Creating Authenticity

        Why do individuals need an authentic source? Why must we have a real guru or supernatural force to legitimize our faith? In the film Kumaré, Kumaré’s followers were willing to listen to him because he seemed to be a real guru. However, as the film progressed, Kumaré provided the same amount of help and peace that one derives from a “real” religion. In a sense, the film demonstrated that authenticity is not necessary to give people what they need. This sentiment was echoed throughout the readings this week. If the power to attain inner peace has been ours along, then why do we need an authentic source to act as a conduit for us? Where does the need for authenticity come from? Why do we need the son of God or a mystical guru to help us? If Kumaré had presented himself as an average man, would anyone have listened to him? Probably not. Perhaps we crave this authenticity because the guidelines that we adopt from religion are so consuming. As Martyn Oliver argued in “10 Things Every College Student Needs to Know About Religion”, ritual can be more important than belief. So, if one is going to so strongly adopt a code to live by or if said code is already integral to their identity than it has to be extremely significant. If it is going to take or already holds such a prestigious position in one’s life, then it has to have a fair amount of meaning. Meaning that powerful can be found in an “authentic” source like God or an Indian guru. Their “realness” elevates the status of one’s belief and perhaps provides a sense of affirmation for its adoption. 

What Makes a Religion "Legitimate?"

             While discussing the film Kumaré, our class explored the ways in which a religion becomes “legitimate.” We designated religious symbols, the leader’s physical appearance, a sizable following, and several other elements as legitimizing factors. Similarly, after our viewing of Seinfeld’s “Festivus” episode, we discussed how the aluminum pole and the airing of grievances seem to “make the festival real.” While all of these elements exist within legitimate, authentic religious institutions, they do not directly designate “legitimacy” or “authenticity.” I find that legitimacy has two sides: the ability to be recognized and the ability to perform. The elements we designated as “legitimizing” are all visual stimuli through which a religion can be recognized; they imply a religion’s successful performance, but do not, themselves, perform religious work. Authenticity does not pertain to a religion’s symbols or rituals or number of followers, but instead refers to the system’s ability to provide an individual with what mankind searches for in religion; a sense of community, identity, and purpose. Kumaré’s staff and the airing of grievances do not inspire a sense of community or belonging, but rather represent the values and beliefs that satisfy an individual’s religious cravings. Thus, legitimacy lies in the combination of the tangible and sensational elements of religion and the successful impact on an individual that these elements represent.