Socio-Existential Authenticity is a concept of authenticity that integrates both social and existential approaches to the idea of being true to oneself. This framework arises from a recognition that in a post-metaphysical culture, where a predetermined human essence is absent, individuals create their authentic selves through their choices, a core tenet of existentialism. However, it also acknowledges the significant role of the social world in shaping these choices and providing a horizon of meaning, addressing ethical concerns often raised against purely subjective existential accounts. The development of Socio-Existential Authenticity aims to provide an ethic that can guide individual actions and grant meaning to existence, particularly in the context of modern problems of freedom and meaning. Instead of simply surveying existing approaches, this concept is constructed through an engagement with various philosophical perspectives, building upon their strengths while addressing their limitations. The framework of Socio-Existential Authenticity is comprised of six key dimensions: 1. **Choice:** This foundational dimension, drawing from Sartrean existentialism, emphasizes that individuals must freely choose their projects and the kind of person they want to be, rather than passively accepting socially imposed roles or expectations. Kierkegaard's emphasis on a consciously chosen faith exemplifies this aspect. This contrasts with Heidegger's concept of inauthentic "everydayness" dominated by "das Man," where one's values are determined by others. Sartre also critiques "bad faith" and "inauthenticity" as attempts to deny one's freedom and responsibility. 2. **Commitment:** Recognizing a critique from Merleau-Ponty that purely free choice might lack deep meaning if easily rejected, this dimension, influenced by Beauvoir, posits that the longer one is committed to a chosen project, the more meaningful it becomes. The example of two individuals pursuing academia illustrates this: the one who has invested significant time and effort in qualifications demonstrates a deeper commitment. 3. **Maturity:** To ensure that the pursuit of an authentic existence is achievable, this dimension, drawing on Ferrara, requires a mature analysis of one's physical and mental capacities. Choosing and committing to a project that one is fundamentally incapable of fulfilling would lead to an inauthentic existence. 4. **Becoming What One Is:** This dimension addresses the grounding of one's choices, suggesting that while there is no pre-determined essence, individuals have inclinations and capacities that emerge immanently. Authenticity involves not only choosing but also being willing to affirm and enact these inherent aspects through one's chosen projects. 5. **Intersubjective Consciousness:** To counter the charge that existential accounts of authenticity are narcissistic and ethically relativistic, this dimension incorporates insights from social thought, particularly Taylor's concept of the "horizon of significance". It emphasizes that individual development and the meaning of choices occur within a shared social context and through dialogue with others. Our choices are meaningful because they are recognized and understood within an intersubjective framework, and we also contribute to shaping this framework. This resonates with Hegel's idea that the self exists through recognition by others. Watsuji's critique of Heidegger's individualistic approach to authenticity, emphasizing the importance of community, also informs this dimension. 6. **Heritage:** Drawing on Heidegger's concept of "heritage," this dimension acknowledges that the possibilities for authentic existence are shaped by personal and social history and traditions. Authenticity is not a fixed state but is temporal, influenced by changing social and personal situations. Authentic living involves engaging with and reconfiguring one's heritage to create new modes of being. By adhering to these six dimensions, Socio-Existential Authenticity proposes that individuals can achieve a unified sense of self and find meaning in their lives, even in the absence of a pre-ordained purpose. It offers a way to navigate the increased freedom of modernity, not by adhering to external prescriptions, but by taking ethical responsibility for one's choices within a social context. This framework attempts to overcome the limitations of purely existential approaches that might lead to ethical relativism and purely social approaches that might neglect individual agency. Furthermore, Socio-Existential Authenticity engages with critiques from various thinkers. For instance, while drawing from Sartrean choice, it addresses criticisms that such choice is arbitrary through the dimension of commitment and becoming what one is. It acknowledges MacIntyre's concern about the lack of external justification in purely individualistic ethics by grounding choices within an intersubjective horizon and heritage. It also considers Habermas's analysis of the potential meaninglessness in modern life and the restriction of freedom by systemic imperatives, suggesting that resistance to such colonization is crucial for the possibility of authentic living. In essence, Socio-Existential Authenticity offers a nuanced understanding of being true to oneself, one that recognizes the interplay between individual freedom and social context in the ongoing project of creating a meaningful and ethically sound life. It suggests that authenticity is not about discovering a pre-existing self or blindly following social norms, but about actively shaping one's identity through conscious choices, sustained commitments, a realistic understanding of one's capabilities, an affirmation of one's inclinations, a deep awareness of one's interconnectedness with others, and an engagement with one's historical and social inheritance.