VclavHavel:ThePowerofthePowerless

TothememoryofJanPatocka The Power of the Powerless (October 1978) was originally written (quickly, Havel said later) as a discussion piece for a projectedjointPolishCzechoslovakvolumeofessaysonthesubject offreedomandpower.AlltheparticipantsweretoreceiveHavel's essay,andthenrespondtoitinwriting.Twentyparticipantswere chosen on both sides, but only the Czechoslovak side was completed. Meanwhile, inMay1979,someofthe Czechoslovak contributorswhowerealsomembersofVONS(theCommitteeto DefendtheUnjustlyProsecuted),includingHavel,werearrested, anditwasdecidedtogoaheadand publish theCzechoslovak contributionsseparately. Havel'sessayhashadaprofoundimpactonEasternEurope.Hereis whatZbygniewBujak,aSolidarityactivist,toldme: ThisessayreachedusintheUrsusfactoryin1979atapointwhen wefeltwewereattheendoftheroad.InspiredbyKOR[thePolish Workers'DefenseCommittee],wehadbeenspeakingontheshop floor,talkingtopeople,participatinginpublicmeetings,tryingto speakthetruthaboutthefactory,thecountry,andpolitics.There cameamomentwhenpeoplethoughtwewerecrazy.Whywerewe doing this? Why were we taking such risks? Not seeing any immediate and tangible results, we began to doubt the purposefulnessofwhatweweredoing.Shouldntwebecomingup withothermethods,otherways? ThencametheessaybyHavel.Readingitgaveusthetheoretical underpinningsforouractivity.Itmaintainedourspirits;wedidnot giveup,andayearlaterinAugust1980itbecameclearthatthe partyapparatusandthefactorymanagementwereafraidofus.We mattered.Andtherankandfilesawusasleadersofthemovement. WhenIlookatthevictoriesofSolidarity,andofCharter77,Isee inthemanastonishingfulfillmentofthepropheciesandknowledge containedinHavel'sessay. Translated by Paul Wilson, The Power of the Powerless has appearedseveraltimesinEnglish,foremostinThePowerofthe Powerless: Citizens Against the State in CentralEastern Europe, edited by John Keane, with an Introduction by Steven Lukes (London:Hutchinson,1985).Thatvolumeincludesaselectionof nineotheressaysfromtheoriginalCzechandSlovakcollection.

I ASPECTERishauntingEasternEurope:thespecterofwhatinthe WestiscalleddissentThissecterhasnotappearedoutofthinair. Itisanaturalandinevitableconsequenceofthepresenthistorical phaseofthesystemitishaunting.Itwasbornatatimewhenthis system, forathousandreasons,cannolonger baseitself onthe unadulterated, brutal, and arbitrary application of power, eliminating all expressions of nonconformity. What is more, the systemhasbecomesoossifiedpoliticallythatthereispracticallyno wayforsuchnonconformitytobeimplementedwithinitsofficial structures. Whoarethesesocalleddissidents?Wheredoestheirpointofview come from, and what. importance does it have? What is the significanceoftheindependentinitiativesinwhichdissidents collaborate, and what real chances do such initiatives have of success?Isitappropriatetoreferto dissidentsasanopposition? Ifso,whatexactlyissuchanoppositionwithintheframeworkof thissystem?Whatdoesitdo?Whatroledoesitplayinsociety? Whatareitshopesandonwhataretheybased?Isitwithinthe powerofthedissidentsasacategoryofsubcitizenoutsidethe powerestablishmenttohaveanyinfluenceatallonsocietyandthe socialsystem?Cantheyactuallychangeanything? Ithinkthatanexaminationofthesequestionsanexaminationof the potential of the powerless can only begin with an examinationofthenatureofpowerinthecircumstancesinwhich thesepowerlesspeopleoperate. II Oursystemismostfrequentlycharacterized asadictatorship or, moreprecisely,asthedictatorshipofapoliticalbureaucracyovera societywhichhasundergoneeconomicandsocialleveling.Iam afraidthatthetermdictatorship,regardlessofhowintelligibleit may otherwise be, tends to obscure rather than clarify the real natureofpowerinthissystem.Weusuallyassociatethetermwith thenotionofasmallgroupofpeoplewhotakeoverthegovernment ofagivencountrybyforce;theirpoweriswieldedopenly,using thedirectinstrumentsofpowerattheirdisposal,andtheyareeasily distinguishedsociallyfromthemajorityoverwhomtheyrule.One of the essential aspects of this traditional or classical notion of dictatorship is the assumption that it is temporary, ephemeral, lackinghistoricalroots.Itsexistenceseemstobeboundupwiththe livesofthosewhoestablishedit.Itisusuallylocalinextentand significance,andregardlessoftheideologyitutilizestograntitself legitimacy,itspowerderivesultimatelyfromthenumbersandthe armedmightofitssoldiersandpolice.Theprincipalthreattoits 2

existenceisfelttobethepossibilitythatsomeonebetterequippedin thissensemightappearandoverthrowit. Eventhisverysuperficialoverviewshouldmakeitclearthatthe systeminwhichwelivehasverylittleincommonwithaclassical dictatorship.Inthefirstplace,oursystemisnotlimitedinalocal, geographicalsense;rather,itholdsswayoverahugepowerbloc controlledbyoneofthetwosuperpowers.Andalthoughitquite naturallyexhibitsanumberoflocalandhistoricalvariations,the range of these variations is fundamentally circumscribed by a single,unifyingframeworkthroughoutthepowerbloc.Notonlyis the dictatorship everywhere based on the same principles and structuredinthesameway(thatis,inthewayevolvedbytheruling superpower),buteachcountryhasbeencompletelypenetratedbya networkofmanipulatoryinstrumentscontrolledbythesuperpower center and totally subordinated to its interests. In the stalemated worldofnuclear parity, ofcourse,that circumstance endowsthe systemwithanunprecedenteddegreeofexternalstabilitycompared withclassicaldictatorships.Manylocalcriseswhich,inanisolated state,wouldleadtoachangeinthesystem,canberesolvedthrough directinterventionbythearmedforcesoftherestofthebloc. Inthesecondplace,ifafeatureofclassicaldictatorshipsistheir lackofhistoricalroots(frequentlytheyappeartobenomorethan historical freaks, the fortuitous consequence of fortuitous social processesorofhumanandmobtendencies),thesamecannotbe saidsofacilelyaboutoursystem.Foreventhoughourdictatorship has long since alienated itself completely from the social movementsthatgivebirthtoit,theauthenticityofthesemovements (andIamthinkingoftheproletarianandsocialistmovementsofthe nineteenth century) gives it undeniable historicity. These origins providedasolidfoundationofsortsonwhichitcouldbuilduntilit becametheutterlynewsocialandpoliticalrealityitistoday,which hasbecomesoinextricablyapartofthestructureofthemodern world. A feature of those historical origins was the correct understanding ofsocial conflicts in the period from which those originalmovementsemerged.Thefactthatattheverycoreofthis correctunderstandingtherewasageneticdispositiontowardthe monstrousalienationcharacteristicofitssubsequencedevelopment is not essential here. And in any case, this element also grew organicallyfromtheclimateofthattimeandthereforecanbesaid tohaveitsoriginthereaswell. One legacy of that original correct understanding is a third peculiarity that makes our systems different from other modern dictatorships:itcommandsanincomparablymoreprecise,logically structured, generally comprehensible and, in essence, extremely flexible ideology that, in its elaborateness and completeness, is 3

almost a secularized religion. It offers a ready answer to any questionwhatsoever;itcanscarcelybeacceptedonlyinpart,and accepting it has profound implications for human life. In an era whenmetaphysicalandexistentialcertaintiesareinastateofcrisis, whenpeoplearebeinguprootedandalienatedandarelosingtheir sense of what this world means, this ideology inevitably has a certain hypnotic charm. To wandering humankind it offers an immediately available home: all one has to do is accept it, and suddenlyeverythingbecomesclearoncemore,lifetakesonnew meaning, and all mysteries, unanswered questions, anxiety, and loneliness vanish. Of course, one pays dearly for this lowrent home:thepriceisabdicationofonesownreason,conscience,and responsibility, for an essential aspect of this ideology is the consignmentofreasonandconsciencetoahigherauthority.The principleinvolvedhereisthatthecenterofpowerisidenticalwith the center of truth. (In our case, the connection with Byzantine theocracyisdirect:thehighestsecularauthorityisidenticalwiththe highestspiritualauthority.)Itistrueofcoursethat,allthisaside, ideologynolongerhasanygreatinfluenceonpeople,atleastwithin our bloc (with the possible exception of Russia, where the serf mentality, with its blind, fatalistic respect for rulers and its automatic acceptance of all their claims, is still dominant and combinedwithasuperpowerpatriotismwhichtraditionallyplaces theinterestsofempirehigherthantheinterestsofhumanity).But thisisnotimportant,becauseideologyplaysitsroleinoursystem verywell(anissuetowhichIwillreturn)preciselybecauseitis whatitis. Fourth, the technique of exercising power in traditional dictatorships contains a necessary element of improvisation. The mechanisms for wielding power are for the most part not establishedfirmly,andthereisconsiderableroomforaccidentand for the arbitrary and unregulated application of power. Socially, psychologically, and physically, conditions still exist for the expressionofsomeformofopposition.Inshort,therearemany seamsonthesurfacewhichcansplitapartbeforetheentirepower structurehasmanagedtostabilize.Oursystem,ontheotherhand, hasbeendevelopingintheSovietUnionforoversixtyyears,and forapproximatelythirtyyearsinEasternEurope;moreover,several ofitslongestablishedstructuralfeaturesarederivedfromCzarist absolutism.Intermsofthephysicalaspectsofpower,thishasledto thecreationofsuchintricateandwelldevelopedmechanismsfor thedirectandindirectmanipulationoftheentirepopulationthat,as aphysicalpowerbase,itrepresentssomethingradicallynew.Atthe sametime,letusnotforgetthatthesystemismadesignificantly moreeffectivebystateownershipandcentraldirectionofallthe 4

means of production. This gives the power structure an unprecedentedanduncontrollablecapacitytoinvestinitself(inthe areasofthebureaucracyandthepolice,forexample)andmakesit easierforthatstructure,asthesoleemployer,tomanipulatetheday todayexistenceofallcitizens. Finally, if an atmosphere of revolutionary excitement, heroism, dedication, and boisterous violence on all sides characterizes classicaldictatorships,thenthelasttracesofsuchanatmosphere havevanishedfromtheSovietbloc.For,sometimenowthisbloc hasceasedtobeakindofenclave,isolatedfromtherestofthe developedworldandimmunetoprocessesoccurringinit.Tothe contrary,theSovietblocisanintegralpartofthatlargerworld,and itshares andshapes theworld's destiny.This means inconcrete terms that the hierarchy of values existing in the developed countriesoftheWesthas,inessence,appearedinoursociety(the longperiodofcoexistencewiththeWesthasonlyhastenedthis process).Inotherwords,whatwehavehereissimplyanotherform of the consumer and industrial society, with all its concomitant social,intellectual,andpsychologicalconsequences.Itisimpossible tounderstandthenatureofpowerinoursystemproperlywithout takingthisintoaccount. Theprofounddifferencebetweenoursystemintermsofthenature ofpowerandwhatwetraditionallyunderstandbydictatorship,a difference I hope is clear even from this quite superficial comparison,hascausedmetosearchforsometermappropriatefor oursystem,purelyforthepurposesofthisessay.IfIrefertoit henceforthasa posttotalitarian system,Iamfullyawarethat thisisperhapsnotthemostpreciseterm,butIamunabletothinkof abetterone.Idonotwishtoimplybytheprefix post thatthe systemisnolongertotalitarian;onthecontrary,Imeanthatitis totalitarian in a way fundamentally different from classical dictatorships, different from totalitarianism as we usually understandit. ThecircumstancesIhavementioned,however,formonlyacircleof conditional factors andakindofphenomenal frameworkforthe actualcompositionofpowerintheposttotalitariansystem,several aspectsofwhichIshallnowattempttoidentify. III Themanagerofafruitandvegetableshopplacesinhiswindow, amongtheonionsandcarrots,theslogan: Workersoftheworld,unite! Whydoeshedoit?Whatishetryingtocommunicatetotheworld? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the 5

workersoftheworld?Ishisenthusiasmsogreatthathefeelsan irrepressibleimpulsetoacquaintthepublicwithhisideals?Hashe really given more than a moment's thought to how such a unificationmightoccurandwhatitwouldmean? Ithinkitcansafelybeassumedthattheoverwhelmingmajorityof shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows,nordotheyusethemtoexpresstheirrealopinions.That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquartersalongwiththeonionsandcarrots.Heputthemallinto thewindowsimplybecauseithasbeendonethatwayforyears, becauseeveryonedoesit,andbecausethatisthewayithastobe.If heweretorefuse,therecouldbetrouble.Hecouldbereproached fornothavingtheproperdecorationinhiswindow;someonemight evenaccusehimofdisloyalty.Hedoesitbecausethesethingsmust bedoneifoneistogetalonginlife.Itisoneofthethousandsof details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life in harmony withsociety,astheysay. Obviouslythegreengrocerisindifferenttothesemanticcontentof thesloganonexhibit;hedoesnotputthesloganinhiswindow fromanypersonaldesiretoacquaint thepublic withthe ideal it expresses.This,ofcourse,does notmeanthathisactionhasno motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it containsasubliminalbutverydefinitemessage.Verbally,itmight beexpressedthisway: I,thegreengrocerXY,livehereandIknowwhatImustdo.I behaveinthemannerexpectedofme.Icanbedependeduponand ambeyondreproach.IamobedientandthereforeIhavetheright tobeleftinpeace. Thismessage,ofcourse,hasanaddressee:itisdirectedabove,to thegreengrocer'ssuperior,andatthesametimeitisashieldthat protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan's. real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer's existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests? Letustakenote:ifthegreengrocerhadbeeninstructedtodisplay theslogan Iamafraidandthereforeunquestioninglyobedient; hewouldnotbenearlyasindifferenttoitssemantics,eventhough thestatementwouldreflectthetruth.Thegreengrocerwouldbe embarrassedandashamedtoputsuchanunequivocalstatementof hisowndegradationintheshopwindow,andquitenaturallyso,for heisahumanbeingandthushasasenseofhisowndignity.To 6

overcomeihiscomplication,hisexpressionofloyaltymusttakethe formofasignwhich,atleastonitstextualsurface,indicatesalevel ofdisinterestedconviction.Itmustallowthegreengrocertosay, What'swrongwiththeworkersoftheworlduniting? Thusthe sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundationsofhisobedience,atthesametimeconcealingthelow foundationsofpower.Ithidesthembehindthefacadeofsomething high.Andthatsomethingisideology. Ideologyisaspeciouswayofrelatingtotheworld.Itoffershuman beingstheillusionofanidentity,ofdignity,andofmoralitywhile makingiteasierforthemtopartwiththem.Astherepositoryof somethingsuprapersonalandobjective,itenablespeopletodeceive theirconscienceandconcealtheirtruepositionandtheiringlorious modusvivendi,bothfromtheworldandfromthemselves.Itisa verypragmaticbut,atthesametime,anapparentlydignifiedwayof legitimizingwhatisabove,below,andoneitherside.Itisdirected towardpeopleandtowardGod.Itisaveilbehindwhichhuman beingscanhidetheirownfallenexistence,theirtrivialization,and theiradaptationtothestatusquo.Itisanexcusethateveryonecan use,fromthegreengrocer,whoconcealshisfearoflosinghisjob behindanallegedinterestintheunificationoftheworkersofthe world,tothehighestfunctionary,whoseinterestinstayinginpower canbecloakedinphrasesaboutservicetotheworkingclass.The primary excusatory function of ideology, therefore, is to provide people,bothasvictimsandpillarsoftheposttotalitariansystem, withtheillusionthatthesystemisinharmonywiththehumanorder andtheorderoftheuniverse. Thesmalleradictatorshipandthelessstratifiedbymodernization thesocietyunderit,themoredirectlythewillofthedictatorcanbe exercised. In other words, the dictator can employ more or less nakeddiscipline,avoidingthecomplexprocessesofrelatingtothe world and of selfjustification which ideology involves. But the more complex the mechanisms ofpower become, thelarger and morestratifiedthesocietytheyembrace,andthelongertheyhave operated historically, the more individuals must be connected to themfromoutside,andthegreatertheimportanceattachedtothe ideologicalexcuse.Itactsasakindofbridgebetweentheregime andthepeople,acrosswhichtheregimeapproachesthepeopleand thepeopleapproachtheregime.Thisexplainswhyideologyplays suchanimportantroleintheposttotalitariansystem:thatcomplex machinery of units, hierarchies, transmission belts, and indirect instruments of manipulation which ensure in countless ways the integrityoftheregime,leavingnothingtochance,wouldbequite simply unthinkable without ideology acting as its allembracing excuseandastheexcuseforeachofitsparts. 7

IV Betweentheaimsoftheposttotalitariansystemandtheaimsoflife thereisayawningabyss:whilelife,initsessence,movestoward plurality, diversity, independent selfconstitution, aud self organization,inshort,towardthefulfillmentofitsownfreedom,the posttotalitarian system demands conformity, uniformity, and discipline. While life ever strives to create new and improbable structures,theposttotalitariansystemcontrivestoforcelifeintoits most probable states. The aims of the system reveal its most essentialcharacteristictobeintroversion,amovementtowardbeing evermorecompletelyandunreservedlyitself,whichmeansthatthe radiusofitsinfluenceiscontinuallywideningaswell.Thissystem servespeopleonlytotheextentnecessarytoensurethatpeoplewill serveit.Anythingbeyondthis,thatistosay,anythingwhichleads people to overstep their predetermined roles is regarded by the systemasanattackuponitself.Andinthisrespectitiscorrect: every instance of such transgression is a genuine denial of the system.Itcanbesaid,therefore, thattheinner aimofthe post totalitariansystemisnotmerepreservationofpowerinthehandsof arulingclique,asappearstobethecaseatfirstsight.Rather,the social phenomenon of selfpreservation is subordinated to somethinghigher,toakindofblindautomatismwhichdrivesthe system.Nomatterwhatpositionindividualsholdinthehierarchyof power,theyarenotconsideredbythesystemtobeworthanything inthemselves,butonlyasthingsintendedtofuelandservethis automatism. For this reason, an individual's desire for power is admissibleonlyinsofarasitsdirectioncoincideswiththedirection oftheautomatismofthesystem. Ideology,increatingabridgeofexcusesbetweenthesystemand theindividual,spanstheabyssbetweentheaimsofthesystemand the aims of life. It pretends that the requirements of the system derivefromtherequirementsoflife.Itisaworldofappearances tryingtopassforreality. Theposttotalitariansystemtouchespeopleateverystep,butitdoes sowithitsideologicalgloveson.Thisiswhylifeinthesystemisso thoroughly permeated with hypocrisy and lies: government by bureaucracy is called popular government; the working class is enslaved in the name of the workingclass; the complete degradationoftheindividualispresentedashisultimateliberation; deprivingpeopleofinformationiscalledmakingitavailable;the useofpowertomanipulateiscalledthepubliccontrolofpower, andthearbitraryabuseofpoweriscalledobservingthelegalcode; therepressionofcultureiscalleditsdevelopment;theexpansionof imperial influence is presented as support for the oppressed; the 8

lack of free expression becomes the highest form of freedom; farcicalelectionsbecomethehighestformofdemocracy;banning independentthoughtbecomesthemostscientificofworldviews; military occupation becomes fraternal assistance. Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything. It falsifiesthepast.Itfalsifiesthepresent,anditfalsifiesthefuture.It falsifies statistics. It pretends not to possess an omnipotent and unprincipledpoliceapparatus.Itpretendstorespecthumanrights.It pretendstopersecutenoone.Itpretendstofearnothing.Itpretends topretendnothing. Individualsneednotbelieveallthesemystifications,buttheymust behaveasthoughtheydid,ortheymustatleasttoleratethemin silence,orgetalongwellwiththosewhoworkwiththem.Forthis reason,however,theymustlivewithinalie.Theyneednotaccept thelie.Itisenoughforthemtohaveacceptedtheirlifewithitand init.Forbythisveryfact,individualsconfirmthesystem,fulfillthe system,makethesystem,arethesystem. V Wehaveseenthattherealmeaningofthegreengrocer'ssloganhas nothingtodowithwhatthetextofthesloganactuallysays.Even so,thisrealmeaningisquiteclearandgenerallycomprehensible becausethecodeissofamiliar:thegreengrocerdeclareshisloyalty (andhecandonootherifhisdeclarationistobeaccepted)inthe onlywaytheregimeiscapableofhearing;thatis,byacceptingthe prescribedritual,byacceptingappearancesasreality,byaccepting thegivenrulesofthegame.Indoingso,however,hehashimself becomeaplayerinthegame,thusmakingitpossibleforthegame togoon,forittoexistinthefirstplace. If ideology was originally a bridge between the system and the individual asanindividual, thenthemoment hesteps ontothis bridgeitbecomesatthesametimeabridgebetweenthesystemand theindividualasacomponentofthesystem.Thatis,ifideology originallyfacilitated(byactingoutwardly)theconstitutionofpower byservingasapsychologicalexcuse,thenfromthemomentthat excuse is accepted, it constitutes power inwardly, becoming an active component of that power. It begins to function as the principalinstrumentofritualcommunicationwithinthesystemof power. The whole power structure (and we have already discussed its physicalarticulation)couldnotexistatalliftherewerenotacertain metaphysical order binding all its components together, interconnectingthemandsubordinatingthemtoauniformmethod of accountability, supplying the combined operation of all these componentswithrulesofthegame,thatis,withcertainregulations, 9

limitations,andlegalities.Thismetaphysicalorderisfundamental to,andstandardthroughout,theentirepowerstructure;itintegrates itscommunicationsystemandmakespossibletheinternalexchange and transfer of information and instructions. It is rather like a collectionoftrafficsignalsanddirectionalsigns,givingtheprocess shapeandstructure.Thismetaphysicalorderguaranteestheinner coherenceofthetotalitarianpowerstructure.Itistheglueholdingit together, its binding principle, the instrument of its discipline. Without this glue the structure as a totalitarian structure would vanish; it would disintegrate into individual atoms chaotically collidingwithoneanotherintheirunregulatedparticularinterests andinclinations.Theentirepyramidoftotalitarianpower,deprived oftheelementthatbindsittogether,wouldcollapseinuponitself, asitwere,inakindofmaterialimplosion. Astheinterpretationofrealitybythepowerstructure,ideologyis always subordinated ultimately to the interests of the structure. Therefore,ithasanaturaltendencytodisengageitselffromreality, to create a world of appearances, to become ritual. In societies wherethereispubliccompetitionforpowerandthereforepublic controlofthatpower,therealsoexistsquitenaturallypubliccontrol ofthewaythatpowerlegitimatesitselfideologically.Consequently, in such conditions there are always certain correctives that effectively prevent ideology from abandoning reality altogether. Under totalitarianism, however, these correctives disappear, and thusthereisnothingtopreventideologyfrombecomingmoreand more removed from reality, gradually turning into what it has already become in the posttotalitarian system: a world of appearances, a mere ritual, a formalized language deprived of semanticcontactwithrealityandtransformedintoasystemofritual signsthatreplacerealitywithpseudoreality. Yet, as we have seen, ideology becomes at the same time an increasingly important component ofpower,a pillar providing it withbothexcusatorylegitimacy andaninnercoherence. Asthis aspectgrows nimportance,andasitgraduallylosestouchwith reality, it acquires a peculiar but very real strength. It becomes realityitself,albeitarealityaltogetherselfcontained,onethaton certainlevels(chieflyinsidethepowerstructure)mayhaveeven greaterweightthanrealityassuch.Increasingly,thevirtuosityof theritualbecomesmoreimportantthantherealityhiddenbehindit. The significance of phenomena no longer derives from the phenomena themselves, but from their locus as concepts in the ideologicalcontext.Realitydoesnotshapetheory,butratherthe reverse.Thuspowergraduallydrawsclosertoideologythanitdoes toreality;itdrawsitsstrengthfromtheoryandbecomesentirely dependentonit.Thisinevitablyleads,ofcourse,toaparadoxical 10

result:ratherthantheory,orratherideology,servingpower,power beginstoserveideology.Itisasthoughideologyhadappropriated powerfrompower,asthoughithadbecomedictatoritself.Itthen appears that theory itself, ritual itself, ideology itself, makes decisionsthataffectpeople,andnottheotherwayaround. Ifideologyistheprincipalguaranteeoftheinnerconsistencyof power, it becomes at the same time an increasingly important guarantee of its continuity. Whereas succession to power in classical dictatorship is always a rather complicated affair (the pretenders having nothing to give their claims reasonable legitimacy,therebyforcingthemalwaystoresorttoconfrontations ofnakedpower),intheposttotalitariansystempowerispassedon frompersontoperson,fromcliquetoclique,andfromgenerationto generationinanessentiallymoreregularfashion.Intheselectionof pretenders,anewkingmakertakespart:itisrituallegitimation, theabilitytorelyonritual,tofulfillitanduseit,toallowoneself,as itwere,tobebornealoftbyit.Naturally,powerstrugglesexistin theposttotalitariansystemaswell,andmostofthemarefarmore brutalthaninanopensociety,forthestruggleisnotopen,regulated by democratic rules, and subject to public control, but hidden behindthescenes.(Itisdifficulttorecallasingleinstanceinwhich theFirstSecretaryofarulingCommunistPartyhasbeenreplaced withoutthevariousmilitaryandsecurityforcesbeingplacedatleast onalert.)Thisstruggle,however,cannever(asitcaninclassical dictatorships) threaten the very essence of the system and its continuity.Atmostitwillshakeupthepowerstructure,whichwill recoverquicklypreciselybecausethebindingsubstanceideology remains undisturbed. No matter who is replaced by whom, succession is only possible against the backdrop and within the frameworkofacommonritual.Itcannevertakeplacebydenying thatritual. Becauseofthisdictatorshipoftheritual,however,powerbecomes clearlyanonymous.Individualsarealmostdissolvedintheritual. Theyallowthemselves tobesweptalongbyitandfrequentlyit seemsasthoughritualalonecarriespeoplefromobscurityintothe lightofpower.Isitnotcharacteristicoftheposttotalitariansystem that, on all levels of the power hierarchy, individuals are increasinglybeingpushedasidebyfacelesspeople,puppets,those uniformedflunkeysoftheritualsandroutinesofpower? Theautomaticoperationofapowerstructurethusdehumanizedand madeanonymousisafeatureofthefundamentalautomatismofthis system. It would seem that it is precisely the diktats of this automatism which select people lacking individual will for the powerstructure,thatitispreciselythe diktat oftheemptyphrase whichsummonstopowerpeoplewhouseemptyphrasesasthebest 11

guaranteethattheautomatismoftheposttotalitariansystemwill continue. WesternSovietologistsoftenexaggeratetheroleofindividualsin the posttotalitarian system and overlook the fact that the ruling figures, despite the immense power they possess through the centralized structure of power, are often no more than blind executorsofthesystem'sowninternallawslawstheythemselves nevercan,andneverdo,reflectupon.Inanycase,experiencehas taughtusagainandagainthatthisautomatismisfarmorepowerful thanthewillofanyindividual;andshouldsomeonepossessamore independentwill,hemustconcealitbehindarituallyanonymous maskinordertohaveanopportunitytoenterthepowerhierarchyat all.Andwhentheindividualfinallygainsaplacethereandtriesto make his will felt within it, that automatism, with its enormous inertia,willtriumphsoonerorlater,andeithertheindividualwillbe ejectedbythepowerstructurelikeaforeignorganism,orhewillbe compelledtoresignhisindividualitygradually,onceagainblending with the automatism and becoming its servant, almost indistinguishablefromthosewhoprecededhimandthosewhowill follow.(Letusrecall,forinstance,thedevelopmentofHuskor Gomukka.)Thenecessityofcontinuallyhidingbehindandrelating to ritual means that even the more enlightened members of the powerstructureareoftenobsessedwithideology.Theyarenever able to plunge straight to the bottom of naked reality, and they always confuse it, in the final analysis, with ideological pseudoreality. (In my opinion, one of the reasons the Dubek leadership lost control of the situation in 1968 was precisely because,inextremesituationsandinfinalquestions,itsmembers werenevercapableofextricatingthemselvescompletelyfromthe worldofappearances.) Itcanbesaid,therefore,thatideology,asthatinstrumentofinternal communicationwhichassuresthepowerstructureofinnercohesion is, in the posttotalitarian system, something that transcends the physical aspects of power, something that dominates it to a considerabledegreeand,therefore,tendstoassureitscontinuityas well.Itisoneofthepillarsofthesystem'sexternalstability.This pillar,however,isbuiltonaveryunstablefoundation.Itisbuilton lies.Itworksonlyaslongaspeoplearewillingtolivewithinthe lie. VI Whyinfactdidourgreengrocerhavetoputhisloyaltyondisplay intheshopwindow?Hadhenotalreadydisplayeditsufficientlyin variousinternalorsemipublicways?Attradeunionmeetings,after all,hehadalwaysvotedasheshould.Hehadalwaystakenpartin 12

variouscompetitions.Hevotedinelectionslikeagoodcitizen.He hadevensignedtheantiCharter.Why,ontopofallthat,should hehavetodeclarehisloyaltypublicly?Afterall,thepeoplewho walkpasthiswindowwillcertainly notstoptoreadthat,inthe greengrocer'sopinion,theworkersoftheworldoughttounite.The factofthematteris,theydon'treadthesloganatall,anditcanbe fairlyassumedtheydon'tevenseeit.Ifyouweretoaskawoman whohadstoppedinfrontofhisshopwhatshesawinthewindow, shecouldcertainlytellwhetherornottheyhadtomatoestoday,but itishighlyunlikelythatshenoticedthesloganatall,letalonewhat itsaid. Itseemssenselesstorequirethegreengrocertodeclarehisloyalty publicly.Butitmakessensenevertheless.Peopleignorehisslogan, buttheydosobecausesuchslogansarealsofoundinothershop windows,onlampposts,bulletinboards,inapartmentwindows,and onbuildings;theyareeverywhere,infact.Theyformpartofthe panoramaofeverydaylife.Ofcourse,whiletheyignorethedetails, peopleareveryawareofthatpanoramaasawhole.Andwhatelse is the greengrocer's slogan but a small component in that huge backdroptodailylife? Thegreengrocerhadtoputthesloganinhiswindow,therefore,not inthehopethatsomeonemightreaditorbepersuadedbyit,butto contribute,alongwiththousandsofotherslogans,tothepanorama thateveryoneisverymuchawareof.Thispanorama,ofcourse,has a subliminal meaning as well: it reminds people where they are livingandwhatisexpectedofthem.Ittellsthemwhateveryone elseisdoing,andindicatestothemwhattheymustdoaswell,if they don't want to be excluded, to fall into isolation, alienate themselvesfromsociety,breaktherulesofthegame,andriskthe lossoftheirpeaceandtranquilityandsecurity. Thewomanwhoignoredthegreengrocer'ssloganmaywellhave hung a similar slogan just an hour before in the corridor of the officewheresheworks.Shediditmoreorlesswithoutthinking, justasourgreengrocerdid,andshecoulddosopreciselybecause shewasdoingitagainstthebackgroundofthegeneralpanorama andwithsomeawarenessofit,thatis,againstthebackgroundofthe panoramaofwhichthegreengrocer'sshopwindowformsapart. When the greengrocer visits her office, he will not notice her slogan either, justas shefailed tonotice his.Nevertheless, their slogans are mutually dependent: both were displayed with some awarenessofthegeneralpanoramaand,wemightsay,underits diktat.Both,however,assistinthecreationofthatpanorama,and thereforetheyassistinthecreationofthat diktataswell.Thegreen grocerandtheofficeworkerhavebothadaptedtotheconditionsin which they live, but in doing so, they help to create those 13

conditions.Theydowhatisdone,whatistobedone,whatmustbe done,butatthesametimebythatverytokentheyconfirmthatit mustbedoneinfact.Theyconformtoaparticularrequirementand in so doing they themselves perpetuate that requirement. Metaphysically speaking, without the greengrocer's slogan the office worker's slogan could not exist, and vice versa. Each proposestotheotherthatsomethingberepeatedandeachaccepts the other's proposal. Their mutual indifference to each other's slogansisonlyanillusion:inreality,byexhibitingtheirslogans, each compels the other to accept the rules of the game and to confirm thereby the power that requires the slogans in the first place.Quitesimply,eachhelpstheothertobeobedient.Bothare objects inasystemofcontrol,butatthesametimetheyareits subjects as well. They are both victims of the system and its instruments. Ifanentiredistricttownisplasteredwithslogansthatnoonereads, itisontheonehandamessagefromthedistrictsecretarytothe regionalsecretary,butitisalsosomethingmore:asmallexampleof theprincipleofsocialautototalityatwork.Partoftheessenceof theposttotalitariansystemisthatitdrawseveryoneintoitssphere ofpower,notsotheymayrealizethemselvesashumanbeings,but sotheymaysurrendertheirhumanidentityinfavoroftheidentity ofthesystem,thatis,sotheymaybecomeagentsofthesystem's general automatism and servants of its selfdetermined goals, so theymayparticipateinthecommonresponsibilityforit,sothey may be pulled into and ensnared by it, like Faust by Mephistopheles.Morethanthis:sotheymaycreatethroughtheir involvementageneralnormand,thus,bringpressuretobearon their fellow citizens. And further: so they may learn to be comfortablewiththeirinvolvement,toidentifywithitasthoughit weresomethingnaturalandinevitableand,ultimately,sotheymay withnoexternalurgingcometotreatanynoninvolvementasan abnormality,asarrogance,asanattackonthemselves,asaformof dropping out of society. By pulling everyone into its power structure,theposttotalitariansystemmakeseveryoneaninstrument ofamutualtotality,theautototalityofsociety. Everyone,however,isinfactinvolvedandenslaved,notonlythe greengrocersbutalsotheprimeministers.Differingpositionsin thehierarchymerelyestablishdifferingdegreesofinvolvement:the greengrocerisinvolvedonlytoaminorextent,buthealsohasvery littlepower.Theprimeminister,naturally,hasgreaterpower,butin returnheisfarmoredeeplyinvolved.Both,however,areunfree, eachmerelyinasomewhatdifferentway.Therealaccomplicein thisinvolvement,therefore,isnotanotherperson,butthesystem itself. 14

Position in the power hierarchy determines the degree of responsibilityandguilt,butitgivesnooneunlimitedresponsibility andguilt,nordoesitcompletelyabsolveanyone.Thustheconflict betweentheaimsoflifeandtheaimsofthesystemisnotaconflict betweentwosociallydefinedandseparatecommunities;andonlya verygeneralizedview(andeventhatonlyapproximative)permits ustodividesocietyintotherulersandtheruled.Here,bytheway, is one of the most important differences between the post totalitariansystemandclassicaldictatorships,inwhichthislineof conflictcanstillbedrawnaccordingtosocialclass.Inthepost totalitariansystem,thislinerunsdefactothrougheachperson,for everyoneinhisownwayisbothavictimandasupporterofthe system.Whatweunderstandbythesystemisnot,therefore,asocial order imposed by onegroup uponanother, but rather something which permeates the entire society and is a factor in shaping it, somethingwhichmayseemimpossibletograspordefine(foritis inthenatureofamereprinciple),butwhichisexpressedbythe entiresocietyasanimportantfeatureofitslife. Thefactthathumanbeingshavecreated,anddailycreate,thisself directed system through which they divest themselves of their innermost identity is not therefore the result of some incomprehensible misunderstanding of history, nor is it history somehow gone off its rails. Neither is it the product of some diabolicalhigherwillwhichhasdecided,forreasonsunknown,to tormentaportionofhumanityinthisway.Itcanhappenanddid happen only because there is obviously in modern humanity a certaintendencytowardthecreation,oratleastthetoleration,of such a system. There is obviously something in human beings which responds to this system, something they reflect and accommodate,somethingwithinthemwhichparalyzeseveryeffort oftheirbetterselvestorevolt.Humanbeingsarecompelledtolive withinalie,buttheycanbecompelledtodosoonlybecausethey areinfactcapableoflivinginthisway.Thereforenotonlydoesthe systemalienatehumanity,butatthesametimealienatedhumanity supports this system as its own involuntary masterplan, as a degenerateimageofitsowndegeneration,asarecordofpeople's ownfailureasindividuals. Theessentialaimsoflifearepresentnaturallyineveryperson.In everyonethereissomelongingforhumanity'srightfuldignity,for moral integrity, for free expression of being and a sense of transcendenceovertheworldofexistence.Yet,atthesametime, eachpersoniscapable,toagreaterorlesserdegree,ofcomingto termswithlivingwithinthelie.Eachpersonsomehowsuccumbsto a profane trivialization of his inherent humanity, and to utilitarianism.Ineveryonethereissomewillingnesstomergewith 15

theanonymouscrowdandtoflowcomfortablyalongwithitdown theriverofpseudolife.Thisismuchmorethanasimpleconflict betweentwoidentities.Itissomethingfarworse:itisachallengeto theverynotionofidentityitself. Inhighlysimplifiedterms,itcouldbesaidthattheposttotalitarian system has been built on foundations laid by the historical encounterbetweendictatorshipandtheconsumersociety.Isitnot true that the farreaching adaptability to living a lie and the effortlessspreadofsocialautototalityhavesomeconnectionwith the general unwillingness of consumptionoriented people to sacrificesomematerialcertaintiesforthesakeoftheirownspiritual and moral integrity? With their willingness to surrender higher values when faced with the trivializing temptations of modern civilization? With their vulnerability to the attractions of mass indifference?Andintheend,isnotthegraynessandtheemptiness oflifeintheposttotalitariansystemonlyaninflatedcaricatureof modernlifeingeneral?Anddowenotinfactstand(althoughinthe externalmeasuresofcivilization,wearefarbehind)asakindof warningtotheWest,revealingtoitsownlatenttendencies? VII Let us nowimagine thatonedaysomethinginourgreengrocer snaps and he stops putting up the slogans merely to ingratiate himself. He stops voting in elections he knows are a farce. He beginstosaywhathereallythinksatpoliticalmeetings.Andhe evenfindsthestrengthinhimselftoexpresssolidaritywiththose whomhisconsciencecommandshimtosupport.Inthisrevoltthe greengrocerstepsoutoflivingwithinthelie.Herejectstheritual and breaks the rules of the game. He discovers once more his suppressedidentityanddignity.Hegiveshisfreedomaconcrete significance.Hisrevoltisanattempttolivewithinthetruth. Thebillisnotlongincoming.Hewillberelievedofhispostas manageroftheshopandtransferredtothewarehouse.Hispaywill bereduced.HishopesforaholidayinBulgariawillevaporate.His children's access to higher education will be threatened. His superiorswillharasshimandhisfellowworkerswillwonderabout him.Mostofthosewhoapplythesesanctions,however,willnotdo sofromanyauthenticinnerconvictionbutsimplyunderpressure fromconditions,thesameconditionsthatoncepressuredthegreen grocertodisplaytheofficialslogans.Theywillpersecutethegreen grocereitherbecauseitisexpectedofthem,ortodemonstratetheir loyalty,orsimplyaspartofthegeneralpanorama,towhichbelongs anawarenessthatthisishowsituationsofthissortaredealtwith, thatthis,infact,ishowthingsarealwaysdone,particularlyifoneis not to become suspect oneself. The executors, therefore, behave 16

essentially like everyone else, to a greater or lesser degree: as components of the posttotalitarian system, as agents of its automatism,aspettyinstrumentsofthesocialautototality. Thusthepowerstructure,throughtheagencyofthosewhocarryout the sanctions, those anonymous components of the system, will spew the greengrocer from its mouth. The system, through its alienatingpresenceinpeople,willpunishhimforhisrebellion.It mustdosobecausethelogicofits automatism andselfdefense dictateit.Thegreengrocerhasnotcommittedasimple,individual offense,isolatedinitsownuniqueness,butsomethingincomparably moreserious.Bybreakingtherulesofthegame,hehasdisrupted the game as such. He has exposed it as a mere game. He has shatteredtheworldofappearances,thefundamentalpillarofthe system. He has upset the power structure by tearing apart what holdsittogether.Hehasdemonstratedthatlivingalieislivingalie. Hehasbrokenthroughtheexaltedfacadeofthesystemandexposed thereal,basefoundationsofpower.Hehassaidthattheemperoris naked. And because the emperor is in fact naked, something extremelydangeroushashappened:byhisaction,thegreengrocer hasaddressedtheworld.Hehasenabledeveryonetopeerbehind thecurtain.Hehasshowneveryonethatitispossibletolivewithin thetruth.Livingwithintheliecanconstitutethesystemonlyifitis universal. The principle must embrace and permeate everything. Therearenotermswhatsoeveronwhichitcancoexistwithliving withinthetruth,andthereforeeveryonewhostepsoutoflinedenies itinprincipleandthreatensitinitsentirety. Thisisunderstandable:aslongasappearanceisnotconfrontedwith reality,itdoesnotseemtobeappearance.Aslongaslivingalieis not confronted with living the truth, the perspective needed to exposeitsmendacityislacking.Assoonasthealternativeappears, however,itthreatenstheveryexistenceofappearanceandlivinga lie in terms of what they are, both their essence and their all inclusiveness.Andatthesametime,itisutterlyunimportanthow largeaspacethisalternativeoccupies:itspowerdoesnotconsistin itsphysicalattributesbutinthelightitcastsonthosepillarsofthe systemandonitsunstablefoundations.Afterall,thegreengrocer wasathreattothesystemnotbecauseofanyphysicaloractual powerhehad,butbecausehisactionwentbeyonditself,becauseit illuminated its surroundings and, of course, because of the incalculable consequences of that illumination. In the post totalitariansystem,therefore,livingwithinthetruthhasmorethana mere existential dimension (returning humanity to its inherent nature),oranoeticdimension(revealingrealityasitis),oramoral dimension (setting an example for others). It also has an unambiguouspoliticaldimension.Ifthemainpillarofthesystemis 17

livingalie,thenitisnotsurprisingthatthefundamentalthreattoit islivingthetruth.Thisiswhyitmustbesuppressedmoreseverely thananythingelse. Intheposttotalitariansystem,truthinthewidestsenseoftheword hasaveryspecialimport,oneunknowninothercontexts.Inthis system,truthplaysafargreater(and,aboveall,afardifferent)role asafactorofpower,orasanoutrightpoliticalforce.Howdoesthe poweroftruthoperate?Howdoestruthasafactorofpowerwork? Howcanitspoweraspowerberealized? VIII Individualscanbealienatedfromthemselvesonlybecausethereis somethinginthemtoalienate.Theterrainofthisviolationistheir authenticexistence.Livingthetruthisthuswovendirectlyintothe textureoflivingalie.Itistherepressedalternative,theauthentic aimtowhichlivingalieisaninauthenticresponse.Onlyagainst thisbackgrounddoeslivingaliemakeanysense:itexistsbecause ofthatbackground.Initsexcusatory,chimericalrootednessinthe human order, it is a response to nothing other than the human predispositiontotruth.Undertheorderlysurfaceofthelifeoflies, therefore,thereslumbersthehiddensphereoflifeinitsrealaims,of itshiddenopennesstotruth. The singular, explosive, incalculable political power of living withinthetruthresidesinthefactthatlivingopenlywithinthetruth hasanally,invisibletobesure,butomnipresent:thishiddensphere. Itisfromthisspherethatlifelivedopenlyinthetruthgrows;itisto thisspherethatitspeaks,andinitthatitfindsunderstanding.This iswherethepotentialforcommunicationexists.Butthisplaceis hidden and therefore, from the perspective of power, very dangerous.Thecomplexfermentthattakesplacewithinitgoeson insemidarkness,andbythetimeitfinallysurfacesintothelightof day as an assortment of shocking surprises to the system, it is usuallytoolatetocoverthemupintheusualfashion.Thusthey create a situation in which the regime is confounded, invariably causingpanicanddrivingittoreactininappropriateways. Itseemsthattheprimarybreedinggroundforwhatmight,inthe widestpossiblesenseoftheword,beunderstoodasanoppositionin the posttotalitarian system is living within the truth. The confrontationbetweentheseoppositionforcesandthepowersthat be,ofcourse,willobviouslytakeaformessentiallydifferentfrom thattypicalofanopensocietyoraclassicaldictatorship.Initially, this confrontation does not take place on the level of real, institutionalized, quantifiable power which relies on the various instrumentsofpower,butonadifferentlevelaltogether:thelevelof human consciousness and conscience, the existential level. The 18

effectiverangeofthisspecialpowercannotbemeasuredintermsof disciples,voters,orsoldiers,becauseitliesspreadoutinthefifth columnofsocialconsciousness,inthehiddenaimsoflife,inhuman beings'repressedlongingfordignityandfundamentalrights,forthe realization of their real social and political interests. Its power, therefore,doesnotresideinthestrengthofdefinablepoliticalor socialgroups,butchieflyinthestrengthofapotential,whichis hiddenthroughoutthewholeofsociety,includingtheofficialpower structures of that society. Therefore this powerdoes not rely on soldiersofitsown,butonthesoldiersoftheenemyasitwerethat istosay,oneveryonewhoislivingwithinthelieandwhomaybe struckatanymoment(intheory,atleast)bytheforceoftruth(or who,outofaninstinctivedesiretoprotecttheirposition,mayat leastadapttothatforce).Itisabacteriologicalweapon,sotospeak, utilizedwhenconditionsareripebyasingleciviliantodisarman entire division. This power does not participate in any direct struggleforpower;rather,itmakesitsinfluencefeltintheobscure arenaofbeingitself.Thehiddenmovementsitgivesrisetothere, however,canissueforth(when,where,underwhatcircumstances, andtowhatextentaredifficulttoprediet)insomethingvisible:a realpoliticalactorevent,asocialmovement,asuddenexplosionof civilunrest,asharpconflictinsideanapparentlymonolithicpower structure,orsimplyanirrepressibletransformationinthesocialand intellectualclimate.Andsinceallgenuineproblemsandmattersof critical importance are hidden beneath a thick crust oflies, it is neverquiteclearwhentheproverbiallaststrawwillfall,orwhat thatstrawwillbe.This,too,iswhytheregimeprosecutes,almostas areflexactionpreventively,eventhemostmodestattemptstolive withinthetruth. WhywasSolzhenitsyndrivenoutofhisowncountry?Certainlynot becauseherepresentedaunitofrealpower,thatis,notbecauseany oftheregime'srepresentativesfelthemightunseatthemandtake theirplaceingovernment.Solzhenitsyn'sexpulsionwassomething else:adesperateattempttoplugupthedreadfulwellspringoftruth, a truth which might cause incalculable transformations in social consciousness, which in turn might one day produce political debacles unpredictable in their consequences. And so the post totalitariansystembehavedinacharacteristicway:itdefendedthe integrityoftheworldofappearancesinordertodefenditself.For thecrustpresentedbythelifeofliesismadeofstrangestuff.As longasitsealsoffhermeticallytheentiresociety,itappearstobe made of stone. But the moment someone breaks through in one place,whenonepersoncriesout,Theemperorisnaked!whena singlepersonbreakstherulesofthegame,thusexposingitasa gameeverythingsuddenlyappearsinanotherlightandthewhole 19

crustseemsthentobemadeofatissueonthepointoftearingand disintegratinguncontrollably. WhenIspeakoflivingwithinthetruth,Inaturallydonothavein mindonlyproductsofconceptualthought,suchasaprotestora letterwrittenbyagroupofintellectuals.Itcanbeanymeansby whichapersonoragrouprevoltsagainstmanipulation:anything from a letter by intellectuals to a workers' strike, from a rock concert to a student demonstration, from refusing to vote in the farcical elections to making an open speech at some official congress,orevenahungerstrike,forinstance.Ifthesuppressionof the aims of life is a complex process, and if it is based on the multifaceted manipulation ofallexpressionsoflife,then,bythe sametoken,everyfreeexpressionoflifeindirectly threatens the posttotalitariansystempolitically,includingformsofexpressionto which,inothersocialsystems,noonewouldattributeanypotential politicalsignificance,nottomentionexplosivepower. ThePragueSpringisusuallyunderstoodasaclashbetweentwo groupsonthelevelofrealpower:thosewhowantedtomaintainthe systemasitwasandthosewhowantedtoreformit.Itisfrequently forgotten,however,thatthisencounterwasmerelythefinalactand theinevitableconsequenceofalongdramaoriginallyplayedout chieflyinthetheatreofthespiritandtheconscienceofsociety.And that somewhere at the beginning of this drama, there were individuals whowerewillingtolivewithinthetruth,evenwhen things were at their worst. These people had no access to real power,nordidtheyaspiretoit.Thesphereinwhichtheywere livingthetruthwasnotnecessarilyeventhatofpoliticalthought. Theycouldequallyhavebeenpoets,painters,musicians,orsimply ordinarycitizenswhowereabletomaintaintheirhumandignity. Todayitisnaturallydifficulttopinpointwhenandthroughwhich hidden,windingchannelacertainaction orattitudeinfluenceda given milieu, and to trace the virus of truth as it slowly spread through the tissue of the life of lies, gradually causing it to disintegrate. One thing, however, seems clear: the attempt at political reform was not the cause of' society's reawakening, but ratherthefinaloutcomeofthatreawakening. Ithinkthepresentalsocanbebetterunderstoodinthelightofthis experience.TheconfrontationbetweenathousandChartistsandthe posttotalitarian system would appear to be politically hopeless. Thisistrue,ofcourse,ifwelookatitthroughthetraditionallensof theopenpoliticalsystem,inwhich,quitenaturally,everypolitical forceismeasuredchieflyintermsofthepositionsitholdsonthe levelofrealpower.Giventhatperspective,aminipartylikethe Charter would certainly not stand a chance. If, however, this confrontation is seen against the background of what we know 20

about power in the posttotalitarian system, it appears in a fundamentallydifferentlight.Forthetimebeing,itisimpossibleto saywithanyprecisionwhatimpacttheappearanceofCharter77,its existence,anditsworkhashadinthehiddensphere,andhowthe Charter'sattempttorekindlecivicselfawarenessandconfidenceis regarded there. Whether, when, and how this investment will eventually produce dividends in the form of specific political changesisevenlesspossibletopredict.Butthat,ofcourse,isall partoflivingwithinthetruth.Asanexistentialsolution,ittakes individuals back to the solid ground of their own identity; as politics,itthrowsthemintoagameofchancewherethestakesare allornothing.Forthisreasonitisundertakenonlybythosefor whomtheformerisworthriskingthelatter,orwhohavecometo theconclusionthatthereisnootherwaytoconductrealpoliticsin Czechoslovakiatoday.Which,bytheway,isthesamething:this conclusioncanbereachedonlybysomeonewhoisunwillingto sacrificehisownhumanidentitytopolitics,orrather,whodoesnot believeinapoliticsthatrequiressuchasacrifice. Themorethoroughlytheposttotalitariansystemfrustratesanyrival alternativeonthelevelofrealpower,aswellasanyformofpolitics independent of the laws of its own automatism, the more definitively the center of gravity of any potential political threat shifts to the area of the existential and the prepolitical: usually withoutanyconsciouseffort,livingwithinthetruthbecomesthe onenaturalpointofdepartureforallactivitiesthatworkagainstthe automatismofthesystem.Andevenifsuchactivities ultimately growbeyondtheareaoflivingwithinthetruth(whichmeansthey are transformed into various parallel structures, movements, institutions, they begin to be regarded as political activity, they bringrealpressuretobearontheofficialstructuresandbegininfact tohaveacertaininfluenceonthelevelofrealpower),theyalways carrywiththemthespecifichallmarkoftheirorigins.Thereforeit seemstomethatnoteventhesocalleddissidentmovementscanbe properlyunderstoodwithoutconstantlybearinginmindthisspecial backgroundfromwhichtheyemerge. IX Theprofoundcrisisofhumanidentitybroughtonbylivingwithina lie, a crisis which in turn makes such a life possible, certainly possesses a moral dimension as well; it appears, among other things,asadeepmoralcrisisinsociety.Apersonwhohasbeen seducedbytheconsumervaluesystem,whoseidentityisdissolved inanamalgamoftheaccoutermentsofmasscivilization,andwho hasnorootsintheorderofbeing,nosenseofresponsibilityfor anythinghigherthanhisownpersonalsurvival,isademoralized 21

person.Thesystemdependsonthisdemoralization,deepensit,isin factaprojectionofitintosociety. Living withinthetruth,as humanity's revoltagainstanenforced position,is,onthecontrary,anattempttoregaincontroloverone's ownsenseofresponsibility.Inotherwords,itisclearlyamoralact, not only because one must pay so dearly for it, but principally becauseitisnotselfserving:theriskmaybringrewardsintheform of a general amelioration in the situation, or it may not. In this regard,asIstatedpreviously,itisanallornothinggamble,anditis difficulttoimagineareasonablepersonembarkingonsuchacourse merelybecausehereckonsthatsacrificetodaywillbringrewards tomorrow,beitonlyintheformofgeneralgratitude.(Bytheway, therepresentativesofpowerinvariablycometotermswiththose who live within the truth by persistently ascribing utilitarian motivationstothemalustforpowerorfameorwealthandthus theytry,atleast,toimplicatethemintheirownworld,theworldof generaldemoralization.) Iflivingwithinthetruthintheposttotalitariansystembecomesthe chiefbreedinggroundforindependent,alternativepoliticalideas, then all considerations about the nature and future prospects of these ideas must necessarily reflect this moral dimension as a potitical phenomenon. (And if the revolutionary Marxist belief aboutmoralityasaproductofthe superstructureinhibitsanyof ourfriends fromrealizing thefullsignificance ofthisdimension and,inonewayoranother,fromincludingitintheirviewofthe world, it is to their own detriment: an anxious fidelity to the postulates of that world view prevents them from properly understandingthemechanismsoftheirownpoliticalinfluence,thus paradoxically making them precisely what they, as Marxists, so oftensuspectothersofbeingvictimsof falseconsciousness.) The very special political significance of morality in the post totalitariansystemisaphenomenonthatisattheveryleastunusual inmodernpoliticalhistory,aphenomenonthatmightwellhaveas Ishallsoonattempttoshowfarreachingconsequences. X Undeniably,themostimportantpoliticaleventinCzechoslovakia aftertheadventoftheHuskleadershipin1969wastheappearance ofCharter77.Thespiritualandintellectualclimatesurroundingits appearance, however, was not the product of any immediate politicalevent.Thatclimatewascreatedbythetrialofsomeyoung musiciansassociatedwitharockgroupcalled ThePlasticPeople of the Universe. Their trial was not a confrontation of two differing political forces or conceptions, but two differing conceptions of life. On the one hand, there was the sterile 22

puritanismoftheposttotalitarianestablishmentand,ontheother hand,unknownyoungpeoplewhowantednomorethantobeable to live within the truth, to play the music they enjoyed, to sing songsthatwererelevanttotheirlives,andtolivefreelyindignity and partnership. These people had no past history of political activity.Theywerenothighlymotivatedmembersoftheopposition withpoliticalambitions,norweretheyformerpoliticiansexpelled fromthepowerstructures.Theyhadbeengiveneveryopportunity toadapttothestatusquo,toaccepttheprinciplesoflivingwithina lieandthustoenjoylifeundisturbedbytheauthorities.Yetthey decided on a different course. Despite this, or perhaps precisely becauseofit,theircasehadaveryspecialimpactoneveryonewho hadnotyetgivenuphope.Moreover,whenthetrialtookplace,a newmoodhadbeguntosurfaceaftertheyearsofwaiting,ofapathy andofskepticismtowardvariousformsofresistance.Peoplewere tiredofbeingtired;theywerefedupwiththestagnation,the inactivity,barelyhangingoninthehopethatthingsmightimprove afterall.Insomewaysthetrialwasthefinalstraw.Manygroupsof differingtendencies whichuntilthenhadremainedisolatedfrom each other, reluctant to cooperate, or which were committed to forms of action that made cooperation difficult, were suddenly struck with the powerful realization that freedom is indivisible. Everyone understood that an attack on the Czech musical underground was an attack on a most elementary and important thing,somethingthatinfactboundeveryonetogether: itwasan attackontheverynotionoflivingwithinthetruth,ontherealaims oflife.Thefreedomtoplayrockmusicwasunderstoodasahuman freedomandthusasessentiallythesameasthefreedomtoengage inphilosophicalandpoliticalreflection,thefreedomtowrite,the freedom to express and defend the various social and political interestsofsociety.Peoplewereinspiredtofeelagenuinesenseof solidaritywiththeyoungmusiciansandtheycametorealizethat notstandingupforthefreedomofothers,regardlessofhowremote theirmeansofcreativityortheirattitudetolife,meantsurrendering one'sownfreedom.(Thereisnofreedomwithoutequalitybefore thelaw,andthereisnoequalitybeforethelawwithoutfreedom; Charter77hasgiventhisancientnotionanewandcharacteristic dimension,whichhasimmenselyimportantimplicationsformodern Czechhistory.WhatSldeek,theauthorofthebookSixtyeight,in abrilliantanalysis,callstheprincipleofexclusion,liesattheroot ofallourpresentdaymoralandpoliticalmisery.Thisprinciplewas bornattheendoftheSecondWorldWarinthatstrangecollusion of democrats and communists and was subsequently developed further and further, right to the bitter end. For the first time in decadesthisprinciplehasbeenovercome,byCharter77:allthose unitedintheCharterhave,forthefirsttime,becomeequalpartners. 23

Charter 77 is not merely a coalition of communists and non communiststhatwouldbenothinghistoricallynewand,fromthe moralandpoliticalpointofview,nothingrevolutionarybutitisa communitythatis apriori opentoanyone,andnooneinitis a prioriassignedaninferiorposition.)Thiswastheclimate,then,in whichCharter77wascreated.Whocouldhaveforeseenthatthe prosecutionofoneortwoobscurerockgroupswouldhavesuchfar reachingconsequences? IthinkthattheoriginsofCharter77illustrateverywellwhatIhave alreadysuggestedabove:thatintheposttotalitariansystem,thereal background to the movements that gradually assume political significancedoesnotusuallyconsistofovertlypoliticaleventsor confrontationsbetweendifferentforcesorconceptsthatareopenly political.Thesemovementsforthemostpartoriginateelsewhere,in thefarbroaderareaoftheprepolitical,wherelivingwithinalie confrontslivingwithinthetruth,thatis,wherethedemandsofthe posttotalitariansystemconflictwiththerealaimsoflife.Thesereal aims can naturally assume a great many forms. Sometimes they appear as the basic material orsocial interests ofa group oran individual;atothertimes,theymayappearascertainintellectual andspiritualinterests;atstillothertimes,theymaybethemost fundamentalofexistentialdemands,suchasthesimplelongingof peopletolivetheirownlivesindignity.Suchaconflictacquiresa political character, then, not because of the elementary political natureoftheaimsdemandingtobeheardbutsimplybecause,given thecomplexsystemofmanipulationonwhichtheposttotalitarian systemisfoundedandonwhichitisalsodependent,everyfree humanactorexpression,everyattempttolivewithinthetruth,must necessarilyappearasathreattothesystemand,thus,assomething whichispoliticalparexcellence.Anyeventualpoliticalarticulation ofthemovementsthatgrowoutofthisprepoliticalhinterlandis secondary. It develops and matures as a result of a subsequent confrontationwiththesystem,andnotbecauseitstartedoffasa politicalprogram,project,orimpulse. Once again, the events of 1968 confirm this. The communist politicianswhoweretryingtoreformthesystemcameforwardwith theirprogramnotbecausetheyhadsuddenlyexperiencedamystical enlightenment,butbecausetheywereledtodosobycontinuedand increasingpressurefromareasoflifethathadnothingtodowith politicsinthetraditionalsenseoftheword.Infact,theyweretrying inpoliticalwaystosolvethesocialconflicts(whichinfactwere confrontationsbetweentheaimsofthesystemandtheaimsoflife) thatalmosteverylevelofsocietyhadbeenexperiencingdaily,and hadbeenthinkingaboutwithincreasingopennessforyears.Backed bythislivingresonancethroughoutsociety,scholarsandartistshad 24

definedtheprobleminawidevarietyofwaysandstudentswere demandingsolutions. The genesis of Charter 77 also illustrates the special political significanceofthemoralaspectofthingsthatIhavementioned. Charter77wouldhavebeenunimaginable withoutthatpowerful senseofsolidarityamongwidelydifferinggroups,andwithoutthe sudden realization that it was impossible to go on waiting any longer,andthatthetruthhadtobespokenloudlyandcollectively, regardlessofthevirtualcertaintyofsanctionsandtheuncertaintyof any tangible results in the immediate future. There are some thingsworthsufferingfor, JanPatokawroteshortlybeforehis death.IthinkthatChartistsunderstandthisnotonlyasPatoka's legacy,butalsoasthebestexplanationofwhytheydowhatthey do. Seenfromtheoutside,andchieflyfromthevantagepointofthe systemanditspowerstructure,Charter77cameasasurprise,asa boltoutoftheblue.Itwasnotaboltoutoftheblue,ofcourse,but thatimpressionisunderstandable,sincethefermentthatledtoit took place in the hidden sphere, in that semidarkness where thingsaredifficulttochartoranalyze.Thechancesofpredictingthe appearanceoftheCharterwerejustasslightasthechancesarenow ofpredictingwhereitwilllead.Onceagain,itwasthatshock,so typical of moments when something from the hidden sphere suddenlyburststhroughthemoribundsurfaceoflivingwithinalie. The more one is trapped in the world of appearances, the more surprisingitiswhensomethinglikethathappens. XI Insocietiesundertheposttotalitariansystem,allpoliticallifeinthe traditionalsensehasbeeneliminated.Peoplehavenoopportunityto express themselves politically in public, let alone to organize politically. The gap that results is filled by ideological ritual. In such a situation, people's interest in political matters naturally dwindlesandindependentpoliticalthought,insofarasitexistsat all,isseenbythemajorityasunrealistic,far=fetched,akindofself indulgent game,hopelesslydistantfromtheireverydayconcerns; somethingadmirable,perhaps,butquitepointless,becauseitison theonehandentirelyutopianandontheotherhandextraordinarily dangerous,inviewoftheunusualvigorwithwhichanymovein thatdirectionispersecutedbytheregime. Yeteveninsuchsocieties,individualsandgroupsofpeopleexist whodonotabandonpoliticsasavocationandwho,inonewayor another,strivetothinkindependently,toexpressthemselvesandin somecaseseventoorganizepolitically,becausethatisapartof theirattempttolivewithinthetruth. 25

Thefact thatthesepeopleexist andworkis initselfimmensely importantandworthwhile.Evenintheworstoftimes,theymaintain thecontinuityofpoliticalthought.Ifsomegenuinepoliticalimpulse emerges from this or that prepolitical confrontation and is properly articulated early enough, thus increasing its chances of relativesuccess,thenthisisfrequentlyduetotheseisolatedgenerals withoutanarmywho,becausetheyhavemaintainedthecontinuity ofpoliticalthoughtinthefaceofenormousdifficulties,canatthe rightmomentenrichthenewimpulsewiththefruitsoftheirown political thinking. Once again, there is ample evidence for this process in Czechoslovakia. Almost all those who were political prisoners in the early 1970s, who had apparently been made to sufferinvainbecauseoftheirquixoticeffortstoworkpolitically amonganutterlyapatheticanddemoralizedsociety,belongtoday inevitably among the most active Chartists. In Charter 77, the moral legacy of their earlier sacrifices is valued, and they have enrichedthismovementwiththeirexperienceandthatelementof politicalthinking. Andyetitseemstomethatthethoughtandactivityofthosefriends whohavenevergivenupdirectpoliticalworkandwhoarealways readytoassumedirectpoliticalresponsibilityveryoftensufferfrom one chronic fault: an insufficient understanding of the historical uniquenessoftheposttotalitariansystemasasocialandpolitical reality. They have little understanding of the specific nature of powerthatistypicalforthissystemandthereforetheyoverestimate the importance of direct political work in the traditional sense. Moreover,theyfailtoappreciatethepoliticalsignificanceofthose prepoliticaleventsandprocessesthatprovidethelivinghumus fromwhichgenuinepoliticalchangeusuallysprings.Aspolitical actors or, rather, as people with political ambitions they frequentlytrytopickupwherenaturalpoliticallifeleftoff.They maintain models of behavior that may have been appropriate in morenormalpoliticalcircumstancesandthus,withoutreallybeing awareofit,theybringanoutmodedwayofthinking,oldhabits, conceptions,categories,andnotionstobearoncircumstancesthat arequitenewandradicallydifferent,withoutfirstgivingadequate thoughttothemeaningandsubstanceofsuchthingsinthenew circumstances,towhatpoliticsassuchmeansnow,towhatsortof thing can have political impact and potential, and in what way. Because such people have been excluded from the structures of powerandarenolongerabletoinfluencethosestructuresdirectly (andbecausetheyremainfaithfultotraditionalnotionsofpolitics established in more or less democratic societies or in classical dictatorships)theyfrequently,inasense,losetouchwithreality. Whymakecompromiseswithreality,theysay,whennoneofour 26

proposalswilleverbeacceptedanyway?Thustheyfindthemselves inaworldofgenuinelyutopianthinking. AsIhavealreadytriedtoindicate,however,genuinelyfarreaching politicaleventsdonotemergefromthesamesourcesandinthe samewayintheposttotalitariansystemastheydoinademocracy. Andifalargeportionofthepublicisindifferentto,evenskeptical of, alternative political models and programs and the private establishment of opposition political parties, this is not merely becausethereisageneralfeelingofapathytowardpublicaffairs andalossofthatsenseofhigherresponsibility;inotherwords,itis notjustaconsequenceofthegeneraldemoralization.Thereisalsoa bitofhealthysocialinstinctatworkinthisattitude.Itisasifpeople sensedintuitivelythatnothingiswhatitseemsanylonger, asthe sayinggoes,andthatfromnowon,therefore,thingsmustbedone entirelydifferentlyaswell. If some of the most important political impulses in Soviet bloc countriesinrecentyearshavecomeinitiallythatis,beforebeing felt on the level of actual power from mathematicians, philosophers,physicians,writers,historians,ordinaryworkers,and soon,morefrequentlythanfrompoliticians,andifthedrivingforce behind the various dissident movements comes from so many peopleinnonpoliticalprofessions,thisisnotbecausethesepeople are more clever than those who see themselves primarily as politicians.Itisbecausethosewhoarenotpoliticiansarealsonotso bound by traditional political thinking and political habits and therefore,paradoxically,theyaremoreawareofgenuinepolitical realityandmoresensitivetowhatcanandshouldbedoneunderthe circumstances. Thereisnowayaroundit:nomatterhowbeautifulanalternative political model can be, it can no longer speak to the hidden sphere, inspirepeopleandsociety,callforrealpoliticalferment. Therealsphereofpotentialpoliticsintheposttotalitariansystemis elsewhere:inthecontinuingandcrueltensionbetweenthecomplex demandsofthatsystemandtheaimsoflife,thatis,theelementary needofhumanbeingstolive,toacertainextentatleast,inharmony with themselves, that is, to live in a bearable way, not to be humiliated by their superiors and officials, not to be continually watchedbythepolice,tobeabletoexpressthemselvesfreely,to findanoutletfortheircreativity,toenjoylegalsecurity,andsoon. Anythingthattouchesthisfieldconcretely,anythingthatrelatesto this fundamental,omnipresent, andlivingtension,willinevitably speaktopeople.Abstractprojectsforanidealpoliticaloreconomic orderdonotinterestthemtoanythinglikethesameextentand rightlysonotonlybecauseeveryoneknowshowlittlechancethey haveofsucceeding,butalsobecausetodaypeoplefeelthattheless 27

politicalpoliciesarederivedfromaconcreteandhumanhereand nowandthemoretheyfixtheirsightsonanabstract someday, the more easily they can degenerate into new forms of human enslavement.Peoplewholiveintheposttotalitariansystemknow onlytoowellthatthequestionofwhetheroneorseveralpolitical parties are in power, and how these parties define and label themselves,isoffarlessimportancethanthequestionofwhetheror notitispossibletolivelikeahumanbeing. Toshedtheburdenoftraditionalpoliticalcategoriesandhabitsand openoneselfupfullytotheworldofhumanexistenceandthento drawpoliticalconclusionsonlyafterhavinganalyzedit:thisisnot onlypoliticallymorerealisticbutatthesametime,fromthepoint ofviewofanidealstateofaffairs,politicallymorepromisingas well.Agenuine,profound,andlastingchangeforthebetterasI shallattempttoshowcannolongerresultfromthevictory(were such a victory possible) of any particular traditional political conception, which can ultimately be only external, that is, a structural orsystemic conception. Morethaneverbefore,sucha change will have to derive from human existence, from the fundamentalreconstitutionofthepositionofpeopleintheworld, their relationships to themselves and to each other, and to the universe.Ifabettereconomicandpoliticalmodelistobecreated, thenperhapsmorethaneverbeforeitmustderivefromprofound existentialandmoralchangesinsociety.Thisisnotsomethingthat canbedesignedandintroducedlikeanewcar.Ifitistobemore thanjustanewvariationoftheolddegeneration,itmustaboveall be an expression of life in the process of transforming itself. A bettersystemwillnotautomaticallyensureabetterlife.Infact,the oppositeistrue:onlybycreatingabetterlifecanabettersystembe developed. OncemoreIrepeatthatIamnotunderestimatingtheimportanceof politicalthoughtandconceptualpoliticalwork.Onthecontrary,I thinkthatgenuinepoliticalthoughtandgenuinelypoliticalworkis preciselywhatwecontinuallyfailtoachieve.IfIsay genuine, however,Ihaveinmindthekindofthoughtandconceptualwork thathasfreeditselfofallthetraditionalpoliticalschematathathave beenimportedintoourcircumstancesfromaworldthatwillnever return(andwhosereturn,evenwereitpossible,wouldprovideno permanentsolutiontothemostimportantproblems). The Second and Fourth Internationals, like many other political powers and organizations, may naturally provide significant politicalsupportforvariouseffortsofours,butneitherofthemcan solveourproblemsforus.Theyoperateinadifferentworldandare aproductofdifferentcircumstances.Theirtheoreticalconceptscan be interesting and instructive to us, but one thing is certain: we 28

cannot solve our problems simply by identifying with these organizations.Andtheattemptinourcountrytoplacewhatwedo inthecontextofsomeofthediscussionsthatdominatepoliticallife indemocraticsocietiesoftenseemslikesheerfolly.Forexample,is itpossibletotalkseriouslyaboutwhetherwewanttochangethe systemormerelyreformit?Inthecircumstancesunderwhichwe live, this is a pseudoproblem, since for the time being there is simplynowaywecanaccomplisheithergoal.Wearenoteven clearaboutwherereformendsandchangebegins.Weknowfroma numberofharshexperiencesthatneitherreformnorchangeisin itselfaguaranteeofanything.Weknowthatultimatelyitisallthe sametouswhetherornotthesysteminwhichwelive,inthelight ofaparticulardoctrine,appearschangedorreformed.Ourconcern iswhetherwecanlivewithdignityinsuchasystem,whetherit servespeopleratherthanpeopleservingit.Wearestrugglingto achievethiswiththemeansavailabletous,andthemeansitmakes sense to employ. Western journalists, submerged in the political banalities in which they live, may label our approach as overly legalistic,astoorisky,revisionist,counterrevolutionary,bourgeois, communist,orastoorightwingorleftwing.Butthisisthevery lastthingthatinterestsus. XII Oneconceptthatisaconstantsourceofconfusionchieflybecauseit hasbeenimportedintoourcircumstancesfromcircumstancesthat areentirelydifferentistheconceptofanopposition.Whatexactly isanoppositionintheposttotalitariansystem? Indemocraticsocietieswithatraditionalparliamentarysystemof government,politicaloppositionisunderstoodasapoliticalforce onthelevelofactualpower(mostfrequentlyapartyorcoalitionof parties) which is not a part of the government. It offers an alternativepoliticalprogram,ithasambitionstogovern,anditis recognizedandrespectedbythegovernmentinpowerasanatural elementinthepoliticallifeofthecountry.Itseekstospreadits influencebypoliticalmeans,andcompetesforpoweronthebasis ofagreeduponlegalregulations. Inadditiontothisformofopposition,thereexiststhephenomenon ofthe extraparliamentaryopposition, whichagainconsistsof forces organized more or less on the level of actual power, but whichoperateoutsidetherulescreatedbythesystem,andwhich employdifferentmeansthanareusualwithinthatframework. Inclassical dictatorships,theterm opposition isunderstoodto mean the political forces which have also come out with an alternativepoliticalprogram.Theyoperateeitherlegallyoronthe outerlimits oflegality, butinanycasetheycannotcompetefor 29

powerwithinthelimitsofsomeagreeduponregulations.Orthe termoppositionmaybeappliedtoforcespreparingforaviolent confrontationwiththerulingpower,orwhofeelthemselvestobein thisstateofconfrontationalready,suchasvariousguerrillagroups orliberationmovements. Anoppositionintheposttotalitariansystemdoesnotexistinanyof thesesenses.Inwhatway,then,canthetermbeused? 1. Occasionally theterm opposition is applied, mainly by Westernjournalists,topersonsorgroupsinsidethepower structurewhofindthemselvesinastateofhiddenconflict with the highest authorities. The reasons for this conflict may be certain differences (not very sharp differences, naturally)ofaconceptualnature,butmorefrequentlyitis quitesimplyalongingforpowerorapersonalantipathyto otherswhorepresentthatpower. 2. Oppositionherecanalsobeunderstoodaseverythingthat does or can have an indirect political effect in the sense already mentioned, that is, everything the posttotalitarian systemfeelsthreatenedby,whichinfactmeanseverything it is threatened by. In this sense, the opposition is every attempt to live within the truth, from the greengrocer's refusaltoputthesloganinhiswindowtoafreelywritten poem;inotherwords,everythinginwhichthegenuineaims oflifegobeyondthelimitsplacedonthembytheaimsof thesystem. 3. More frequently, however, the opposition is usually understood(again,largelybyWesternjournalists)asgroups ofpeoplewhomakepublictheirnonconformiststancesand criticalopinions,whomakenosecretoftheirindependent thinking and who, to a greater or lesser degree, consider themselvesapoliticalforce.Inthissense,thenotionofan oppositionmoreorlessoverlapswiththenotionofdissent, although,ofcourse,therearegreatdifferencesinthedegree towhichthatlabelisacceptedorrejected.Itdependsnot onlyontheextenttowhichthesepeopleunderstandtheir powerasadirectlypoliticalforce,andonwhethertheyhave ambitions toparticipateinactualpower,butalsoonhow eachofthemunderstandsthenotionofanopposition. Again,hereisanexample:initsoriginaldeclaration,Charter77 emphasizedthatitwasnotanoppositionbecauseithadnointention ofpresentinganalternativepoliticalprogram.Itseesitsmissionas somethingquitedifferent,forithasnotpresentedsuchprograms.In fact,ifthepresentingofanalternativeprogramdefinesthenatureof anoppositioninposttotalitarianstates,thentheChartercannotbe consideredanopposition. 30

TheCzechoslovakgovernment,however,hasconsideredCharter77 asanexpresslyoppositionalassociationfromtheverybeginning, andhastreateditaccordingly.Thismeansthatthegovernmentand thisisonlynaturalunderstandsthetermoppositionmoreorless asIdefmeditinpoint2,thatis,aseverythingthatmanagestoavoid totalmanipulationandwhichthereforedeniestheprinciplethatthe systemhasanabsoluteclaimontheindividual. Ifweacceptthisdefinitionofopposition,thenofcoursewemust, along with the government, consider the Charter a genuine opposition,becauseitrepresentsaseriouschallengetotheintegrity ofposttotalitarian power,foundedasitisontheuniversalityof livingwithalie. It is adifferent matter, however, when we lookat the extent to whichindividualsignatoriesofCharter77thinkofthemselvesasan opposition.Myimpressionisthatmostbasetheirunderstandingof thetermoppositiononthetraditionalmeaningofthewordasit became established in democratic societies (or in classical dictatorships); therefore, they understand opposition, even in Czechoslovakia, as a politically defined force which, although it doesnotoperateonthelevelofactualpower,andevenlesswithin theframeworkofcertainrulesrespectedbythegovernment,would stillnotrejecttheopportunitytoparticipateinactualpowerbecause ithas,inasense,analternativepoliticalprogramwhoseproponents arepreparedtoacceptdirectpoliticalresponsibilityforit.Giventhis notionofanopposition,someChartiststhegreatmajoritydonot seethemselvesinthisway.Othersaminoritydo,eventhough theyfullyrespectthefactthatthereisnoroomwithinCharter77 for oppositional activity in this sense. At the same time, however,perhapseveryChartistisfamiliarenoughwiththespecific natureofconditionsintheposttotalitariansystemtorealizethatit isnotonlythestruggleforhumanrightsthathasitsownpeculiar political power, but incomparably more innocent activities as well, and therefore they can be understood as an aspect of opposition. No Chartist can really object to being considered an oppositioninthissense. There is another circumstance, however, that considerably complicatesmatters.Formanydecades,thepowerrulingsocietyin theSovietblochasusedthelabel opposition astheblackestof indictments, as synonymous with the word enemy. To brand someoneamemberoftheoppositionistantamounttosayinghe istryingtooverthrowthegovernmentandputanendtosocialism (naturally inthe payofthe imperialists). There have beentimes whenthislabelledstraighttothegallows,andofcoursethisdoes not encourage people to apply the same label to themselves. 31

Moreover, it is only a word, and what is actually done is more importantthanhowitislabeled. Thefinalreasonwhymanyrejectsuchatermisbecausethereis something negative about the notion of an opposition. People whosodefinethemselvesdosoinrelationtoapriorposition.In otherwords,theyrelatethemselvesspecificallytothepowerthat rulessocietyandthroughit,definethemselves,derivingtheirown position from the position of the regime. For people who have simplydecidedtolivewithinthetruth,tosayaloudwhattheythink, toexpresstheirsolidaritywiththeirfellowcitizens,tocreateasthey want and simply to live in harmony with their better self, it is naturallydisagreeabletofeelrequiredtodefinetheirownoriginal andpositivepositionnegatively,intermsofsomethingelse,andto thinkofthemselvesprimarilyaspeoplewhoareagainstsomething, notsimplyaspeoplewhoarewhattheyare. Obviously,theonlywaytoavoidmisunderstandingistosayclearly before one starts using them in what sense the terms opposition and memberoftheopposition arebeingusedand howtheyareinfacttobeunderstoodinourcircumstances. XIII If the term opposition has been imported from democratic societiesintotheposttotalitariansystemwithoutgeneralagreement onwhatthewordmeansinconditionsthataresodifferent,thenthe term dissident was, on the contrary, chosen by Western journalists and is now generally accepted as the label for a phenomenon peculiar to the posttotalitarian system and almost neveroccurringatleastnotinthatformindemocraticsocieties. Whoarethesedissidents? ItseemsthatthetermisappliedprimarilytocitizensoftheSoviet blocwhohavedecidedtolivewithinthetruthandwho,inaddition, meetthefollowingcriteria: 1. They express their nonconformist positions and critical opinionspubliclyandsystematically,withintheverystrict limitsavailabletothem,andbecauseofthis,theyareknown intheWest. 2. Despitebeingunabletopublishathomeanddespiteevery possible form of persecution by their governments, they have,byvirtueoftheirattitudes,managedtowinacertain esteem, both from the public and from their government, andthustheyactuallyenjoyaverylimitedandverystrange degreeofindirect,actualpowerintheirownmilieuaswell. This either protects them from the worst forms of persecution,oratleastitensuresthatiftheyarepersecuted, 32

it will mean certain political complications for their governments. 3. Thehorizonoftheircriticalattentionandtheircommitment reaches beyond the narrow context of their immediate surroundingsorspecialintereststoembracemoregeneral causes and, thus, their work becomes political in nature, althoughthedegreetowhichtheythinkofthemselvesasa directlypoliticalforcemayvaryagreatdeal. 4. Theyarepeoplewholeantowardintellectualpursuits,that is,theyare writing people,peopleforwhomthewritten wordistheprimaryandoftentheonlypoliticalmedium theycommand,andthatcangainthemattention,particularly fromabroad.Otherwaysinwhichtheyseektolivewithin thetruthareeitherlosttotheforeignobserverintheelusive localmilieuoriftheyreachbeyondthislocalframework theyappeartobeonlysomewhatlessvisiblecomplements towhattheyhavewritten. 5. Regardlessoftheiractualvocations,thesepeoplearetalked aboutintheWestmorefrequentlyintermsoftheiractivities ascommittedcitizens,orintermsofthecritical,political aspectsoftheirwork,thanintermsoftherealworktheydo intheirownfields.Frompersonalexperience,Iknowthat thereisaninvisiblelineyoucrosswithoutevenwantingto orbecomingawareofitbeyondwhichtheyceasetotreat youasawriterwhohappenstobeaconcernedcitizenand begin talking of you as a dissident who almost incidentally(inhissparetime,perhaps?)happenstowrite playsaswell. Unquestionably, there are people who meet all of these criteria. Whatisdebatableiswhetherweshouldbeusingaspecialtermfora group defined in such an essentially accidental way, and specifically, whether they should be called dissidents. It does happen,however,andthereisclearlynothingwecandoaboutit. Sometimes, to facilitate communication, we even use the label ourselves,althoughitisdonewithdistaste,ratherironically,and almostalwaysinquotationmarks. Perhapsitisnowappropriatetooutlinesomeofthereasonswhy dissidentsthemselvesarenotveryhappytobereferredtointhis way. In the first place, the word is problematic from an etymologicalpointofview.Adissident,wearetoldinourpress, meanssomethinglike renegade or backslider. Butdissidents do not consider themselves renegades for the simple reason that they are not primarily denying or rejecting anything. On the contrary,theyhavetriedtoaffirmtheirownhumanidentity,andif

33

they reject anything at all, then it is merely what was false and alienatingintheirlives,thataspectoflivingwithinalie. But that is not the most important thing. The term dissident frequentlyimpliesaspecialprofession,asif,alongwiththemore normalvocations,therewereanotherspecialonegrumblingabout thestateofthings.Infact,a dissident issimplyaphysicist,a sociologist,aworker,apoet,individualswhoaredoingwhatthey feel they must and, consequently, who find themselves in open conflictwiththeregime.Thisconflicthasnotcomeaboutthrough anyconsciousintentionontheirpart,butsimplythroughtheinner logic oftheir thinking,behavior,orwork(oftenconfronted with external circumstances more or less beyond their control). They havenot,inotherwords,consciouslydecidedtobeprofessional malcontents,ratherasonedecidestobeatailororablacksmith. Infact,ofcourse,theydonotusuallydiscovertheyare dissidents untillongaftertheyhaveactuallybecomeone. Dissent springs frommotivationsfardifferentfromthedesirefortitlesorfame.In short,theydonotdecidetobecomedissidents,andevenifthey weretodevotetwentyfourhoursadaytoit,itwouldstillnotbea profession,butprimarilyanexistentialattitude.Moreover,itisan attitudethatisinnowaytheexclusivepropertyofthosewhohave earnedthemselvesthetitleofdissidentjustbecausetheyhappen to fulfill those accidental external conditions already mentioned. Therearethousandsofnamelesspeoplewhotrytolivewithinthe truthandmillionswhowanttobutcannot,perhapsonlybecauseto dosointhecircumstancesinwhichtheylive,theywouldneedten timesthecourageofthosewhohavealreadytakenthefirststep.If severaldozenarerandomlychosenfromamongallthesepeopleand put into a special category, this can utterly distort the general picture. It does so in two different ways. Either it suggests that dissidents areagroupofprominentpeople,aprotectedspecies who are permitted to do things others are not and whom the government may even be cultivating as living proof of its generosity;oritlendssupporttotheillusionthatsincethereisno more than a handful of malcontents to whom not very much is reallybeingdone,alltherestarethereforecontent,forwerethey notso,theywouldbedissidentstoo. Butthatisnotall.Thiscategorizationalsounintentionallysupports the impression that the primary concern of these dissidents is some vested interest that they share as a group, as though their entireargumentwiththegovernmentwerenomorethanarather abstruseconflictbetweentwoopposedgroups,aconflictthatleaves society out of it altogether. But such an impression profoundly contradictstherealimportanceofthe dissident attitude,which stands orfalls onits interest inothers,inwhatails societyasa 34

whole,inotherwords,onaninterestinallthosewhodonotspeak up.If dissidents haveanykindofauthorityatall,andifthey havenotbeenexterminatedlongagolikeexoticinsectsthathave appeared where they have no business being, then this is not because the government holds this exclusive group and their exclusiveideasinsuchawe,butbecauseitisperfectlyawareofthe potential political power of living within the truth rooted in the hiddensphere,andwellawaretooofthekindofworld dissent growsoutofandtheworlditaddresses:theeverydayhumanworld, theworldofdailytensionbetweentheaimsoflifeandtheaimsof the system. (Can there be any better evidence of this than the government'sactionafterCharter77appeared,whenitlauncheda campaigntocompeltheentirenationtodeclarethatCharter77was wrong?(Thosemillionsofsignaturesproved,amongotherthings, thatjusttheoppositewastrue.)Thepoliticalorgansandthepolice donotlavishsuchenormousattentionon dissidentswhichmay givetheimpressionthatthegovernmentfearsthemastheymight fearanalternativepowercliquebecausetheyactuallyaresucha powerclique,butbecausetheyareordinarypeoplewithordinary cares,differingfromtherestonlyinthattheysayaloudwhatthe rest cannot say or are afraid to say. I have already mentioned Solzhenitsyn's political influence: it does not reside in some exclusivepoliticalpowerhepossessesasanindividual,butinthe experience of those millions of Gulag victims which he simply amplifiedandcommunicatedtomillionsofotherpeopleofgood will. To institutionalize aselect category ofwellknown orprominent dissidentsmeansinfacttodenythemostintrinsicmoralaspect oftheiractivity.Aswehaveseen,thedissidentmovementgrows outoftheprincipleofequality,foundedonthenotionthathuman rightsandfreedomsareindivisible.Afterall,didnowellknown dissidentsuniteinKORtodefendunknownworkers?Andwasit not precisely for this reason that they became wellknown dissidents? And did not the wellknown dissidents unite in Charter77aftertheyhadbeenbroughttogetherindefenseofthose unknownmusicians,anddidtheynotuniteintheCharterprecisely with them, and did they not become wellknown dissidents preciselybecauseofthat?Itistrulyacruelparadoxthatthemore somecitizensstandupindefenseofothercitizens,themorethey arelabeledwithawordthatineffectseparatesthemfromthose othercitizens. This explanation, Ihope,willmake clear thesignificance ofthe quotationmarksIhaveputaroundtheword dissidentthroughout thisessay.

35

XIV ATthetimewhentheCzechlandsandSlovakiawereanintegral part of the AustroHungarian Empire, and when there existed neither the historical nor the political, psychological, nor social conditionsthatwouldhaveenabledtheCzechsandSlovakstoseek theiridentityoutsidetheframeworkofthisempire,TomGarrigue MasarykestablishedaCzechoslovaknationalprogrambasedonthe notion of smallscale work (dro6nc prce). By that he meant honestandresponsibleworkinwidelydifferentareasoflifebut withintheexistingsocialorder,workthatwouldstimulatenational creativity and national selfconfidence. Naturally he placed particularemphasisonintelligentandenlightenedupbringingand education, and on the moral and humanitarian aspects of life. Masarykbelievedthattheonlypossiblestartingpointforamore dignifiednationaldestinywashumanityitself.Humanity'sfirsttask wastocreatetheconditionsforamorehumanlife;andinMasaryk's view,thetaskoftransformingthestatureofthenationbeganwith thetransformationofhumanbeings. Thisnotionof workingforthegoodofthenation tookrootin Czechoslovaksocietyandinmanywaysitwassuccessfulandis still alive today. Along with those who exploit the notion as a sophisticatedexcuseforcollaboratingwiththeregime,therearestill many,eventoday,whogenuinelyupholdtheidealand,insome areasatleast,canpointtoindisputableachievements.Itishardto sayhowmuchworsethingswouldbeiftherewerenotmanyhard workingpeoplewhosimplyrefusetogiveupandtryconstantlyto do the best they can, paying an unavoidable minimum to living withinaliesothattheymightgivetheirutmosttotheauthentic needsofsociety.Thesepeopleassume,correctly,thateverypieceof goodworkisanindirectcriticismofbadpolitics,andthatthereare situationswhereitisworthwhilegoingthisroute,eventhoughit meanssurrenderingone'snaturalrighttomakedirectcriticisms. Today, however, there are very clear limitations to this attitude, even compared to the situation in the 1960s. More and more frequently,thosewhoattempttopracticetheprincipleof small scalework comeupagainsttheposttotalitariansystemandflnd themselvesfacingadilemma:eitheroneretreatsfromthatposition, dilutesthehonesty,responsibility,andconsistencyonwhichitis based,andsimplyadaptstocircumstances(theapproachtakenby themajority),oronecontinues onthewaybegunandinevitably comes into conflict with the regime (the approach taken by a minority). If the notion of smallscale work was never intended as an imperativetosurviveintheexistingsocialandpoliticalstructureat 36

anycost(inwhichcaseindividualswhoallowedthemselvestobe excludedfromthatstructurewouldnecessarilyappeartohavegiven upworkingforthenation),thentodayitisevenlesssignificant. Thereisnogeneralmodelofbehavior,thatis,noneat,universally validwayofdeterminingthepointatwhichsmallscaleworkceases tobeforthegoodofthenationandbecomesdetrimentaltothe nation.Itismorethanclear,however,thatthedangerofsucha reversal is becoming more and more acute and that smallscale work,with increasing frequency, is coming up against that limit beyond which avoiding conflict means compromising its very essence. In1974,whenIwasemployedinabrewery,myimmediatesuperior wasacertain ,apersonwellversedintheartofmakingbeer.He wasproudofhisprofessionandhewantedourbrewerytobrew good beer. He spent almost all his time at work, continually thinkingupimprovements,andhefrequentlymadetherestofus feeluncomfortablebecauseheassumedthatwelovedbrewingas muchashedid.Inthemidstoftheslovenlyindifferencetowork that socialism encourages, a more constructive worker would be difficulttoimagine. Thebreweryitselfwasmanagedbypeoplewhounderstoodtheir worklessandwerelessfondofit,butwhowerepoliticallymore influential.Theywerebringingthebrewerytoruinandnotonlydid theyfailtoreacttoanyof'ssuggestions,buttheyactuallybecame increasinglyhostiletowardhimandtriedineverywaytothwarthis effortstodoagoodjob.Eventuallythesituationbecamesobadthat Sfeltcompelledtowritealengthylettertothemanager'ssuperior, in which he attempted to analyze the brewery's difficulties. He explainedwhyitwastheworstinthedistrictandpointedtothose responsible. Hisvoicemighthavebeenheard.Themanager,whowaspolicically powerful but otherwise ignorant of beer, a man who loathed workersandwasgiventointrigue,mighthavebeenreplacedand conditionsinthebrewerymighthavebeenimprovedonthebasisof 'ssuggestions.Hadthishappened,itwouldhavebeenaperfect exampleofsmallscaleworkinaction.Unfortunately,theprecise oppositeoccurred:themanagerofthebrewery,whowasamember oftheCommunistPart sdistrictcommittee,hadfriendsinhigher placesandhesawtoitthatthesituationwasresolvedinhisfavor. 's analysis was described as a defamatory document and S himselfwaslabeleda politicalsaboteur. Hewasthrownoutof thebreweryandshiftedtoanotheronewherehewasgivenajob requiringnoskill.Herethenotionofsmallscaleworkhadcomeup against the wall of the posttotalitarian system. By speaking the truth, hadsteppedoutofline,brokentherules,casthimselfout, 37

andheendedupasasubcitizen,stigmatizedasanenemy.Hecould nowsayanythinghewanted,buthecouldnever,asamatter of principle,expecttobeheard.Hehadbecomethedissidentofthe EasternBohemianBrewery. I think this is a model case which, from another point of view, illustrateswhatIhavealreadysaidintheprecedingsection:youdo notbecomeadissidentjustbecauseyoudecideonedaytotake upthismostunusualcareer.Youarethrownintoitbyyourpersonal senseofresponsibility,combinedwithacomplexsetofexternal circumstances.Youarecastoutoftheexistingstructuresandplaced inapositionofconflictwiththem.Itbeginsasanattempttodo yourworkwell,andendswithbeingbrandedanenemyofsociety. ThisiswhyoursituationisnotcomparabletotheAustroHungarian Empire, when the Czech nation, in the worst period of Bach's absolutism,hadonlyonerealdissident,KarelHavlek,whowas imprisonedinBrixen.Today,ifwearenottobesnobbishaboutit, we must admit that dissidents can be found on every street corner. Torebuke dissidents forhavingabandoned smallscalework is simply absurd. Dissent is not an alternative to Masaryk's notion,itisfrequentlyitsonepossibleoutcome.Isayfrequently inordertoemphasizethatthisisnotalwaysthecase.Iamfarfrom believingthattheonlydecentandresponsiblepeoplearethosewho find themselves at odds with the existing social and political structures.Afterall,thebrewmastermighthavewonhisbattle.To condemnthosewhohavekepttheirpositionssimplybecausethey havekeptthem,inotherwords,fornotbeing dissidents,would be just as absurd as to hold them up as an example to the dissidents. In any case, it contradicts the whole dissident attitudeseenasanattempttolivewithinthetruthifonejudges humanbehaviornotaccordingtowhatitisandwhetheritisgoodor not,butaccordingtothepersonalcircumstancessuchanattempthas broughtoneto. XV Ourgreengrocer'sattempttolivewithinthetruthmaybeconfined to not doing certain things. He decides not to put flags in his windowwhenhisonlymotiveforputtingthemthereinthefirst place would have been to avoid being reported by the house warden;hedoesnotvoteinelections thatheconsidersfalse;he doesnothidehisopinionsfromhissuperiors.Inotherwords,he maygonofurtherthan merely refusingtocomplywithcertain demandsmadeonhimbythesystem(whichofcourseisnotan insignificantsteptotake).Thismay,however,growintosomething more. The greengrocer may begin to do something concrete, 38

somethingthatgoesbeyondanimmediatelypersonalselfdefensive reaction against manipulation, something that will manifest his newfound sense of higher responsibility. He may, for example, organizehisfellowgreengrocerstoacttogetherindefenseoftheir interests.Hemaywriteletterstovariousinstitutions,drawingtheir attentiontoinstancesofdisorderandinjusticearoundhim.Hemay seekoutunofficialliterature,copyit,andlendittohisfriends. IfwhatIhavecalledlivingwithinthetruthisabasicexistential (and of course potentially political) starting point for all those independentcitizens'initiativesanddissidentoropposition movementsthisdoesnotmeanthateveryattempttolivewithinthe truthautomaticallybelongsinthiscategory.Onthecontrary,inits mostoriginalandbroadestsense,livingwithinthetruthcoversa vastterritorywhoseouterlimitsarevagueanddifficulttomap,a territory full of modest expressions of human volition, the vast majority of which will remain anonymous and whose political impactwillprobablyneverbefeltordescribedanymoreconcretely thansimplyasapartofasocialclimateormood.Mostofthese expressions remain elementary revolts against manipulation: you simplystraightenyourbackboneandliveingreaterdignityasan individual. Here and there thanks to the nature, the assumptions, and the professions of some people, but also thanks to a number of accidental circumstances such as the specific nature of the local milieu,friends,andsoonamorecoherentandvisibleinitiative mayemergefromthiswideandanonymoushinterland,aninitiative thattranscends merely individualrevoltandistransformedinto moreconscious,structured,andpurposefulwork.Thepointwhere livingwithinthetruthceasestobeamerenegationoflivingwitha lieandbecomesarticulateinaparticularwayisthepointatwhich somethingisbornthatmightbecalledthe independentspiritual, social,andpolitical lifeofsociety. Thisindependent lifeisnot separatedfromtherestoflife(dependentlife)bysomesharply defined line. Both types frequently coexist in the same people. Nevertheless, its most important focus is marked by a relatively highdegreeofinneremancipation.Itsailsuponthevastoceanof themanipulatedlifelikelittleboats,tossedbythewavesbutalways bobbing back as visible messengers of living within the truth, articulatingthesuppressedaimsoflife. What is this independent life of society? The spectrum of its expressions and activities is naturally very wide. It includes everything from self education and thinking about the world, throughfreecreativeactivityanditscommunicationtoothers,tothe mostvariedfree,civicattitudes,includinginstancesofindependent 39

socialselforganization.Inshort,itisanareainwhichlivingwithin thetruthbecomesarticulateandmaterializesinavisibleway. Thus what will later be referred to as citizens' initiatives, dissident movements, or even oppositions, emerge, like the proverbialonetenthoftheicebergvisibleabovethewater,from thatarea,fromtheindependentlifeofsociety.Inotherwords,just astheindependentlifeofsocietydevelopsoutoflivlngwithinthe truthinthewidestsenseoftheword,as thedistinct,articulated expression of that life, so dissent gradually emerges from the independentlifeofsociety.Yetthereisamarkeddifference:ifthe independentlifeofsociety,externallyatleast,canbeunderstoodas ahigherformoflivingwithinthetruth,itisfarlesscertainthat dissident movements are necessarily a higher form of the independentlifeofsociety.Theyaresimplyonemanifestationofit and,thoughtheymaybethemostvisibleand,atfirstglance,the mostpolitical(andmostclearlyarticulated)expressionofit,they arefarfromnecessarilybeingthemostmatureoreventhemost important,notonlyinthegeneralsocialsensebutevenintermsof directpoliticalinfluence.Afterall, dissent hasbeenartificially removed from its place of birth by having been given a special name.Infact,however,itisnotpossibletothinkofitseparated fromthewholebackgroundoutofwhichitdevelops,ofwhichitis anintegralpart,andfromwhichitdrawsallitsvitalstrength.Inany case, it follows from what has already been said about the peculiaritiesoftheposttotalitariansystemthatwhatappearstobe themostpoliticalofforcesinagivenmoment,andwhatthinksof itselfinsuchterms,neednotnecessarilyinfactbesuchaforce.The extenttowhichitisarealpoliticalforceisdueexclusivelytoits prepoliticalcontext. Whatfollowsfromthisdescription?Nothingmoreandnothingless thanthis:itisimpossibletotalkaboutwhatinfact dissidentsdo andtheeffectoftheirworkwithoutfirsttalkingabouttheworkof allthosewho,inonewayoranother,takepartintheindependent lifeofsocietyandwhoarenotnecessarilydissidentsatall.They may be writers who write as they wish without regard for censorshiporofficialdemandsandwhoissuetheirworkwhen official publishers refuse to print it as samizdat. They may be philosophers, historians, sociologists, and all those who practice independentscholarshipand,ifitisimpossiblethroughofficialor semiofficialchannels,whoalsocirculatetheirworkinsamizdator whoorganizeprivatediscussions,lectures,andseminars.Theymay beteacherswhoprivatelyteachyoungpeoplethingsthatarekept fromtheminthestateschools;clergymenwhoeitherinofficeor,if theyaredeprivedoftheircharges,outsideit,trytocarryonafree religious life; painters, musicians, and singers whopractice their 40

workregardlessofhowitislookeduponbyofficialinstitutions; everyonewhosharesthisindependentcultureandhelpstospreadit; peoplewho,usingthemeansavailabletothem,trytoexpressand defendtheactualsocialinterestsofworkers,toputrealmeaning backintotradeunionsortoformindependentones;peoplewhoare notafraidtocalltheattentionofofficialstocasesofinjusticeand who strive to see that the laws are observed; and the different groups of young people who try to extricate themselves from manipulationandliveintheirownway,inthespiritoftheirown hierarchyofvalues.Thelistcouldgoon. Veryfewwouldthinkofcallingallthesepeopledissidents.And yetarenotthewellknown dissidents simplypeoplelikethem? Arenotalltheseactivitiesinfactwhat dissidentsdoaswell?Do theynotproducescholarlyworkandpublishitinsamizdat?Dothey not write plays and novels and poems? Do they not lecture to students in private universities? Do they not struggle against variousformsofinjusticeandattempttoascertainandexpressthe genuinesocialinterestsofvarioussectorsofthepopulation? Afterhavingtriedtoindicatethesources,theinnerstructure,and some aspects of the dissident attitude as such, I have clearly shiftedmyviewpointfromoutside,asitwere,toaninvestigationof what these dissidents actually do, how their initiatives are manifested,andwheretheylead. Thefirstconclusiontobedrawn,then,isthattheoriginalandmost importantsphereofactivity,onethatpredeterminesalltheothers,is simply an attempt to create and support the independent life of societyasanarticulatedexpressionoflivingwithinthetruth.In other words, serving truth consistently, purposefully, and articulately,andorganizingthisservice.Thisisonlynatural,after all:iflivingwithinthetruthisanelementarystartingpointforevery attempt madebypeopletoopposethealienating pressureofthe system,ifitistheonlymeaningfulbasisofanyindependentactof political import, and if, ultimately, it is also the most intrinsic existentialsourceofthe dissident attitude,thenitisdifficultto imaginethatevenmanifest dissent couldhaveanyotherbasis thantheserviceoftruth,thetruthfullife,andtheattempttomake roomforthegenuineaimsoflife. XVI Theposttotalitariansystemismountingatotalassaultonhumans and humans standagainst it alone,abandoned andisolated. Itis therefore entirely natural that all the dissident movements are explicitlydefensivemovements:theyexisttodefendhumanbeings andthegenuineaimsoflifeagainsttheaimsofthesystem.

41

TodaythePolishgroupKORiscalledthe CommitteeforSocial SelfDefense.Theword defense appearsinthenamesofother similargroupsinPoland,buteventheSovietHelsinkimonitoring groupandourownCharter77areclearlydefensiveinnature. In terms of traditional politics, this program of defense is understandable, eventhoughit may appearminimal, provisional, and ultimately negative. It offers no new conception, model, or ideology,andthereforeitisnotpoliticsinthepropersenseofthe word, since politics always assumes a positive program and can scarcelylimititselftodefendingsomeoneagainstsomething. Such a view, I think, reveals the limitations of the traditionally politicalwayoflookingatthings.Theposttotalitariansystem,after all,isnotthemanifestationofaparticularpoliticallinefollowedby aparticulargovernment.Itissomethingradicallydifferent:itisa complex,profound,andlongtermviolationofsociety,orratherthe self violation of society. To oppose it merely by establishing a differentpoliticallineandthenstrivingforachangeingovernment wouldnotonlybeunrealistic,itwouldbeutterlyinadequate,forit wouldnevercomeneartotouchingtherootofthematter.Forsome timenow,theproblemhasnolongerresidedinapoliticallineor program:itisaproblemoflifeitself. Thus,defendingtheaimsoflife,defendinghumanity,isnotonlya more realistic approach, since it can begin right now and is potentially more popular because it concerns people's everyday lives;atthesametime(andperhapspreciselybecauseofthis)itis alsoanincomparablymoreconsistentapproachbecauseitaimsat theveryessenceofthings. Therearetimeswhenwemustsinktothebottomofourmiseryto understandtruth,justaswemustdescendtothebottomofawellto see the stars in broad daylight. It seems to me that today, this provisional, minimal,andnegativeprogramthesimple defenseofpeopleisinaparticularsense(andnotmerelyinthe circumstances in which we live) an optimal and most positive program because it forces politics to return to its only proper starting point, proper that is, if all the old mistakes are to be avoided:individualpeople.Inthedemocraticsocieties,wherethe violencedonetohumanbeingsisnotnearlysoobviousandcruel, thisfundamentalrevolutioninpoliticshasyettohappen,andsome thingswillprobablyhavetogetworsetherebeforetheurgentneed forthatrevolutionisreflectedinpolitics.Inourworld,precisely becauseofthemiseryinwhichwefindourselves,itwouldseem thatpoliticshasalreadyundergonethattransformation:thecentral concernofpoliticalthoughtisnolongerabstractvisionsofaself redeeming, positive model (and of course the opportunistic 42

politicalpracticesthatarethereverseofthesamecoin),butrather thepeoplewhohavesofarmerelybeenenslavedbythosemodels andtheirpractices. Everysociety,ofcourse,requiressomedegreeoforganization.Yet fthatorganzatonistoservepeople,andnottheotherwayaround, thenpeoplewillhavetobeliberatedandspacecreatedsothatthey mayorganizethemselvesinmeaningfulways.Thedepravityofthe oppositeapproach,inwhichpeoplearefirstorganizedinoneway oranother(bysomeonewhoalwaysknowsbest whatthepeople need)sotheymaythenallegedlybeliberated,issomethingwe haveknownonourownskinsonlytoowell. To sum up: most people who are too bound to the traditional political way of thinking see the weaknesses of the dissident movementsintheirpurelydefensivecharacter.Incontrast,Iseethat astheirgreateststrength.Ibelievethatthisispreciselywherethese movementssupersedethekindofpoliticsfromwhosepoineofview theirprogramcanseemsoinadequate. XVII Inthe dissident movements oftheSovietbloc,thedefenseof humanbeingsusuallytakestheformofadefenseofhumanand civil rights as they are entrenched in various official documents suchastheUniversalDeclarationofHumanRghts,theUniversal DeclarationofHumanRghts,theUniversalDeclarationofHuman Rghts,andtheconstitutionsofindividualstates.Thesemovements setouttodefendanyonewhoisbeingprosecutedforactinginthe spiritofthoserights,andtheyinturnactinthesamespiritintheir work,byinsistingoverandoveragainthattheregimerecognize andrespecthumanandcivilrights,andbydrawingattentiontothe areasoflifewherethisisnotthecase. Their work,therefore, is basedonthe principle oflegality: they operatepubliclyandopenly,insistingnotonlythattheiractivityis inlinewiththelaw,butthatachievingrespectforthelawisoneof theirmainaims.Thisprincipleoflegality,whichprovidesboththe pointofdepartureandtheframeworkfortheiractivities,iscommon toalldissidentgroupsintheSovietbloc,eventhoughindividual groupshaveneverworkedoutanyformalagreementonthatpoint. Thiscircumstanceraisesanimportantquestion:Why,inconditions whereawidespreadandarbitraryabuseofpoweristherule,isthere such a general and spontaneous acceptance of the principle of legality? Ontheprimarylevel,thisstressonlegalityisanaturalexpression ofspecificconditionsthatexistintheposttotalitariansystem,and theconsequenceofanelementaryunderstandingofthatspecificity. 43

Ifthereareinessenceonlytwowaystostruggleforafreesociety thatis,throughlegalmeansandthrough(armedorunarmed)revolt then it should be obvious at once how inappropriate the latter alternativeisintheposttotalitariansystem.Revoltisappropriate whenconditionsareclearlyandopenlyinmotion,duringawar,for example, or in situations where social or political conflicts are comingtoahead.Itisappropriateinaclassicaldictatorshipthatis eitherjustsettingitselfuporisinastateofcollapse.Inotherwords, it is appropriate where social forces of comparable strength (for example,agovernmentofoccupationversusanationfightingforits freedom)areconfrontingeachotheronthelevelofactualpower,or wherethereisacleardistinctionbetweentheusurpersofpowerand thesubjugatedpopulation,orwhensocietyfindsitselfinastateof opencrisis.Conditionsintheposttotalitariansystemexceptin extremelyexplosivesituationsliketheoneinHungaryin1990 are,ofcourse,preciselytheopposite.Theyarestaticandstable,and socialcrises,forthemostpart,existonlylatently(thoughtheyrun muchdeeper).Societyisnotsharplypolarizedonthelevelofactual political power, but, as we have seen, the fundamental lines of conflictrunrightthrougheachperson.Inthissituation,noattempt atrevoltcouldeverhopetosetupevenaminimumofresonancein therestofsociety,becausethatsocietyissoporific,submergedina consumer rat race and wholly involved in the posttotalitarian system (that is, participating in it and acting as agents of its automatism), and it would simply find anything like revolt unacceptable.Itwouldinterprettherevoltasanattackuponitself and,ratherthansupportingtherevolt,itwouldveryprobablyreact byintensifyingitsbiastowardthesystem,since,initsview,the systemcanatleastguaranteeacertainquasilegality.Addtothisthe factthattheposttotalitariansystemhasatitsdisposalacomplex mechanismofdirectandindirectsurveillancethathasnoequalin history andit is clear that notonlywouldanyattempt to revolt come to a dead end politically, but it would also be almost technically impossible to carry off. Most probably it would be liquidated before it had a chance to translate its intentions into action.Evenifrevoltwerepossible,however,itwouldremainthe solitary gesture of a few isolated individuals and they would be opposed not only by a gigantic apparatus of national (and supranational)power,butalsobytheverysocietyinwhosename theyweremountingtheirrevoltinthefirstplace.(This,bytheway, is another reason why the regime and its propaganda have been ascribing terroristic aims to the dissident movements and accusingthemofillegalandconspiratorialmethods.) Allofthis,however,isnotthemainreasonwhythe dissident movements support the principle of legality. That reason lies 44

deeper,intheinnermoststructureofthe dissident attitude.This attitudeisandmustbefundamentallyhostiletowardthenotionof violent change simply because it places its faith in violence. (Generally,the dissident attitudecanonlyacceptviolenceasa necessaryevilinextremesituations,whendirectviolencecanonly bemetbyviolenceandwhereremainingpassivewouldineffect mean supporting violence: let us recall, for example, that the blindnessofEuropeanpacifismwasoneofthefactorsthatprepared the ground for the Second World War.) As I have already mentioned,dissidentstendtobeskepticalaboutpoliticalthought based on the faith that profound social changes can only be achievedbybringingabout(regardlessofthemethod)changesin thesystemorinthegovernment,andthebeliefthatsuchchanges becausetheyareconsidered fundamental justifythesacrificeof lessfundamentalthings,inotherwords,humanlives.Respectfor atheoreticalconcepthereoutweighsrespectforhumanlife.Yetthis ispreciselywhatthreatenstoenslavehumanityalloveragain. Dissident movements,asIhavetriedtoindicate,shareexactly theoppositeview.Theyunderstandsystemicchangeassomething superficial, something secondary, something that in itself can guaranteenothing.Thusanattitudethatturnsawayfromabstract politicalvisionsofthefuturetowardconcretehumanbeingsand waysofdefendingthemeffectivelyinthehereandnowisquite naturallyaccompaniedbyanintensifiedantipathytoallformsof violence carried out in the name of a better future, and by a profoundbeliefthatafuturesecuredbyviolencemightactuallybe worsethanwhatexistsnow;inotherwords,thefuturewouldbe fatallystigmatizedbytheverymeansusedtosecureit.Atthesame time,thisattitudeisnottobemistakenforpoliticalconservatismor politicalmoderation.Thedissidentmovementsdonotshyaway fromtheideaofviolentpoliticaloverthrowbecausetheideaseems tooradical,butonthecontrary,becauseitdoesnotseemradical enough. For them, the problem lies far too deep to be settled through mere systemic changes, either governmental or technological. Some people, faithful to the classical Marxist doctrinesofthenineteenthcentury,understandoursystemasthe hegemony of an exploiting class over an exploited class and, operating fromthepostulate thatexploiters neversurrendertheir power voluntarily, they see the only solution in a revolution to sweepawaytheexploiters.Naturally,theyregardsuchthingsasthe struggle for human rights as something hopelessly legalistic, illusory,opportunistic,andultimatelymisleadingbecauseitmakes thedoubtfulassumptionthatyoucannegotiateingoodfaithwith yourexploitersonthebasisofafalselegality.Theproblemisthat theyareunabletofindanyonedeterminedenoughtocarryoutthis 45

revolution, with the result that they become bitter, skeptical, passive, and ultimately apathetic in other words, they end up preciselywherethesystemwantsthemtobe.Thisisoneexample ofhowfaronecanbemisledbymechanicallyapplying,inpost totalitariancircumstances,ideologicalmodelsfromanotherworld andanothertime. Ofcourse,oneneednotbeanadvocateofviolentrevolutiontoask whetheranappealtolegalitymakesanysenseatallwhenthelaws andparticularlythegenerallawsconcerninghumanrightsareno morethanafacade,anaspectoftheworldofappearances,amere game behind which lies total manipulation. They can ratify anything because they will still go ahead and do whatever they wantanywaythisisanopinionweoftenencounter.Isitnottrue thatconstantlytotakethemattheirword,toappealtolawsevery childknowsarebindingonlyaslongasthegovernmentwishes,is intheendjustakindofhypocrisy,a vejkianobstructionismand, finally,justanotherwayofplayingthegame,anotherformofself delusion?Inotherwords,isthelegalisticapproachatallcompatible withtheprincipleoflivingwithinthetruth? Thisquestioncanonlybeansweredbyfirstlookingatthewider implicationsofhowthelegalcodefunctionsintheposttotalitarian system. Inaclassicaldictatorship,toafargreaterextentthaninthepost totalitariansystem,thewilloftheruleriscarriedoutdirectly,inan unregulated fashion. A dictatorship has no reason to hide its foundations, nor to conceal the real workings of power, and thereforeitneednotencumberitselftoanygreatextentwithalegal code. The posttotalitarian system, on the other hand, is utterly obsessedwiththeneedtobindeverythinginasingleorder:lifein such a state is thoroughly permeated by a dense network of regulations,proclamations,directives,norms,orders,andrules.(It isnotcalledabureaucraticsystemwithoutgoodreason.)Alarge proportion of those norms function as direct instruments of the complexmanipulationoflifethatisintrinsictotheposttotalitarian system.Individualsarereducedtolittlemorethantinycogsinan enormous mechanism and their significance is limited to their function in this mechanism. Their job, housing accommodation, movements, social and cultural expressions, everything, in short, must be cosseted together as firmly as possible, predetermined, regulated, and controlled. Every aberration from the prescribed courseoflifeistreatedaserror,license,andanarchy.Fromthecook in the restaurant who, without hardtoget permission from the bureaucratic apparatus, cannot cook something special for his customers, to the singer who cannot perform his new song at a concertwithoutbureaucraticapproval,everyone,inallaspectsof 46

their life, is caught in this regulatory tangle of red tape, the inevitable product of the posttotalitarian system. With ever increasingconsistency,itbindsalltheexpressionsandaimsoflife tothespiritofitsownaims:thevestedinterestsofitsownsmooth, automaticoperation. In a narrower sense the legal code serves the posttotalitarian systeminthisdirectwayaswell,thatis,ittooformsapartofthe worldofregulationsandprohibitions.Atthesametime,however,it performsthesameserviceinanotherindirectway,onethatbringsit remarkablycloserdependingonwhichlevelofthelawisinvolved toideologyandinsomecasesmakesitadirectcomponentofthat ideology. 1. Like ideology, the legal code functions as an excuse. It wrapsthebaseexerciseofpowerinthenobleapparelofthe letterofthelaw;itcreatesthepleasingillusionthatjusticeis done, society protected, and the exercise of power objectively regulated. All this is done to conceal the real essence of posttotalitarian legal practice: the total manipulationofsociety.Ifanoutsideobserverwhoknew nothing at all about life in Czechoslovakia were to study onlyitslaws,hewouldbeutterlyincapableofunderstanding what we were complaining about. The hidden political manipulation of the courts and of public prosecutors, the limitationsplacedonlawyers'abilitytodefendtheirclients, theclosednature,defacto,oftrials,thearbitraryactionsof the security forces, their position of authority over the judiciary, the absurdly broad application of several deliberatelyvaguesectionsofthatcode,andofcoursethe state'sutterdisregardforthepositivesectionsofthatcode (therightsofcitizens):allofthiswouldremainhiddenfrom ouroutsideobserver.Theonlythinghewouldtakeaway wouldbe theimpression that ourlegal codeis not much worsethanthelegalcodeofothercivilizedcountries,and not much different either, except perhaps for certain curiosities,suchastheentrenchmentintheconstitutionofa singlepoliticalparty'seternalruleandthestate'slovefora neighboringsuperpower. Butthatisnotall:ifourobserverhadtheopportunitytostudythe formalsideofthepolicingandjudicialproceduresandpractices, howtheylookonpaper,hewoulddiscoverthatforthemostpart thecommonrulesofcriminalprocedureareobserved:chargesare laidwithintheprescribedperiodfollowingarrest,anditisthesame with detention orders. Indictments are properly delivered, the accusedhasalawyer,andsoon.Inotherwords,everyonehasan excuse:theyhaveallobservedthelaw.Inreality,however,they 47

havecruellyandpointlesslyruinedayoungperson'slife,perhaps for no other reason than because he made samizdat copies of a novelwrittenbyabannedwriter,orbecausethepolicedeliberately falsified their testimony (as everyone knows, from the judge on downtothedefendant). Yetallofthissomehow remains inthe background.Thefalsifiedtestimonyisnotnecessarilyobviousfrom thetrialdocumentsandthesectionoftheCriminalCodedealing withincitementdoesnotformallyexcludetheapplicationofthat chargetothecopyingofabannednovel.Inotherwords,thelegal codeatleastinseveralareasisnomorethanafacade,anaspect oftheworldofappearances.Thenwhyisitthereatall?Forexactly thesamereasonasideologyisthere:itprovidesabridgeofexcuses betweenthesystemandindividuals,makingiteasierforthemto enterthepowerstructureandservethearbitrarydemandsofpower. Theexcuseletsindividualsfoolthemselvesintothinkingtheyare merely upholding the law and protecting society from criminals. (Withoutthisexcuse,howmuchmoredifficultitwouldbetorecruit new generations ofjudges, prosecutors, and interrogators!) As an aspect of the world of appearances, however, the legal code deceives not only the conscience of prosecutors, it deceives the public,itdeceivesforeignobservers,anditevendeceiveshistory itself. 1. Likeideology,thelegalcodeisanessentialinstrumentof ritualcommunicationoutsidethepowerstructure.Itisthe legal code that gives the exercise of power a form, a framework,asetofrules.Itisthelegalcodethatenablesall components of the system to communicate, to put themselvesinagoodlight,toestablishtheirownlegitimacy. Itprovidestheirwhole gamewithits rulesandengineers withtheirtechnology.Cantheexerciseofposttotalitarian power be imagined at all without this universal ritual making it all possible, serving as a common language to bind the relevant sectors ofthe power structure together? Themoreimportantthepositionoccupiedbytherepressive apparatusinthepowerstructure,themoreimportantthatit function according to some kind of formal code. How, otherwise, could people be so easily and inconspicuously lockedupforcopyingbannedbooksiftherewerenojudges, prosecutors, interrogators, defense lawyers, court stenographers,andthickfiles,andifallthiswerenotheld togetherbysomefirmorder?Andaboveall,withoutthat innocentlookingSectionrooonincitement?Thiscouldall bedone,ofcourse,withoutalegalcodeanditsaccessories, butonlyinsomeephemeraldictatorshiprunbyaUgandan bandit,notinasystemthatembracessuchahugeportionof 48

civilizedhumankindandrepresentsanintegral,stable,and respectedpartofthemodernworld.Thatwouldnotonlybe unthinkable, it would quite simply be technically impossible.Withoutthelegalcodefunctioningasaritually cohesiveforce,theposttotalitariansystemcouldnotexist. The entire role of ritual, facades, and excuses appears most eloquently, ofcourse,notintheproscriptivesectionofthelegal code, which sets out what a citizen may not do and what the groundsforprosecutionare,butinthesectiondeclaringwhathe maydoandwhathisorherrightsare.Herethereistrulynothing but words,words,words. Yeteventhatpartofthecodeisof immenseimportancetothesystem,foritisherethatthesystem establishesitslegitimacyasawhole,beforeitsowncitizens,before schoolchildren,beforetheinternationalpublic,andbeforehistory. Thesystemcannotaffordtodisregardthisbecauseitcannotpermit itselftocastdoubtuponthefundamentalpostulatesofitsideology, whicharesoessentialtoitsveryexistence.(Wehavealreadyseen howthepowerstructureisenslavedbyitsownideologyandits ideologicalprestige.)Todothiswouldbetodenyeverythingittries topresentitselfasand,thus,oneofthemainpillarsonwhichthe, systemrestswouldbeundermined: theintegrity oftheworldof appearances. If the exercise of power circulates through the whole power structureasbloodflowsthroughveins,thenthelegalcodecanbe understoodassomethingthatreinforces thewallsofthoseveins. Withoutit,thebloodofpowercouldnotcirculateinanorganized wayandthebodyofsocietywouldhemorrhageatrandom.Order wouldcollapse. Apersistentandneverendingappealtothelawsnotjusttothe lawsconcerninghumanrights,buttoalllawsdoesnotmeanatall thatthosewhodosohavesuccumbedtotheillusionthatinour system the law is anything other than what it is. They are well awareoftheroleitplays.Butpreciselybecausetheyknowhow desperatelythesystemdependsonitonthe nobleversionofthe law, that is they also know how enormously significant such appealsare.Becausethesystemcannotdowithoutthelaw,because itishopelesslytieddownbythenecessityofpretendingthelaws areobserved,itiscompelledtoreactinsomewaytosuchappeals. Demandingthatthelawsbeupheldisthusanactoflivingwithin thetruththatthreatensthewholemendaciousstructureatitspoint ofmaximummendacity.Overandoveragain,suchappealsmake thepurelyritualisticnatureofthelawcleartosocietyandtothose whoinhabit its powerstructures. They draw attention to its real materialsubstanceandthus,indirectly,compelallthosewhotake refugebehindthelawtoaffirmandmakecrediblethisagencyof 49

excuses, this means ofcommunication, this reinforcement of the social arteries outside of which their will could not be made to circulatethroughsociety.Theyarecompelledtodosoforthesake of their own consciences, for the impression they make on outsiders,tomaintainthemselvesinpower(aspartofthesystem's own mechanism of self preservation and its principles of cohesion),orsimplyoutoffearthattheywillbereproachedfor being clumsyin handling Iheritual. They havenoother choice: becausetheycannotdiscardtherulesoftheirowngame,theycan onlyattendmorecarefullytothoserules.Nottoreacttochallenges means to undermine their own excuse and lose control of their mutualcommunicationssystem.Toassumethatthelawsareamere facade,thattheyhavenovalidity,andthatthereforeitispointlessto appealtothemwouldmeantogoonreinforcingthoseaspectsofthe lawthatcreatethefacadeandtheritual.Itwouldmeanconfirming thelawasanaspectoftheworldofappearancesandenablingthose whoexploitittoresteasywiththecheapest(andthereforethemost mendacious)formoftheirexcuse. Ihavefrequentlywitnessedpolicemen,prosecutors,orjudgesif they were dealing with an experienced Chartist or a courageous lawyer,andiftheywereexposedtopublicattention(asindividuals withaname,nolongerprotectedbytheanonymityoftheapparatus) suddenlyandanxiouslybegintotakeparticularcarethatnocracks appear in the ritual. This does not alter the fact that a despotic power is hiding behind that ritual, but the very existence of the officials'anxietynecessarilyregulates,limits,andslowsdownthe operationofthatdespotism. This, of course, is not enough. But an essential part of the dissidentattitudeisthatitcomesoutoftherealityofthehuman here and now. It places more importance on often repeated and consistentconcreteactioneventhoughitmaybeinadequateand though it may ease only insignificantly the suffering of a single insignificant citizen than it does in some abstract fundamental solutioninanuncertainfuture.Inanycase,isnotthisinfactjust anotherformofsmallscaleworkintheMasarykiansense,with whichthe dissident attitudeseemedatfirsttobeinsuchsharp contradiction? Thissectionwouldbeincompletewithoutstressingcertaininternal limitationstothepolicyoftakingthemattheirownword.Thepoint isthis:eveninthemostidealofcases,thelawisonlyoneofseveral imperfectandmoreorlessexternalwaysofdefendingwhatisbetter inlifeagainstwhatisworse.Byitself,thelawcannevercreate anythingbetter.Itspurposeistorenderaserviceanditsmeaning doesnotlieinthelawitself.Establishingrespectforthelawdoes notautomaticallyensureabetterlifeforthat,afterall,isajobfor 50

peopleandnotforlawsandinstitutions.Itispossibletoimaginea societywithgoodlawsthatarefullyrespectedbutinwhichitis impossible to live. Conversely, one can imagine life being quite bearableevenwherethelawsareimperfectandimperfectlyapplied. The most important thing is always the quality of that life and whether or not the laws enhance life or repress it, not merely whethertheyareupheldornot.(Oftenstrictobservanceofthelaw couldhaveadisastrousimpactonhumandignity.)Thekeytoa humane,dignified,rich,andhappylifedoesnotlieeitherinthe constitutionorintheCriminalCode.Thesemerelyestablishwhat mayormaynotbedoneand,thus,theycanmakelifeeasierormore difficult.Theylimitorpermit,theypunish,tolerate,ordefend,but they can never give life substance or meaning. The struggle for what is called legality must constantly keep this legality in perspectiveagainstthebackgroundoflifeasitreallyis.Without keepingone'seyesopentotherealdimensionsoflife'sbeautyand misery,andwithoutamoralrelationshiptolife,thisstrugglewill soonerorlatercometogriefontherocksofsomeselfjustifying systemofscholastics.Withoutreallywantingto,onewouldthus becomemoreandmoreliketheobserverwhocomestoconclusions about our system only on the basis of trial documents and is satisfiedifalltheappropriateregulationshavebeenobserved. XVIII Isthebasicjobofthedissidentmovementsistoservetruth,that is,toservetherealaimsoflife,andifthatnecessarilydevelopsinto adefenseofindividualsandtheirrighttoafreeandtruthfullife (thatis,adefenseofhumanrightsandastruggletoseethelaws respected),thenanotherstageofthisapproach,perhapsthemost maturestagesofar,iswhatVclavBendacalledthedevelopment ofparallelstructures. Whenthosewhohavedecidedtolivewithinthetruthhavebeen deniedanydirectinfluenceontheexistingsocialstructures,notto mention the opportunity to participate in them, and when these peoplebegintocreatewhatIhavecalledtheindependentlifeof society,thisindependentlifebegins,ofitself,tobecomestructured in a certain way. Sometimes there are only very embryonic indications of this process of structuring; at other times, the structures are already quite well developed. Their genesis and evolutionareinseparablefromthephenomenonofdissent,even thoughtheyreachfarbeyondthearbitrarilydefinedareaofactivity usuallyindi~catedbythatterm. What are these structures? Ivan Jirous was the first in Czechoslovakiatoformulateandapplyinpracticetheconceptofa second culture. Although at first he was thinking chiefly of 51

nonconformist rock music and only certain literary, artistic, or performanceeventsclosetothesensibilitiesofthosenonconformist musicalgroups,thetermsecondcultureveryrapidlycametobe usedforthewholeareaofindependentandrepressedculture,that is, not only for art and its various currents but also for the humanities, the social sciences, and philosophical thought. This second culture, quite naturally, has created elementary organizational forms: samizdat editions of books and magazines, privateperformancesandconcerts,seminars,exhibitions,andsoon. (In Poland all of this is vastly more developed: there are independent publishing houses and many more periodicals, even political periodicals; they have means of proliferation other than carboncopies,andsoon.IntheSovietUnion,samisdathasalonger tradition and clearly its forms are quite different.) Culture, therefore, is a sphere in which the parallel structures can be observedintheirmosthighlydevelopedform.Benda,ofcourse, givesthoughttopotentialorembryonicformsofsuchstructuresin other spheres as well: from a parallel information network to parallel forms of education (private universities), parallel trade unions, parallel foreign contacts, to a kind of hypothesis on a paralleleconomy.Onthebasisoftheseparallelstructures,hethen developsthenotionofaparallelpolisorstateor,rather,hesees therudimentsofsuchapolisinthesestructures. Atacertainstageinitsdevelopment,theindependentlifeofsociety andthe dissident movementscannotavoidacertainamountof organizationandinstitutionalization.Thisisanaturaldevelopment, and unless this independent life of society is somehow radically suppressedandeliminated,thetendencywillgrow.Alongwithit,a parallelpoliticallifewillalsonecessarilyevolve,andtoacertain extentitexistsalreadyinCzechoslovakia.Variousgroupingsofa more or less political nature will continue to define themselves politically,toactandconfronteachother. These parallel structures, it may be said, represent the most articulatedexpressionssofaroflivingwithinthetruth.Oneofthe most important tasks the dissident movements have set themselvesistosupportanddevelopthem.Onceagain,itconfirms the fact that all attempts bysociety to resist the pressureof the systemhavetheiressentialbeginningsinthe prepolitical area. Forwhatelseareparallelstructuresthananareawhereadifferent lifecanbelived,alifethatisinharmonywithitsownaimsand whichinturnstructuresitselfinharmonywiththoseaims?What elsearethoseinitialattempts atsocialselforganizationthanthe effortsofacertainpartofsocietytoliveasasocietywithinthe truth,toriditselfoftheselfsustainingaspects oftotalitarianism and,thus,toextricateitselfradicallyfromitsinvolvementinthe 52

posttotalitariansystem?Whatelseisitbutanonviolentattemptby peopletonegatethesystemwithinthemselvesandtoestablishtheir livesonanewbasis,thatoftheirownproperidentity?Anddoes thistendencynotconfirmoncemoretheprincipleofreturningthe focustoactualindividuals?Afterall,theparallelstructuresdonot growapriorioutofatheoreticalvisionofsystemicchanges(there arenopoliticalsectsinvolved),butfromtheaimsoflifeandthe authenticneedsofrealpeople.Infact,alleventualchangesinthe system,changeswemayobservehereintheirrudimentaryforms, havecomeaboutasitwere defacto,from below, becauselife compelled themto,notbecausetheycamebeforelife, somehow directingitorforcingsomechangeonit. Anhistoricalexperienceteachesusthatanygenuinelymeaningful pointofdepartureinanindividual'slifeusuallyhasanelementof universality about it. In other words, it is not something partial, accessibleonlytoarestrictedcommunity,andnottransferableto any other. On the contrary, it must be potentially accessible to everyone;itmustforeshadowageneralsolutionand,thus,itisnot justtheexpressionofanintroverted,selfcontainedresponsibility thatindividualshavetoandforthemselvesalone,butresponsibility toandfortheworld.Thusitwouldbequitewrongtounderstandthe parallelstructuresandtheparallelpolisasaretreatintoaghettoand asanactofisolation,addressingitselfonlytothewelfareofthose whohaddecidedonsuchacourse,andwhoareindifferenttothe rest.Itwouldbewrong,inshort,toconsideritanessentiallygroup solutionthathasnothingtodowiththegeneralsituation.Sucha conceptwould,fromthestart,alienatethenotionoflivingwithin thetruthfromitsproperpointofdeparture,whichisconcernfor others, transforming it ultimately into just another more sophisticatedversionoflivingwithinalie.Indoingso,ofcourse,it wouldceasetobeagenuinepointofdepartureforindividualsand groups and would recall the false notion of dissidents as an exclusive group with exclusive interests, carrying on their own exclusivedialoguewiththepowersthatbe.Inanycase,eventhe mosthighlydevelopedformsoflifeintheparallelstructures,even thatmostmatureformoftheparallelpoliscanonlyexistatleastin posttotalitariancircumstanceswhentheindividualisatthesame timelodgedinthefirst,officialstructurebyathousanddifferent relationships,eventhoughitmayonlybethefactthatonebuys whatoneneedsintheirstores,usestheirmoney,andobeystheir laws.Certainlyonecanimaginelifeinitsbaseraspectsflourishing intheparallelpolis,butwouldnotsuchalife,liveddeliberatelythat way,asaprogram,bemerelyanotherversionoftheschizophrenic life within a lie which everyone else must live in one way or another? Would it not just be further evidence that a point of 53

departure that is not a model solution, that is not applicable to others,cannotbemeaningfulforanindividualeither?Patokaused tosaythatthemostinterestingthingaboutresponsibilityisthatwe carryitwithuseverywhere.Thatmeansthatresponsibilityisours, thatwemustacceptitandgraspithere,now,inthisplaceintime andspacewheretheLordhassetusdown,andthatwecannotlie ourwayoutofitbymovingsomewhereelse,whetheritbetoan Indianashramortoaparallelpolis.IfWesternyoungpeopleso oftendiscoverthatretreattoanIndianmonasteryfailsthemasan individual orgroupsolution, thenthis is obviously because,and only because, it lacks that element of universality, since not everyonecanretiretoanashram.Christianityisanexampleofan oppositewayout:itisapointofdepartureformehereandnow but only because anyone, anywhere, at any time, may avail themselvesofit. Inotherwords,theparallelpolispointsbeyonditselfandmakes senseonlyasanactofdeepeningone'sresponsibilitytoandforthe whole,asawayofdiscoveringthemostappropriatelocusforthis responsibility,notasanescapefromit. XIX Ihavealreadytalkedaboutthepoliticalpotentialoflivingwithin the truth and of the limitations on predicting whether, how, and whenagivenexpressionofthatlifewithinthetruthcanleadto actual changes. I have also mentioned how irrelevant trying to calculate the risks in this regard are, for an essential feature of independentinitiativesisthattheyarealways,initiallyatleast,an allornothinggamble. Nevertheless,thisoutlineofsomeoftheworkdoneby dissident movementswouldbeincompletewithoutconsidering,ifonlyvery generally,someofthedifferentwaysthisworkmightactuallyaffect society;inotherwords,aboutthewaysthatresponsibilitytoandfor the whole might (without necessarily meaning that it must) be realizedinpractice. Inthefirstplace,ithastobeemphasized thatthewholesphere comprisingtheindependentlifeofsociety,andevenmoresothe dissidentmovementassuch,isnaturallyfarfrombeingtheonly potentialfactorthatmightinfluencethehistoryofcountriesliving undertheposttotalitariansystem.Thelatentsocialcrisisinsuch societies can at any time, independently of these movements, provoke a wide variety of political changes. It may unsettle the power structure and induce or accelerate various hidden confrontations, resulting in personnel, conceptual, or at least climactic changes. It may significantly influence the general atmosphereoflife,evokeunexpectedandunforeseensocialunrest 54

andexplosionsofdiscontent.Powershiftsatthecenterofthebloc caninfluenceconditionsinthedifferentcountriesinvariousways. Economic factors naturally have an important influence, as do broadertrendsofglobalcivilization.Anextremelyimportantarea, whichcouldbeasourceofradicalchangesandpoliticalupsets,is represented by international politics, the policies adopted by the othersuperpowerandalltheothercountries,thechangingstructure ofinternationalinterestsandthepositionstakenbyourbloc.Even the people who end up in the highest positions are not without significance, although as I have already said, one ought not overestimate the importance of leading personalities in the post totalitarian system. There are many such influences and combinationsofinfluence,andtheeventualpoliticalimpactofthe dissident movement is thinkable only against this general backgroundandinthecontextthatthisbackgroundprovides.That impact is only one of the many factors (and far from the most importantone)thataffectpoliticaldevelopments,anditdiffersfrom theotherfactorsperhapsonlyinthatitsessentialfocusisreflecting uponthatpoliticaldevelopmentfromthepointofviewofadefense ofpeopleandseekinganimmediateapplicationofthatreflection. Theprimarypurposeoftheoutwarddirectionofthesemovements isalways,aswehaveseen,tohaveanimpactonsociety,notto affect the powerstructure, at least not directly and immediately. Independentinitiativesaddressthehiddensphere;theydemonstrate thatlivingwithinthetruthisahumanandsocialalternativeand theystruggletoexpandthespaceavailableforthatlife;theyhelp eventhoughitis,ofcourse,indirecthelptoraisetheconfidenceof citizens;theyshattertheworldofappearancesandunmaskthereal natureofpower.Theydonotassumeamessianicrole;theyarenot asocialavantgardeorelitethataloneknowsbest,andwhosetaskit isto raisetheconsciousnessofthe unconscious masses(that arrogant selfprojection is, once again, intrinsic to an essentially differentwayofthinking,thekindthatfeelsithasapatentonsome ideal project and therefore that it has the right to impose it on society).Nordotheywanttoleadanyone.Theyleaveituptoeach individual to decide what he will or will not take from their experience and work. (If official Czechoslovak propaganda describedtheChartistsasselfappointees,itwasnotinorderto emphasizeanyrealavantgardeambitionsontheirpart,butrathera naturalexpressionofhowtheregimethinks,itstendencytojudge othersaccordingtoitself,sincebehindanyexpressionofcriticismit automaticallyseesthedesiretocastthemightyfromtheirseatsand ruleintheirplacesinthenameofthepeople,thesamepretextthe regimeitselfhasusedforyears.)

55

Thesemovements,therefore,alwaysaffectthepowerstructureas such indirectly, as a part of society as a whole, for they are primarilyaddressingthehiddenspheresofsociety,sinceitisnota matterofconfrontingtheregimeonthelevelofactualpower. I have already indicated one of the ways this can work: an awarenessofthelawsandtheresponsibilityforseeingthattheyare upheldisindirectlystrengthened.That,ofcourse,isonlyaspecific instanceofafarbroaderinfluence,theindirectpressurefeltfrom living within the truth: the pressure created by free thought, alternative values and alternative behavior, and by independent socialselfrealization.Thepowerstructure,whetheritwantstoor not, must always react to this pressure to a certain extent. Its response,however,isalwayslimitedtotwodimensions:repression andadaptation.Sometimesonedominates,sometimestheother.For example, the Polish flying university came under increased persecutionandtheflyingteachersweredetainedbythepolice. At the same time, however, professors in existing official universitiestriedtoenrichtheirowncurriculawithseveralsubjects hithertoconsideredtabooandthiswasaresultofindirectpressure exertedbythe flyinguniversity.Themotivesforthisadaptation may vary from the ideal (the hidden sphere has received the messageandconscienceandthewilltotruthareawakened)tothe purely utilitarian: the regime's instinct for survival compels it to notice the changing ideas and the changing mental and social climate and to react flexibly to them. Which of these motives happenstopredominateinagivenmomentisnotessentialinterms ofthefinaleffect. Adaptationisthepositivedimensionoftheregime'sresponse,andit can,andusuallydoes,haveawidespectrumofformsandphases. Some circles may try to integrate values of people from the parallelworldintotheofficialstructures,toappropriatethem,to becomealittle likethemwhiletryingtomakethemalittle like themselves,andthustoadjustanobviousanduntenableimbalance. Inthe1960s,progressivecommunistsbeganto discover certain unacknowledged cultural values and phenomena. This was a positive step, although not without its dangers, since the integrated or appropriated values lost something of their independence and originality, and having been given a cloak of officiality and conformity, their credibility was somewhat weakened.Inafurtherphase,thisadaptationcanleadtovarious attempts on the part of the official structures to reform, both in terms of their ultimate goals and structurally. Such reforms are usually halfway measures; they are attempts to combine and realisticallycoordinateservinglifeandservingtheposttotalitarian automatism.Buttheycannotbeotherwise.Theymuddywhatwas 56

originallyacleardemarcationlinebetweenlivingwithinthetruth andlivingwithalie.Theycastasmokescreenoverthesituation, mystify society, and make it difficult for people to keep their bearings.This,ofcourse,doesnotalterthefactthatitisalways essentiallygoodwhenithappensbecauseitopensoutnewspaces. But it does make it more difficult to distinguish between admissibleandinadmissiblecompromises. Anotherandhigherphaseofadaptationisaprocessofinternal differentiation that takes place in the official structures. These structuresopenthemselvestomoreorlessinstitutionalizedformsof plurality becausetherealaims oflifedemand it.(Oneexample: withoutchangingthecentralizedandinstitutionalbasisofcultural life, new publishing houses, group periodicals, artists' groups, parallelresearchinstitutesandworkplaces,andsoon,mayappear under pressure from below. Or another example: the single, monolithic youthorganization runbythestateasatypical post totalitarian transmissionbelt disintegratesunderthepressureof realneedsintoanumberofmoreorlessindependentorganizations suchastheUnionofUniversityStudents,theUnionofSecondary SchoolStudents,theOrganizationofWorkingYouth,andsoon.) Thereisadirectrelationshipbetweenthiskindofdifferentiation, whichallowsinitiativesfrombelowtobefelt,andtheappearance and constitution of new structures which are already parallel, or ratherindependent,butwhichatthesametimearerespected,orat leasttoleratedinvaryingdegrees,byofficialinstitutions.Thesenew institutionsaremorethanjustliberalizedofficialstructuresadapted totheauthenticneedsoflife;theyareadirectexpressionofthose needs,demandingapositioninthecontextofwhatisalreadyhere. In other words, they are genuine expressions of the tendency of society to organize itself. (In Czechoslovakia in 1968 the best known organizations of this type were KAN, the Club of CommittedNonCommunists,andK231,anorganizationofformer politicalprisoners.) The ultimate phase of this process is the situation in which the official structures as agencies of the posttotalitarian system, existingonlytoserveitsautomatismandconstructedinthespiritof that role simply begin withering away and dying off, to be replacedbynewstructuresthathaveevolvedfrombelowandare puttogetherinafundamentallydifferentway. Certainlymanyotherwaysmaybeimaginedinwhichtheaimsof life can bring about political transformations in the general organization of things and weaken on all levels the hold that techniquesofmanipulationhaveonsociety.HereIhavementioned onlythewayinwhichthegeneralorganizationofthingswasinfact changedasweexperienceditourselvesinCzechoslovakiaaround 57

1968.Itmustbeaddedthatalltheseconcreteinstanceswerepartof aspecifichistoricalprocesswhichoughtnotbethoughtofasthe onlyalternative,norasnecessarilyrepeatable(particularlynotin ourcountry),afactwhich,ofcourse,takesnothingawayfromthe importanceofthegenerallessonswhicharestillsoughtandfound inittothisday. While on the subject of 1968 in Czechoslovakia, it may be appropriate to point to some of the characteristic aspects of developments at that time. All the transformations, first in the generalmood,thenconceptually,andfinallystructurally,didnot occurunderpressurefromthekindofparallelstructuresthatare taking shape today. Such structures which are sharply defined antithesesoftheofficialstructuresquitesimplydidnotexistatthe time,norwerethereany dissidents inthepresentsenseofthe word.Thechangesthattookplaceweresimplyaconsequenceof pressures of the most varied sort, some thorough going, some partial.Therewerespontaneousattemptsatfreerformsofthinking, independent creation, and political articulation. There were long term, spontaneous, and inconspicuous efforts to bring about the interpenetrationoftheindependentlifeofsocietywiththeexisting structures,usuallybeginningwiththequietinstitutionalization of thislifeonandaroundtheperipheryoftheofficialstructures.In otherwords,itwasagradualprocessofsocialawakening,akindof creepingprocessinwhichthehiddenspheresgraduallyopenedout. (Thereissometruthintheofficialpropagandawhichtalksabouta creepingcounterrevolution inCzechoslovakia,referringtohow theaimsoflifeproceed.)Themotiveforcebehindthisawakening did not have to come exclusively from the independent life of society,consideredasadefinablesocialmilieu(althoughofcourse itdidcomefromthere,afactthathasyettobefullyappreciated).It couldalsosimplyhavecomefromthefactthatpeopleintheofficial structures who more or less identified with the official ideology cameupagainstrealityasitreallywasandasitgraduallybecame clear to them through latent social crises and their own bitter experiences with the true nature and operations of power.(I am thinkingheremainlyofthemanyantidogmaticreformcommunists who grew to become, over the years, a force inside the official structures.) Neither the proper conditions nor the raison d'tre existedforthoselimited,selfstructuringindependentinitiatives familiarfromthepresenteraof dissident movementsthatstand sosharplyoutsidetheofficialstructuresandareunrecognizedby them en bloc. At that time, the posttotalitarian system in Czechoslovakia had not yet petrified into the static, sterile, and stableformsthatexisttoday,formsthatcompelpeopletofallback ontheirownorganizingcapabilities.Formanyhistoricalandsocial 58

reasons,theregimein1968wasmoreopen.Thepowerstructure, exhaustedbyStalinistdespotismandhelplesslygropingaboutfor painlessreform,wasinevitablyrottingfromwithin,quiteincapable ofofferinganyintelligentoppositiontochangesinthemood,tothe wayitsyoungermembersregardedthingsandtothethousandsof authenticexpressionsoflifeonthe prepoliticallevelthatsprang up in that vast political terrain between the official and the unofficial. From the more general point of view, yet another typical circumstanceappearstobeimportant:thesocialfermentthatcame toaheadin1968neverintermsofactualstructuralchanges went any further than the reform, the differentiation, or the replacement of structures that were really only of secondary importance.Itdidnotaffecttheveryessenceofthepowerstructure intheposttotalitariansystem,whichistosayitspoliticalmodel, the fundamental principles of social organization, not even the economicmodelinwhichalleconomicpowerissubordinatedto politicalpower.Norwereanyessentialstructuralchangesmadein thedirectinstrumentsofpower(thearmy,thepolice,thejudiciary, etc.).Onthatlevel,theissuewasnevermorethanachangeinthe mood,thepersonnel,thepolitical line and,aboveall changes in how that power was exercised. Everything else remained at the stage of discussion and planning. The two officially accepted programs that went furthest in this regard were the April 1968 ActionProgramoftheCommunistPartyofCzechoslovakiaandthe proposalforeconomicreforms.TheActionProgramitcouldnot have been otherwise was full of contradictions and halfway measuresthatleftthephysicalaspectsofpoweruntouched.Andthe economicproposals,whiletheywentalongwaytoaccommodate theaimsoflifeintheeconomicsphere(theyacceptedsuchnotions as a plurality of interests and initiatives, dynamic incentives, restrictions upontheeconomiccommand system),leftuntouched thebasicpillarofeconomicpower,thatis,theprincipleofstate, ratherthangenuinesocialownershipofthemeansofproduction.So thereisagapherewhichnosocialmovementintheposttotalitarian systemhaseverbeenabletobridge,withthepossibleexceptionof thosefewdaysduringtheHungarianuprising. Whatotherdevelopmentalalternativemightemergeinthefuture? Replyingtothatquestionwouldmeanenteringtherealmofpure speculation.Forthetimebeing,itcanbesaidthatthelatentsocial crisisinthesystemhasalways(andthereisnoreasontobelieveit will notcontinue to doso)resulted in avariety ofpolitical and socialdisturbances.(Germanyin1953,Hungary,theU.S.S.R.and Polandin1956,CzechoslovakiaandPolandin1968,andPolandin 1970and1976),allofthemverydifferentintheirbackgrounds,the 59

courseoftheirevolution,andtheirfinalconsequences.Ifwelookat the enormous complex of different factors that led to such disturbances,andattheimpossibilityofpredictingwhataccidental accumulationofeventswillcausethatfermentationinthehidden sphere to break through to the light of day (the problem of the finalstraw);andifweconsiderhowimpossibleitistoguess whatthefutureholds,givensuchopposingtrendsas,ontheone hand,theincreasinglyprofoundintegrationofthe bloc andthe expansionofpowerwithinit,andontheotherhandtheprospectsof theU.S.S.R.disintegratingunderpressurefromawakeningnational consciousnessinthenonRussianareas(inthisregardtheSoviet Union cannot expect to remain forever free of the worldwide strugglefornationalliberation),thenwemustseethehopelessness oftryingtomakelongrangepredictions. Inanycase,Idonotbelievethatthistypeofspeculationhasany immediatesignificanceforthe dissident movementssincethese movements,afterall,donotdevelopfromspeculativethinking,and so to establish themselves on that basis would mean alienating themselvesfromtheverysourceoftheiridentity. Asfarasprospectsforthedissidentmovementsassuchgo,there seemstobeverylittlelikelihoodthatfuturedevelopmentswilllead toalastingcoexistenceoftwoisolated, mutually noninteracting and mutually indifferent bodies, the main polis and the parallel polis.Aslongasitremainswhatitis,thepracticeoflivingwithin the truth cannot fail to be a threat to the system. It is quite impossibletoimagineitcontinuingtocoexistwiththepracticeof livingwithinaliewithoutdramatictension.Therelationshipofthe posttotalitariansystemaslongasitremainswhatitisandthe independentlifeofsocietyaslongasitremainsthelocusofa renewedresponsibilityforthewholeandtothewholewillalways beoneofeitherlatentoropenconflict. In this situation there are only two possibilities: either the post totalitariansystemwillgoondeveloping(thatis,willbeabletogo on developing), thus inevitably coming closer to some dreadful Orwellianvisionofaworldofabsolutemanipulation,whileallthe morearticulateexpressionsoflivingwithinthetrutharedefinitely snuffedout;ortheindependentlifeofsociety(theparallelpolis), including the dissident movements, will slowly but surely becomeasocialphenomenonofgrowingimportance,takingareal partinthelifeofsocietywithincreasingclarityandinfluencingthe generalsituation.Ofcoursethiswillalwaysbeonlyoneofmany factors influencing the situation and it will operate rather in the background, in concert with the other factors and in a way appropriatetothebackground. 60

Whetheritoughttofocusonreformingtheofficialstructuresoron encouraging differentiation, or on replacing them with new structures,whethertheintentistoamelioratethesystemor,onthe contrary,totearitdown:theseandsimilarquestions,insofarasthey are not pseudoproblems, can be posed by the dissident movementonlywithinthecontextofaparticularsituation,when themovementisfacedwithaconcretetask.Inotherwords,itmust posequestions,asitwere,adhoc,outofaconcreteconsiderationof theauthenticneedsoflife.Toreplytosuchquestionsabstractlyand to formulate a political program in terms of some hypothetical futurewouldmean,Ibelieve,areturntothespiritandmethodsof traditionalpolitics,andthiswouldlimitandalienatetheworkof dissent where it is most intrinsically itself and has the most genuineprospectsforthefuture.Ihavealreadyemphasizedseveral timesthatthese dissidentmovementsdonothavetheirpointof departure in the invention of systemic changes but in a real, everydaystruggleforabetterlifehereandnow.Thepoliticaland structuralsystemsthatlifediscoversforitselfwillclearlyalwaysbe forsometimetocome,atleastlimited,halfway,unsatisfying, andpollutedbydebilitatingtactics.Itcannotbeotherwise,andwe must expect this and not be demoralized by it. It is of great importancethatthemainthingtheeveryday,thankless,andnever endingstruggleofhumanbeingstolivemorefreely,truthfully,and in quiet dignity never impose any limits on itself, never be halfhearted, inconsistent, never trap itself in political tactics, speculatingontheoutcomeofitsactionsorentertainingfantasies aboutthefuture.Thepurityofthisstruggleisthebestguaranteeof optimumresultswhenitcomestoactualinteractionwiththepost totalitarianstructures. XX The specific nature of posttotalitarian conditions with their absenceofanormalpoliticallifeandthefactthatanyfarreaching politicalchangeisutterlyunforeseeablehasonepositiveaspect:it compels us to examine our situation in terms of its deeper coherencesandtoconsiderourfutureinthecontextofglobal,long rangeprospectsoftheworldofwhichweareapart.Thefactthat themostintrinsicandfundamentalconfrontationbetweenhuman beings andthesystem takes place at alevel incomparably more profoundthanthatoftraditionalpoliticswouldseem,atthesame time, to determine as well the direction such considerations will take. Our attention, therefore, inevitably turns to the most essential matter:thecrisisofcontemporarytechnologicalsocietyasawhole, thecrisis that Heidegger describes astheineptitude ofhumanity 61

facetofacewiththeplanetarypoweroftechnology.Technology thatchildofmodernscience,whichinturnisachildofmodern metaphysicsisoutofhumanity'scontrol,hasceasedtoserveus, hasenslavedusandcompelledustoparticipateinthepreparationof ourowndestruction.Andhumanitycanfindnowayout:wehave no idea and no faith, and even less do we have a political conceptiontohelpusbringthingsbackunderhumancontrol.We look on helplessly as that coldly functioning machine we have created inevitably engulfs us, tearing us away from our natural affiliations(forinstance,fromourhabitatinthewidestsenseofthat word,includingourhabitatinthebiosphere)justasitremovesus from the experience of Being and casts us into the world of existences.Thissituationhasalreadybeendescribedfrommany different angles and many individuals and social groups have sought,oftenpainfully,tofindwaysoutofit(forinstance,through oriental thought or by forming communes). The only social, or ratherpolitical,attempttodosomethingaboutitthatcontainsthe necessary element of universality (responsibility to and for the whole)isthedesperateand,giventheturmoiltheworldisin,fading voiceoftheecologicalmovement,andeventheretheattempt is limitedtoaparticularnotionofhowtousetechnologytoopposethe dictatorshipoftechnology. OnlyaGodcansaveusnow, Heideggersays,andheemphasizes thenecessityofadifferentwayofthinking,thatis,ofadeparture fromwhatphilosophyhasbeenforcenturies,andaradicalchange inthewayinwhichhumanityunderstandsitself,theworld,andits positioninit.Heknowsnowayoutandallhecanrecommendis preparingexpectations. Variousthinkersandmovementsfeelthatthisasyetunknownway outmightbemostgenerallycharacterizedasabroad existential revolution: Isharethisview,andIalsoshareIheopinionthata solutioncannotbesoughtinsometechnological sleightofhand, thatis,insomeexternalproposalforchange,orinarevolutionthat is merely philosophical, merely social, merely technological, or evenmerelypolitical.Theseareallareaswheretheconsequencesof an existential revolution can and must be felt; but their most intrinsiclocuscanonlybehumanexistenceintheprofoundestsense oftheword.Itisonlyfromthatbasisthatitcanbecomeagenerally ethical and, of course, ultimately a political reconstitution of society. Whatwecalltheconsumerandindustrial(orpostindustrial)society, andOrtegayGassetonceunderstoodastherevoltofthemasses, aswellastheintellectual,moral,political,andsocialmiseryinthe worldtoday:allofthisisperhapsmerelyanaspectofthedeepcrisis 62

inwhichhumanity,draggedhelplesslyalongbytheautomatismof globaltechnologicalcivilization,findsitself. The posttotalitarian system is only one aspect a particularly drasticaspectandthusallthemorerevealingofitsrealoriginsof thisgeneralinabilityofmodernhumanitytobethemasterofits own situation. The automatism of the posttotalitarian system is merely an extreme version of the global automatism of technologicalcivilization.Thehumanfailurethatitmirrorsisonly onevariantofIhegeneralfailureofmodernhumanity. This planetary challenge to the position of human beings in the worldis,ofcourse,alsotakingplaceintheWesternworld,theonly differencebeingthesocialandpoliticalformsittakes.Heidegger refersexpresslytoacrisisofdemocracy.Thereisnorealevidence that Western democracy, that is, democracy of the traditional parliamentarytype,canoffersolutionsthatareanymoreprofound. Itmayevenbesaidthat themoreroomthereis intheWestern democracies(comparedtoourworld)forthegenuineaimsoflife, thebetterthecrisisishiddenfrompeopleandthemoredeeplydo theybecomeimmersedinit. Itwouldappearthatthetraditionalparliamentarydemocraciescan offernofundamentaloppositiontotheautomatismoftechnological civilizationandtheindustrialcousumersociety,forthey,too,are being dragged helplessly along by it. People are manipulated in ways that are infinitely more subtle and refined than the brutal methods used in the posttotalitarian societies. But this static complex of rigid, conceptually sloppy, and politically pragmatic masspoliticalpartiesrunbyprofessionalapparatusesandreleasing thecitizenfromallformsofconcreteandpersonalresponsibility; and those complex focuses of capital accumulation engaged in secretmanipulationsandexpansion;theomnipresentdictatorshipof consumption,production,advertising,commerce,consumerculture, andallthatfloodofinformation:allofit,sooftenanalyzedand described,canonlywithgreatdifficultybeimaginedasthesource of humanity's rediscovery of itself. In his June 1978 Harvard lecture,Solzhenitsyndescribestheillusorynatureoffreedomsnot based on personal responsibility and the chronic inability of the traditional democracies, as a result, to oppose violence and totalitarianism. In a democracy, human beings may enjoy many personalfreedomsandsecuritiesthatareunknowntous,butinthe endtheydothemnogood,fortheytooareultimatelyvictimsofthe same automatism, and are incapable of defending their concerns about their own identity or preventing their superficialization or transcendingconcernsabouttheirownpersonalsurvivaltobecome proud and responsible members of the polis, making a genuine contributiontothecreationofitsdestiny. 63

Becauseallourprospectsforasignificantchangeforthebetterare verylongrangeindeed,weareobligedtotakenoteofthisdeep crisisoftraditionaldemocracy.Certainly,ifconditionsweretobe created for democracy in some countries in the Soviet bloc (althoughthisisbecomingincreasinglyimprobable),itmightbean appropriate transitional solution that would help to restore the devastated sense of civic awareness, to renew democratic discussion,toallowforthecrystallizationofanelementarypolitical plurality,anessentialexpressionoftheaimsoflife.Buttoclingto thenotionoftraditionalparliamentarydemocracyasone'spolitical idealandtosuccumbtotheillusionthatonlythistriedandtrue formiscapableofguaranteeinghumanbeingsenduringdignityand anindependentroleinsocietywould,inmyopinion,beatthevery leastshortsighted. Iseearenewedfocusofpoliticsonrealpeopleassomethingfar moreprofoundthanmerelyreturningtotheeverydaymechanisms ofWestern(or,ifyoulike,bourgeois)democracy.In1968,Ifelt thatourproblemcouldbesolvedbyforminganoppositionparty thatwouldcompetepubliclyforpowerwiththeCommunistParty.I havelongsincecometorealize,however,thatitisjustnotthat simpleandthatnooppositionpartyinandofitself,justasnonew electoral laws in and of themselves, could make society proof against some new form of violence. No dry organizational measuresinthemselvescanprovidethatguarantee,andwewould behardpressedtofindinthemthatGodwhoalonecansaveus. XXI AndnowImayproperlybeaskedthequestion:Whatthenistobe done? Myskepticismtowardalternativepoliticalmodelsandtheabilityof systemicreformsorchangestoredeemusdoesnot,ofcourse,mean that I am skeptical of political thought altogether. Nor does my emphasis on the importance of focusing concern on real human beings disqualify me from considering the possible structural consequencesflowingfromit.Onthecontrary,ifAwassaid,then Bshouldbesaidaswell.Nevertheless,Iwillofferonlyafewvery generalremarks. Aboveall,anyexistentialrevolutionshouldprovidehopeofamoral reconstitution of society, which means a radical renewal of the relationship of human beings to what I have called the human order,whichnopoliticalordercanreplace.Anewexperienceof being,arenewedrootednessiutheuniverse,anewlygraspedsense of higher responsibility, a newfound inner relationship to other peopleandtothehumancommunitythesefactorsclearlyindicate thedirectioninwhichwemustgo. 64

And the political consequences? Most probably they could be reflectedintheconstitutionofstructuresthatwillderivefromthis new spirit, from human factors rather than from a particular formalization of political relationships and guarantees. In other words,theissueistherehabilitationofvaluesliketrust,openness, responsibility,solidarity,love.Ibelieveinstructuresthatarenot aimedatthetechnicalaspectoftheexecutionofpower,butatthe significanceofthatexecutioninstructuresheldtogethermorebya commonlysharedfeelingoftheimportanceofcertaincommunities thanbycommonlysharedexpansionistambitionsdirectedoutward. Therecanandmustbestructuresthatareopen,dynamic,andsmall; beyondacertainpoint,humantieslikepersonaltrustandpersonal responsibility cannot work. There must be structures that in principleplacenolimitsonthegenesisofdifferentstructures.Any accumulation of power whatsoever (one of the characteristics of automatism) should be profoundly alien to it. They would be structuresnotinthesenseoforganizationsorinstitutions,butlikea community. Their authority certainly cannot be based on long empty traditions, like the tradition of mass political parties, but ratheronhow,inconcreteterms,theyenterintoagivensituation. Ratherthanastrategicagglomerationofformalizedorganizations,it isbettertohaveorganizationsspringingupadhoc,infusedwith enthusiasm for a particular purpose and disappearing when that purposehasbeenachieved.Theleaders'authorityoughttoderive fromtheirpersonalitiesandbepersonallytestedintheirparticular surroundings, and not from their position in any nomenklatura. They should enjoy great personal confidence and even great lawmakingpowersbasedonthatconfidence.Thiswouldappearto be the only way out of the classic impotence of traditional democraticorganizations,whichfrequentlyseemfoundedmoreon mistrust than mutual confidence, and more on collective irresponsibility than on responsibility. It is only with the full existential backing of every member of the community that a permanent bulwark against creeping totalitarianism can be established.Thesestructuresshouldnaturallyarisefrombelowasa consequence of authentic social selforganization; they should derivevitalenergyfromalivingdialoguewiththegenuineneeds from which they arise, and when these needs are gone, the structures should also disappear. The principles of their internal organizationshouldbeverydiverse,withaminimumofexternal regulation.Thedecisivecriterionofthisselfconstitutionshouldbe thestructure'sactualsignificance,andnotjustamereabstractnorm. Bothpoliticalandeconomiclifeoughttobefoundedonthevaried and versatile cooperation of such dynamically appearing and disappearingorganizations.Asfarastheeconomiclifeofsociety 65

goes, I believe in the principle of selfmanagement, which is probably the only way of achieving what all the theorists of socialismhavedreamedabout,thatis,thegenuine(i.e.,informal) participationofworkersineconomicdecisionmaking,leadingtoa feeling of genuine responsibility for their collective work. The principlesofcontrolanddisciplineoughttobeabandonedinfavor ofselfcontrolandselfdiscipline. Asisperhapsclearfromevensogeneralanoutline,thesystemic consequences of an existential revolution of this type go significantly beyond the framework of classical parliamentary democracy.Havingintroducedthetermposttotalitarianforthe purposesofthisdiscussion,perhapsIshouldrefertothenotionI havejustoutlinedpurelyforthemomentastheprospectsfora postdemocraticsystem. Undoubtedlythisnotioncouldbedevelopedfurther,butIthinkit wouldbeafoolishundertaking,tosaytheleast,becauseslowlybut surely the whole idea would become alienated, separated from itself.Afterall,theessenceofsucha postdemocracyisalsothat itcanonlydevelopvia<i>facti</i>,asaprocessderivingdirectly from life, from a new atmosphere and a new spirit (political thought,ofcourse,wouldplayarolehere,thoughnotasadirector, merelyasaguide).Itwouldbepresumptuous,however,totryto foresee the structural expressions of this new spirit without that spirit actually being present and without knowing its concrete physiognomy. XXII Iwouldprobably haveomitted the entire preceding section as a moresuitablesubjectforprivatemeditationwereitnotforacertain recurringsensation.Itmayseemratherpresumptuous,andtherefore I will present it as a question: Does not this vision of post democraticstructuresinsomewaysremindoneofthedissident groupsorsomeoftheindependentcitizens'initiativesaswealready know them from our own surroundings? Do not these small communities,boundtogetherbythousandsofsharedtribulations, give rise to some of those special humanly meaningful political relationshipsandtiesthatwehavebeentalkingabout?Arenotthese communities(andtheyarecommunitiesmorethanorganizations) motivatedmainlybyacommonbeliefintheprofoundsignificance ofwhattheyaredoingsincetheyhavenochanceofdirect,external success joined together by precisely the kind of atmosphere in which the formalized and ritualized ties common in the official structures are supplanted by a living sense of solidarity and fraternity? Do not these postdemocratic relationships of immediate personal trust and the informal rights of individuals 66

basedonthemcomeoutofthebackgroundofallthosecommonly shareddifficulties?Donotthesegroupsemerge,live,anddisappear underpressurefromconcreteandauthenticneeds,unburdenedby theballastofhollowtraditions? Isnottheirattempt tocreatean articulateformoflivingwithinthetruthandtorenewthefeelingof higherresponsibilityinanapatheticsocietyreallyasignofsome kindofrudimentarymoralreconstitution? Inotherwords,arenottheseinformed,nonbureaucratic,dynamic, andopencommunitiesthatcomprisetheparallelpolisakindof rudimentary prefiguration, a symbolic model of those more meaningful postdemocratic political structures that might becomethefoundationofabettersociety? I know from thousands of personal experiences how the mere circumstanceofhavingsignedCharter77hasimmediatelycreateda deeperandmoreopenrelationshipandevokedsuddenandpowerful feelings of genuine community among people who were all but strangersbefore.Thiskindofthinghappensonlyrarely,ifatall, evenamongpeoplewhohaveworkedtogetherforlongperiodsin someapatheticofficialstructure.Itisasthoughthemereawareness andacceptance ofacommontaskandasharedexperience were enoughtotransformpeopleandtheclimateoftheirlives,asthough itgavetheirpublicworkamorehumandimensionthanisseldom foundelsewhere. Perhaps all this is only the consequence of a common threat. Perhapsthemomentthethreatendsoreases,themoodithelped create will begin to dissipate as well. (The aim of those who threaten us,however,ispreciselytheopposite.Againandagain, one is shocked by the energy they devote to contaminating, in various despicable ways, all the human relationships inside the threatenedcommunity.) Yetevenifthatwereso,itwouldchangenothinginthequestionI haveposed. Wedonotknowthewayoutofthemarasmusoftheworld,andit wouldbeanexpressionofunforgivablepridewerewetoseethe little we do as a fundamental solution, or were we to present ourselves,ourcommunity,andoursolutionstovitalproblemsasthe onlythingworthdoing. Evenso,Ithinkthatgivenalltheseprecedingthoughtsonpost totalitarianconditions,andgiventhecircumstancesandtheinner constitutionofthedevelopingeffortstodefendhumanbeingsand their identity in such conditions, the questions I have posed are appropriate. If nothing else, they are an invitation to reflect concretely on our own experience and to give some thought to 67

whethercertainelements ofthatexperiencedonotwithoutour really being awareofit pointsomewhere further,beyondtheir apparent limits, and whether right here, in our everyday lives, certainchallengesarenotalreadyencoded,quietlywaitingforthe momentwhentheywillbereadandgrasped. Fortherealquestioniswhetherthebrighterfutureisreallyalways sodistant.Whatif,onthecontrary,ithasbeenhereforalongtime already,andonlyourownblindnessandweaknesshaspreventedus fromseeingitaroundusandwithinus,andkeptusfromdeveloping it?

68