This paper explores the notion of “power” prevalent in Václav Havel’s understanding of the post-totalitarian regime. With this notion of power, which is “seeping” in nature, rather than rooted solely in an individual agent’s actions, the role of the individual in the formation of the political “we” becomes a central issue. The starting point is Havel’s well-known example of “the greengrocer,” that illustrate how Havel pictures the way out of the post-totalitarian regime as one in which individuals move from living a lie to living in truth. I show how Havel’s talk about truth and authenticity, and his emphasis on a life in truth (which may appear judgemental, naive and cliché-like) is best understood. The wrong way to understand this is simply to say that people who merely obeyed that government, as the greengrocer did, are to be held accountable because they did not put up a fight against their oppressor. Such an understanding goes wrong because it fails to take into account the complexity of the relationship between power and language. In contrast to this, I argue that the central issue here is not that particular agents are to be held responsible for countersigning messages that they think are false. More precisely, I argue that the moral difficulty here is that the greengrocer’s deeds, which appear as countersignatures of the regime, are possible because the messages conveyed are “innocent” on the surface, in a “literal” sense. The moral dimension of the greengrocer’s actions, aiming to shed light on the complex relation between the government and the individual, is revealed as located in a field of tension between inherited sense and new projections. This, in turn, can help us to see the real nature of the transition Havel’s grocer undergoes when he moves from living a lie to living in truth. It is not a matter of negating a false statement or utterance, nor of replacing it with a true one. It is a matter of realising that the responsibility for meaning is, ultimately, ours – and that the way in which he, the grocer, is one of us is something that has to be earned.
In this paper I argue that there is an affinity between the ‘dissident’ in Havel’s essay “The Power of the Powerless” and the ‘spectre’ in Derrida’s readings of Marx. Both are manifestations of a specific modern temporality that Derrida calls “disjointed”, because it is haunted by a revolutionary force and claim for justice. Both also evoke the weak messianic power inherent in Walter Benjamin’s historiography and the spectral responsibility recognised by this power, that is, our responsibility for past and future generations. In post-totalitarian Czechoslovakia, the “nonpolitical” dissident community prefigured the renewal of moral experiences of responsibility and solidarity. In contemporary discussions of democracy, the figure of the spectre is a reminder of the significance of the Marxist legacy beyond its ideological doctrine.
The Czech dissident movement included thinkers who searched for a morally pure, parallel polis, and who felt comfortable within its isolation. The philosophers of Charter 77 (Jan Patočka and Ladislav Hejdánek especially), by contrast, rejected the idea of being morally superior to their opponents. It is interesting to consider where Václav Havel stands at this crossroads. Havel very much cooperated with the above-mentioned philosophers and was inspired by them in his own writing and agency. On the other hand, Havel undoubtedly performed a certain moral-existential concept of dissent. In this paper I examine Havel’s existential concept. In particular, after distinguishing between two existential approaches in Havel’s writings, I analyse two fundamental philosophical critiques of Havel in the work of Ladislav Hejdánek. According to Hejdánek, Havel 1) identifies intellectuals with non-politicians, i.e. he is governed by the incorrect dualism of the political versus the non-political, and 2) is self-focused and moralising, i.e. he keeps too much within his own self (subjectivity) and “a given” (existent, objective) world. Given this critique, I will systematise Hejdánek’s objections and suggested solutions. In the first case, I see the solution in a more detailed distinction: we should distinguish between politics and non-politics (intellectuals) but also non-political politics. In the second case, we should look for the essence (focal point) of man not in his morality but outside it: man should orient himself “out of his self”.