Adult Education Quarterly

60(2) 177­–198
Courage and Compassion in © 2010 American Association for
Adult and Continuing Education
the Striving for Authenticity: Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
States of Complacency, DOI: 10.1177/0741713609349933
http://aeq.sagepub.com

Compliance, and Contestation

Carolin Kreber

Abstract
Synthesising Martha Nussbaum’s study of the emotions and the capabilities approach
to human development with Charles Taylor’s claim that authentic identities ought to
be constructed dialogically against “horizons of significance,” the author identifies
critical features of authenticity that are then applied to the context of adult educators,
learners, and pedagogies. With the purpose of surfacing the context-transcendent
structure underlying the experience of struggling for authenticity, the article takes
as its point of departure the context of coming out about one’s sexual orientation.
The metaphor of “coming out” is subsequently extended to the process of striving
for authenticity also in other contexts.This striving involves overcoming complacency
and compliance and engaging in contestation, has both a psychological and sociological
dimension, and is associated with the civic virtues of courage and compassion. The
author also speculates on why authenticity is perceived as a timely notion by many
adult and higher education professionals.

Keywords
authenticity, identity, recognition, pedagogy, policy

Maybe all men and women ponder the meaning of life; but some, for good historical
reasons, are driven to ponder it more urgently than others.

Terry Eagleton, 2007

Authenticity: Both a Recurring

and Yet Particularly Timely Theme?
The classic notion of “authenticity,” with its implicit contrast between authentic and
inauthentic existence, remains an intriguing and intuitively compelling idea. Already
in ancient Greek philosophy was authenticity an essential theme (Nehamas, 1998),

Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at Glasgow University Library on June 25, 2015

178 Adult Education Quarterly 60(2)

although at that time to “know thyself,” as Socrates’ famous dictum states, meant to
come to know your place as it was already determined by the wider cosmic order. By
the 18th century, this ancient cosmocentric worldview had given way first to a theo-
centric (giving oneself over to and finding meaning in God) and eventually to an
anthropocentric worldview, whereby self-knowledge and meaning were now seen as
being attainable by looking primarily inwardly and by identifying one’s personal feel-
ings and desires (Guignon, 2004; Hall, 2004). The influence of this 17th/18th century
idea of the human being as a self-encapsulated individual or sovereign subject is still
reflected in current conceptions of authenticity.
Today, reflections on authenticity are more commonly attributed to the Romantics
(most prominently perhaps Jean-Jacques Rousseau) and the Existentialists (foremost
Friedrich Nietzsche and Søren Kierkegaard, and eventually Jean-Paul Sartre and
Martin Heidegger). Then again, in the 1960s, Adorno (2003) argued in the spirit of the
Frankfurt School, that Heidegger (1962), in Being and Time (originally published in
1927), had failed to appreciate that it was only by way of critically reconstructing the
evolution of historical forms of consciousness that people could recognize their real
emancipatory possibilities and, hence, become “authentic.” Even more recently, several
philosophers including Charles Taylor (1991) in Canada, Bernard Williams (2004) in
the United Kingdom, and Hubert Dreyfus (2000), Charles Guignon (2004), and Martha
Nussbaum (2000, 2004) in the United States (although Nussbaum implicitly and from
an Aristotelian perspective) have built on previous reflections on “authenticity” and
offered insightful interpretations regarding its nature as well as the role it might play
in our (post)modern lives and societies.
Most pertinent to this present study is the observation that over the past few
years the notion of authenticity has also entered the disciplinary discourse of aca-
demics in the field of education. A great number of British (e.g., Barnett, 2007;
Kreber, Klampfleitner, McCune, Bayne, & Knottenbelt, 2007; Nixon, 2004, 2007;
Walker, 2004) and North American academics in adult and higher education (e.g.,
Brookfield, 2006; Chickering, Dalton, & Stamm, 2006; Cranton & Carusetta, 2004;
Dillard, 2006; Dirkx, 2006; Palmer, 1998; Tisdell, 2003) as well as organizational
and school leadership (e.g., Grimmet & Neufeld, 1994; Sergiovanni, 1992; Starratt,
2004) have identified authenticity as a significant concept in what it means to
engage in higher or more worthwhile forms of teaching, learning, and leading.
Although there is variation in the conceptions of authenticity underlying the authors’
perspectives, their shared interest in authenticity is note-worthy and invites some
difficult yet intriguing questions: Why do adult and higher education professionals
feel a need to draw our attention to “authenticity” these days? What is so compel-
ling about this notion? Are we, to lean on the opening quote by Terry Eagleton,
particularly driven, possibly for good historical reasons, to ponder the meaning in
our teaching or learning practices more urgently now than we once were? Might
authenticity offer a solution or meaningful response to what we perceive as the
most significant challenges facing us at present in the field of adult and higher
education? If so, can authenticity be attained by searching exclusively internally,

Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at Glasgow University Library on June 25, 2015

Kreber 179

that is within ourselves, or does it require looking also beyond the self—and if this
were true, where else might we look?
One purpose of this conceptual study, therefore, is to speculate on some of the broader
contextual/political factors that might account for this increased interest in authentic-
ity among adult and higher education professionals. My other purpose is to explore
whether authenticity is indeed an ideal that professional educators, learners, and edu-
cational institutions (via their pedagogies, broadly conceived) should seek to strive
towards and to reflect on what this striving might entail. My intent, therefore, is to
enquire into the meaning of authenticity generally and the struggle that might underlie
the process of becoming authentic in adult and higher education in the midst of factors
that make such striving difficult. My final and overall purpose is to explore how the
notion of “authenticity” might contribute to the advancement of theory and practice in
adult and higher education.
I will address the first two related purposes in reverse order. I shall first look into
the relationship between individuals and society to highlight problems with narrow
interpretations of authenticity. I will also explore the responsibility of both individuals
and society in working towards and allowing for authenticity (e.g., Eagleton, 2007;
Guignon, 2004; Nussbaum, 2004; Taylor, 1991). In a later section of the article, I apply
some of the emerging concepts to the field of teaching and learning in adult and higher
education.
With the purpose of surfacing the general or context-transcendent structure under-
lying the experience of struggling for authenticity, I take as my point of departure the
context of coming out about one’s sexual orientation. As a way into this discussion, I
chose a narrative approach based on an autobiographical account. The metaphor of
“coming out” is subsequently extended to the process of striving for authenticity in
other, also educational, contexts. Important work has been carried out by colleagues in
adult and higher education with the intent to challenge homophobia and heterosexism
in educational institutions as well as wider society and to raise awareness of the per-
sonal and political challenges associated with the recognition of different sexual
identities (e.g., Bettinger, Timmins, & Tisdell, 2006; Grace, 2001; Grace & Wells,
2007; Hill, 2006). This work has had an undeniable influence on the way we have
come to think about diversity and the nature of inclusive practices in adult and higher
education, and continuation of such work is critical if we want our research and prac-
tice to make it possible for learners to make a difference and experience a sense of
agency for renewing the world. The point of intersection between these colleagues’
work and the present article is a shared motivation to identify the challenges associ-
ated with confronting heterosexism and struggling for recognition. This being said, the
focus of this article is not sexual orientation. The intent here is to, firstly, by way of a
concrete example offered as a narrative, identify the context-transcendent structure that
underlies the experience of becoming authentic and, secondly, to identify the political
and also pedagogical implications for recognizing differences generally. Hence, what is
at stake in the autobiographically based narrative is the structure of the experience more
so than the particular story floating on the surface. I offer my own experience of

Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at Glasgow University Library on June 25, 2015

180 Adult Education Quarterly 60(2)

struggling over coming out at work, within the particular context of sexual orientation,
as an example of an academic who is working through her emotions and thoughts
when trying to understand how to live her life as an adult educator and colleague more
authentically. The structure underlying this experience might resonate with the experi-
ence of colleagues (or learners) who were struggling for authenticity in contexts other
than sexual orientation. A parallel approach was employed by Martha Nussbaum
(2004) in her book Upheavals of Thought, which she opens with the particular experi-
ence of struggling with her mother’s unexpected death with the purpose of helping
readers appreciate the nature and general structure of emotions and the role they play
in ethical deliberation.
Rather than employing the narrative as data from which to generate theory (e.g.,
Nash, 2004) or analyzing the account “to discover internal patterns and inconsisten-
cies” (Brookfield, 2008, p. 97) in my reflections and actions, I am using the narrative
principally as a stylistic heuristic by which to draw the reader into the topic and call
attention to dimensions of authenticity that have been highlighted in the contemporary
philosophical literature. By implication I suggest that the explicit purpose with which
I employ the narrative in this conceptual study renders otherwise justified worries over
the accuracy of my recollections irrelevant.
The more heavily theorized and main part of the article then departs from the
specifics of the narrative to discuss aspects of authenticity that transcend particular
experiences, including some to which the narrative itself did not speak.
The narrative reveals states of complacency, compliance, and contestation and
shows that authenticity was yearned for from a state of perceived inauthenticity
(Barnett, 2007). It also casts doubt on a conception of authenticity as being exclu-
sively about attaining greater self-knowledge and self-fulfilment suggesting that
authenticity might also have an important social dimension. In the widest sense,
the story speaks to the relationship between authenticity and public deliberation. I
shall draw on several relevant philosophical and educational texts to inform my
discussion.

Moving between Complacency,

Compliance, and Contestation
Some years ago, when I was in my mid-30s and with a university in a Canadian town
where Wayne Gretzky was way more popular than k.d. lang, I shared with a very hip,
very seasoned, and very out American bestselling novelist, who had become my e-pal
for a while (which was also very cool), my lingering concerns over not being officially
out in my department. When I got my first academic appointment in the same educa-
tion department, I still had identified as straight, to myself and publicly. The various
scenarios I some years later fabricated in my head to set the record queer just seemed
too bizarre to actually enact: “Everybody, I know many of you assume that I’m
‘straight’ but, actually, I do no longer identify as such . . . (speaking of ‘fluid identi-
ties’, right?) . . . and so I thought you should all want to know that!” I also was hearing

Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at Glasgow University Library on June 25, 2015

Kreber 181

an all too familiar voice whispering into my ear, “Here they go again, these gay people,
sharing with everyone that they are different. What’s with them?”
My pen-friend’s response was clear and to the point: “So you prefer living with a
lie.” There was a lot of force in that statement. Living with a lie made me a liar. That
one sounded even worse. It hurt a bit, too. After all, I never denied anything and I pre-
sented myself as “pro-LGBT rights” in the department or in my classes when these
issues happened to come up. As well, over the years I had become somewhat more
open, and when somebody actually asked me directly, I would disclose; but I was only
too aware that these opportunities presented themselves on rather rare occasions, which
is to say, practically never (except, of course, with the few colleagues who had become
friends over the years). At that time I found some comfort by telling myself that it did
not really matter: “After all, what I have disclosed about myself in the department are
those aspects of self that should count here and my private life is nobody’s business.”
Except that I also knew that, firstly, people’s private lives (particularly so-called “straight”
lives) do bubble up at work all the time and, secondly, that most colleagues (and prob-
ably students as well) inferred that I was “straight” because I did not say otherwise and
also did not fit the stereotype by which mainstream (straight) culture often chooses to
define women who deviate in some aspects from this (straight) culture.
My e-pal had put her finger on a sore spot that had been causing me concern for
some time. I wanted to see it as my own personal issue, one that would not affect
anyone but myself (“Isn’t it just a matter of being a bit more private?”), one that I
could live with, more or less well depending on the day. On some level, of course, I
had a sense that not challenging people’s assumptions and beliefs despite knowing that
they were misguided bordered on betrayal or disloyalty, although it was not really
clear to me whom, or rather what, I was betraying or being disloyal to. Also, while
I did not deny who I was, I did let others in the department do the drumming for the
cause (planning LGBT events, raising LGBT issues in department meetings, etc.).
Despite my insights, there was also a great deal of self-deception. Part of my prob-
lem surely was that I did not know how to come out and set the record queer, which
probably is also to an extent personality-related. But it was only a part of it, and a
small one at that. Today, I have to say that for someone in my privileged position,
someone lucky enough to hold a secure continuing academic post in a relatively safe
and enlightened university education department, there were no serious reasons to not
move beyond the lie. What I did not see at the time, or rather did not see strongly
enough, was why I ought to.

Analyzing the Narrative

What, if any, insights into the concept of authenticity are offered by this narrative, and
how, if at all, is this relevant to education? I will begin answering this question by
drawing on the three notions of complacency, compliance, and contestation. Later, I
will show the relevance of these three notions, as well as the concept of authenticity
generally, to the field of adult and higher education.

Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at Glasgow University Library on June 25, 2015

182 Adult Education Quarterly 60(2)

Complacency
On one level, one may argue, my being quiet and accepting the fact that people
thought my identity was mainstream is an example of pure complacency. The think-
ing here goes something like this: “Nobody ever asks me, so how could I be lying.”
Of course, enjoying the benefits that go along with being part of dominant culture can
be comfortable too. Perhaps my actions were similar to Heidegger’s (1962) view of
unauthenticity or “everydayness” (as compared to inauthenticity, the latter referring to
deliberate deceit) and Nietzsche’s (1883) notion of following the herd. The unauthen-
ticity, if one can call it that, was then not deliberate betrayal but was rather the result
of being nonreflective. Complacency, in this context, is about not wanting to push or
challenge oneself too much. It is a sense of self-betrayal or delusion where underlying
assumptions are neither fully identified nor questioned. But was I just complacent?
The narrative suggests not.

Compliance
My sporadic and nagging doubts about the way in which I justified my actions also
imply that I was experiencing a form of compliance. My actions did not feel quite
right, suggesting that I was aware of a sense of betrayal, at least on some level, but
I did not break out of conforming to the norm or of what seemed to be the expectation.
In this sense, I preferred complying with dominant culture. Basically, I did not want to
unnecessarily rock the boat. As well, I think now, I did not want to be one of “these
gay people who tell everyone that they are gay.” I cared about what people might say
about me behind my back. This last point was actually very hard to admit to myself:
Why should this matter to me? As academics, aren’t we usually quite prepared to
defend our own views or convictions and express them in discussion (i.e., in public)—
after all, this is what we learned to do not the least through years of studying and
working in higher education environments. However, in this case, it was more difficult
somehow; it mattered to me on a different or deeper level. What was involved here
was not an abstract intellectual argument but my own identity.
So while complacency is principally about not wanting to challenge oneself, compli-
ance is primarily about consciously submitting to and not wanting to challenge norms
and expectations.

Contestation
My later decision to do something about this situation, specifically to discuss my dis-
comfort and seeking input from my e-pal novelist, can perhaps be considered first
steps toward contestation. Given that she was a professional writer who had come out
in public years ago, at a time when it was much harder and far riskier to do so and
potentially damaging to her career, I anticipated when sharing my doubts with her that
she would hold strong views and would not encourage my silence. My interactions

Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at Glasgow University Library on June 25, 2015

Kreber 183

with her brought the issue to a level where my assumptions could be critically ques-
tioned, not only by her but, importantly, by myself. While complacency refers to not
being willing to push or challenge oneself, and compliance to not being willing to
challenge others (including norms and expectations), contestation refers to challeng-
ing both oneself and others (including norms and expectations).
What I came to see more clearly over time was who or rather what I was betraying
through my actions. In his insightful book Being Authentic, Guignon (2004) argues
that the reason we value authenticity is that “being authentic plays a fundamental role
in nurturing and sustaining the kind of society in which something like authenticity
as an ideal is possible” (p. 161). Being authentic, thus conceived, has two related
aspects: first, getting clear about what one’s own deliberations lead one to believe, and
second, honestly and fully expressing this in public places. As Guignon (2004) fur-
ther elaborates:

To be fully authentic is to recognize the need to be . . . engaged in political action

aimed at preserving and reinforcing a way of life that allows for such worthy
personal life projects as that of authenticity. . . . The authentic person takes a
stand not just on his or her own life, but on the community’s project of achieving
a good society. (p. 162, emphasis added).

By not making explicit my own difference, by swimming mainstream, and hence not
deliberately challenging what one may call an entrenched or widely shared stereotype
of gays or lesbians, I did not betray myself primarily, nor primarily my colleagues,
but I was essentially betraying authenticity as an ideal. I was honest with myself, but
I did not meet the second criterion. By hesitating in finding the courage within me to
fully, meaning also publicly, come out about my own difference, I was betraying
exactly what I was wishing for: a society where certain forms of difference, such as
sexual orientation, do no longer matter. This was so because for it not to matter it first
has to be made explicit and to matter! The latter point gains additional purchase
through reference to the work of Charles Taylor (1991), which also serves to situate
the narrative within a broader societal and theoretical context.

Placing the Narrative in a Wider Social

and Philosophical Context
Deliberation of Values: Horizons of Significance

In The Ethics of Authenticity, Taylor (1991) explores on what basis one might decide
which identities ought (or ought not) be formally recognized within a given society.
He also calls attention to the importance of public deliberation of values. A significant
concept in his discussion of formal recognition of different identities within a society
is that of “horizons of significance,” which he sees as the ultimate criteria against
which decisions regarding recognition should be made. They present, as Taylor (1991)

Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at Glasgow University Library on June 25, 2015

184 Adult Education Quarterly 60(2)

further explains, “a picture of what a better or higher mode of life would be, whereby
terms such as better or higher offer a standard we ought to desire” (p. 16). Taylor
(1991) argues that authenticity is not the same as creative self-definition (which nowa-
days it is often construed as). While an exclusively subjectively constructed identity is
based on what I deem to be significant (to myself), what is truly significant, Taylor
suggests, I alone do not determine. Authentic identities need to be constructed around
larger horizons of significance that transcend my own subjectivity. If Taylor means to
say here that identities, to be recognized, must be bound by horizons that are both pre-
given and eternal, many readers might find this troublesome (because this would mean
that a society puts a priori constraints on who gets recognized, which, by definition,
means that it is based on inequality). On the other hand, we all can think of certain
ways of being, or “identities,” that we would not wish to see recognized in a society
that identifies with fundamental principles of democracy, such as equality (e.g., most
of us would not wish to grant formal recognition to holocaust deniers, or fundamental-
ists, for example, who do not grant this very right to others). The issue of constraints
to the recognition of differences is therefore both an important and at the same time
highly contested one (for an interesting discussion of this point, particularly the dis-
tinction between “a politics of equal dignity” versus “a politics of difference”; see
Cooke, 1997). The point I wish to focus on here is the extent to which horizons of sig-
nificance (which present the whole of our socially constructed traditions and cultural
views) themselves can become subject to public deliberation. My reading of Taylor
(1991) is that these horizons themselves are open to deliberation in the public sphere.
While, to paraphrase Taylor, I alone do not determine what is significant and identities
should be constructed also around horizons of significance that transcend my own sub-
jectivity, public deliberation of what is significant, over time, may lead to changes in
what is considered a shared background of things that matter to us in a society. In a
recent e-mail exchange, Charles Guignon commented that the view I articulate above
is “exactly that of Gadamer, and, as a Gadamerian, I would totally agree. . . . Also, as a
Gadamerian, Taylor should agree” (personal communication, January 30, 2009).

Authenticity and Recognition

Drawing on the issue of sexual orientation as an example (note here again that in this
article I, too, refer to sexual orientation as one example from which to theorise), Taylor
(1991) makes the interesting observation that the (formal) recognition of homosexual-
ity cannot be successfully fought by calling on its difference. Horizons of significance
become important. However, Taylor is actually silent on the matter of how recognition
could be fought. It can be assumed though that horizons of significance based on pro-
found notions such as freedom and equality would be an acceptable argument for him.
So for the purpose of illustration, if a society valued that people have a right to develop
certain human capabilities that can be shown to be essential for well-being, any laws
that deny people the opportunity to develop these capabilities would be incompatible
with the very notion of a just and free society (Nussbaum, 2000). In her capabilities

Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at Glasgow University Library on June 25, 2015

Kreber 185

approach to human development, Martha Nussbaum (2000) further proposed that the
three capabilities of bodily integrity, emotions, and affiliation, which all address
directly people’s need for opportunities to experience and develop the capacity for
sexual expression/satisfaction as well as the capacity to love and experience emotional
health, are essential for living a good life. According to this reasoning, all people,
regardless of sexual orientation, would need to experience environments within which
to nurture these capabilities. While it is unknown whether this argument would, for
Taylor (1991), have justified recognition of same sex marriage (given the deep tradi-
tions associated with the institution of marriage), one would assume it would have led
him to look favourably on the recognition of same-sex unions. (As an aside, I add that
he wrote The Ethics of Authenticity [Taylor, 1991] well over a decade before his own
country, Canada, recognized and legalized same-sex marriage, next to Belgium, the
Netherlands, and Spain.)
Importantly then horizons of significance represent a shared set of culturally con-
structed fundamental values by which a community (or society) decides to guide itself.
As has become clear by now, Taylor is actually quite sceptical of a notion of authentic-
ity that links the idea of “being true to and defining oneself” immediately to claims for
formal recognition, irrespective of the horizons of significance that are deemed essen-
tial in a given society. Authenticity needs to be construed differently, therefore, without
losing the worthwhile aspect that being true to oneself entails. Taylor proposes that an
authentic identity is not just created by looking inwardly (that is, subjectively) but
involves self-definition in dialogue around horizons of significance. This means that
we come to define ourselves and seek recognition against a background of issues that
really matter to us as members of a given society. My reading of Taylor, as discussed
before, is that what is recognized as “mattering” is itself open to deliberation.

Becoming Authentic as “Coming Out”

In light of Taylor’s (1991) and Guignon’s (2004) arguments, and also by way of extra­
polating from the particulars of the narrative, one might now propose that by taking a
stand on who one is, or on what one believes in (on any relevant issue and/or aspect of
identity), and doing so in public, one avoids both complacency and compliance but
engages in contestation and debate, which is an important aspect of moving towards
greater authenticity. Possibly this is implied in Cranton and Carusetta’s (2004) defini-
tion of authenticity as critical reflection on self, other, relationships, and context, the
understanding being that critical reflection is only critical if it is dialogical. Brookfield
(2008) recently reminded us that critical reflection is critical only if it is political and
aimed at the development of democratic socialism. Clearly, “coming out” about one’s
own difference (about one’s assumptions, values, beliefs, etc.), thus construed, does
not mean that one will always encounter confirmation of one’s own deeply held stance;
the opposite might be the case. The important point though is that through public
debate one will be encouraged to take a critical stance towards one’s own views and
might occasionally even change them. Gaining in authenticity, therefore, is not the

Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at Glasgow University Library on June 25, 2015

186 Adult Education Quarterly 60(2)

same as being confirmed for one’s views; greater authenticity will sometimes mean to
have changed one’s own views. In terms of “recognition,” one might want to say that
we recognise one another when we listen to one another’s views. This I would say is
the “weaker” (though no less important) meaning of recognition. The “stronger” form of
recognition, as in the recognition of same-sex marriage, actually depends on the wea­
ker form. By “coming out,” that is by engaging in contestation and debate, one becomes
part of a larger process that is aimed at preserving and allowing for a life that makes
possible authenticity as a moral ideal, one that a society can choose to guide itself by
(Taylor, 1991). “Coming out” publicly is as essential for authenticity as the more inter-
nal process of freeing oneself from the “they” (Heidegger, 1962), separating from the
herd (Nietzsche, 1883), or being “disencumbered” by dominant voices (Barnett, 2007);
both processes matter.

Constraints to “Coming Out”

There are many circumstances where “coming out” to oneself and others is not pos-
sible for people or could have severe consequences. An example is not being able to
openly criticize the unethical conduct of the company one works for (e.g., its exploita-
tion of environmental and human resources in developing countries, or its disparate
practices based on gender, race, ethnicity, age, etc.) because the well-being of one’s
loved ones is contingent on the company’s provision of necessary social benefits.
Another example is not being able to openly share one’s views on how the government
conducts its affairs because the same government does not allow for freedom of exp­
ression and protects itself with extreme measures such as surveillance, making it
impossible for people to find work that provides an outlet for their views, imprison-
ment, torture, and so on (a case in point include artists and intellectuals in former East
Germany during the Cold War [as nicely portrayed in the movie The Lives of Others])
or any corrupt totalitarian regime. A third example is not being able to openly declare
oneself (or simply live) as lesbian or gay in societies where this is considered a sin or
serious offence or in communities where discrimination, including crime, against non-
heterosexuals is being silently tolerated.
Numerous further examples, across a wide range of contexts, could be featured to
illustrate constraints on “coming out” about one’s views or difference. The important
point though is that there are many situations where what is needed in the strive for
authenticity may not just be the courage to publicly assert one’s own claims to recogni-
tion (that is, to “come out” publicly), but instead the care and courage of compassionate
others who, by helping to assert the claims of minorities to recognition, provide assist-
ance in effecting change.
Nussbaum (2004) defines the emotion of compassion as three interrelated judg-
ments we make: a belief that “the misfortunes of others are serious, and that they have
not brought this misfortune on to themselves, and, in addition, that they are themselves
important parts of one’s own scheme of ends and goals” (p. 335). This implies that we
recognize our related vulnerability and see others as important to our own flourishing,

Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at Glasgow University Library on June 25, 2015

Kreber 187

that is to the fulfilment of our typically human faculties (Nussbaum, 2000, 2004).
Likewise Eagleton (2007) argued that human flourishing is ultimately reciprocal; we
work towards our own flourishing by helping others with their flourishing.

Authenticity and the Capabilities Approach

The notion of human flourishing is based on Aristotelian philosophy (with some adap-
tations and new interpretations), where it is seen as a condition for well-being or
“happiness.” The Greek philosopher Aristotle held that given that the goal all humans
aspire to is “happiness” and this is bound by the extent to which we succeed in perfect-
ing what is typical for us as humans, what gives our life meaning is the practice of
seeking “excellence” in the performance of typically human tasks. What distinguishes
humans from other animals is their capacity for rationality or reasoning, of which the
highest form is contemplation. Aristotle also believed that it is through this striving for
“excellence” through reasoning about what to do and how to act in the particular con-
texts or situations we find ourselves in that we attain virtuous dispositions that make
us “good” (moral) (Thomson, 1976). Now three observations may be made at this
point. Firstly, one might argue that developing the capacity for compassion (which, as
Nussbaum’s [2004] analysis demonstrated, comes about through contemplation [or
making reasoned judgements]) makes us more “authentically human” (as it is an
emotion—based on reasoned judgments—only humans can experience and cultivate)
and thereby offers us a more meaningful or “happy” life. Secondly, it is through this
human capacity for compassion that we can recognise the suffering of others whose
opportunities to live authentically might be circumscribed. By looking out for one
another on the basis of compassion, we also support each others’ authenticity. Third,
in order to be “happy,” people need to be given space for their human faculties to
flourish. The capacity to experience compassion is one of several capabilities that
Nussbaum (2000) identifies as being fundamental for human flourishing. Importantly,
compassion is fundamental to our own flourishing and the flourishing of others.
Nussbaum and Sen’s (1993) capabilities approach to human development is based
on the view that real quality of life can be determined only by looking at the extent to
which each and every individual in a country is capable of flourishing. In Nussbaum’s
(2000) words, the capabilities approach looks at “what individuals are actually able to
do or be” (p. 69). Importantly, Sen and Nussbaum argue that societies need to consider
the “happiness” of its people (or perhaps “authenticity”), a significant measure of qual-
ity of life, and commit to nurturing the capabilities that support human flourishing.
Nussbaum (2000) then proposed a tentative list of 10 basic interlocking categories
of central human functional capabilities as being essential for healthy and just human
living and development, by which all countries should be held accountable. The cate-
gories of capabilities relate, for example, to being able to make the very most of one’s
senses, one’s imagination, and thought through adequate education; to engage, express,
and develop one’s emotions; having control over one’s political and material environ-
ment; having the social bases for self-respect (i.e., being protected against discrimination

Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at Glasgow University Library on June 25, 2015

188 Adult Education Quarterly 60(2)

on the bases of race, sex, etc.); being able to live with and towards others; being able
to imagine the situation of someone else and experiencing compassion; and by exten-
sion, having the capacity for both justice and friendship.

Precis
Before exploring the various ideas addressed so far for their applicability to the con-
text of teaching and learning in adult and higher education, it might be helpful to
briefly revisit them and their connections. From Taylor (1991), we get the insight that,
firstly, the formal recognition (in its “strong” sense) of identities is tied to socially
constructed horizons of significance; second, identities, therefore, need to be con-
structed dialogically (rather than by looking only inwardly); and thirdly, political
participation and public deliberation of issues of importance to society is critical to a
democracy. One might also say that Taylor argues that we shall not be complacent and
ignore larger horizons of significance. Extending Taylor’s (1991) argument, I pro-
posed that the horizons of significance, while they provide a framework against which
decisions can be made, need not be seen as something we passively comply with
either; instead, although these horizons do provide needed standards, they themselves
can be deliberated and contested, and thereby, over time, may change. An example is
offered by the recent re-definition of marriage (as not being restricted to two people of
the opposite sex) in some countries.
Guignon (2004) proposed the idea that as people make explicit what they believe
and stand for, and offer their reasons in public (in other words as they “come out”
publicly), they do not only act authentically but contribute to a society in which authen-
ticity, and by extension, public deliberation of differing values, is possible. I noted that
as part of this “coming out” process, one might not just influence others but also be
influenced by others and, hence, change one’s own deeply held views, which in turn
contributes to one’s own authenticity.
Drawing on Nussbaum’s work, my intent was to show that the universal values
upon which the capabilities approach to human development is based, as manifested
by the 10 categories of capabilities she outlines, could, if deliberated (and found con-
vincing) in public, become part of our “horizon of significance” on whose basis we
make decisions about how to organise our societies’ social services (including educa-
tion). Nussbaum herself is clear about offering her list of capabilities in a Socratic
fashion and highlights the need for further deliberation on these.
So what I would like to conclude here, in a synthesis of Nussbaum’s and Taylor’s
respective analyses, is that the right to “happiness,” the right to living a fulfilling life,
or “human flourishing,” should or could be a “horizon of significance” (Taylor, 1991)
against which to recognise each other (in its weaker sense) and to organise social serv-
ices including education (se also Walker, 2006). Moreover, I suggest that living
authentically involves, next to living a “happy,” meaningful, and fulfilled life, a will-
ingness to “come out” to oneself and others and thereby an openness to engage in
public deliberation and contestation. This involves both courage and compassion.

Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at Glasgow University Library on June 25, 2015

Kreber 189

These ideas, I suggest, have profound implications for teaching and learning in adult
and higher education.

Considering Authenticity for the

Context of Adult and Higher Education
What are some of the implications of these dimensions of authenticity for the context
of adult and higher education?

Recognition, Courage, and Compassion with Respect to Learners

The ideas of equality and justice associated with striving for authenticity have implica-
tions for an educational practice or pedagogy that goes well beyond so-called “ideal
speech conditions” (e.g., Habermas, 1987; Mezirow, 1991). Some scholars have already
drawn attention to the fact that ideal speech conditions, by themselves, are not really
adequate to remove unequal power relations inherent in many human interactions
(McNay, 2008) and educational encounters (e.g., Barnett, 2004; Brookfield, 2001;
Tisdell, 2001). Walker (2006), for example, shares several accounts of students feeling
silenced in seminars that on the surface espouse values such as equality and community
building but are characterized by unacknowledged power imbalances (due to differ-
ences in class, race, faith, expertise, etc.).
Nixon (2004) offers thought-provoking links between authenticity and learning,
grou­nding his observations also in the Aristotelian notion of civic virtues. Discussing the
virtuous dispositions of courage and compassion in the context of teaching and learning,
he suggests, “Through courage I assert my own claims, or those of my clan, to recogni-
tion; through compassion I assert the right of others to recognition; through patience
I mediate between these seemingly irreconcilable claims” (p. 123). Recognition, he
argues, needs to be achieved in dialogue and through solidarity. This way we discover our
own authenticity and connect with the authenticity of others. Learning, thus conceived,
comes about through deliberation, by critically engaging with (or contesting) the thoughts
and traditions of others. Ultimately, such learning has as its goal the construction of “the
good society.” The latter is understood in line with Nussbaum’s (1997) argument that in
order to foster “a democracy that genuinely takes thought for the common good, we
(meaning all those involved in offering higher or adult education, insert added) must
produce citizens who have the Socratic capacity to reason about their beliefs” (p. 19).
Similarly concerned with recognition and authenticity as goals of higher educa-
tion, Walker (2004) argues for “pedagogies of beginning” through which educators
seek to foster the students’

ethical and democratic political imagination . . . so that they are able to see the
world from other points of views, understand themselves in relation to the
world, and grasp their own agency in relation to knowledge and action in an
uncertain world. (p. 145)

Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at Glasgow University Library on June 25, 2015

190 Adult Education Quarterly 60(2)

The Capabilities Approach as an Approach to Adult and Higher Education

Inspired by Sen and Nussbaum’s capabilities approach to human development, Walker
(2006) recently asked, “If higher education ought to enable human flourishing, we
need to ask how in and through higher education do we support rather than hinder
human flourishing?” (p. 18). One response, she suggests, by rephrasing Hannah
Arendt, is that “higher education ought to make it at least possible for students to act
on the future differently and renew the common world” (Walker, 2006, p. 19). In other
words, adult and higher education is about remaking of self, becoming and identity
formation all connected with developing a new understanding of the world we inhabit.
Following Nussbaum’s (2000) lead, Walker (2006) offers a list of several capabili-
ties (understood as opportunities for human functioning based on the ultimate goals of
equality and justice in and through education) that higher education ought to foster.
The list itself, which includes many of Nussbaum’s original suggestions for human
and women’s development (such as practical reason, knowledge and imagination,
respect dignity and recognition, emotional integrity, etc), is suggested for debate and
ideally, Walker suggests, is arrived at through public deliberation.
The link to authenticity I wish to highlight here is two-tiered. First, the capabilities
approach to higher education pedagogies as proposed by Walker could itself be con-
sidered a horizon of significance (Taylor, 1991) by which we judge what counts as a
genuine higher (and adult) education. Not everything should be recognized and public
deliberation about which capabilities are worth pursuing in and through adult and
higher education, and why, is critically important. Second, the learning outcomes
the capabilities approach in education is concerned with are all about human devel-
opment, about the freedom to make informed choices for oneself, about “human
flourishing.” Another way of putting this is to say that the capabilities approach is
about assisting people to live authentic lives. It is also ultimately about the common
good as it is about equal distribution of capabilities among learners and supporting the
flourishing of one another.

Students and Their Academic Learning: Becoming

Disencumbered and Developing Self-Authorship
The general notion of authenticity as “coming out” to oneself and others is also refl­
ected in the work of educational theorists Barnett (2007) and Baxter Magolda (1998).
Barnett (2007) suggests that authenticity is achieved in formal learning when students
come into the issues they are studying in their own way. It is a matter of becoming
“disencumbered” from dominant voices. This is not the same as ignoring these voices;
to the contrary, one only can become disencumbered, and thereby authentic, by having
listened to these voices and found one’s own voice in the process (put differently, by
contesting these voices).
Barnett is principally concerned with students developing their “critical being”
(next to their knowing and acting) through the process of higher education, which

Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at Glasgow University Library on June 25, 2015

Kreber 191

includes developing higher-order thinking skills and the personal qualities and dispo-
sitions that go along with the concept of developing criticality. He and Baxter Magolda
both recognize the epistemological and ontological dimensions of student learning.
Baxter Magolda (1998) argues that students need to develop self-authorship, which
she defined as “a way of making meaning of one’s experiences from inside oneself”
(p. 152). Importantly, self-authorship hinges not only on the student’s intellectual
development but also on the individual being able to engage in constructive and mean-
ingful relationships with those who hold a different point of view. “Critical being” and
“self-authorship” require a willingness to push oneself forward (avoiding compla-
cency) and to challenge received wisdom and expectations (avoiding compliance),
thereby engaging in contestation and deliberation. In other words, it involves “coming
out” publically.
In the next section, I will extrapolate from the ideas discussed so far to speculate on
some of the reasons why professionals in adult and higher education consider authen-
ticity such a compelling idea, particularly during these times.

What Might Be So Compelling About Authenticity?

Nussbaum (2000) argued that “to be able to search for an understanding of the ulti-
mate meaning of one’s life in one’s own way is among the most important aspects of
a life that is truly human” (p. 179). Given present interest in authenticity on the part of
a growing number of educational theorists and practitioners, it seems sensible to pose
the following questions: Might there be a shared sense that aspects of our professional
lives have become increasingly separated from this core characteristic of what it
means to be truly human? Might the felt alienation from a deep sense of what it is to
be an educator constitute the underlying motivation for the present interest (perhaps
even yearning) for authenticity?
Barnett (2004) observed that “students are not always accorded the space and the
dignity in which they can be truly authentic” (p. 202), by which he means that they
often do not feel safe to find their own voice let alone make it public. Similar observa-
tions have been offered by Mann (2001) and Walker (2006), who discussed how the
present culture of higher education creates learning environments that lead many stu-
dents, but particularly those who do not bring with them the cultural capital so highly
prized within educational institutions, to become alienated from the experience of
learning in higher education. Learners’ creativity and self-expression is often dis-
couraged for the sake of compliance with dominant discourses and predetermined
course requirements. So while “critical being” (Barnett, 2007), “self-authorship” (Baxter
Magolda, 1998), and “practical reason” (Nussbaum, 1997) are usually noted as among
the principal goals of adult and higher education, the realities of the educational cli-
mate we and learners are part of often tend to obstruct the attainment of these goals,
thereby getting in the way of both learner and educator authenticity. One might think
here of the importance of achieving good grades in increasingly large and diverse
classes, cramped or overly specialised curricula, and so forth.

Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at Glasgow University Library on June 25, 2015

192 Adult Education Quarterly 60(2)

Turning to the role of educators, Nixon (2007) argued that their “conditions of
work which are often deeply alienating and inauthentic” (p. 22). Below I feature in
point form some plausible contextual factors that might contribute to this felt sense
of alienation and inauthenticity among educators:

- A climate of audit, accountability, and performativity that encourages com-

pliance with policies that reflect directions for adult and higher education we
may not agree with (for example, neo-liberal agendas informed by human
capital theory or the expectation to predetermine specific learning outcomes
at all levels).
- A concern over the strength of the nation’s economy and competitiveness in
a global market (this concern manifests itself in the employability agenda,
vocationalized curricula, and competition over alternative income streams.
Even so-called internationalization efforts are largely motivated by economic
imperatives, although they could afford opportunities to link postsecondary
institutions more closely with the needs of our global society; e.g., Kreber,
2009).
- the commercialization of higher education (i.e., efforts aimed at making a
profit from teaching, research, and other campus activities). Although cer-
tainly not a new phenomenon, Bok (2003) emphasized the unprecedented
size and scope of commercial practices that can be witnessed today. We can
observe this also in growing efforts geared toward modularization, reflect-
ing an understanding of knowledge as a commodity that can be packaged
and sold.
- increased competition among colleagues (for research funding, awards,
release time, graduate students, etc.) encouraging a view that human flourish-
ing is an individual and isolated affair independent of mutual relations with
others. Others are considered a potential threat to one’s success or flourish-
ing. This is, as we have seen, in contrast to our human nature necessary for
survival (Eagleton, 2007) where “the fulfilment of each becomes the ground
for the fulfilment of the other” (p. 97).
- professional development programs for educators that emphasize technique
and/or purely psychological issues of learning at the expense of encourag-
ing reflection and engagement with the larger purposes of adult and higher
education, thereby encouraging what Rowland (2001) once referred to as
“surface learning” about teaching. A more sophisticated sense of profession-
alism might ask deeper questions, not what one “is supposed to do” but “why
one does it and who benefits from it” (Said, 1994, as cited in Walker, 2006,
p. 138).

More generally, many observers feel a growing tension between higher education’s
intellectual, critical, theoretical, and moral purposes, and those that are more practical
and economic in nature and oriented toward providing a service to society (e.g.,

Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at Glasgow University Library on June 25, 2015

Kreber 193

Rowland, 2006; Walker, 2006). While both to critique (or contest) and to serve (or
comply) are important, there is a growing sense that the former is being lost as economic
imperatives take over.
These larger contextual issues, one might argue, trickle down and make them-
selves felt in the particular contexts in which we work and our students learn.
Constraints on choice regarding matters of curriculum (or research) and constraints
on what is considered worthwhile knowledge to be shared can easily be seen as lead-
ing to alienation on the part of both educators and learners. Being forced into
situations where we cannot make decisions based on our best convictions is therefore
a plausible factor promoting inauthenticity. This sense of inauthenticity, in turn,
makes some of us yearn for greater authenticity. Such inauthenticity, therefore, is
often a matter of compliance with external expectations, although over time, it can
develop into complacency, whereby we do not even realize that we conform to exter-
nal demands. Such a state might then perhaps more accurately be referred to as
unauthenticity. Students adopting so-called surface and/or strategic approaches to
their studying (Marton, Hounsell, & Entwistle, 1997) with the motivation of meeting
course requirements in courses overloaded with content so as to secure good grades
(as contrasted from deep approaches engaged in with the motivation to understand,
analyze, and evaluate) is a good example of them being compliant (inauthentic)
with the course structure or eventually simply falling into complacency. Likewise,
educators orienting their teaching practice on entrenched departmental or institu-
tional teaching and learning traditions can be seen as an example of compliance (as
when these traditions or practices are enacted out of fear of the consequences of chal-
lenging existing norms) or of complacency (as when these traditions or practices
have become so internalised that envisioning alternatives without external input has
become impossible).

Summary and Elaborations

This conceptual study had three related purposes: Speculating on the reasons for why
we witness a developing interest in authenticity among professional adult and higher
educators, exploring what striving for authenticity entails, and, by implication, offer-
ing new insights into how the ancient yet evocative notion of authenticity might
contribute to the advancement of theory and practice in adult and higher education.
I addressed the first and second of these in the reverse order.
Taking as my point of departure a personal narrative concerned with the particular
issue of coming out about one’s sexual orientation, my intent was to surface the gen-
eral structure underlying the experience of struggling for authenticity. I subsequently
extended the metaphor of “coming out” to the process of striving for authenticity also
in other contexts. Put differently, I extrapolated from the specifics of the narrative to
what is critical in the experience of moving toward greater authenticity in general. In
the narrative’s analysis, I called attention to the context-transcendent themes of
complacency, compliance, and contestation as well as relevant constructs from the

Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at Glasgow University Library on June 25, 2015

194 Adult Education Quarterly 60(2)

philosophical and educational literature. Becoming authentic was described as an

ongoing struggle that involves avoiding complacency (not challenging oneself) and
compliance (not challenging others, including norms and expectations) and engaging
in contestation and public deliberation (challenging oneself and others, including norms
and expectations). In other words, authenticity is fought over by pushing oneself to
contest dominant agendas.
In an attempt at a synthesis of Martha Nussbaum’s study of the emotions and the
capabilities approach to human development with Charles Taylor’s claim that recog-
nition of identity is tied to socially constructed horizons of significance, I proposed
that the right to “human flourishing” should or could be a “horizon of significance”
(against which to recognize different identities). Moreover, I suggested that living
authentically involves, next to living a “happy,” meaningful, and fulfilled life, a
preparedness to “come out” to oneself and others and thereby an openness to engage
in public deliberation and contestation. This involves both courage and compassion.
Authenticity, therefore, is linked to identifying what one believes in (which at times
also means to confront the truth about oneself) and making one’s own sincerely held
views (or difference) explicit, thereby engaging, through dialogue, with the views
and values of others. Engagement in such dialogue involves courage, but it also
involves compassion to hear the views of others and help them assert their claims to
recognition.
Having sketched out this broad perspective on the meaning of authenticity, I shifted
my focus to the context of adult learners, educators, and pedagogies, respectively. I
showed how the notion of “coming out” (the metaphor understood in its wider sense)
and engaging in true dialogue across divergent views and identities also informs some
of the contemporary literature on teaching and learning in adult and higher education
(e.g., Barnett, 2007; Baxter Magolda, 1998; Nixon, 2007; Walker, 2004). Further with
regards to “authentic pedagogy,” I proposed that the capabilities approach to educa-
tion (Walker, 2006), with its emphasis on supporting the development of each and
every individual, their freedom to make informed choices, and hence human flourish-
ing, is about nothing less than supporting learners (and educators) in their striving for
authenticity. The capabilities approach to education (Walker, 2006), I further sug-
gested, might also offer a horizon of significance (Taylor, 1991) for what should constitute
a standard for what is recognized as good practice in teaching and learning in adult and
higher education.
Lastly, I turned to the wider policy context in adult and higher education and sug-
gested that the reason adult and higher education professionals are drawn to the notion
of authenticity is perhaps our human need for recognition and having our voices heard
at a time when we experience heightened alienation from our own sense of what it
means to be an “educator” and to offer a good education. I proposed several factors
that might contribute to this felt sense of alienation.
What emerges from the previous discussion is a sense that the literature on authen-
ticity reflects at least two major concerns, both of which, one might argue, are equally
important.

Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at Glasgow University Library on June 25, 2015

Kreber 195

One concern relates to the importance of “coming out” about one’s own views or
“difference.” “Coming out,” as we saw, has two components: “coming out” to oneself
(and, relatedly, confronting the truth about oneself) and “coming out” in public in a
sense of making one’s views or difference known so that it can be deliberated in the
public sphere (Guignon, 2004). Oftentimes, we tend to think of authenticity only in
terms of the former, reflecting what I would call a psychological interest in authentic-
ity (the focus is on the self-knowledge, growth, development, or individuation of the
person) rather than a sociological interest (the focus is on the role of authenticity in
group relations). Guignon’s (2004) observation that authenticity involves not just
looking inwardly (as in finding our “true self”) but has a social dimension is relevant
here in understanding the two interests.
A second concern, which I argued is a plausible motivation for present interest
among adult and higher education professionals in authenticity, is bound up directly
with the notion of recognition, as well as courage and compassion. As several philoso-
phers and educationalists remind us, authenticity is not simply a matter of asserting
one’s own claims to recognition but also of supporting others in raising their claims to
recognition. From an ethical point of view, authenticity (also within the context of
education) has always been linked in some way to courage and compassion, to justice
and the common good (see Grimmet & Neufeld, 1994; Guignon, 2004; Nixon, 2007;
Starratt, 2004; Taylor, 1991; Walker, 2006).

Final Comment
Authenticity does not refer to a single phenomenon (as in looking only inwardly to find
one’s true self). Part of what is intriguing and compelling about this notion is indeed its
multidimensionality and complexity; and by acknowledging this, authenticity can sug-
gest new possibilities for theorizing about, and improving upon our practice in, adult and
higher education. As Walker (2006) reminds us, our professional responsibility as educa-
tors involves not just pointing to the roots of the problem but “we ought to connect such
research to practical attempts to improve higher (or add ‘adult’) education” (p. 130).
What I tried to do in this article is not just explore the meaning of authenticity (Kreber
et al., 2007) but open up a more in-depth discussion about how and why authenticity mat-
ters to us in adult and higher education and how we may want to act upon these insights.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at Glasgow University Library on June 25, 2015

196 Adult Education Quarterly 60(2)

References

Adorno, T. (2003). The jargon of authenticity. London and New York: Routledge. (originally
published 1964)
Barnett, R. (2004). Epilogue. In M. Walker & J. Nixon (Eds.), Reclaiming universities from a
runaway world (pp. 196-208). Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK: The Society for Research Into
Higher Education and Open University Press.
Barnett, R. (2007). A will to learn. Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK: The Society for Research into
Higher Education and Open University Press.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1998). Developing self-authorship in young adult life. Journal of Col-
lege Student Development, 39, 143-156.
Bettinger, T., Timmins, R., & Tisdell, E. (2006). Difficult dilemmas: The meaning and dynam-
ics of being out in the classroom. In R. J. Hill. (Ed.), New directions for adult and continu-
ing education: No.112. Challenging homophobia and heterosexism. Lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender and queer issues (pp. 63-71). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Brookfield, S. D. (2001). A political analysis of discussion groups. Can the circle be unbroken.
In, R. M. Cevero & A. L. Wilson (Eds.), Power in practice. Adult education and the struggle
for knowledge and power in society (pp. 206-225). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brookfield, S. (2006). Authenticity and power. Authenticity in Teaching. New Directions for
Adult and Continuing Education, 111, 5-16.
Brookfield, S. (2008). Radical questioning on the Long Walk to Freedom: Nelson Mandela and
the practice of critical reflection. Adult Education Quarterly, 58(2), 95-109.
Chickering, A. W., Dalton, J. C., & Stamm, L. (2006). Encouraging authenticity and spirituality
in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cooke, M. (1997). Authenticity and autonomy: Taylor, Habermas, and the politics of recogni-
tion. Political Theory, 25(2), 258-288.
Cranton, P. A., & Carusetta, E. (2004). Perspectives on authenticity in teaching. Adult Educa-
tion Quarterly, 55(1), 5-22.
Dillard, C. (2006). On spiritual strivings. Transforming an African American woman’s aca-
demic life. New York: State University of New York Press.
Dirkx, J. M. (2006). Authenticity and imagination. In P. A. Cranton (Ed.), New directions for
adult and continuing education: No. 111. Authenticity in teaching (pp. 27-39). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Dreyfus, H. L. (2000). Responses. In M. A. Wrathhall & J. Malpas (Eds.), Heidegger, authentic-
ity and modernity. Essays in honour of Hubert Dreyfus, Vol. 1 (pp. 305-343). Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press.
Eagleton, T. (2007). The meaning of life. A very short introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Grace, A. (2001). Being, becoming, and belonging as a queer citizen educator: The places
of queer autobiography, queer culture as community, and fugitive knowledge. Proceedings

Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at Glasgow University Library on June 25, 2015

Kreber 197

of CASAE-ACÉÉA National Conference (Twentieth Anniversary Proceedings). Retrieved

February 9, 2009, from http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/CASAE/cnf2001/grace.pdf
Grace, A. P., & Wells, K. (2007). Using Freirean pedagogy of just IRE to inform critical social
learning in arts-informed community education for sexual minorities. Adult Education Quar-
terly, 57(2), 95-114.
Grimmet, P., & Neufeld, J. (1994). Teacher development and the struggle for authenticity. Pro-
fessional growth and restructuring in the context of change. New York: Teacher College,
Columbia University, Teachers College Press.
Guignon, C. (2004). Being authentic. London and New York: Routledge.
Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action (T. McCarthy, Trans.) Boston: Bea-
con Press. (Original work published 1981)
Hall, D. (2004). Subjectivity. New York: Routledge.
Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.). London: SCM
Press. (Original work published 1927)
Hill, R. J. (Ed.). (2006). Challenging homophobia and heterosexism. Lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender and queer issues. New directions for adult and continuing education: No. 112.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kreber, C. (Ed.). (2009). Internationalizing the curriculum in higher education. New directions
for teaching and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kreber, C., Klampfleitner, M., McCune, V., Bayne, S., & Knottenbelt, M. (2007). What do you
mean by “authentic”? A comparative review of the literature on conceptions of authenticity.
Adult Education Quarterly, 58(1), 22-43.
Mann, S. (2001). Alternative perspectives on the student experience: Alienation and engage-
ment. Studies in Higher Education, 26(1), 7-19.
Marton, D. J., Hounsell, D., & Entwistle, N. J. (Eds.). (1997). The experience of learning.
Edinburgh, UK: Scottish Academic Press.
McNay, L. (2008). Against recognition. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nash, R. J. (2004). Liberating scholarly writing: The power of personal narrative. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Nehamas, A. (1998). Virtues of authenticity—Essays on Plato and Socrates. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Nietzsche, F. (1883). Also sprach Zarathustra: A Buch für Alle und Keinen. Chemnitz,
Germany: Verlag von Ernst Schmeitzner.
Nixon, J. (2004). Learning the language of deliberative democracy. In M. Walker & J. Nixon
(Eds.), Reclaiming universities from a runaway world (pp. 114-128). Maidenhead, Berk-
shire, UK: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Nixon, J. (2007). Excellence and the good society. In A. Skelton (Ed.), International perspec-
tives on teaching excellence in higher education (pp. 23-53). New York: Routledge.
Nussbaum, M. (1997). Cultivating humanity: A classical defense of reform in liberal education.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and human development. The capabilities approach. Cambridge,
UK: The Cambridge University Press.

Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at Glasgow University Library on June 25, 2015

198 Adult Education Quarterly 60(2)

Nussbaum, M. (2004). Upheavals of thought. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Nussbaum, M., & Sen, A. (Eds.). (1993). The quality of life. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
Palmer, P. (1998). The courage to teach. Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rowland, S. (2001). Surface learning about teaching in higher education: The need for
more critical conversations. The International Journal for Academic Development, 6(2),
162-167.
Rowland, S. (2006). The enquiring university. Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK: The Society for
Research Into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Sergiovanni, T. (1992). Moral leadership. Getting to the heart of school improvement. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Starratt, R. J. (2004). Ethical leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Taylor, C. (1991). The ethics of authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Thomson, J. A. K. (1976). The ethics of Aristotle. The Nichomachean ethics. Middlesex, UK:
Penguin Books.
Tisdell, E. (2001). The politics of positionality. Teaching for social change in higher education.
In R. M. Cevero & A. L. Wilson (Eds.), Power in practice. Adult education and the struggle
for knowledge and power in society (pp. 145-163). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tisdell, E. (2003). Exploring spirituality and culture in adult and higher education. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Walker, M. (2004). Pedagogies of beginning. In M. Walker & J. Nixon (Eds.), Reclaiming uni-
versities from a runaway world (pp. 131-146). Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK: The Society for
Research Into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Walker, M. (2006). Higher education pedagogies. A capabilities approach. Maidenhead, Berk-
shire, UK: The Society for Research Into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Williams, B. (2004). Truth and truthfulness: An essay in genealogy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.

Bio
Carolin Kreber is Director of the Centre for Teaching, Learning and Assessment at the Univer-
sity of Edinburgh where she is also Professor of Higher and Community Education.

Downloaded from aeq.sagepub.com at Glasgow University Library on June 25, 2015