I want to thank Chris for correcting my misconceptions about H's use of the term "authenticity" (obviously I'm no Heidegger scholar). This idea of "actual life possibilities" kept nagging at me, though, and I realized walking between classes yesterday why this concept is problematic. A simple example should make this clear:
A German in 1940 who denies that he is a member of the master race and Jews are inferior.
Is this an example of inauthenticity? Horns of the dilemma: if "actual life possibilities" are determined by local cultural traditions and customs, as Chris noted in response to my Azande witch doctor example, then this is a clear example of inauthenticity. If "actual life possibilities" are determined by some general standards that are not tied to local traditions (say, the principle that people of all races deserve respect and equal rights under the law), then this is an example of authenticity.
This leads us to what I consider far more important and interesting questions: how do social and political relations produce and sustain certain perspectives about "actual life possibilities"? How do those culturally disseminated perspectives about "the way things are" in turn reinforce social inequalities? How can we practically change people's perceptions of "the way things are" to challenge the status quo? What disappoints me is that the type of philosophical analysis presented by the Heidegger fans onlist obscures these important questions rather than bringing them to the forefront.
Miles