The Anchor in the Storm

Does ‘Be Yourself’ Make You Better — or Worse?

“My parents were Nazis,” she said. “And they taught me to be authentic.”

I was taken aback. What did she mean?

We were talking in a church youth group, and she explained that she had later turned away from the ideology she had grown up with.

Being authentic – being true to yourself – was something I believed in deeply. How could such an ideal be connected to Nazism?

As she went on to describe her parents' worldview, I remember thinking: this sounds a bit like Nietzsche – the emphasis on unlimited self-assertion, contempt for inhibition and moral constraints, the "will to power." I began to see how such ideas could fit together.

What does it really mean to "be authentic"? Many understand it as giving free rein to one's feelings and not holding them back. With such an interpretation, even an SS officer might have believed he was living "authentically" and "honestly." Without an ethical North Star, authenticity easily collapses into cruelty.

But it can also mean something very different: living in alignment with one's values and convictions. It means becoming a well-integrated person whose thoughts, emotions, and actions pull in the same direction – someone with the inner strength to resist not only external pressure, but also one's own impulses.

Both of these views are called authentic. Here we face a fork in the road, leading in radically different directions.

The question is not only which path feels more appealing and liberating, but where each path ultimately leads.

The next time someone urges you "to be true to yourself" ask for clarification. True to what, exactly? To a passing feeling or to good values? Is it an excuse to offload raw impulses? Or is it about being true to what is true?

At a deeper level, it becomes a question of identity. Who do you want to be when you are yourself? Some choose wisely, others choose poorly.