Philosopher views
REFUSING TO PLAY: THE POSSIBILITY OF RESISTANCE
Download 5.81 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- CRITICISMS AND RESPONSES
- MODERN APPLICATIONS AND RELEVANCE TO L.D. DEBATE
REFUSING TO PLAY: THE POSSIBILITY OF RESISTANCEHow can people resist post-totalitarianism? Havel returns to the example of the greengrocer and asks, “Let us now imagine that one day something in our green-grocer snaps and he stops putting up the slogans merely to ingratiate himself.” This sort of refusal to play by the rules of the totalitarian game is a way of “living within the truth.” Other examples include speaking one’s mind despite disapproval from the government, refusing to participate in corrupt official rituals, such as rigged elections, and expressing solidarity with others who similarly seek to live in the truth. The result of this sort of resistance is a loss of security. The government may threaten or jail the greengrocer. He will lose the privileges that come with conformity to the communist system. Living in truth requires the courage to make this sacrifice. The system must repress all those who refuse to play by the rules because in breaking the rules, dissidents expose the game as nothing more than a game, and not the truth. They are like the child who cries out that the emperor is naked. The possibility for living in truth is inevitably contained in the totalitarian system. Because everyone knows that totalitarianism is a lie, all that is needed is a spark to set in motion a social movement that can take down the regime. Havel argues that the spark that set people in motion against the regime in Czechoslovakia was the government’s arrest and trial of a rock band, “The Plastic People of the Universe.” This act of censorship and repression led to the formation of the Charter 77 human rights group. Havel’s political thought came out of a tradition of Czech thinkers. He was extremely influenced by his fellow Czech dissident and mentor, Jan Patocka. Patocka died while under arrest for dissident activities. It may have been witnessing this sacrifice and his own experience of imprisonment that lead Havel to emphasize the importance of sacrifice to living in truth. Havel’s political philosophy was also strongly influenced by existentialism and phenomenology. Existentialism, a philosophy associated with thinkers such as Jean Paul Satre, posits that we are all radically free, hence radically responsible for the world. Phenomenology is a philosophy associated with Edmund Husserl. Husserl argued that the way we come to understand the world is based on our experience. Phenomenology emphasizes the importance of examination of people’s lived experiences in the common world to philosophical musings. This phenomenological influence explains why Havel is suspicious of universal codes such as the utilitarianism of totalitarian government. Havel is interested in systems of governance that reflect the lived experiences of the people and make possible “living in truth” instead of the lies of totalitarianism. Havel is also a humanist. This means he subscribes to core beliefs about the nature of human beings as rights bearing subjects worthy of being treated with dignity and respect. Even though Havel’s discussion of post-totalitarian government focused on the Cold War, a historical period now over, and Czechoslovakia, a state that no longer exists, it is relevant today. Havel notes that his description is not just about communism, rather, it is “an inflated caricature of modern life in general.” Post-totalitarianism is present whenever anyone accepts the lies of the government and subjects to a trivialization of humanity. Modern consumer societies of the West infect people with the same sort of dehumanization. People live the lie that material goods will bring about spiritual or moral fulfillment. CRITICISMS AND RESPONSESHavel’s work has been criticized by many commentators. Some argue that his view of human nature, influenced by both phenomenology and existentialism, is contradictory. Havel argues that humans are universally responsible, free, and endowed with dignity. But at the same time, he rejects universal statements and argues that it is important to focus on particular phenomenological experiences. Similarly, he argues for the dissemination of the values of the West, such as the free market, human rights, and political contestation, while he claims that the values of the West, such as consumerism, are dangerous. He also argues that these values are universal while at the same time his work suggests it is important to look at the diverse number of value systems of other cultures. Havel is alternatively labeled a “postmodernist” for his criticism of modern political institutions and doctrines and a “modernist” for his adherence to traditional notions of human rights, truth, and dignity. These seeming contradictions can be explained by the fact that Havel’s writings are intended for a political audience and not for the philosophy departments of universities. Hence, he does not provide extensive definitions of his terms nor does he engage in debates that aren’t central to his political message. These criticisms also reflect the desires of many commentators to box Havel into certain categories as a philosopher, instead of exploring the ways contradictions are productive or can be worked out. Havel’s thought is an example of the way postmodern skepticism about old ways of thinking can be combined with adherence to values such as human dignity in order to launch a powerful and politically potent resistance to totalitarian structures. MODERN APPLICATIONS AND RELEVANCE TO L.D. DEBATEHavel argues that in the modern era, people no longer turn to religion to provide them with answers to all of life’s questions. This is because religion has largely been replaced with scientific and technological rationality. Unable to provide the scientific basis for religion or spirituality, modern people have lost faith. Unfortunately, science and technology cannot provide answers to the most enduring human questions. The more we learn about our selves and our environment, the less we understand. Science cannot tell us what things mean or why they are important. This has led to a sense of “uprootedness.” People feel profoundly insecure. The value systems of liberal governments tell them they are free individuals, but thinking of oneself as an individual, radically separate from the rest of humanity and the cosmos, only breeds a sense of alienation. This fear and alienation makes people susceptible to ideologies which appear to provide easy answers. The dangers are new forms of totalitarianism. Vaclav Havel’s works are relevant to many debates today. Although his critique of post-totalitarian government focused on Cold War Czechoslovakia, it should not be limited to that particular place and time. Many aspects of post-totalitarianism can be seen creeping into today’s capitalist regimes, even in the United States. Havel delivered an address to the US Congress in 1990 that inspired much interest in his political philosophies. Havel’s story of the greengrocer could serve as a powerful allegory in debates over the importance of patriotic symbols like the American flag or rituals of obedience like the pledge of allegiance. Havel’s life story as a dissident and his arguments for the value of a “life in truth” that includes free artistic expression are relevant to American debates over censorship. Havel’s writings deal with concepts that are frequently discussed in Lincoln-Douglas debates. For example, freedom is often appealed to as a value. Havel provides a way to re-examine the definition of freedom. The idea of freedom Havel promotes is not the traditional sort of freedom defined as the absence of external impediments to motion. Freedom does not belong to individuals. Rather, individuals are responsible for ensuring a free society. Freedom is also ontological. Ontological means related to the way we understand how things come to appear. It is about how we understand reality. In a post-totalitarian system where ideology defines reality, freedom is the ability to live in the truth and call attention to lies. Freedom envisioned as the ability to live in the truth could be a useful argument in many debates relating to the power of government or society. Havel’s arguments in appeal to personal responsibility through sacrifice for the truth, as well as his explanations of human dignity, defined as a life free from depersonalization, could be interesting concepts to explore. Havel’s life also provides an example of the merger of theory and practice. The concept of “living in truth” requires that we live out the philosophical beliefs we espouse. Like Gandhi, Jesus Christ, and Martin Luther King, Jr, Havel’s life story demonstrates his commitment to political actions that match up with rhetoric. His focus on people’s actual experiences and understandings demands that debaters step away from lofty philosophical ramblings in order to consider their implications for real people and struggles. Directory: uploads uploads -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 uploads -> Department of science and humanities department of mathematics part-a questions and answers uploads -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? uploads -> For want of a nail uploads -> Ownership Models There are two different types of ownership models uploads -> Police Militarization uploads -> City of rising star regular meting thursday, july 14, 2016 uploads -> Township of winfield uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 uploads -> The Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program What We Want Now! Download 5.81 Mb. Share with your friends:
|