressions that others have of them
in order to control others’ behavior toward themselves in their everyday
lives.
38. 30 M. MASSI
Goffman defined the concept of “face” as a person’s “most personal
possession and the center of his security and pleasure”, which, however,
“is only on loan to him from society” and “will be withdrawn unless he
conducts himself in a way that is worthy of it” (Goffman, 1972: 322).
Individuals use face-work or impression management, defined as “the
actions taken by a person to make whatever he is doing consistent with
face” (Goffman, 1959: 12) in order to deal with other individuals in the
social arenas.
Goffman’s (1959) work has been deemed critical in tourism studies. In
particular, as shown in Chapter 3, MacCannell (1973, 1976) has exten-
sively drawn from the theatrical metaphor to introduce the concept of
“staged authenticity”. The metaphor of theater is also developed by Piran-
dello (1926), who described in his novels the bewilderment and pain that
his characters feel whenever they are imprisoned in fixed social identity
forms or masks. The social roles that the individual has to play in everyday
life are perceived as a trap or a prison in which the individual struggles to
free him/herself.
At the base of the work of Pirandello stands a rejection of the forms
of social life, its institutions, imposed roles, and a desperate need for
authenticity, immediacy, and spontaneity. Similar to exponents of Leben-
philosophie (e.g., Bergson), Pirandello (1926) conceived of authenticity
as the opposite of fixity. Reality is vital, fluid, eternally becoming, or
in a constant transformation from one state to another. Everything that
detaches itself from the universal and assumes a particular form becomes
a mask, or “persona”, which in Latin refers both to the individual and
the theatrical mask. It is significant that one of the characters described
by Pirandello (1926) rejects his own name as a modern “iron cage”
(Weber, 1952) entrapping and controlling individuals. It is arguable that
a corollary of this dimension is authenticity as freedom.
Like in the art field, conceptualizations of authenticity in sociological
literature have been characterized by the dilemma between modernist and
constructivist approaches. Similar to other sociological concepts such as
gender, race, and other social phenomena, authenticity has been consid-
ered as either objective or socially constructed (Carroll & Wheaton, 2009;
Vannini & Williams, 2009). While the work of Goffman (1959) reflects
the modernist conception of authenticity since it implies the existence
of an objective form of backstage authenticity, constructivist perspectives
posit that “there is a plurality of ways of being an ‘authentic’ subject”
(Karmis & Maclure, 2001: 368).
39. 2 THE CONCEPT OF AUTHENTICITY IN THE BROADER … 31
For Handler (1986: 2) authenticity is a cultural construct of the
modern Western world, originating from individual need for “unspoiled,
pristine, genuine, untouched and traditional”, therefore authentic, experi-
ences. Constructivist approaches have affected studies on the authenticity
of national identities. For instance, Cheng (2004: 3) observed how
“modern and contemporary cultures—especially First World cultures—are
increasingly marked by an anxiety over authentic cultural identity”. For
Cheng (2004), concerns of authenticity stem from processes of globaliza-
tion that make it difficult to regard factors such as skin color as objective
markers of racial identity.
Similarly, Benhabib (1999) stated that contemporary ethnic and non-
ethnic groups employ authenticity criteria to build and protect their unity
and purity. In this regard, authenticity has been used similarly to nation-
alistic ideologies based on the tenet of the purity of race and culture.
In subculture studies, some scholars (e.g., Riley & Cahill, 2005; Widdi-
combe & Wooffitt, 1990; Williams, 2006; Williams & Copes, 2005) have
explored how subcultures (e.g., hip-pop subcultures), countercultures,
and peer groups employ authenticity to define membership, personal and
group identity, and values. In addition, Bendix (1997) observed how
authenticity has been used for its differentiating function to trace disci-
plinary contours in folklore studies as “an agent to define this subject,
differentiate it from other cultural manifestations, develop methods of
analysis, critique competing theories, or create new paradigms” (Bendix,
1997: 5). Similarly, Koontz (2010) described how producers and patrons
employ authenticating practices to differentiate between a mainstream
society, and the exotic and local “Other”.
This view is similar to Macdonald’s critique of mass culture that
threatens “spontaneous [and] autochthonous” folk culture of earlier
societies (1957: 60).
Like the concept of identity, which “cannot be thought in the old way”
(Hall & Du Gay, 1996: 2), e.g., as “sameness” (from Latin “idem”), espe-
cially in light of postmodernity, which replaced one fixed identity with a
multitude of identities (Firat & Shultz, 1997), the notion of authenticity
must be rethought in sociological contexts. Particularly in global contexts
characterized by social pluralism, rapid change, and the struggle for
self-meaning, authenticity emerges as a definitive challenge (Lindholm,
2008).
40. 32 M. MASSI
2.4.1 The Institutional Theory Perspective
One final perspective on authenticity comes from organization theory,
a branch of sociology concerned with formal organizations, in partic-
ular from the institutional theory of organizations. Based on institutional
theory, organizations adopt and conform to taken-for-granted social and
cultural meaning systems, norms, and systems of belief that define their
social environment (Scott, 1987; Scott & Meyer, 1994). In order to
become institutionalized, and thus legitimated (Meyer & Rowan, 1977),
organizations isomorphically conform to the norms of the environment
in which they operate and are rewarded for doing so through increased
legitimacy, resources, and survival capabilities (Meyer & Rowan, 1977).
The concept of legitimacy as defined in institutional theory is similar
to that of authenticity as authority or certification because it assumes
the existence of legitimating bodies (DiMaggio, 1988) or institutions
that confer legitimacy. Like authenticity, which corresponds with confor-
mity to standards, legitimacy is “a generalized perception or assumption
that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within
some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and defini-
tions” (Suchman, 1995: 574). According to Hughes (2000: 190) “a
key ingredient in being legitimate is being authentic”. Indeed, legitimate
organizations are not only perceived as “more worthy, but also as more
meaningful, more predictable, and more trustworthy” (Suchman, 1995:
575).
In particular, legitimacy is achieved by conforming to myths and cere-
monies of the environment in which organizations operate (Meyer &
Rowan, 1977). As mentioned in the section above relating to the art
field, two dimensions of authenticity, namely genuineness (or sincerity)
and verisimilitude are relevant to conformity. Referentiality (references
to myths, time, and place) is also an aspect of authenticity developed by
institutional theory.
Another aspect of the institutional theory that can be applied to
authenticity is decoupling. Defined as the separation of the elements of
structure from activities (Meyer & Rowan, 1977), decoupling allows
organizations to maintain legitimacy “by adopting designs that mask or
distract attention from controversial core activities that may be unaccept-
able to some key constituencies” (Elsbach & Sutton, 1992: 700). Derived
from the idea of the separation between front and back stage (Goffman,
41. 2 THE CONCEPT OF AUTHENTICITY IN THE BROADER … 33
1959), decoupling develops the dimension of difference, which is connat-
ural to authenticity. Moreover, the legitimacy derived from adherence
to myths and ceremonies confers to organizations an unspoken and
taken-for-granted trust (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Internal and external
stakeholders are committed to supporting the organization’s ceremonial
conformity both in the front and back stage (Goffman, 1959), and display
high degrees of confidence in the organization. An additional dimension
of authenticity is therefore trustworthiness. Hence, the institutional theory
allows for the identification of the following dimensions of authenticity:
Legitimacy (Certification), Conformity (Genuineness and Verisimilitude),
Difference (Decoupling), Referentiality, and Trustworthiness.
2.5 Authenticity in Psychology
Psychological perspectives of authenticity owe a great conceptual debt to
those of philosophy, particularly to existentialism and the work of authors
such as Sartre or Heidegger (Kernis & Goldman, 2006). In general,
as a psychological construct, authenticity has been described as having
a complex, multidimensional (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), and emer-
gent (Erickson, 1995) nature. In addition, the literature on authenticity
is fragmentary and inconsistent as far as what the construct represents and
research has yet to explore the concept in any depth empirically (Wood
et al., 2008).
In general, psychological research on authenticity has been related
to self-actualization (Maslow, 1970 [1959]), self-knowledge, one’s true
self (Harter, 1997), and the experience of feeling authentic (Sheldon
et al., 1997; Wood et al., 2008). Kernis and Goldman (2006) provided
a comprehensive review of the concept in order to build an authenticity
scale. Building on existentialist philosophy, the authors defined authen-
ticity as “the unobstructed operation of one’s true- or core-self in one’s
daily enterprise” (Kernis & Goldman, 2006: 294) and factorialized it into
a multidimensional model including four components.
First, awareness, develops the Socratic notion of authenticity as “truth
to oneself”, self-understanding and self-examination, and relates to “pos-
sessing, and being motivated to increase knowledge of and trust in
one’s motives, feelings, desires, and self-relevant cognitions” (Kernis &
Goldman, 2006: 294). Second, unbiased processing of self-relevant infor-
mation “involves objectivity with respect to one’s positive and negative
self-aspects, emotions, and other internal experiences, information, and
42. 34 M. MASSI
private knowledge” (Kernis & Goldman, 2006: 296). Third, behavior
refers to “behaviors that are rooted in self-knowledge, as in Aristotle’s
“pursuit of the highest good”, and “involves behaving in accord with
one’s values, preferences, and needs as opposed to acting ‘falsely’ merely
to please others or to attain rewards or avoid punishments” (Kernis &
Goldman, 2006: 298). Fourth, relational orientation develops the social-
ness dimension of authenticity, which refers to “valuing and striving
for openness, sincerity, and truthfulness in one’s close relationships”
(Kernis & Goldman, 2006: 300).
Thus, the psychological notion of authenticity, as developed by Kernis
and Goldman (2006), includes dimensions already identified in exis-
tentialist philosophy, mainly “truth to oneself” and its sub-dimensions.
Relational orientation corresponds to the socialness dimension of authen-
ticity. In addition, unbiased processing reflects unmediated relation since
it addresses the absence of interpretive distortions in the processing of
self-relevant information.
2.6 Conclusions
The review of the broader literature has revealed the complexity and
multidimensionality of the concept of authenticity. In particular, a number
of dimensions have been identified as critical in defining authenticity,
namely originality, authority, conformity, uniqueness, difference, “truth
to one self“, and balance. As shown in Table 2.1, each dimension can be
traced to one of the etymologies of the term “authenticity”.
In addition, the literature review allows for identifying two main
approaches to authenticity. Modernist or objectivist approaches assume
that authenticity can be objectively assessed based on the dimen-
sions of originality (certainty of the source), uniqueness (aura), and
difference (separation) of authentic objects from spurious ones. By
contrast, constructivist approaches take a subjectivist stance on authen-
ticity (Guba & Lincoln, 1994), defining it as socially negotiated. In addi-
tion, postmodernism and poststructuralism bring constructivist perspec-
tives to the extreme, deconstructing authenticity as a “centered discourse”
(Derrida, 1967) and denying its existence (Table 2.2).
Some sub-dimensions of authenticity are overlapping, e.g., longevity
and fluidity/vitality since they are identifiable in conceptualizations of
authenticity in various disciplines. Other dimensions are similar but will
be regarded as different. For instance, “conformity” descends from the
43. 2 THE CONCEPT OF AUTHENTICITY IN THE BROADER … 35
Table
2.1
Etymologies
of
authenticity
and
related
dimensions
Etymologies
of
authenticity
Meanings
Criteria
Authenticity
dimensions
αÙθεντικóς
(authenticós)
True
to
oneself
Identity
or
correspondence
(content)
Truth
to
oneself/conformity
αÙθεντεω
(authentèo)
Authorship/originality
Genealogical
historical
(origin)
Authority
(originality/authorship)
To
have
mastery
of;
to
have
full
power
over
Power/legitimacy
Authority
(legitimacy)
αÙτóς
(autós)
+
Éntea
(arms)
Made
by
one’s
own
hands,
craft
Genealogical
historical
(origin)
Originality/uniqueness/difference
εαυτóν
(eautón)
and
theto
Posit
themselves
or
set
themselves
as
a
thesis
Separation
Uniqueness
and
difference
44. 36 M. MASSI
Table 2.2 Characteristics of modernist, constructivist, and postmodernist
approaches
Philosophical
paradigm
Modernism Constructivism Postmodernism/Poststructuralism
Ontology Realism Relativism Nominalist
EpistemologyObjectivist Subjectivist Nominalist
Authenticity
dimensions
Originality Conformity (genuineness
and verisimilitude)
Incredulity toward authenticity
Uniqueness
and difference
Referentiality
fluidity/vitality
/
“truth to oneself” dimension but it will be considered as a separate
dimension because it implies a more objective dimension than “truth to
oneself”, which is regarded as a synonym of self-reflexivity. This schema
will be used as a reference to analyze the marketing literature on authen-
ticity and identify what dimensions of authenticity have been included or
excluded in the marketing conceptualizations and operationalizations of
the concept.
References
Adorno, T. (2003 [1964]). The jargon of authenticity. Routledge.
Baudelaire, C. (1964 [1857]). Le Fleurs du Mal. Baudelaire, Garnier-
Flammarion.
Baudelaire, C. (2011 [1869]). Le spleen de Paris: Petits poèmes en prose. Le Livre
de Poche.
Baudrillard, J. (1983). Simulations. Semiotext(e).
Baugh, B. (1988). Authenticity revisited. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism,
46, 477–487.
Belk, R. W. (1990). The role of possessions in constructing and maintaining a
sense of past. Advances in Consumer Research, 17 (1), 669–676.
Bendix, R. (1997). In search of authenticity: The formation of folklore studies.
University of Wisconsin Press.
Benhabib, S. (1999). Sexual difference and collective identities: The global
constellation, signs. Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 24(2), 335–
361.
Benjamin, W. (2008 [1936]). The work of art in the age of mechanical
reproduction. In H. Arendt (Ed.), Illuminations (pp. 19–55). Fontana Press.
45. 2 THE CONCEPT OF AUTHENTICITY IN THE BROADER … 37
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise
in the sociology of knowledge. Anchor Books.
Brickhouse, T. C., & Smith, N. D. (2000). Socrates’ gods and the daimonion.
In N. D. Smith & P. B. Woodruff (Eds.), Reason and religion in socratic
philosophy (pp. 74–88). Oxford University Press.
Bruner, E. M. (1994). Abraham Lincoln as authentic reproduction: A critique of
postmodernism. American Anthropologist, 96(20), 397–415.
Carroll, G. R., & Wheaton, D. R. (2009). The organizational construction of
authenticity: An examination of contemporary food and dining in the US.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 255–282.
Cheng, V. J. (2004). Inauthentic: The anxiety over culture and identity. Rutgers
University Press.
Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 15(3), 371–386.
Cornet, J. (1975). African art and authenticity. African Arts, 9, 52–55.
Derrida, J. (1967). L’Écriture et la Différence. Gallimard.
DiMaggio, P. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. Zucker
(Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations (pp. 3–21). Ballinger.
Dutton, D. (2003). Authenticity in art. In J. Levinson (Ed.), The Oxford
handbook of aesthetics (pp. 258–274). Oxford University Press.
Eco, U. (1986). Travels in hyperreality. Picador.
Elsbach, K. D., & Sutton, R. I. (1992). Acquiring organizational legitimacy
through illegitimate actions: A marriage of institutional and impression
management theories. Academy of Management Journal, 35(4), 699–738.
Erickson, R. J. (1995). The importance of authenticity for self and society.
Symbolic Interaction, 18(2), 121–144.
Ferrara, A. (1997). Authenticity as a normative category. Philosophy and Social
Criticism, 23(3), 77–92.
Fine, G. (2003). Crafting authenticity: The validation of identity in self-taught
art. Theory and Society, 32(2), 153–180.
Firat, A. F., & Schultz, C. (1997). From segmentation to fragmentation: Markets
and marketing strategy in the postmodern era. European Journal of Marketing,
31(9/10), 183–207.
Freud, S. (1961 [1923]). The ego and the id. Hogarth Press.
Fromm, E. (1942). The fear of freedom. Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor Books.
Goffman, E. (1972). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Penguin.
Golomb, J. (1995). In search of authenticity. Routledge.
Grayson, K., & Martinec, R. (2004). Consumer perceptions of iconicity and
indexicality and their influence on assessments of authentic market offerings.
Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 296–312.
46. 38 M. MASSI
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative
research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative
research (pp. 105–117). Sage.
Guignon, C. (2000). Philosophy and authenticity: Heidegger’s search for a
ground for philosophizing. In M. Wrathall & J. Malpas (Eds.), Heidegger,
authenticity and modernity, essays in honor of Hubert L. Dreyfus (pp. 79–101).
The MIT Press.
Hall, S., & Du Gay, P. (Eds.). (1996). Questions of cultural identity. SAGE
Publications.
Handler, R. (1986). Authenticity. Anthropology Today, 2(1), 2–4.
Harter, S. (1997). The personal self in social context: Barriers to authenticity.
In R. Ashmore & L. Jussim (Eds.), Self and identity: Fundamental issues
(pp. 81–105). Oxford University Press.
Heidegger, M. (1962 [1927]). Being and time. SCM Press.
Holbrook, M., & Hirschman, E. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption
consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2),
132–140.
Holt, D. B. (2002). Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of
consumer culture and branding. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), 70–90.
Hughes, M. (2000). Country music as impression management: A mediation on
fabricating authenticity. Poetics, 28(2–3), 185–206.
Jay, M. (1986). In the empire of the Gaze: Foucault and the denigration of vision
in 20th century french thought. In L. Appignanesi (Ed.), Postmodernism
(pp. 19–25). Cranford Press Group.
Jokilehto, J. (1995). Authenticity: A general framework. In K. E. Larsen
(Ed.), NARA conference on authenticity in relation to the World Heritage
Convention. ICOMOS.
Karmis, D., & Maclure, J. (2001). Two escape routes from the paradigm of
monistic authenticity: Post-imperialist and federal perspectives on plural and
complex identities. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 24(3), 361–385.
Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2006). A multi-component conceptualiza-
tion of authenticity: Research and theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (pp. 284–357). Academic Press.
Koontz, A. (2010). Constructing authenticity: A review of trends and influences
in the process of authentication in consumption. Sociology Compass, 11(4),
977–988.
Lindholm, C. (2008). Culture and authenticity. Blackwell.
Lowenthal, D. (1995). Changing criteria of authenticity. In K. E. Larsen (Ed.),
NARA conference on authenticity in relation to the World Heritage Convention
(pp. 121–135). ICOMOS.
MacCannell, D. (1973). Staged authenticity: Arrangements of social space in
tourist settings. American Journal of Sociology, 79(3), 589–603.
47. 2 THE CONCEPT OF AUTHENTICITY IN THE BROADER … 39
MacCannell, D. (1976). The tourist—A new theory of the leisure class. Schocken.
MacDonald, D. (1957). A theory of mass culture. In B. Rosenberg & D. M.
White (Eds.), Mass culture (pp. 59–72). Free Press.
Maslow, A. H. (1970 [1959]). Motivation and personality. Harper & Row
Publishers.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal
structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2),
340–363.
Moulard, J. G., Rice, D. H., Garrity, C. P., & Mangus, S. M. (2014). Artist
authenticity: How artists’ passion and commitment shape consumers’ percep-
tions and behavioral intentions across genders. Psychology & Marketing, 31(8),
576–590.
Nehamas, A. (1999). Virtues of authenticity: Essays on Plato and Socrates.
Princeton University Press.
Nietzsche, F. (1969 [1883]). Thus spoke Zarathustra. Penguin.
Nietzsche, F. (1993 [1872]). The birth of tragedy. Penguin Books.
Pascoli, G. (1992 [1907]). Il Fanciullino. Feltrinelli.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A
handbook and classification. American Psychological Association.
Pirandello, L. (1992 [1926]). One, no one and one hundred thousand. Marsilio
Publishers.
Postrel, V. (2003). The substance of style—How the rise of the aesthetic value is
remaking commerce, culture and consciousness. Harper Collins.
Raymond, N. (2016). New York art gallery settles lawsuit over fake Rothko.
Accessed 25 February 2023 from https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/
east/2016/02/11/398395.htm
Riley, S. C., & Cahill, S. (2005). Managing meaning and belonging: Young
women’s negotiation of authenticity in body art. Journal of Youth Studies,
8(3), 261–279.
Sannazaro, J. (1966 [1502]). Arcadia and piscatorial eclogues. Wayne State
Univeristy Press.
Sartre, J. P. (1948). Anti-semite and jew. Schocken Press.
Sartre, J. P. (1956 [1943]). Being and nothingness. Philosophical Library.
Sartre, J. P. (1964 [1934]). Nausea. New Directions.
Scott, W. R. (1987). Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems. Prentice
Hall.
Scott, W. R., & Meyer, J. W. (1994). Institutional environments and organiza-
tions: Structural complexity and individualism. Sage.
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Rawsthorne, L., & Ilardi, B. (1997). Trait self and
true self: Cross-role variation in the big five traits and its relations with authen-
ticity and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
73(6), 1380–1393.
48. 40 M. MASSI
Simmel, G. (1968 [1913]). Das Individuelle Gesetz: Philosophische Exkurse.
Suhrkamp Verlag.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional
approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
Taylor, C. (1991). The ethics of authenticity. Harvard University Press.
Taylor, R., & Johnson, M. L. (1993). Inventing Lincon’s New Salem: The
reconstruction of a pioneer village. Unpublished MS.
Torrey, M. (2007). Authenticity: Existential virtue or platonic ideal? Florida
Philosophical Review, 7 (1), 16–27.
Trilling, L. (1972). Sincerity and authenticity. Harvard University Press.
Vannini, P., & Williams, J. P. (2009). Authenticity in culture, self, and society.
Ashgate Publishing.
Weber, M. (1952 [1920]). Ancient Judaism. Free Press.
Widdicombe, S., & Wooffitt, R. (1990). ‘Being’ versus ‘doing’ punk: On
achieving authenticity as a member. Journal of Language and Social Psychology,
9(4), 257–277.
Williams, J. P. (2006). Authentic identities: Straight-edge subculture, music and
the internet. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(2), 173–200.
Williams, J. P., & Copes, H. (2005). How edge are you? Constructing
authentic identities and subcultural boundaries in a straightedge internet
forum. Symbolic Interaction, 28(1), 67–89.
Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M., & Joseph, S. (2008). The
authentic personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization, and the
development of the authenticity scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55(3),
385–399.
Zickmund, S. (2007). Deliberation, phronesis, and authenticity: Heidegger’s
early conception of rhetoric. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 40(4), 406–415.
