Heidegger’s conception of human existence (or, as calls it,
Dasein, ‘being-there’) echoes Kierkegaard’s conception of the “self”. Rather than being an object among others, Dasein is a “
relation of being” (
Seinsverhältnis; Heidegger 1962 [1927]: 12)—a relation that obtains between what one is at any moment and what one can and will be as the temporally extended unfolding of life into a realm of possibilities. To conceive Dasein as relational means that in living out our lives, we always already
care: for each of us, our being is always
at issue and this is made concrete in the specific actions we undertake and the roles we enact. Over the course of our lives, our identities are always in question: we are always projections into the future, incessantly taking a stand on who we are.
The most familiar conception of “authenticity” comes to us mainly from Heidegger’s
Being and Time of 1927. The word we translate as ‘authenticity’ is actually a neologism invented by Heidegger, the word
Eigentlichkeit, which comes from an ordinary term,
eigentlich, meaning ‘really’ or ‘truly’, but is built on the stem
eigen, meaning ‘own’ or ‘proper’. So the word might be more literally translated as ‘ownedness’, or ‘being owned’, or even ‘being one’s own’, implying the idea of owning up to and owning what one is and does (for a stimulating recent interpretation, see McManus 2019). Nevertheless, the word ‘authenticity’ has become closely associated with Heidegger as a result of early translations of
Being and Time into English, and was adopted by Sartre and Beauvoir as well as by existentialist therapists and cultural theorists who followed them.[
1]
Heidegger’s conception of ownedness as the most fully realized human form of life emerges from his view of what it is to be a human being. This conception of human
Dasein echoes Kierkegaard’s description of a “self”. On Heidegger’s account, Dasein is not a type of object among others in the totality of what is on hand in the universe. Instead, human being is a “
relation of being”, a relation that obtains between what one is at any moment (the immediacy of the concrete present as it has evolved) and what one can and will be as the temporally extended unfolding or
happening of life into an open realm of possibilities. To say that human being is a relation is to say that, in living out our lives, we always
care about who and what we are. Heidegger expresses this by saying that, for each of us, our being (what our lives will amount to overall) is always
at issue. This “being at stake” or “being in question for oneself” is made concrete in the specific stands we take—that is, in the roles we enact—over the course of our lives. It is because our being (our identity) is in question for us that we are always taking a stand on who we are. Since the German word for ‘understanding’,
Verstehen, is etymologically derived from the idea of ‘taking a stand’, Heidegger can call the projection into the future by which we shape our identity ‘understanding’. And because any stand one takes is inescapably “being-in-the-world”, understanding carries with it some degree of competence in coping with the world around us. An understanding of being in general is therefore built into human agency.
To the extent that all our actions contribute to realizing an overarching project or set of projects, our active lives can be seen as embodying a life-project of some sort. On Heidegger’s view, we exist
for the sake of ourselves: enacting roles and expressing character traits contribute to realizing some image of what it is to be human in our own cases. Existence has a directedness or purposiveness that imparts a degree of connection to our life stories. For the most part, having such a life-plan requires very little conscious formulation of goals or deliberation about means. It results from our competence in being members of a historical culture that we have mastered to a great extent in growing up into a shared world. This tacit “pre-understanding” makes possible our familiar dwelling with things and others in the familiar, everyday world.
Heidegger holds that all possibilities of concrete understanding and action are made possible by a background of shared practices opened up by the social context in which we find ourselves, by what he calls the ‘They’ (
das Man). Far from it being the case that social existence is something alien to and opposed to our humanity, Heidegger holds that we are always essentially and inescapably social beings. As he says,