Authenticity is a human need, like the need for belonging or attachment. When we are kids or teens, our need to belong to a group, fit in, trumps our need to express ourselves, and be authentic. This means that instead of listening inwards to our body’s clues about how it feels and the emotions there and expressing that openly, we act more from seeking approval or validation from our peers.
This is just a phase, right? This is meant to pass. The problem arrives when our expression keeps seeking approval and validation from others. Even in our adulthood. Others, appointed as authority figures, often by someone else.
An authority outside of ourselves
The idea of authority is not bad in itself. It can help us and guide us in our growth. But the unquestioning of authority is.
We can see authority in many different areas, from medicine (do what the doctor says) to our family (parent’s know best). But also, our teachers are perceived as authority or experts in different fields (science, linguistics, economics). Our governments are also authority figures.
We surround ourselves with authority figures or experts on everything, including topics related to self-expression. We should consider ourselves the authority or expert here since self-expression is the expression of “self”, which is unique and personal.
And it’s great to have experts in some of those different fields but let’s never forget that:
1.Nobody is an expert on someone else’s experience.
2. Experts are biased by their own experience (or one of their peers/group they belong to).
Who is an authority on your self-expression?
Now, when talking about languages, we have a lot of “authority limitations biases”.
Starting with the idea of what is a proper or acceptable way to speak in a non-native language.
The number one myth about what is an acceptable way to express in a non-native language.
…
“A language belongs to the people “born” in a specific space or belongs to a particular group of people.”
…
Nope. A language belongs to those who speak it. Period.
From this myth stems the idea that native-speakers are the “authority” or “experts” on the language, which negates that what a non-native says is “acceptable” even if it doesn’t comply with “the rules”.
Example: I watched a show on Netflix the other day, and the host, a native British speaker with a posh accent, said: “sheeps”, talking about his sheep. Now, I –a non-native English speaker–, know that “sheep” is a non-countable word; therefore: one sheep, multiple sheep. Sheep. Never sheeps (as I am typing this, Grammarly is going crazy with the red underlining, by the way). Had I said “sheeps” in my speech at any point, I would have been corrected and said that is not correct. Now, I believe that the gentleman in the TV show knows that “sheeps” is not correct, but he chose to express himself with a “variation” of the norm. I also know the rule in English, but when I choose to express myself using a variation of the rule, I am corrected and told to follow the rule.
Of course, there might be cases where one ignores the rule and makes a mistake, in which case a correction can be helpful. But I believe that the correction should come after an invitation or permission.
Also, assuming that a non-native speaker is always incorrect while the native speaker is just making their speech more “colourful” limits the non-native speaker’s ability to be “colourful” and authentic. And that’s not cool.
This example speaks only to the “incorrect” use of the language, but authenticity is the quality of being real with who you are, how you feel and what you think or perceive.
Being real with who you are. Let's talk about accents.
Your nationality, your mother tongue, the group you belong to is expressed, amongst other ways, through your accent. An accent shows your background language, the location you were born. When in your non-native language you try to “correct” your accent, that is, to hide your own individual accent and imitate the “ideal” accent of the language you are learning, you are not authentic.
Also, what accent are you imitating? From which area? What socio-economic group? Is there such a thing as a normative accent, and what facets of you are you hiding when you strive to use it?
Turns of phrases and idioms. Images of a shared experience.
When you learn a language, you are supposed to learn idioms and turns of phrases to show that you understand the culture and can “merge” with the locals. The truth is, though, that albeit learning those idioms is a great way to learn and understand the culture, I don’t think they are meant to be used by non-native people who have no experience of the idiom or the origin of said idiom.
So, as a non-native, my goal is to express my culture, not being able to imitate the culture of the language in which I am speaking.
For example, I am a Spaniard, and there is an incredible amount of fixed expressions related to bulls and bullfights in Spanish. I am not in favour of bullfighting (in fact, I am against it), but it is part of a culture I absorbed from birth, so when someone says: “échame un capote”, I get it, viscerally. I get that the person is asking for my help. So, communication goes beyond words; it evokes images and emotions in both of us. But if you, as a non-native Spanish speaker, want to ask for help in an informal way, my recommendation is not to use a phrase that doesn’t evoke anything in you.
Another example: to express happiness. I learned that there are phrases like “to be happy as a clam” or “happy as Larry” to say that the person is very happy in English. Now, for me, none of those sentences means anything; they do not evoke a thing, I do not know any Larrys in my life, and when I see a clam, I don’t get why this mollusc would be the epitome of happiness. Can I use those sentences to express my happiness? I can. But because I am not relating to them and they don’t evoke “happiness” in me, I am not authentic. I am merely imitating other’s forms of expressing happiness verbally.
Of course, I could use the direct translation of the fixed Spanish expression: “feliz como unas castañuelas”, happy as a pair of castanets. This, at least, would be “real” for me. I’ve heard castanets being played, and they produce a fairly merry sound.
However, when in communication, we are communicating with someone, and we should always consider how the other person may receive this information.
It’s not all about them and not all about me.
And this is when things get complicated because the speaker needs to be mature and self-aware enough to understand this and find ways to give “colour” to the expression that does not rely on trite, empty words.
So, in my case, I may opt to say “I’m happy as a tweeting bird” or as a “sunflower” or “as a field of cows” because all those things evoke happiness in me, and they are things that belong to the natural world and are pretty universal. The castanets? Not so much.
Now, the other person may weirdly look at me or may relate to it. That’s not my problem anymore. I checked in with me and chose a set of words that express my feeling. They are something I’ve experienced, and they are appropriate. I also had the receiver of my words into account by using something universal.
A language is a system of communication product of a shared experience of the group.
I experience the world. I express it in a certain way.
My group experiences the world in a certain way. We express it similarly.
But both are equally important.
Nobody says that when you express in a non-native language, you will have to choose between belonging or authenticity. It’s about keeping a flow of communication that honours the group/receiver and your own individuality. It just requires that you understand who you are and how you can express widely enough, universal enough, but still real enough for you and the other.
It’s about keeping the conversation real from me and for the other so that real, true belonging can happen.
I think we are well past when belonging was limited to being born in a specific group, in a specif area. Attachment, when children, is limited to the people into whom we are “born”. Attachment, when adults, goes beyond that and requires authentic expression one can relate to.
“You either walk inside your story and own it, or you stand outside of your story and hustle for your worthiness”
– Brené Brown
