One can view sincerity and authenticity as counterpoints. On the one hand, an ethical life requires moral sincerity, since ethics seems to involve the constant modification and alteration of personal beliefs, in which case, someone should obviously be able to discern how sincere they really feel toward their religious and moral beliefs. But that doesn't mean that the movement toward personal authenticity is necessarily an abandonment of morality. Rather, it seems to be a moral code of its own: Do not betray your true self.
But staying true to one's self isn't necessarily easy. Just to define what the word "authenticity" actually means is very difficult to say, which Trilling notices cleverly by listing a bunch of definitions, but never offering one of his own. Perhaps this is an indication of a potential problem in the identity-driven morality of the 1970's—how can we stay authentic to a self that we can change or modulate through life?
The answer seems to be in the respect others have for personal identity decisions. By making the standard for authenticity that everyone should have tolerance for everyone else, the identity experiments of the 1970's and 1980's can be done with safety, tolerance, and open-mindedness (and even in the present day culture, the same standard seems to exist).
In other words, this is one manifestation of the basic dilemma in the West of preserving conservative religious ideals, or moving forward into a more tolerant, open-minded future. The truth seems to be that both have merit, and with open-mindedness, both can coexist.
