Malcolm Gladwell's Unauthentic Life

Imagine a person who goes to a job interview. The interviewer’s first question may be an easy one-- “what is your name?” The response to such a simple question is automatic, requiring no thought. Now imagine that the second question asked is “who are you, and how do you know?” The interviewee may grapple for the right words to say and sheepishly list a variety of personality traits, which he is supposedly endowed with because his friends “told him so.” A person is able to know who his true self is not by outward confirmation from others, but through self-observation, taking note of how he acts when he is alone, untainted by the influences of family members and friends. In a society which judges people harshly, it is unsurprising that people act differently alone than when in the company of others; thus, to be a genuine person is to act the way one feels inwardly despite external influences such as peer pressure, which causes one to act in a way which is not consistent with his or her values and beliefs. Being authentic is a special breed itself, as it requires courage to live by how one truly feels and not to live by the opinions of others. Through the changing of core beliefs and numbing of emotions, some people choose to live

unauthentically; though they are able to exist more comfortably, the consequence of not being authentic includes a loss of identity and a loss of connection with others.

Malcolm Gladwell’s David and Goliath exemplifies the consequence of living an unauthentic life through the use of a historical reference to a group of artists in the mid 1800s-- the Impressionists.

Though Impressionist painters such as Monet and Degas are famously known today, they were largely rejected and criticized by society for their non-traditional paintings during nineteenth century France; they were even rejected from having their paintings shown in the prestigious Salon, an exhibition which marked the pinnacle of any artist’s career in France. If an artist’s work was accepted into the Salon, it would be seen by millions of people who swarm to the exhibition held in early May, creating widespread popularity and

recognition.

The Impressionists were thus faced with a problem-- the Salon would never accept their paintings because they were non-traditional. Therefore, “acceptance by the Salon came with a cost: it required creating the kind of art they did not find meaningful...they risked being lost” (Gladwell 67). Among the thousands of painters in France who aimlessly tried to be accepted into the Salon, the Impressionists were unique, producing paintings which were not embraced by society; in order to gain publicity and recognition, the Impressionists would have to paint what they did not find meaningful, joining the “big pond” of the Salon with thousands of other “little fish” (68). “Big fish,” such as the Impressionists, are noticeably different from the “little fish,” who are the traditional French painters; thus, the unique paintings produced by the Impressionists set them apart from the traditional French painters. While it is easy to spot a “big fish” in a “small pond,” it is difficult to identify a specific “little fish” who is in a “big pond” of other “little fish.” If the Impressionists were to paint traditional paintings, they would not be genuine, painting solely for acceptance into the Salon. They would blend in with the other “little fish, “lost” amidst thousands of other painters who desperately tried to be noticed by the Salon. Here, the meaning of the Impressionists being “lost” is two-fold; it not only refers to the Impressionists never producing paintings which will stand out among the paintings of traditional French painters, but also refers to the loss of identity in which the Impressionists would have experienced if they chose to paint traditional art. Though the Impressionists could have chosen to inwardly value non-traditional art and outwardly paint traditional art a confusion of identity would have been created. It is virtually impossible for one to live with perpetual cognitive dissonance-- at some point, the Impressionists would have been forced to resolve a confusion of identity by changing their values and concepts to match with the art they produce. Though painting non-traditional art was once important to the Impressionists, they would risk losing core values and beliefs through cognitive dissonance, all triggered by society’s external pressure of conformation to mainstream art. Painting traditional art would lead to a more comfortable existence for the Impressionists because they would not be a specific target of criticism; conforming to society could have even caused the Impressionists to find acceptance from society earlier, but they would have decidedly lost their identity as a consequence of living unauthentically.

Brené Brown, a researcher in social work, claims that people who have a strong sense of love and belonging are those who are authentic and fully embrace vulnerability, realizing that they are imperfect. Brown defines vulnerability as the “core of shame and fear and struggle and worthiness…[but also] the birthplace of joy, of creativity, of belonging, of love.” Though experiencing vulnerability is uncomfortable, there is certainly a positive side to it; those who are able to able to experience vulnerability without shame live authentically, as they are able to form emotional connections with other people. While everyone is capable of experiencing vulnerability, some choose to numb vulnerability due to a fear of being seen as imperfect by others. Brown asserts that a person cannot “selectively numb emotion...you can’t say, here’s the bad stuff. Here’s vulnerability, here’s grief, here’s shame...I don’t want these...when we numb those, we numb gratitude, we numb happiness.” When a person “numbs” a feeling, he desensitizes himself from an emotion-- sensation is replaced with deadness, disabling a person from forming connections with other people. The ability to empathize and show emotion is the cornerstone of any connection between two people-- therefore, a person who numbs his emotions out of the fear of showing imperfection and vulnerability becomes isolated from others. Every person has vulnerability, and numbing vulnerability is synonymous to denying the possession of it. While it is more comfortable to exist by numbing vulnerability, it results in a loss of connection with others which is difficult to recover.

Though living unauthentically may result in acceptance from society, the consequences of a loss of identity and a loss of connection with others outweigh any benefit of acceptance from mainstream society. It is unnecessary to live unauthentically in order to gain acceptance from others-- referring back to Brené Brown’s research about vulnerability, she explicitly states that the ones who feel loved are the ones who simply believe that they are worthy of being loved. Though acceptance may not be found immediately, and though the acceptance found may not be from a majority, there will always be people who share the same beliefs and values. Similarly, the Impressionists may not have gained approval from the people of France during the nineteenth century, but they had the acceptance of each other in their small group, which is far more meaningful and perceptive than the acceptance of millions of people would have been.

Being genuine not only causes one to live in alignment with beliefs and values, but also assists in the establishment of an identity. In addition, being genuine results in a connection with others, specifically those who offer acceptance without reservation or doubt. Though it may be more comfortable to exist in agreement with society, it is important to live authentically and to have firm convictions in beliefs and values. Rather than “passively adopt[ing] the opinions constructed by [others]” as mentioned by Atonia Case’s article, “You are Your Life, and Nothing Else,” one should have an active approach toward life; to live “passively” is quite similar to being bent and shaped by external influences, such as the opinions of peers. Ultimately, living an unauthentic life results in the hardening of malleable beliefs, not shaped by the evolution a person’s own opinion, but the opinions constructed by other people.