Key Idea: Taylor thinks 'be true to yourself' is a genuine moral ideal that our culture has let go shallow. He neither cheers authenticity nor sneers at it — he tries to rescue it by showing that a real self is found in dialogue and against things that genuinely matter. This text is assessed on Paper 2, a 25-mark open-book essay on the studied text. You study The Ethics of Authenticity in full.
🧠 The four moves, one card each
10.9 at a glance
- 10.9.1 · The three malaises of modernity — Three worries about modern life: (1) individualism that empties life of higher meaning, (2) the dominance of cold instrumental (means-end) calculation, and (3) a loss of real freedom as people drift and disengage.
- 10.9.2 · Authenticity as a moral ideal — Being true to yourself sounds like a mere excuse for doing what you like, but Taylor argues it is a genuine moral ideal with a real history — worth defending against both its boosters and its despisers.
- 10.9.3 · The dialogical self — You cannot work out who you are alone. Identity is built in dialogue with others, and it is defined against 'horizons of significance' — things that matter beyond your own choosing.
- 10.9.4 · Rescuing authenticity — The strategy: don't cheer authenticity, don't sneer at it — repair it. A worthwhile self is chosen against a background of significance and formed in dialogue, not by pure self-invention.
Authenticity only means something against a horizon of significance — a background of things that already matter. Choosing 'whatever I like' says nothing; choosing what is genuinely important, in dialogue with others, is what makes a self real. That is Taylor's whole rescue in one line.
✍️ Bring it together — a Paper 2 question
Evaluate Taylor's claim that authenticity is a genuine moral ideal rather than merely an excuse for self-indulgence.
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Using your text in the open-book exam
- Bring a CLEAN copy — IB rule: your text must be UN-annotated — no notes in the margins, no underlining or highlighting. A marked-up copy is not allowed in the exam. Check it well before the day.
- Know the map — You have the book, but not time to read it. Memorise WHERE each argument lives — the three malaises, the ideal, the dialogical self, the rescue — so you can find a passage in seconds. Keep your study notes in a SEPARATE document.
- Quote to evidence, then EVALUATE — Use the open book to cite a line precisely so it backs a specific point — then argue about it. Never let a quotation replace your own analysis; a copied passage with no evaluation earns little.
- Plan then write — A quick argument map — position, support, objection, weighing, conclusion — beats flipping pages mid-essay. Decide your line first, then dip into the text for evidence. Watch the clock.
Important: Retelling the book instead of evaluating it. Summarising Taylor's argument, however accurately, is not an answer to 'Evaluate'. You must weigh the claim — strongest support, strongest objection, then a reasoned decision. The open book also punishes inaccurate use of the text: cite it precisely, and never confuse Taylor's shallow version of authenticity with the ideal he is actually defending.
✅ Check yourself
If you can answer these six, you have the spine of the whole text.
What are the three malaises of modernity? Individualism that empties meaning, the dominance of instrumental (means-end) reason, and a loss of real freedom as people disengage.
Is authenticity just an excuse for Taylor? No. He argues it is a genuine moral ideal that has been degraded into a shallow 'anything goes' version.
What is the dialogical self? The claim that you discover who you are only in dialogue with others, not alone by pure self-invention.
What is a 'horizon of significance'? A background of things that genuinely matter, against which a choice can be meaningful; without it, self-choice says nothing.
What is Taylor's overall strategy? Neither cheer nor sneer at authenticity but RESCUE it — repair the ideal by tying it to significance and dialogue.
How does he answer the 'self-indulgence' charge? By distinguishing the abuse (no horizons, no dialogue) from the ideal (which requires both) — the abuse doesn't refute the ideal.
Exam tips
- Paper 2 is a 25-mark OPEN-BOOK essay on this one text — the marks are for evaluation, not for how much of the book you can recall.
- Bring a clean, un-annotated copy and know where each argument sits so you can cite fast.
- Quote precisely to evidence a point, then argue about it — never let the text speak for you.
- Always weigh the strongest case each way and end on a reasoned conclusion, not a summary.