Two instances spring to mind: firstly, the woman who faked being a 9/11 survivor and actually ended up leading an organisation for survivors until someone worked out that she hadn't been in the towers at all - her story is covered in the documentary The Woman Who Wasn't There. Secondly, the many many faked deaths online - but somehow it's now happened multiple times in the world of hand-dyed yarn sellers, where sellers who have got in over their heads with orders have ended up faking their own deaths to get out of having to issue refunds they can't afford to pay back.
I'm developing a truly complicated relationship with the word "authenticity."
Online fora are neat because there's basically nothing connecting this handle to my IRL person. I could count the number of folks here who know me IRL on two hands with fingers left over. I'm authentically here as a floating online netizen who expresses the opinions he feels like expressing. In Epiphanies, that's a more interesting thing because we're supposed to try harder here to put our own identities forward rather than treating the world like an abstract logic puzzle, but...authentic? What's that?
At the outside, blatant fraud is obvious. Lying about your personal life, fabricating identities, etc. This is straightforward.
But then there are edges that can be bickered over. I grew up in Western Maryland, IRL. And I have gotten into arguments with people whether I qualify as "Appalachian" because different political regimes in America have defined "Appalachia" as being either inclusive or exclusive of the towns I grew up in. Similarly, at my brother in law's funeral, the preacher asked me if I was a Yankee or a Southerner, and I earnestly answered "I don't know, it depends on where you think the border is, I grew up south of the Mason Dixon line and north of the Potomac in the pro-union end of a border state that wasn't allowed to vote on secession." More recently in life, I realize this probably means I'm a Yankee, because if you don't know and you're in the south, you're probably a Yankee.
For these reasons, I've been prone to quipping "authenticity is a scam." But at some point, it can safely be said that I'd be lying. I'm not from West Virginia, that's the other side of the Potomac River from where I was raised. And I live in Chicago, so I can - if I choose - legitimately tease suburbanites who say they're from Chicago when they are in fact from Wheaton, IL. It'd be even wronger for me to say I was from England, though if I go back far enough I've got English ancestors (among others.)
At the same time, I could also make arguments for things I didn't believe, which is something I'm more prone to do. I could argue on behalf of pro lifers, or Zionists, or libertarians, etc. because I know some of these people and empathize with them enough that I can pick up their feelings and logic even if I find their opinions disagreeable. This might be my way of struggling with the truer parts of their worldviews, or perhaps an attempt at empathy, or a kind of argument-via-Aikido. If I can understand them enough, I can defeat them. But if I'm using parts of their worldview that I understand, is this really inauthentic? These are my thoughts, even if they're defending things I would not wish to defend if the conversation were one with real consequences.
And of course, identity based authenticity can fall apart depending on what it is grounded in. No True Scotsman is a thing. "No real person of quality X would ever say Y!"
Look hard enough, for any value X or Y, and I suspect you could find one.
And I live in Chicago, so I can - if I choose - legitimately tease suburbanites who say they're from Chicago when they are in fact from Wheaton, IL.
That's fair enough, but people from Wheaton (or any of the other suburbs) usually tell people they're from Chicago (or "near Chicago") when they're talking to someone who might have a vague idea of where in the US Chicago is, but has never heard of Wheaton.
People who live in suburbia and claim to be city dwellers deserve to be mocked mercilessly, but that, IME, is usually not what's going on.
And I live in Chicago, so I can - if I choose - legitimately tease suburbanites who say they're from Chicago when they are in fact from Wheaton, IL.
That's fair enough, but people from Wheaton (or any of the other suburbs) usually tell people they're from Chicago (or "near Chicago") when they're talking to someone who might have a vague idea of where in the US Chicago is, but has never heard of Wheaton.
People who live in suburbia and claim to be city dwellers deserve to be mocked mercilessly, but that, IME, is usually not what's going on.
"Near Chicago" is more honest. And the degree to which I'll pick at folks for that is directly proportional to how near I am to Chicago. I heard that line from a Wheatonite while touristing in Japan and just nodded politely because it would've seemed petty and provincial to pick up the gauntlet at that distance.
My son lives in a small town near San Diego, CA. that most have never heard of. So in a casual conversation with someone I do not know well, asked about where my children live, I just say in the San Diego area.
My son lives in a small town near San Diego, CA. that most have never heard of. So in a casual conversation with someone I do not know well, asked about where my children live, I just say in the San Diego area.
I grew up in a small town in south-central Idaho. Depending on who I was wanting to impress, I would name the largest town in the area (near T F) or the nearest resort in the area (S V).
Even now I will say I am a Coug(ar) because I live in the town where Washington State University is, but I never went to that school. I have attended classes elsewhere. I could claim to be an Eagle or a Vandal or a Bengal, but I will stay with the Cougs.
Depending on the situation I might mention I was born in the centre of the universe (TM), Toronto for those who do not live there. Usually, I just say I am from working class, Saint John, N.B. I think authenticity is a myth.
Imagine the fun I must have explaining where I am from, having grown up in the Englush countryside half a mile from the nearest (fly dirt on the map) village.
I just go for county - then have to explain that I have never had casual sex in a white Ford Escort...
"Near Chicago" is more honest. And the degree to which I'll pick at folks for that is directly proportional to how near I am to Chicago. I heard that line from a Wheatonite while touristing in Japan and just nodded politely because it would've seemed petty and provincial to pick up the gauntlet at that distance.
The idea of where we're from has a number of interpretations in relation to our identity - it might be where we were born, where we grew up, where we live today; or it might wherever it is we call home, where my parents and grandparents call home, the land my people call home.
In the same way that these don't all equally inform our identity, it doesn't make sense to me that they would all relate, to the same extent, to the authenticity of someone's identity.
It sounds like Chicago is where you happen to live today. Regarding someone from Wheaton, I can't understand why you'd say “"Near Chicago" is more honest.” As Leorning Cniht points out, Chicago is a geographic location that most of us have heard of. Wheaton isn't. For many purposes, "Chicago" is just a useful approximation of geographic location that gives most of us as much information as we're after. Saying "Wheaton, which is a suburb of Chicago" might be more specific or accurate or pedantic, but it doesn't strike me as being more honest, or more authentic.
I'm developing a truly complicated relationship with the word "authenticity."
Online fora are neat because there's basically nothing connecting this handle to my IRL person.
There's actually quite a lot, for anyone who wanted to comb your posts for information and put the pieces of the jigsaw together.
I'm authentically here as a floating online netizen who expresses the opinions he feels like expressing. In Epiphanies, that's a more interesting thing because we're supposed to try harder here to put our own identities forward rather than treating the world like an abstract logic puzzle, but...authentic? What's that?
At the same time, I could also make arguments for things I didn't believe, which is something I'm more prone to do. I could argue on behalf of pro lifers, or Zionists, or libertarians, etc. because I know some of these people and empathize with them enough that I can pick up their feelings and logic even if I find their opinions disagreeable.
As soon as you start talking about Zionism, you're invoking a sense of from, or home, that few of us can relate to. And though the origins of modern Zionism are down to men like Nathan Birnbaum and especially Theodor Herzl, we'd be on very thin ice if we tried calling its authenticity into question.
This might be my way of struggling with the truer parts of their worldviews, or perhaps an attempt at empathy, or a kind of argument-via-Aikido. If I can understand them enough, I can defeat them. But if I'm using parts of their worldview that I understand, is this really inauthentic? These are my thoughts, even if they're defending things I would not wish to defend if the conversation were one with real consequences.
If you're using elements of someone else's worldview or sense of self that are not your own, then yes, that is inauthentic. It's not *your* identity. The versions of other people that live in our own heads are invariably inauthentic in some way. Authenticity can't be borrowed - it can only be lived (or inhabited or whatever verb describes it for you).
Aside from all this, I also bear in mind that asking someone where they're from is often a loaded question. In quite a few of the countries where we live, asking someone who doesn't look white European where they're from can just be racist.
In my working days, part of taking a good history included asking about country of origin and ( not infrequently) whether a phone interpreter was needed.
I used to take perverse pleasure in revealing my country of birth ( especially in the years before the White Australia policy was dismantled) and adding that both parents were born in Oz.
Depending on the situation I might mention I was born in the centre of the universe (TM), Toronto for those who do not live there. Usually, I just say I am from working class, Saint John, N.B. I think authenticity is a myth.
I think the mayor of Wallace Idaho would dispute Toronto being the center of the universe. Wallace actually has a certified US Geological Survey Marker proclaiming it to be the center of the Universe. Then too, the Minipuhu, otherwise known as the Nez Pierce, have a sacred ground they have declared the Center of the Universe near Kamiah Idaho. I tend to believe the Minipuhu claim.
Coming in from a slightly different angle, I have noticed that since my partner died (who was a very private person and not visible on social media at all), I've felt free to share much more of my whereabouts and personal pics on social media in the last year. And coming from a mixed-race family in southern Africa without that being 'visible' so to speak, I tend not to go into identity politics or queer affinities. Political posting is a mine field: to post on support for Gaza or ask others to sign petitions or protests about ICE, for example or crises in Sudan, is so loaded and alienating on a personal Facebook page that I prefer not to go there.
Does this mean that what is there is 'inauthentic'? Antagonism or disagreement is so polarised on most sites now and I would rather not go there.
If I glance through my Instagram posts I can see how much is withheld simply because I'm posting to strangers as well as friends and former work colleagues, people who only know me from forums online or book launches. I noticed that without ever reflecting on it, I shared nothing about spirituality or church involvement. I assume this was to sidestep idiotic or simplistic questions about God or denominations but now I mention theologians I'm reading or comment on church architecture, faith seminars etc. The responses I get are the best guide to what I choose to keep sharing...
Have also noted that social media has become both more polarised and polarising.
I don’t post much personal stuff as it is not to be shared with random strangers & I’ve encountered some eye-popping stuff (even on this Xtian website) and in response to some of my posts.
@Sojourner, yes, but there's a clear distinction between what we wouldn't tell strangers or distant acquaintances about ourselves, our health, our bank balance or family conflicts and what we share as common knowledge in everyday life, isn't there?
Issues around choices and disclosure ('faking it' or 'inauthenticity' aren't terms I'd use) are worth thinking about whenever we look for community or support or conversation or debate online because the boundaries keep shifting. I don't share anything personal about others without their permission. In order to be understood and 'known' I do share more online than in daily life at times. Without the relative safety of Epiphanies I might not have ventured to share as much about Zimbabwe or identity issues.
You are quite right, ML , and I do get the difference.
My problem is that “lived experience” on this board can be narrowly interpreted. I am seldom inclined to post on this board for that very reason.
Problem can be that a revelation by a poster can be construed by a moderator as being not in the spirit of the board ( despite the post being made in good faith) and can cause the poster to leave. (without making a public fuss , I might add)
Imagine the fun I must have explaining where I am from, having grown up in the Englush countryside half a mile from the nearest (fly dirt on the map) village.
I just go for county - then have to explain that I have never had casual sex in a white Ford Escort...
Essex?
'Twas in an old Ford Capri that I had her
In the car park of our local hostelry
And I still recall her white stilettos
On the back seat of my Ford Capri
Imagine the fun I must have explaining where I am from, having grown up in the Englush countryside half a mile from the nearest (fly dirt on the map) village.
I just go for county - then have to explain that I have never had casual sex in a white Ford Escort...
Essex?
'Twas in an old Ford Capri that I had her
In the car park of our local hostelry
And I still recall her white stilettos
On the back seat of my Ford Capri
I'm from Essex, in case you couldn't tell.
Though in my part of it, it was more likely to be green wellies in a tractor.
In the halcyon days of yore, Ausmates had lots of Meets, so we knew who folk were in RL™ And it didn't take much digging, or more often happenstance, to twig who we *really* were, that is who we were behind the Meet veneer. One common affliction of clergypersons was/is that we suffer from imposter syndrome. It is most refreshing, liberating even, to learn that it is a common affliction.
Now that cohort of mid 2000s know each other well enough that transcontinental and cross-Ditch VisageVolume correspondence has no need of pretence, we know *who* we are.
Southern Africa and some other places don't have the critical mass of Shipmates to organise Meets, heck, Aus/NZ doesn't these days for one reason or another (over-modding in the past should admit to some of the blame, but that might be expecting too much). So we're lucky that many of us are still in touch with present or old Shipmates who are anything but anonymous or catfishers.
It was tangential to the thread, made in passing and hardly warranted Administrative intervention. I know; I shouldn't wasted my time and posted this in The Styx.
quote="Caissa;c-767975"]It was tangential to the thread, made in passing and hardly warranted Administrative intervention. I know; I shouldn't wasted my time and posted this in The Styx.[/quote]
I used to worry a lot more when I was younger about what was truly me and what was my lived experience, and what it counted for. Now I tend to be very open about a lot of things and yet I feel that I don't share anything but the surface.
If I told you where I live, what my job is, what my parents do, where they are, how many kids I have and how old, and who my spouse is and what he does, is that a lot or nothing? It tells you details that could imply how rich/poor I am and my social class. If you know that I have kids and how old they are, you know something about how old I am and how much time I do or don't (if adult) spend on them. And yet none of that seems to be the real me.
I could tell you which identity groups I belong to and which of those matter to me. But would you care? Probably not and no reason you should.
If I tell you that I love words, and work with them in my job and apparently in my free time when I babble at people on SoF, that feels more importantly about me. Or I could tell you that I enjoy open world video games and think and read a lot about politics and what is going on in the world. Those details would tell a person much more about whether they'd like to spend an hour chatting with me probably. Of course that's still surface level. Do I help my neighbor when they need it? Am I really just a quiet wallflower in person? Who we are is made of a million things and yet nothing.
So I'm not sure how much we can either share a lot of ourselves online or hide it. I think it's all about knowing a person over time. I've certainly had shipmates who appeared on the news and did things that surprised me. Did I really know them? A part of them at least.
[I am not going to take this thread farther off topic, but if anyone starts a thread about saying one lives in a big city versus near it, I would participate.]
I think borders are endlessly entertaining and spent my childhood in a small middle of nowhere and have lived my adulthood in a great big somewhere, so geographic identity always gives me lots of feelings. Pardon me if I'm belaboring a point.
It's very convenient when you're from a state like Michigan or West Virginia that resembles a hand, so you can just hold up your hand and point to roughly where in the state you're from.
I think there's also a racial angle to Chicago, with the history of "white flight," there's a bitterness from people who've chosen to live in a struggle. You see people who were raised in a place that ran away from the struggle claiming that they're still in it. Chicago has a reputation (not entirely fair) of being poor, black, and violent and for people from white, safe suburbia to go around saying "I'm from Chicago" is a little uncomfortable. You're not paying into our taxes, you're not supporting our public schools, you live in communities designed to leech money away from the city at our expense and you want to say you're from here?
Some of us urbanites will cast a little shade at that. And folks who are savvy will appreciate the nuance and be respectful. We're nice, we don't' mean harm. It's a prickly conversation. And it's also known that folks up in Wisconsin often categorically sneer at Chicagoans because of cultural differences, small town/big city competition, football....I dunno, not from here but I've heard running jokes and was warned to be discreet last time I visited Kenosha with a friend, even if folks were nice. It is the midwest. Check out some Charlie Berens videos if you want a caricature that's a bit realistic. He's funny.
"From near Chicago," "From the Chicago area," etc. These are a lot nicer. "Chicagoland" is the common expression, and a lot of cities have some version of "The Greater Metro area." That's just fine! No shade, we're happy. We got lots of suburbs and they're lovely places in their own rights. Arlington Heights can have The Bears if they really want them, far as I'm concerned.
Ironically, I think I get similar feelings about trying to identify as "hillbilly" since I grew up in the poor, rural end of the very wealthy state of Maryland, but (occasional twang notwithstanding) I'm not *really* from hillbilly country. But I'm close enough to reckon it and I have friends & family who are legitimately of that culture. And I respect it.
It's an experience living close enough to a line to know not to cross it, or to know when and where it feels safe and when and where it isn't.
And to most of y'all, I don't know if anyone here is even from West Virginia to understand that. But I definitely got chewed out by at least one person I respect on facebook, discussing some amateur anthropologist she'd posted. I thought I was right in some respects, but she did have a point about the cultural boundaries, enough that I backed down from the conversation. Maryland is a big rich state and southern West Virginia is desperately poor coal country. These are very different parts of Appalachia.
In terms of my growing up, I say I'm from Maryland near West Virginia, I'm not from West Virginia. It's a lot more accurate than saying I'm from Baltimore or DC, culturally, since that's what most folks think when they hear "Maryland." But it also pays respect to the fact that western Maryland, while it more closely resembles West Virginia - especially if you're a certain distance away - is indeed not the same thing as West Virginia and some proud West-by-God-Virginians may very enthusiastically desire to explain that fact to you if you seem to be speaking to their culture without license.
Of course, living on an edge makes the notion of "authenticity" rather tricky, which explains why I've spent most of my life feeling like a walking identity crisis, doubly so because I didn't really fit in where I grew up. I don't really fit in here either, but "not fitting in" is easier as an adult in a big city than as a child in a small town.
I used to worry a lot more when I was younger about what was truly me and what was my lived experience, and what it counted for. Now I tend to be very open about a lot of things and yet I feel that I don't share anything but the surface.
If I told you where I live, what my job is, what my parents do, where they are, how many kids I have and how old, and who my spouse is and what he does, is that a lot or nothing? It tells you details that could imply how rich/poor I am and my social class. If you know that I have kids and how old they are, you know something about how old I am and how much time I do or don't (if adult) spend on them. And yet none of that seems to be the real me.
I could tell you which identity groups I belong to and which of those matter to me. But would you care? Probably not and no reason you should.
If I tell you that I love words, and work with them in my job and apparently in my free time when I babble at people on SoF, that feels more importantly about me. Or I could tell you that I enjoy open world video games and think and read a lot about politics and what is going on in the world. Those details would tell a person much more about whether they'd like to spend an hour chatting with me probably. Of course that's still surface level. Do I help my neighbor when they need it? Am I really just a quiet wallflower in person? Who we are is made of a million things and yet nothing.
So I'm not sure how much we can either share a lot of ourselves online or hide it. I think it's all about knowing a person over time. I've certainly had shipmates who appeared on the news and did things that surprised me. Did I really know them? A part of them at least.
[I am not going to take this thread farther off topic, but if anyone starts a thread about saying one lives in a big city versus near it, I would participate.]
This gets closer for me to how I opt to share details that may not have to do with any explicit political identity or trending issue, but show something of the passion I have for poetry or art, or my worsening eco-anxieties or enthusiasm for wild swimming or leisurely mountain hikes. For many years I was urban, a typical Capetonian, travelled a great deal, in a long-term partnership, politically active and very visible in that way. Now I'm living in a lonely mountainous area, rural and under-developed and leading what some might call a very quiet, bookish existence.
The factor I have to keep in mind though and it is true of every poster from my part of the world, is that we South Africans live in extreme cognitive dissonance. Anything I say about the society I live in, I could contradict in the same breath; violence is always a hair's breadth away, the warmth and hospitality is countered by xenophobia. Friends of mine in Boston and Atlanta have said the same thing to me in this last year, that they feel themselves to be leading a very divided and ambiguous life fraught with new uncertainties, split at the root. A friend said last week, "I can't post about growing herbs next summer or going to listen to jazz with friends without also saying that these simple activities are now doubly precious because so much now feels scary and sinister."
Issues around choices and disclosure ('faking it' or 'inauthenticity' aren't terms I'd use) are worth thinking about whenever we look for community or support or conversation or debate online because the boundaries keep shifting. I don't share anything personal about others without their permission. In order to be understood and 'known' I do share more online than in daily life at times. Without the relative safety of Epiphanies I might not have ventured to share as much about Zimbabwe or identity issues.
Thanks, MaryLouise.
I think the choices that each of us make regarding what and how much we disclose about ourselves are more about curation of our online identity, rather than the authenticity of that identity. And this leads me to think of the curation of a gallery or museum. So, at the risk of an analogy (or metaphor)…
An online persona is like a galley or museum, where all the exhibits relate, in some way, to the person doing the curation. What kind of presentation(s) do we want to put on? For what purpose? What are the stories, the narratives, that the exhibits tell? What aspects of myself am I asking viewers to engage with?
Like many galleries and museum, there's a lot more of ourselves kept in storage that we can put on display in the space available, even if we wanted to. And many of the exhibits consigned to the vaults hark back to more unreconstructed times (at least, mine do). And, in common with many museums and galleries in the UK, some of these exhibits now look positively colonialist.
On one hand, maybe it's better that much of this stuff stays out of sight. On another, maybe this just locks in the relevant values and attitudes, even if they're no longer explicitly on show. Maybe it would be more appropriate to critically examine these exhibits in a new light, to work towards a radical reappraisal and overhaul of their interpretation.
Of course, none of our stories are about just one person, even if that's the way we tell our stories.
I think borders are endlessly entertaining and spent my childhood in a small middle of nowhere and have lived my adulthood in a great big somewhere, so geographic identity always gives me lots of feelings.
…
Of course, living on an edge makes the notion of "authenticity" rather tricky, which explains why I've spent most of my life feeling like a walking identity crisis, doubly so because I didn't really fit in where I grew up. I don't really fit in here either, but "not fitting in" is easier as an adult in a big city than as a child in a small town.
Thanks Bullfrog - I found the background helpful. This isn't the way I usually think about my geographical boundaries.
But I do think that it's eminently possible to authentically be on one or more boundaries, to be neither one thing nor another. This doesn't, in itself, seem tricky to me in terms of authenticity. But I suppose it might matter rather more if it concerns being able to fit in, or to belong, which, to my mind, is a whole different ball game.
But I do think that it's eminently possible to authentically be on one or more boundaries, to be neither one thing nor another. This doesn't, in itself, seem tricky to me in terms of authenticity. But I suppose it might matter rather more if it concerns being able to fit in, or to belong, which, to my mind, is a whole different ball game.
Oh certainly! And I've got that one too. I didn't really fit in where I grew up. Cumberland and Frostburg are two different towns, didn't fit in either place very well. And I didn't really have any cultural self awareness until I got out and went to college, where I didn't really fit in in the opposite direction - coming from a conservative small town to a wildly left wing college campus was a trip. And then somewhere in adulthood I think I began getting comfortable identifying with where I grew up as as regional thing and looking at it hard because - thanks to the internet - I can find communities and sorta get in touch with "where I'm from" in a distant way.
And this is all very complicated, so I use quips like "hickster" Credit to Matthew Ferrence for that glorious portmaneau or "I'm a city slicker to the hicks and a hick to the city slickers."* I really don't entirely fit in either world, but I can blend into either and code switch from one to the other for amusement. I suspect other folks who've made the transition of which there have been many over the years can do so as well. Perhaps being a 21st century Xennial makes me hyper self conscious about it.
On an individual level, I'm just me and I pick up all of this detritus I've mucked around in like a hermit crab in a desperate attempt to make a social shell for myself. Don't mind the cracks. I need them to move.
*I'm not sure if I coined that quote or not, but I think I might've. I also am very prickly about the word "hick" because it is an ethnic slur that I'm barely qualified to appropriate. And it's a pretty recent development that I can say it with a straight face, because it's generally an ugly word. Be careful with it around me. One thing I do understand about Appalachian culture is that we (if I may say "we") are allowed to make fun of ourselves but we do not appreciate similar talk from outsiders. I suspect this cultural tic is hardly unique to Appalachia.
As an Ulster Protestant, I was born into a divided identity, an English name and an Irish accent - not the lilting brogue sort, but something more hard-edged, a voice made for dry put-downs not fanciful whimsy. And as McNeice noted - A heart that leaps to a fife band.
Anytime I want a pang of hiraeth I think of drifts of mist on the slopes of Slieve Donard on a wet autumn day. But I also remember the narrowness, the bigotry, the having to belong to one Side or the other. My GP - also from Ireland - agrees there's nothing like a bit of misty-eyed nostalgia, but you wouldn't want to live there.
On an individual level, I'm just me and I pick up all of this detritus I've mucked around in like a hermit crab in a desperate attempt to make a social shell for myself. Don't mind the cracks. I need them to move.
Other social shells are available…
*I'm not sure if I coined that quote or not, but I think I might've. I also am very prickly about the word "hick" because it is an ethnic slur that I'm barely qualified to appropriate. And it's a pretty recent development that I can say it with a straight face, because it's generally an ugly word. Be careful with it around me. One thing I do understand about Appalachian culture is that we (if I may say "we") are allowed to make fun of ourselves but we do not appreciate similar talk from outsiders. I suspect this cultural tic is hardly unique to Appalachia.
It appears that "city slicker" is also a pejorative, when used in the converse sense to "hick", which maybe illustrates a difference in the way in which you relate to the two descriptions. But I think what you describe is common to many cultures.
Where I live a "city slicker" would be a "townie" and I suppose a "hick" would be a … hmm. I'm not sure the awareness of ruralites reaches a sufficient threshold for urbanites or suburbanites to need a disparaging descriptive word. So maybe there's another explanation.
When my kids went to high school, there were several cliques: Preppies; Jocks; Aggies; and Hoods were the most prominent ones. We had four kids. Two were preppies, one was a jock, and the other one was a hood. Of the four groups, it was the hoods that seemed to be the most accepting. If you did not fit in with the other three groups, the Hoods welcomed you. The hoods did push the envelope somewhat, but they were not really bad kids. Many of them became outstanding citizens: cops, managers, bar owners.
Other shells are available, yes, but per the point of this thread, if I decided to start claiming to be, say, a rich Asian woman, that would be insulting to all kinds of people. I'm close enough to small town Appalachia and Big City that I can appropriately appropriate these cultures without making an ass of myself, so I do.
"City slicker" is pejorative, though I think it has less sting than "hick" because in most areas, being from a city is seen as normal. Most Americans would rather associate with metro areas than rural areas, I think. Cities are still where the wealth and success tends to congregate. And we have other words for poor city-dwellers that I do not feel fit to appropriate. "City slicker" does have a tinge of privilege to it, which is a stark contrast with "hick."
And come to think of it...this is funny...I just tried to think of a privileged rural stereotype, and what came to mind was "good ole boy," which implies a privileged, usually wealthy white insider in an small town system. And I don't really see myself as one of those, since I never felt like I fit in where I grew up. That word also has a distinctly "southern" inflection in the US, though I'm sure northern small towns have their equivalent.
Far as "ignorant rural person," I'm persuaded that that's a trope that's older than dirt, and you can find it in ancient texts. I read The Tale of Genji on a lark and as absolutely weird as that story is for a modern American, there was a chapter with a rustic monk and his daughter that was giving me whiffs of "and here we have the small town yokels who don't know how the outside world works!" Even the word "pagan" comes (so I learned in seminary) from an old Latin word that meant "rustic people who still do things the old fashioned way and aren't up to date on the latest culture."
I really think hicks are timeless, though we keep finding new variations on the trope. And maybe, parallel, we've had city slickers are as long as we've had cities. Contrast Jacob, the smooth talking con artist with the big hairy hunter Esau. Enkidu and Gilgamesh, anyone?
Schismatic identity formation is fun! And once you have cities and walls, you have insiders and outsiders. Once the outsiders realize they're outsiders, they'll make their own stories making fun of the insiders, and so it goes. I try to keep a foot in both worlds for the sake of my own humanity.
PS: I'm familiar with townie, but only in the context of college towns, where it's used by folks in a college to refer to people who live in the college town and aren't students. Another expression is "town-gown relations" referring to how a college relates to the town it inhabits. I've never heard anyone called a gownie, but I have heard people kvetch about disrespectful "college kids," having grown up in a college town.
I think the Scottish equivalent would be teuchter, and the Irish, culchie. Can't, offhand, think of an equivalent for city dwellers other than weegie for Glaswegians.
Bumpkin (not much used) or yokel (ditto) would be English* English pejorative terms for ignorant country persons.
(*i.e. not AFAIK Scots, Welsh, or Irish usage - nor Anglophone places further afield.)
And townie generally for an urban dweller unaware of the ways of the countryside.
Neat! I've got welsh ancestry on one side, scots on the other (Campbell, so debatably scots) but it's a few generations back. I think my dad once looked up the particular village in Wales my...great great grandma?...came from but I don't recall it.
The bit about townie is a neat contrast. In America that's precisely what "city slicker" means, while "townie" is specific to residents of university towns who aren't associated with the university.
Bumpkin and yokel are words I'm aware of generally but they aren't commonly used here either, which might be why I feel like they're more neutered, like how saying "moron" or "idiot" is considered less inflammatory than the r word. It has been a lot longer since those were considered clinical words for cognitive deficiency.
This is neat.
In general, I feel safer identifying myself as an idiot than calling other people idiots, probably moreso because most people think I'm pretty smart. And I'm smart enough to question them on that one.
Comments
Online fora are neat because there's basically nothing connecting this handle to my IRL person. I could count the number of folks here who know me IRL on two hands with fingers left over. I'm authentically here as a floating online netizen who expresses the opinions he feels like expressing. In Epiphanies, that's a more interesting thing because we're supposed to try harder here to put our own identities forward rather than treating the world like an abstract logic puzzle, but...authentic? What's that?
At the outside, blatant fraud is obvious. Lying about your personal life, fabricating identities, etc. This is straightforward.
But then there are edges that can be bickered over. I grew up in Western Maryland, IRL. And I have gotten into arguments with people whether I qualify as "Appalachian" because different political regimes in America have defined "Appalachia" as being either inclusive or exclusive of the towns I grew up in. Similarly, at my brother in law's funeral, the preacher asked me if I was a Yankee or a Southerner, and I earnestly answered "I don't know, it depends on where you think the border is, I grew up south of the Mason Dixon line and north of the Potomac in the pro-union end of a border state that wasn't allowed to vote on secession." More recently in life, I realize this probably means I'm a Yankee, because if you don't know and you're in the south, you're probably a Yankee.
For these reasons, I've been prone to quipping "authenticity is a scam." But at some point, it can safely be said that I'd be lying. I'm not from West Virginia, that's the other side of the Potomac River from where I was raised. And I live in Chicago, so I can - if I choose - legitimately tease suburbanites who say they're from Chicago when they are in fact from Wheaton, IL. It'd be even wronger for me to say I was from England, though if I go back far enough I've got English ancestors (among others.)
At the same time, I could also make arguments for things I didn't believe, which is something I'm more prone to do. I could argue on behalf of pro lifers, or Zionists, or libertarians, etc. because I know some of these people and empathize with them enough that I can pick up their feelings and logic even if I find their opinions disagreeable. This might be my way of struggling with the truer parts of their worldviews, or perhaps an attempt at empathy, or a kind of argument-via-Aikido. If I can understand them enough, I can defeat them. But if I'm using parts of their worldview that I understand, is this really inauthentic? These are my thoughts, even if they're defending things I would not wish to defend if the conversation were one with real consequences.
And of course, identity based authenticity can fall apart depending on what it is grounded in. No True Scotsman is a thing. "No real person of quality X would ever say Y!"
Look hard enough, for any value X or Y, and I suspect you could find one.
That's fair enough, but people from Wheaton (or any of the other suburbs) usually tell people they're from Chicago (or "near Chicago") when they're talking to someone who might have a vague idea of where in the US Chicago is, but has never heard of Wheaton.
People who live in suburbia and claim to be city dwellers deserve to be mocked mercilessly, but that, IME, is usually not what's going on.
"Near Chicago" is more honest. And the degree to which I'll pick at folks for that is directly proportional to how near I am to Chicago. I heard that line from a Wheatonite while touristing in Japan and just nodded politely because it would've seemed petty and provincial to pick up the gauntlet at that distance.
I grew up in a small town in south-central Idaho. Depending on who I was wanting to impress, I would name the largest town in the area (near T F) or the nearest resort in the area (S V).
Even now I will say I am a Coug(ar) because I live in the town where Washington State University is, but I never went to that school. I have attended classes elsewhere. I could claim to be an Eagle or a Vandal or a Bengal, but I will stay with the Cougs.
I just go for county - then have to explain that I have never had casual sex in a white Ford Escort...
In the same way that these don't all equally inform our identity, it doesn't make sense to me that they would all relate, to the same extent, to the authenticity of someone's identity.
It sounds like Chicago is where you happen to live today. Regarding someone from Wheaton, I can't understand why you'd say “"Near Chicago" is more honest.” As Leorning Cniht points out, Chicago is a geographic location that most of us have heard of. Wheaton isn't. For many purposes, "Chicago" is just a useful approximation of geographic location that gives most of us as much information as we're after. Saying "Wheaton, which is a suburb of Chicago" might be more specific or accurate or pedantic, but it doesn't strike me as being more honest, or more authentic.
There's actually quite a lot, for anyone who wanted to comb your posts for information and put the pieces of the jigsaw together.
As soon as you start talking about Zionism, you're invoking a sense of from, or home, that few of us can relate to. And though the origins of modern Zionism are down to men like Nathan Birnbaum and especially Theodor Herzl, we'd be on very thin ice if we tried calling its authenticity into question.
If you're using elements of someone else's worldview or sense of self that are not your own, then yes, that is inauthentic. It's not *your* identity. The versions of other people that live in our own heads are invariably inauthentic in some way. Authenticity can't be borrowed - it can only be lived (or inhabited or whatever verb describes it for you).
Aside from all this, I also bear in mind that asking someone where they're from is often a loaded question. In quite a few of the countries where we live, asking someone who doesn't look white European where they're from can just be racist.
In my working days, part of taking a good history included asking about country of origin and ( not infrequently) whether a phone interpreter was needed.
I used to take perverse pleasure in revealing my country of birth ( especially in the years before the White Australia policy was dismantled) and adding that both parents were born in Oz.
I think the mayor of Wallace Idaho would dispute Toronto being the center of the universe. Wallace actually has a certified US Geological Survey Marker proclaiming it to be the center of the Universe. Then too, the Minipuhu, otherwise known as the Nez Pierce, have a sacred ground they have declared the Center of the Universe near Kamiah Idaho. I tend to believe the Minipuhu claim.
Does this mean that what is there is 'inauthentic'? Antagonism or disagreement is so polarised on most sites now and I would rather not go there.
If I glance through my Instagram posts I can see how much is withheld simply because I'm posting to strangers as well as friends and former work colleagues, people who only know me from forums online or book launches. I noticed that without ever reflecting on it, I shared nothing about spirituality or church involvement. I assume this was to sidestep idiotic or simplistic questions about God or denominations but now I mention theologians I'm reading or comment on church architecture, faith seminars etc. The responses I get are the best guide to what I choose to keep sharing...
I don’t post much personal stuff as it is not to be shared with random strangers & I’ve encountered some eye-popping stuff (even on this Xtian website) and in response to some of my posts.
Issues around choices and disclosure ('faking it' or 'inauthenticity' aren't terms I'd use) are worth thinking about whenever we look for community or support or conversation or debate online because the boundaries keep shifting. I don't share anything personal about others without their permission. In order to be understood and 'known' I do share more online than in daily life at times. Without the relative safety of Epiphanies I might not have ventured to share as much about Zimbabwe or identity issues.
My problem is that “lived experience” on this board can be narrowly interpreted. I am seldom inclined to post on this board for that very reason.
Problem can be that a revelation by a poster can be construed by a moderator as being not in the spirit of the board ( despite the post being made in good faith) and can cause the poster to leave. (without making a public fuss , I might add)
Essex?
'Twas in an old Ford Capri that I had her
In the car park of our local hostelry
And I still recall her white stilettos
On the back seat of my Ford Capri
I'm from Essex, in case you couldn't tell.
Though in my part of it, it was more likely to be green wellies in a tractor.
Now that cohort of mid 2000s know each other well enough that transcontinental and cross-Ditch VisageVolume correspondence has no need of pretence, we know *who* we are.
Southern Africa and some other places don't have the critical mass of Shipmates to organise Meets, heck, Aus/NZ doesn't these days for one reason or another (over-modding in the past should admit to some of the blame, but that might be expecting too much). So we're lucky that many of us are still in touch with present or old Shipmates who are anything but anonymous or catfishers.
Thanks,
Doublethink, Admin
(ETA redacted post on wrong forum, DT)
@Caissa and this also would go in Styx.
Doublethink, Admin
If I told you where I live, what my job is, what my parents do, where they are, how many kids I have and how old, and who my spouse is and what he does, is that a lot or nothing? It tells you details that could imply how rich/poor I am and my social class. If you know that I have kids and how old they are, you know something about how old I am and how much time I do or don't (if adult) spend on them. And yet none of that seems to be the real me.
I could tell you which identity groups I belong to and which of those matter to me. But would you care? Probably not and no reason you should.
If I tell you that I love words, and work with them in my job and apparently in my free time when I babble at people on SoF, that feels more importantly about me. Or I could tell you that I enjoy open world video games and think and read a lot about politics and what is going on in the world. Those details would tell a person much more about whether they'd like to spend an hour chatting with me probably. Of course that's still surface level. Do I help my neighbor when they need it? Am I really just a quiet wallflower in person? Who we are is made of a million things and yet nothing.
So I'm not sure how much we can either share a lot of ourselves online or hide it. I think it's all about knowing a person over time. I've certainly had shipmates who appeared on the news and did things that surprised me. Did I really know them? A part of them at least.
[I am not going to take this thread farther off topic, but if anyone starts a thread about saying one lives in a big city versus near it, I would participate.]
It's very convenient when you're from a state like Michigan or West Virginia that resembles a hand, so you can just hold up your hand and point to roughly where in the state you're from.
I think there's also a racial angle to Chicago, with the history of "white flight," there's a bitterness from people who've chosen to live in a struggle. You see people who were raised in a place that ran away from the struggle claiming that they're still in it. Chicago has a reputation (not entirely fair) of being poor, black, and violent and for people from white, safe suburbia to go around saying "I'm from Chicago" is a little uncomfortable. You're not paying into our taxes, you're not supporting our public schools, you live in communities designed to leech money away from the city at our expense and you want to say you're from here?
Some of us urbanites will cast a little shade at that. And folks who are savvy will appreciate the nuance and be respectful. We're nice, we don't' mean harm. It's a prickly conversation. And it's also known that folks up in Wisconsin often categorically sneer at Chicagoans because of cultural differences, small town/big city competition, football....I dunno, not from here but I've heard running jokes and was warned to be discreet last time I visited Kenosha with a friend, even if folks were nice. It is the midwest. Check out some Charlie Berens videos if you want a caricature that's a bit realistic. He's funny.
"From near Chicago," "From the Chicago area," etc. These are a lot nicer. "Chicagoland" is the common expression, and a lot of cities have some version of "The Greater Metro area." That's just fine! No shade, we're happy. We got lots of suburbs and they're lovely places in their own rights. Arlington Heights can have The Bears if they really want them, far as I'm concerned.
Ironically, I think I get similar feelings about trying to identify as "hillbilly" since I grew up in the poor, rural end of the very wealthy state of Maryland, but (occasional twang notwithstanding) I'm not *really* from hillbilly country. But I'm close enough to reckon it and I have friends & family who are legitimately of that culture. And I respect it.
It's an experience living close enough to a line to know not to cross it, or to know when and where it feels safe and when and where it isn't.
And to most of y'all, I don't know if anyone here is even from West Virginia to understand that. But I definitely got chewed out by at least one person I respect on facebook, discussing some amateur anthropologist she'd posted. I thought I was right in some respects, but she did have a point about the cultural boundaries, enough that I backed down from the conversation. Maryland is a big rich state and southern West Virginia is desperately poor coal country. These are very different parts of Appalachia.
In terms of my growing up, I say I'm from Maryland near West Virginia, I'm not from West Virginia. It's a lot more accurate than saying I'm from Baltimore or DC, culturally, since that's what most folks think when they hear "Maryland." But it also pays respect to the fact that western Maryland, while it more closely resembles West Virginia - especially if you're a certain distance away - is indeed not the same thing as West Virginia and some proud West-by-God-Virginians may very enthusiastically desire to explain that fact to you if you seem to be speaking to their culture without license.
Of course, living on an edge makes the notion of "authenticity" rather tricky, which explains why I've spent most of my life feeling like a walking identity crisis, doubly so because I didn't really fit in where I grew up. I don't really fit in here either, but "not fitting in" is easier as an adult in a big city than as a child in a small town.
This gets closer for me to how I opt to share details that may not have to do with any explicit political identity or trending issue, but show something of the passion I have for poetry or art, or my worsening eco-anxieties or enthusiasm for wild swimming or leisurely mountain hikes. For many years I was urban, a typical Capetonian, travelled a great deal, in a long-term partnership, politically active and very visible in that way. Now I'm living in a lonely mountainous area, rural and under-developed and leading what some might call a very quiet, bookish existence.
The factor I have to keep in mind though and it is true of every poster from my part of the world, is that we South Africans live in extreme cognitive dissonance. Anything I say about the society I live in, I could contradict in the same breath; violence is always a hair's breadth away, the warmth and hospitality is countered by xenophobia. Friends of mine in Boston and Atlanta have said the same thing to me in this last year, that they feel themselves to be leading a very divided and ambiguous life fraught with new uncertainties, split at the root. A friend said last week, "I can't post about growing herbs next summer or going to listen to jazz with friends without also saying that these simple activities are now doubly precious because so much now feels scary and sinister."
I think the choices that each of us make regarding what and how much we disclose about ourselves are more about curation of our online identity, rather than the authenticity of that identity. And this leads me to think of the curation of a gallery or museum. So, at the risk of an analogy (or metaphor)…
An online persona is like a galley or museum, where all the exhibits relate, in some way, to the person doing the curation. What kind of presentation(s) do we want to put on? For what purpose? What are the stories, the narratives, that the exhibits tell? What aspects of myself am I asking viewers to engage with?
Like many galleries and museum, there's a lot more of ourselves kept in storage that we can put on display in the space available, even if we wanted to. And many of the exhibits consigned to the vaults hark back to more unreconstructed times (at least, mine do). And, in common with many museums and galleries in the UK, some of these exhibits now look positively colonialist.
On one hand, maybe it's better that much of this stuff stays out of sight. On another, maybe this just locks in the relevant values and attitudes, even if they're no longer explicitly on show. Maybe it would be more appropriate to critically examine these exhibits in a new light, to work towards a radical reappraisal and overhaul of their interpretation.
Of course, none of our stories are about just one person, even if that's the way we tell our stories.
Thanks Bullfrog - I found the background helpful. This isn't the way I usually think about my geographical boundaries.
But I do think that it's eminently possible to authentically be on one or more boundaries, to be neither one thing nor another. This doesn't, in itself, seem tricky to me in terms of authenticity. But I suppose it might matter rather more if it concerns being able to fit in, or to belong, which, to my mind, is a whole different ball game.
Oh certainly! And I've got that one too. I didn't really fit in where I grew up. Cumberland and Frostburg are two different towns, didn't fit in either place very well. And I didn't really have any cultural self awareness until I got out and went to college, where I didn't really fit in in the opposite direction - coming from a conservative small town to a wildly left wing college campus was a trip. And then somewhere in adulthood I think I began getting comfortable identifying with where I grew up as as regional thing and looking at it hard because - thanks to the internet - I can find communities and sorta get in touch with "where I'm from" in a distant way.
And this is all very complicated, so I use quips like "hickster" Credit to Matthew Ferrence for that glorious portmaneau or "I'm a city slicker to the hicks and a hick to the city slickers."* I really don't entirely fit in either world, but I can blend into either and code switch from one to the other for amusement. I suspect other folks who've made the transition of which there have been many over the years can do so as well. Perhaps being a 21st century Xennial makes me hyper self conscious about it.
On an individual level, I'm just me and I pick up all of this detritus I've mucked around in like a hermit crab in a desperate attempt to make a social shell for myself. Don't mind the cracks. I need them to move.
*I'm not sure if I coined that quote or not, but I think I might've. I also am very prickly about the word "hick" because it is an ethnic slur that I'm barely qualified to appropriate. And it's a pretty recent development that I can say it with a straight face, because it's generally an ugly word. Be careful with it around me. One thing I do understand about Appalachian culture is that we (if I may say "we") are allowed to make fun of ourselves but we do not appreciate similar talk from outsiders. I suspect this cultural tic is hardly unique to Appalachia.
Anytime I want a pang of hiraeth I think of drifts of mist on the slopes of Slieve Donard on a wet autumn day. But I also remember the narrowness, the bigotry, the having to belong to one Side or the other. My GP - also from Ireland - agrees there's nothing like a bit of misty-eyed nostalgia, but you wouldn't want to live there.
It appears that "city slicker" is also a pejorative, when used in the converse sense to "hick", which maybe illustrates a difference in the way in which you relate to the two descriptions. But I think what you describe is common to many cultures.
Where I live a "city slicker" would be a "townie" and I suppose a "hick" would be a … hmm. I'm not sure the awareness of ruralites reaches a sufficient threshold for urbanites or suburbanites to need a disparaging descriptive word. So maybe there's another explanation.
Umm...
Other shells are available, yes, but per the point of this thread, if I decided to start claiming to be, say, a rich Asian woman, that would be insulting to all kinds of people. I'm close enough to small town Appalachia and Big City that I can appropriately appropriate these cultures without making an ass of myself, so I do.
"City slicker" is pejorative, though I think it has less sting than "hick" because in most areas, being from a city is seen as normal. Most Americans would rather associate with metro areas than rural areas, I think. Cities are still where the wealth and success tends to congregate. And we have other words for poor city-dwellers that I do not feel fit to appropriate. "City slicker" does have a tinge of privilege to it, which is a stark contrast with "hick."
And come to think of it...this is funny...I just tried to think of a privileged rural stereotype, and what came to mind was "good ole boy," which implies a privileged, usually wealthy white insider in an small town system. And I don't really see myself as one of those, since I never felt like I fit in where I grew up. That word also has a distinctly "southern" inflection in the US, though I'm sure northern small towns have their equivalent.
Far as "ignorant rural person," I'm persuaded that that's a trope that's older than dirt, and you can find it in ancient texts. I read The Tale of Genji on a lark and as absolutely weird as that story is for a modern American, there was a chapter with a rustic monk and his daughter that was giving me whiffs of "and here we have the small town yokels who don't know how the outside world works!" Even the word "pagan" comes (so I learned in seminary) from an old Latin word that meant "rustic people who still do things the old fashioned way and aren't up to date on the latest culture."
I really think hicks are timeless, though we keep finding new variations on the trope. And maybe, parallel, we've had city slickers are as long as we've had cities. Contrast Jacob, the smooth talking con artist with the big hairy hunter Esau. Enkidu and Gilgamesh, anyone?
Schismatic identity formation is fun! And once you have cities and walls, you have insiders and outsiders. Once the outsiders realize they're outsiders, they'll make their own stories making fun of the insiders, and so it goes. I try to keep a foot in both worlds for the sake of my own humanity.
PS: I'm familiar with townie, but only in the context of college towns, where it's used by folks in a college to refer to people who live in the college town and aren't students. Another expression is "town-gown relations" referring to how a college relates to the town it inhabits. I've never heard anyone called a gownie, but I have heard people kvetch about disrespectful "college kids," having grown up in a college town.
(*i.e. not AFAIK Scots, Welsh, or Irish usage - nor Anglophone places further afield.)
And townie generally for an urban dweller unaware of the ways of the countryside.
Can't, offhand, think of an equivalent for city dwellers other than weegie for Glaswegians.
Toonsers? It's not much of an insult, though. Furryboot for an Aberdonian. (From the phrase Furryboot ye fae? - Where are you from?)
Neat! I've got welsh ancestry on one side, scots on the other (Campbell, so debatably scots) but it's a few generations back. I think my dad once looked up the particular village in Wales my...great great grandma?...came from but I don't recall it.
The bit about townie is a neat contrast. In America that's precisely what "city slicker" means, while "townie" is specific to residents of university towns who aren't associated with the university.
Bumpkin and yokel are words I'm aware of generally but they aren't commonly used here either, which might be why I feel like they're more neutered, like how saying "moron" or "idiot" is considered less inflammatory than the r word. It has been a lot longer since those were considered clinical words for cognitive deficiency.
This is neat.
In general, I feel safer identifying myself as an idiot than calling other people idiots, probably moreso because most people think I'm pretty smart. And I'm smart enough to question them on that one.