The term authentic is translated as genuine, original, true or credible, and it has always a positive connotation. Speaking of a person, we mention her /his distinctiveness, individuality, uniqueness or originality. Concerning behavior and communication, authenticity is often identified with sincerity, honesty and spontaneity. The most concise and comprehensive definition of authenticity would be 'to be consistent with oneself', and in the imperative form: 'Be yourself!'. However, the first attempt to analyze this apparently self-explanatory statement confronts us with a series of problems and dilemmas, starting with the fact that it can be perceived as a tautology. When we express it as a logic formula, we get 'I = I'. But who is this 'I' whith whom I should be in harmony, or the 'I' charged to perform this harmonization? The nature of the second problem is not logical, but philosophical-axiological and sociopsychological. If we set authenticity, i.e. self-consistency, as a desirable goal worthy to be pursued, we risk to fall into value contradictions, such as in expressions, for example: 'an authentic manipulator, or liar, or crook' etc. Therefore, it is first necessary to carefully define the concept of 'authenticity' and analyze the similarities and differences in relation to kindred notions in order to be able to answer the question implied in the title: can we be authentic in communication.