Merriam-Webster’s word of the year is ‘authentic‘. A timely choice?

By Raiment Young

According to the oldest dictionary publisher in the US, Merriam-Webster, ‘authentic’ is—at the top of five different meanings—defined as “not false or imitation: real, actual”, followed by “true to one’s own, spirit, or character”. In a world unceasingly filled with the questionable and the dubious, and a global culture easily dominated by social media, it is no wonder that the lexicographer chose ‘authentic’ as their word of the year. According to Merriam-Webster, the adjective saw, in online searches, a “substantial increase”. In their announcement, they added that the hike was “driven by stories and conversations about AI, celebrity culture, identity, and social media”, not, as we thought, because authenticity is so seldom encountered—or vague, even unknown—that the curious had to search its true meaning.

The interest in ‘authentic’ is likely to do with the persistent prevalence of its opposite—fake, fraudulent, forged, hoax, ponzi, scam, sham, just to name a few. Fake is especially noteworthy. It no longer has a strong negative ring as it once did. Today, fake is not necessarily an unfavourable description (some people even say that being fake is a good way to shield oneself). By itself, fake, in fact, is not enough; it has to be prefixed. You now have ‘superfakes’ (which, we are told, is “upending the luxury market”) and, for the AI ally, ‘deepfakes’ (which, we are told, is able to make us look more authentic), interestingly, one of the runner-ups for the top ranking. For as long as there is social media and those who use these platforms to project a self of rosy being, ‘authentic’ has been a hard sell, even when Elon Mask has urged X-users to be “authentic”. Like ‘genuine’, ‘authentic’ has a dim, AI-dominated future.

The interest in ‘authentic’ is likely to do with the persistent prevalence of its opposite—fake… Today, fake is not necessarily an unfavourable description (some people even say that being fake is a good way to shield oneself). By itself, fake, in fact, is not enough; it has to be prefixed

In a report two months ago on the surge in the buying of the superfake handbag, The New York Times, described its rising popularity as “delirious” and the counterfeits “sensational”. One RMIT marketing lecturer, Dr Marian Makkar, opined in the Australian university’s News page that “Gen Z are fuelling sales of luxury counterfeits.” And how is this so? Ms Makkar states that “digital creators and influencers are using their cultural capital to shift the narrative around counterfeit items or ‘superfakes’ as desirable, smart, and trendy to their younger followers.” It is hard to see ‘authentic’ as preferred description or alluring, not with the crazy prices luxury brands now charge without flinching. In the past, those who seek bootleg bags (and such) in Bangkok, once the capital of counterfeits, know that the merchandise are graded according to quality—grade A being the best or closest to the original. The purchaser, picking the first-rate, would be happy with her buy. But these days, even grade A does not cut it.

As long as the bag or garment (Balenciaga T-shirts!) can pass off as the real deal, no one cares that its existence—and use—is clearly visual dishonesty. ‘Fake’ is now as valid as ‘ugly’; it is slowly losing its unfavourable connotation; it will stealthily become cultural currency. Or, an aesthetic choice. Lovers of ‘fake’ care not that its widespread adoption would put an end to keeping the craft that luxury brands spend a fortune to promote and preserve, thriving. The discouragement against the search-and-buy of the bogus is, at best, a hollow gesture. Shopping on some e-commerce platforms, too, has changed our relationship with words. Who goes on Taobao—or Shein—and seek ‘authentic’?. The more discerning may, perhaps, choose “repro” (especially when purchasing knock-off furniture), but ‘authentic’, is no criterion on many shopping platforms. Those, with budgetary constraints and are uninterested in the experience of being served in a high-end store, would go on to stay clear of merchandise of ‘undisputed origin’. Or, on social media, where realness is an illusion, the persona that is a ‘true self’. ‘Authentic’ may be the word of the year, but it might have a hard time staying afloat, or alive.

Photo illustration: Just So