- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The issue of authenticity comes up regularly on this forum. I’ve thought quite a bit about it. Recently I was reading a very excellent, conceptual management book called The Art of Leadership by a person named Max Dupree. He made a comment that everyone has certain “rights” in an organization — respect, civility, and the right to be “authentic”. The term “authentic” puzzled me for a while, but I now see that he is talking about being able to disagree when you disagree, agree when you agree, and be yourself. As a result of this advice, many will say “there — see I SHOULD be able to speak the naked truth about what I think in Sunday School!”.
I have never agreed with that type of naked or even semi-nakedness of opinion, yet it flies in the face of Max Dupree’s statement, which I generally agree with. So, I’ve experienced a lot of healthy tension between Max Dupree’s ideal and the obvious negative consequences of authenticity.
Last week I had a bit of an epiphany on this subject. I was in a meeting in my work last week, and I saw that everyone was afraid to speak up to a manager in the meeting. They were afraid to say what was on their mind, to disagree with him, or to say anything that was contrarian to prevailing thought. And I felt that such guardedness was the right thing to do because of how this manager had hauled in people who disagreed with him in a recent open-discussion/brown bag lunch meeting. And he has done it multiple times. These same people were let go in a recent downsizing — every single one of them. The cost of authenticity can be massive in the wrong context.
So, how do you reconcile the tension in Matt Dupree’s statement that everyone has the right to authenticity, and the need to be inauthentic for self-preservation reasons?
My answer is that Max Dupree’s statement is a “should”. It’s a
prescription to leaders to set the tonewhere people CAN disagree in civil, respectful ways, without feeling they are at personal risk. However, when such a tone does not exist, inauthenticity is the best policy for the preservation of one’s job, ward relationships, and in one’s relationships in their family. Provided it doesn’t make you cross ethical boundaries you aren’t comfortable with… And even in “authentic” organizations, where people can express their opinion and be themselves without negative consequences, there are limits. If the organization or the leaders disagree with the “authentic contrarianism” it’s up to the individual to accept the objectionable state of affairs, after trying, within reason, to get their voice heard. Not everyone can get their way — in any organization.
Thanks for your thoughts on Authenticity SilentDawning. I hadn’t really thought about the especially important role leaders play in creating an environment where others can be authentic. I think giving others the space to be authentic and being slow to react negatively to the things people say/do is the more common and greater work of authenticity we have. Just as you recognized that being authentic in that work meeting would have negative consequences, part of our ability to mesh in families, companies, and other social settings is being able to recognize what level of authenticity will be tolerated by the prevailing minds in that social setting. However, a willingness to be authentic and speak up, even when negative consequences will result, is important and can move the needle forward. In fact, it is probably the only way the needle gets moved when prevailing minds stand in opposition to authentic thought. For example, Kate Kelly is probably not as vocal in every setting or every issue as she has been about women in the church, and being authentic in that regard resulted in her ex-communication. We will probably never know, but I think the her’s and voices of other Mormon feminists influenced the Q15 to ask women to pray in general conference, and place women on two of the highest church committees.
We must choose our battles I suppose.
jaboc84 wrote:Kate Kelly is probably not as vocal in every setting or every issue as she has been about women in the church, and being authentic in that regard resulted in her ex-communication. We will probably never know, but I think the her’s and voices of other Mormon feminists influenced the Q15 to ask women to pray in general conference, and place women on two of the highest church committees.
We must choose our battles I suppose.
I think Kate Kelly is a good example of what I’m talking about. She was completely authentic. And she may have effected change — but at what cost? Would she do it again knowing the outcome?
That would be for her to decide. I do believe that traditional civil disobedience or demonstration tactics within the church do not seem to work very well — not without grave personal consequences for their movement’s leader. They raise the authoritarian arm of the church and it slaps down the proactive people.
I think we can take a lesson from the people who spoke up about the temple recommend interview question about “mouthing your wife”. A lot of people had a problem with that rule. And they changed it. I don’t believe there was a demonstration or an active PR program — it was something that average people and leaders alike probably expressed difficulty with — and so the brethren changed it. Same with the penalties in the temple ceremony. Those were changed — likely due to good peoples’ dismay at such violent or graphic content.
it seems that a low-risk means of change is for a large number of people to mention their concern with the objectionable practice in interviews, or for the local leadership to see themes in why people leave or lessen their commitment — not as an overt movement, but as a widespread, seemingly non-organized trend Then, they listen.
I think sites like this fall into that category. There is no organized movement, but you see people expressing their thoughts. One of the best things I think a site like this can do is to publish their growth statistics so leaders can see trends in general thought — at least, growth in the Internet presence of people who are having trouble staying LDS. Such growth shows there are problems that need to be addressed. And also see the relationship between organizational health and the mind/will of the average church member. I believe that if there is no connection between the opinions of the average members, and the organization’s interests, there is a slower, and less likely chance of change.
I remember a history book I read in university. And the author would often slip into personal commentary. He would say “it’s when the common person gets riled up to the point of action or open expression that revolutions happen”. I’m not advocating revolution for any cause in that statement — simply sharing one mechanism by which massive change happens.
Not much time to comment, but very interesting SD. I appreciate it. It does bring up something I have been thinking about lately with work. I think some of the most “successful” managers have some ability to allow challenges to them, but in the end if they don’t occasionally override the nay-sayers and move forward then they don’t get anything done.
I am one that is always asking for very direct feedback so I can learn how I come across. I love getting hard to hear feedback.
I just recently blogged about authenticity here: http://www.wheatandtares.org/17371/authenticity-will-the-real-me-please-stand-up/ SilentDawning wrote:My answer is that Max Dupree’s statement is a “should”. It’s a
prescription to leaders to set the tonewhere people CAN disagree in civil, respectful ways, without feeling they are at personal risk. However, when such a tone does not exist, inauthenticity is the best policy for the preservation of one’s job, ward relationships, and in one’s relationships in their family. Provided it doesn’t make you cross ethical boundaries you aren’t comfortable with... Thanks for the post, SD. I get the feeling that the church would like us to consider the personal risks – conflict, inactivity, ostracization, excommunication, etc. – so great that we would always stop short of
anythingthat produces it. Eventually some people take the risks because there really is no other way ahead, for them at that time. Authentic to what? That was the question I asked a friend who was talking about being authentic a few months ago. I don’t know about any of you, but I have (at least) two distinct people living inside of me. One is a lying, slothful, proud, overreaching, hedonistic, addicted, selfish jerk. The other is an amazing selfless childlike humble caring person who loves the truth. Combine these two in me and you end up with a marginal person who sometimes does very bad things and sometimes does very good things. Not only do I have to figure out which is which when I’m standing up for myself and being authentic, I have to make sure the jerk in me isn’t asserting truth when I really don’t have the foggiest idea and just want things to be the way I want them to be. It’s taken me 44 years to start to get a bridle on the jerk enough to feel like I can be more authentic to the real me and only on things where I know the real truth as revealed by God or (carefully) my own experience. Hopefully these ramblings are useful to someone. rcronk wrote:Authentic to what? That was the question I asked a friend who was talking about being authentic a few months ago. I don’t know about any of you, but I have (at least) two distinct people living inside of me. One is a lying, slothful, proud, overreaching, hedonistic, addicted, selfish jerk. The other is an amazing selfless childlike humble caring person who loves the truth. Combine these two in me and you end up with a marginal person who sometimes does very bad things and sometimes does very good things. Not only do I have to figure out which is which when I’m standing up for myself and being authentic, I have to make sure the jerk in me isn’t asserting truth when I really don’t have the foggiest idea and just want things to be the way I want them to be. It’s taken me 44 years to start to get a bridle on the jerk enough to feel like I can be more authentic to the real me and only on things where I know the real truth as revealed by God or (carefully) my own experience. Hopefully these ramblings are useful to someone.
I agree with you. I think life is a balance. There is the pressure from the natural man which I list as all of the selfish and self-serving bad things we do to others (which I don’t think sex has anything to do with the natural man directly anything more than we are born with the intense desire to eat and breathe). On the other side there is the altruistic side. I know with my faith crisis and now into a faith transition I am MUCH more willing to forgive myself for not being perfect and focus more on what I can do to help others and less on my position with God.I think being authentic is saying more how you feel, but certainly looking at how it will affect someone else.
Just an example yesterday, there was an instructor in priesthood yesterday that was spewing on and on about how great and wonderful and humble Ezra Taft Benson was. I was not being authentic sitting there stewing inside how I wanted to say something to give another perspective. I was worried that I would really spew the counter argument on some ways that ETB was less than perfect. Then I looked over and noticed not one other person was listening to him. Everyone else was looking at their tablets and one of the most TBM’s almost fell out of his seat as he was falling asleep. Then I looked at the instructor and I knew this was good for him, so I just went back to reading staylds.com.
LookingHard wrote:I agree with you. I think life is a balance. There is the pressure from the natural man which I list as all of the selfish and self-serving bad things we do to others (which I don’t think sex has anything to do with the natural man directly anything more than we are born with the intense desire to eat and breathe).
Thanks for your reply. One part of your reply stuck out to me (quoted above) because of what I’ve been through over the past 33 years. I’ve actually been in recovery from addictions relating to sex for the past 13 years with 20 years before that fully enslaved by those addictions themselves. Lust is satan’s counterfeit for emotional and physical intimacy and love. Lust is compulsive and progressive (i.e. desensitizing) in nature, is focused on self, and can be transferred from one lust object to the next. Love and true emotional and physical intimacy are not based on selfish desires but are based in true, honest, courageous emotional union, are absolutely not compulsive in nature, and cannot be transferred from one person to the next – they are uniquely fingerprinted to the person being loved. That being said, the ambiguous term “sex” that you used above exists in both good and evil – natural and spiritual – planes and only the compulsive counterfeit “lust” manifests itself as a demand like the need for water and food. That compulsive demand can be surrendered and sacrificed so that true love and emotional and physical intimacy (which are choices) can take its place. I’ve worked closely with thousands of recovering addicts over the years and we have experienced that the compulsive sex drive of which you speak is entirely created by people’s decisions (ofttimes in blindness) to lust beforehand. When I surrender/sacrifice those decisions to lust, the compulsive drive disappears, leaving room for choice, service, freedom, and love to take its place. It’s an amazing thing that most people are unaware of, but it is true. I’ve lived it myself and thousands of others have too. It has taken me all 13 years of recovery to tease apart lust from love and I’m still working on it but it’s an amazing journey toward loving others how God does with complete freedom and honest, selfless union.
I could go on for hours about this topic but will refrain from hijacking the thread any further. I just couldn’t let the combining of these two opposite planes of sex slip by without testifying of my experiences. You could say I was compelled to respond.
HI rcronk, I see that you feel very strongly and have some experience and expertise on this subject. This subject can be controversial and I hope fervently that the strength of differing opinions does not get the thread locked down (always a possibility with such an emotionally charged subject).
I agree with your statement “Love and true emotional and physical intimacy are not based on selfish desires but are based in true, honest, courageous emotional union, are absolutely not compulsive in nature, and cannot be transferred from one person to the next – they are uniquely fingerprinted to the person being loved.” That is such an awesome statement.
On the other hand I personally would not be perpetually content if all “emotional and physical intimacy” with my wife was to consist of hugging. Part of this marital love equation is to be aware of and work to fulfill the needs of each other and that includes sexual needs. I believe that LookingHard was just saying that sex and sexual desire is in itself neither good or bad but is neutral and biological.
I also believe that most would agree that sexual desire and actions taken to extremes can lead to some very dark places. We seem to be mostly in agreement even if we might use different words to describe what we mean.
We pretty much agree – just one misunderstanding. When I say “physical intimacy”, that certainly includes sex, but I use this other phrase because “sex” is overloaded and ambiguous, especially in today’s society. Proper physical intimacy is just a physical manifestation of an already healthy emotional intimacy, not the other way around. Sexual “needs” are usually lust-based. Physical intimacy is a byproduct and completion of the complete union of two souls and is not a “need” the way people think of a need for food and water. But in my experience, until you’ve spent several years actively breaking apart these various needs out of necessity because of sexual addictions, you won’t be able to discern the subtle differences between God’s way and satan’s counterfeit. I find your perspective fascinating. I am hoping to understand it better. rcronk wrote:Physical intimacy is a byproduct and completion of the complete union of two souls and is not a “need” the way people think of a need for food and water.
Maslow included sex as a need into his theory or basic needs. This does not mean that it is correct but it does mean that viewing sex as a need is not an unusual perspective in the social sciences.
From Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs “The position and value of sex on the pyramid has also been a source of criticism regarding Maslow’s hierarchy. Maslow’s hierarchy places sex in the physiological needs category along with food and breathing; it lists sex solely from an individualistic perspective. For example, sex is placed with other physiological needs which must be satisfied before a person considers “higher” levels of motivation. Some critics feel this placement of sex neglects the emotional, familial, and evolutionary implications of sex within the community, although others point out that this is true of all of the basic needs.[22][23]”
rcronk wrote:Sexual “needs” are usually lust-based.
I am confused by this. To be fair, I may not be understanding you fully. How would you propose an ideal marriage should operate?
Suppose that one partner had a very low sex drive and was not really interested in sex. I would imagine that they would work out some sort of compromise as far as the timing and frequency of intimacy that they could both live with. Would you be suggesting something different? It sounds like you might be proposing that the more sexually interested partner should overcome that desire as something that is selfish and lust based. Am I reading this correctly?
I remember seeing a movie about the life of Gandhi. In later years he gave some sort of vow of celibacy to further his spiritual pursuits. In the movie his wife expressed some sad acceptance of that because she wanted to support her husband and certainly not tempt him to brake his vow and yet she dearly missed the sexual intimacy that they had once shared together. Clearly there is no easy answer. We cannot say that Gandhi was wrong to pursue his spirituality and yet to deprive his wife of this component of intimacy was not completely fair to her. It is a complicated topic.
Yes, it is complicated. Great marriage is the art of compromise.
I have a dear friend who is married but has been celibate for a long time due to his wife’s refusal to have sex. It constitutes his own personal Hell – and that is not an over-statement.
In my opinion and experience, the key is how someone defines lust – and, like so many other things, people define the same words very differently.
To clarify my opinion, within a marriage you can have a ton of mutually desired sex and there will be nothing to do with lust. I don’t define sex as part of the “natural man”. It CAN be one of the expressions of the natural man when used for power or punishment. But sex itself is a major part of the glue that keeps a marriage together and can be what drives a wedge between spouses. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think we’re all mostly in agreement and that this is mainly a definition issue. Compulsive sex drive is actually created by a person who has chosen to lust – it’s not just a feeling one gets out of nowhere. True choice-based physical intimacy is created by service, sacrifice, and love. Both look similar on the surface, but one is based on freedom and giving, the other on compulsion and taking. It would probably take an hour long conversation to really unpack the details of it and get all of the definitions accurate, so I’ll leave it at that for now. And yes, marriage involves much more than any of this.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.