Status Updates From Sincerity and Authenticity

I think that Trilling, being a lit-critic, his argument seems to be a bit more elusive compared to someone like Kierkegaard or even Dostoevsky. He doesn't argue why or give us a situation that invokes moral questions, but rather looks at influential texts and continuously picks at the text's significance upon society. For example, he talks about Hamlet and the use of sincerity by Shakespeare that sticks with us (1.3)

This is described as a "moral exploration of the desire for sincerity to authenticity" in Western society. I question the use of "moral exploration" at this point, (I've finished Pt.i of Section II) mainly because of Trilling's writing style. I think it's important to note that Lionell Trilling is a lit-critic and that his argument is not very clear cut (from what I've noticed compared to other authors I've read).