The History and Ethics of Authenticity

Meaning, Freedom, and Modernity

Kyle Michael James Shuttleworth

• Publisher: Bloomsbury Academic
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781350163454
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Ethics & Moral Philosophy

Addressing the post-enlightenment problems of meaning and freedom, Kyle Michael James Shuttleworth traces the historical development of the ethics of authenticity in a lucid and vigorous study. The emergence of authenticity as an ethical ideal is probed in relation to the rise of social freedom and individualism which opens up conversations and disagreements with the German Idealists, and later, Habermas, Foucault, and MacIntyre. Taking heed of these intellectual predecessors and proponents of ethical authenticity leads to an original conception of a socio-existential account of ethical authenticity, made possible by the work of both Taylor and Sartre. Moving beyond virtue ethics, discourse ethics and Foucauldian notions of self-care, The History and Ethics of Authenticity constructs a practical ethics of authenticity that is both embedded in and able to transcend the current moment. Making use of contemporary reference points, including the rise of social media, capitalist branding, and competing appeals to identity, authenticity becomes an achievable ethical ideal.

Part One

The problem and the resolution

1

The problem(s) of modernity

With the onset of modernity and establishment of new systems and structures, new challenges simultaneously emerged. Perhaps the biggest challenge with which modern individuals were required to contend was the freedom which ensued from the collapse of pre-modern hierarchies. Those who perceived this as progress pursued freedom fervently as a rational end. However, the unforeseen consequence of the unbridled pursuit of autonomy was the ironic restriction of freedom, the very thing which propelled their efforts. The failure to establish a rational end led subsequent theorists to form a counter-discourse, rejecting the continuation of the attempt to provide a rational foundation for human existence. Those who opposed the Enlightenment recognized that the rejection of absolute values, upon which to orientate oneself, led to the concern of nihilism, that life is fundamentally meaningless. The focus of this chapter will be to present that which we intend to engage with within this monograph. Rather than focusing on modernity as a problem, namely, what modernity is, and whether this has ended and we are now living within a postmodern era, we will concern ourselves with the philosophical implications of the onset of modernity. Specifically, the aim will be to determine the problems that modernity poses with regard to freedom and meaning.

In order to achieve our aim, we will begin with a brief analysis of modernity, articulating that which early modern thinkers believed themselves to be attempting to achieve (Section 1.1). Here we will discuss the intellectual developments which separate modernity from pre-modernity and focus on that which MacIntyre has termed the ‘Enlightenment project’ (2010: 36). We will then turn our attention to determining the key concepts which came to be indicative of modernity (Section 1.2). Focusing specifically on the philosophical programmes of Immanuel Kant and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, it will be illustrated that the concepts of maturity and autonomy are those which defined the Enlightenment project. Having provided an overview of modernity, attention will then be turned towards the negative consequences of the Enlightenment (Section 1.3). Here two specific problems will be raised and elucidated. The first problem, as explicated by Friedrich Nietzsche, is that of nihilism, that life is fundamentally meaningless. The second problem, which is raised by Max Weber, is disenchantment, which was a consequence of increased rationalization, which decreased the individual’s ability to actualize their freedom. Having determined the problems which modernity poses, with regards to freedom and meaning, we will then articulate the approach to modernity which will be upheld in this book (Section 1.4). Here we will note that our particular disposition will be one of acceptance, that is, rather than attempt to explain away the problem, we will confront it directly.

1.1 What is modernity?

In order to address the problem of modernity it is necessary to first provide a context within which to situate our investigation. Historically, modernity is understood by its distinct division from the medieval era. As Robert Pippen explicates, ‘Modernity, as the name suggests, implies a decisive break in an intellectual tradition, an inability to rely on assumptions and practices taken for granted in the past’ (1991: 10–11). In this preceding period, the social system was feudal, the economy agricultural and the countries were controlled by monarchs or emperors. However, each of these components was gradually replaced. Society became capitalist, the economy industrial and the policies of state eventually came to be determined by democratic vote. With the implementation of these institutions, practices and traditions, the modern age was essentially born. The establishment of each of these elements, however, was not simply a matter of replacing one theory with another. On the contrary, what we now recognize as the ‘modern world’ is the result of 300 years of enquiry and development in various fields of science, economics and philosophy. Western modernization is a complex process, and as such there exist various historical narratives that account for its emergence and development. Furthermore, the attempt to offer a linear account of the intellectual developments which shaped contemporary society would be a considerable undertaking, and one best left to historians.¹

However, in order to proceed, a rough historical account must be given to contextualize our investigation and determine the problems which modernity poses with regards to freedom and meaning. Recognizing the restrictions which are imposed by a philosophical enquiry, the account offered here will be limited to that of the Enlightenment. The reason for restricting our enquiry to this concrete historical event is because the Enlightenment came to define the modern era, intellectually. Although there were various Enlightenments, both regionally and within the various disciplines, in what follows, we will offer a précis of the key ideas and historical events which came to define the modern age.²

One underlying belief which resonated throughout Enlightenment thought was that the expansion of knowledge via reason and scientific understanding would lead to epistemological progress. This perspective was a result of the likes of Francis Bacon, who in his Novum Organum (1620) advanced an alternative to the ‘stagnant’ Aristotelian method. In his own words, Bacon claimed, ‘knowledge must be sought from the light of nature, not fetched back out of the darkness of antiquity’ (2009: I.CXXII). Bacon’s development of the inductive method was designed to reap truth and enable humankind to understand God’s creation. This was further fortified by Isaac Newton, who in his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathmatica (1687) suggested that nature was governed by laws and that the natural world could be explained and understood through rational principles such as cause and effect.³ Within his scientific tour de force, Newton claimed ‘the economy of nature requires us to make gravity responsible for the orbital force acting on each of the planets’.⁴ Believing that the world was rational and beneficent, and that nature was essentially good, the idea spread that people possessed the potential to improve themselves and their environment. The outcome of this social awakening was that for the first time in history, individuals not only expected their future society to be significantly different to that in which they were raised but also actively worked towards achieving this ideal.⁵

The Enlightenment was achieved not solely through advancements in science but also in politics.⁶ In France, men of letters, such as Diderot, Voltaire and Rousseau, collaborated in order to compose the Encyclopédia ou dictionnaire raisonne des sciences, des arts, et des metriers. ⁷ The aim of their collective effort was to increase public understanding and produce a more virtuous and happier population.⁸ Not only did these free thinkers seek to enlighten citizens, but they also drew awareness to corrupt institutions such as the then-repressive Catholic Church, their ineffective monarchy and the officials in charge who abused their positions. Advocates of the Enlightenment believed that it pointed the way towards political reform and sought to establish a system based on its principles. The Enlightenment thus culminated with the French Revolution in 1789, which ‘replaced a decaying and obsolete social and political order with rational institutions’ (Mah 1990: 4). By applying these scientifically derived principles to society, it was believed that human civilization would progress towards a more liberal state.

From the accounts thus far discussed, what can be determined is that the Enlightenment was the consequence of a dual process. First, there is the scientific sense of having a veil removed from one’s eyes. In this account, the Enlightenment sought to obtain a greater understanding of the universe. This was achieved by Francis Bacon, who established induction as the scientific method, and Isaac Newton’s discovery of natural laws. Here the belief in progress spurred on the increased ‘rationalization’ of the natural world, that is, the demystification of nature, and how one ought to understand it (Weber 2005: 30). Secondly, there is the ethical and political sense, in which one was enlightened insofar as one had a burden lifted from one’s shoulders. Through historical movements, such as the French Revolution, political enlightenment brought about the realization of a free legal, political and personal order, within which people were encouraged to live mature, individual lives. Thus, through the dual process of scientific and political enlightenment, what occurred was the erosion of the feudal–social hierarchy and creation of the de jure free individual. This in turn led to the loss of a stabilizing sense of tradition through the development of science and rationalization. Having defined modernity in terms of the Enlightenment, we will now turn our attention to determining the key philosophical concepts which came to be indicative of modernity.

1.2 Enlightenment: Maturity and freedom

Perhaps the best expression of the moral–ethical attitude that permeated Enlightenment thought is to be found within the work of Immanuel Kant. In his short essay, ‘An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?’⁹ Kant offers a reflective account which seeks to understand this intellectual movement from within the confines of its own framework. The importance of this short text, and the precision with which Kant succinctly expressed the Enlightenment ideal, is recognized by not only the advocates of the Enlightenment but also its critics.¹⁰ Here Kant famously claimed that enlightenment is ‘man’s emergence from self-incurred immaturity’ (2009: 1). In order to appreciate the significance of this claim, it is important to understand that which is inferred by ‘immaturity’. Within his essay, Kant employs this term in a dual sense. First, on an individual level, from the literal definition of one who is emotionally and intellectually undeveloped. Here one’s immaturity is a result of one’s choice to remain dependent upon others. Secondly, Kant’s understanding operates on the social level, which is explained with the figurative notion of a paternal society. In this sense, one does not necessarily choose to remain dependent, but is provided for by one’s society and has no need to use one’s understanding and no occasion to think for oneself. Kant claims that we no t only depend upon such authorities for guidance and direction, but these very authorities, which he refers to as ‘guardians’, portray maturity as troublesome and dangerous. The guardians, by whom he means elders of the church, officers in the military and governmental civil servants, thus make themselves necessary to the masses by controlling them through fear.¹¹ For these reasons, Kant claims, it is difficult to extricate oneself from immaturity. Furthermore, it is difficult for one to think for oneself if one has never before been afforded the opportunity to do so. There are, however, a few individuals who through ‘their own cultivation of their spirit’ have liberated themselves from dependence upon others (2009: 2). Kant states that, as a result of these independent thinkers’ influence, it is inevitable that the public will eventually begin to think for themselves. Like the slave liberated from Plato’s cave who returns in order to enlighten the others, independent thinkers who have matured will also want the masses to think for themselves.¹² However, he warns us that, if influenced by guardians who are incapable of enlightenment, the public may impede their own progress by maintaining these social, political and cultural beliefs, and cause themselves to remain immature.

Due to the guardians, who uphold traditional values and introduce these to the masses, the process of enlightenment is a slow, gradual one. Furthermore, Kant claims that it cannot be achieved by social revolution. He urges that although a revolution may displace despotism, avarices and oppression, it is incapable of imparting thought. It will simply replace the prejudices which harness the great unthinking masses.¹³ The only way for enlightenment to be achieved, in his account, is for individuals to challenge conventions and teach the masses to think for themselves. The motto of the Enlightenment, he claims, is ‘Sapere aude! – Have courage to make use of your own understanding’ (2009: 2). The goal of the Enlightenment, for Kant, is thus to mature intellectually by liberating ourselves from social authorities. The process of Enlightenment is therefore a dual one, necessarily depending first upon individual and then social pursuit. Whilst it is the individual’s responsibility to free themselves, in order for society to advance towards greater freedom, this self-liberation must also be embraced by society as a whole.

It has been illustrated that Kant’s understanding of the Enlightenment was the personal and political acquisition of maturity. However, maturity is not only an end in itself but also a means to an end. By taking personal responsibility he believed that society would progress towards an end goal. The telos towards which he envisioned the Enlightenment to be orientated was one of increased freedom or autonomy. As Pippen makes explicit, ‘the modern question of independence became itself a philosophical issue in Kant, the reflective attempt by reason to determine the rules of its own activity, to set for itself its ends, to determine its own limits’ (1991: 118). This, it was believed, was the end which was inherent in human civilization itself. Kant, however, did not believe that he lived in ‘an enlightened age, but an age of enlightenment’, within which this process of maturity was simply underway (2009: 2). In order to hasten an enlightened state, his essay not only offered an explanation but also proposed what he believed to be the means to maturity. According to Kant, the necessary condition for the Enlightenment of the masses is freedom to make use of one’s reason, which he believed would enable both the individual and society to cultivate increased freedom.

Although Kant proposes maturity as a means to autonomy, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel takes this one step further, claiming that autonomy is the rational end of human ...