Exploring Havel
23/01/12 05:32
Like others who read the headlines, I know the name of Vaclav Havel. His fame came from his role in politics. He was the last president of Czechoslovakia and the first President of the Czech Republic. His role in the transformation of the republic in the years following the fall of the Soviet Union brought him to the fore of international politics and frequently gave him a spot in the press. Reports often referred to him as a dissident referring to his political activism and his role in resisting the totalitarian regime that existed in his country prior to the fall of the Soviet Union. He was also identified as a playwright, essayist, and poet.
In 2005, he was voted 4th in Prospect magazine’s 2005 global poll of the world’s top 100 intellectuals. But there are a lot of intelligent people who have an impact on history without my really getting to know them.
Last night I had the opportunity to read Politics and Conscience, a speech that Havel wrote in 1984 on the occasion of his acceptance of an honorary degree from the University of Toulouse. At the time he was denied travel privileges, and so was unable to deliver the speech in person. As these things go, it took years before the speech was translated and printed in and English language journal. I found a translation by Roger Scruton and Erazim Kobak in the 39th issue of McSweeney’s Quarterly. The ideas are as fresh today as they were over a quarter of a century ago.
He begins the essay by telling the story of being a boy who regularly walked along a path through the fields and saw a factory smokestack that spread dark smoke across the sky. He said that the sight gave him a sense of “something profoundly wrong, of humans soiling the heavens.” It wouldn’t have surprised me had Havel gone into a discussion of the ecological impact of the smokestack, of the toxic fumes that were a byproduct of some manufacturing process and of the need to make changes in order to protect the lives and health of the forest, the animals and the people. Such arguments are familiar in our day and age. On the other side of those arguments are those who speak of the products produced by the factory and of the need of the jobs the factory produces. A few intellectuals will examine both sides of the argument and attempt to strike a balance.
Havel, however, uses the smokestack as a symbol in his essay. Instead of describing it as a failure of technology that could be corrected by the appropriate scrubber and the addition of ecological considerations in the design and planning of factories, he speaks of the tendency of humans to continually seek to use the discoveries of science to push beyond the boundaries of the natural world. Our rational minds want to reach beyond the natural world and make our desires, our needs, and our abilities the most important values considered. Instead of seeing humans as part of the natural world, we want to view ourselves as somehow above the world. We want to leave it behind while at the same time seeking to dominate it. Our incredible scientific discoveries make us think that we are able to be objective and look at the world as if we were somehow not a part of it.
The essay does not jump to quick conclusions. He does not argue for the abolishing of factories or the prohibition of science or a return to the Middle Ages. Rather, as a secular writer, he seeks to put our scientific advancements in what, it seems to me, is a very theological context. We believe that rational thought and scientific method will somehow lead us to a level of understanding that will overcome all mystery and somehow elevate humans to a position of being above the natural order rather than being a part of it.
As a theologian, it seems to me that he is talking about idolatry. In its essence idolatry is choosing to worship a god that is smaller than God. The only way to eliminate mystery is to view the universe as smaller and less complex than the reality. There is always mystery unless one believes that a small portion is the total.
As a politician, Havel goes forward in his essay to use that smokestack and our flawed ideas about the role of science, technology and rational thought as symbols of the flaws in our political thinking. The assumption that humans are capable of knowing what is right for others or what is best for groups of people results in abuses of power and attempts to manipulate others to bend to the control of a political leader.
The essay provides a window into the very complex thinking of a very smart man. His ability to think clearly in the face of all kinds of pressures combined with his ability to see a larger picture than some thinkers led him to stand up against the abuses of the communist regime. One of the quotes from a different essay that I have seen describes his role as a dissident: “ . . . we never decided to become dissidents. We have been transformed into them, without quite knowing how, sometimes we have ended up in prison without precisely knowing how. We simply went ahead and did certain things that we felt we ought to do, and that seemed to us decent to do, nothing more or less.”
What strikes me about the man is that somehow he was able to maintain his humility even after becoming a world leader. He didn’t let power and position go to his head. He didn’t lose his sense of mystery, or assume that he knew all that needed to be known. He kept exploring. And he kept doing what he felt he ought to do, what was decent to do.
Having read the essay makes me want to read some of his plays and perhaps some other essays. Several have been translated into English. He was not just a good writer, and not just a complex thinker. Both of those are abilities that I admire greatly. He also was a humble human being who never lost his sense of mystery, wonder and a sense of the beyond.
Not did Havel become a dissident without intending to. I think he may have also become a theologian without intending to.
In 2005, he was voted 4th in Prospect magazine’s 2005 global poll of the world’s top 100 intellectuals. But there are a lot of intelligent people who have an impact on history without my really getting to know them.
Last night I had the opportunity to read Politics and Conscience, a speech that Havel wrote in 1984 on the occasion of his acceptance of an honorary degree from the University of Toulouse. At the time he was denied travel privileges, and so was unable to deliver the speech in person. As these things go, it took years before the speech was translated and printed in and English language journal. I found a translation by Roger Scruton and Erazim Kobak in the 39th issue of McSweeney’s Quarterly. The ideas are as fresh today as they were over a quarter of a century ago.
He begins the essay by telling the story of being a boy who regularly walked along a path through the fields and saw a factory smokestack that spread dark smoke across the sky. He said that the sight gave him a sense of “something profoundly wrong, of humans soiling the heavens.” It wouldn’t have surprised me had Havel gone into a discussion of the ecological impact of the smokestack, of the toxic fumes that were a byproduct of some manufacturing process and of the need to make changes in order to protect the lives and health of the forest, the animals and the people. Such arguments are familiar in our day and age. On the other side of those arguments are those who speak of the products produced by the factory and of the need of the jobs the factory produces. A few intellectuals will examine both sides of the argument and attempt to strike a balance.
Havel, however, uses the smokestack as a symbol in his essay. Instead of describing it as a failure of technology that could be corrected by the appropriate scrubber and the addition of ecological considerations in the design and planning of factories, he speaks of the tendency of humans to continually seek to use the discoveries of science to push beyond the boundaries of the natural world. Our rational minds want to reach beyond the natural world and make our desires, our needs, and our abilities the most important values considered. Instead of seeing humans as part of the natural world, we want to view ourselves as somehow above the world. We want to leave it behind while at the same time seeking to dominate it. Our incredible scientific discoveries make us think that we are able to be objective and look at the world as if we were somehow not a part of it.
The essay does not jump to quick conclusions. He does not argue for the abolishing of factories or the prohibition of science or a return to the Middle Ages. Rather, as a secular writer, he seeks to put our scientific advancements in what, it seems to me, is a very theological context. We believe that rational thought and scientific method will somehow lead us to a level of understanding that will overcome all mystery and somehow elevate humans to a position of being above the natural order rather than being a part of it.
As a theologian, it seems to me that he is talking about idolatry. In its essence idolatry is choosing to worship a god that is smaller than God. The only way to eliminate mystery is to view the universe as smaller and less complex than the reality. There is always mystery unless one believes that a small portion is the total.
As a politician, Havel goes forward in his essay to use that smokestack and our flawed ideas about the role of science, technology and rational thought as symbols of the flaws in our political thinking. The assumption that humans are capable of knowing what is right for others or what is best for groups of people results in abuses of power and attempts to manipulate others to bend to the control of a political leader.
The essay provides a window into the very complex thinking of a very smart man. His ability to think clearly in the face of all kinds of pressures combined with his ability to see a larger picture than some thinkers led him to stand up against the abuses of the communist regime. One of the quotes from a different essay that I have seen describes his role as a dissident: “ . . . we never decided to become dissidents. We have been transformed into them, without quite knowing how, sometimes we have ended up in prison without precisely knowing how. We simply went ahead and did certain things that we felt we ought to do, and that seemed to us decent to do, nothing more or less.”
What strikes me about the man is that somehow he was able to maintain his humility even after becoming a world leader. He didn’t let power and position go to his head. He didn’t lose his sense of mystery, or assume that he knew all that needed to be known. He kept exploring. And he kept doing what he felt he ought to do, what was decent to do.
Having read the essay makes me want to read some of his plays and perhaps some other essays. Several have been translated into English. He was not just a good writer, and not just a complex thinker. Both of those are abilities that I admire greatly. He also was a humble human being who never lost his sense of mystery, wonder and a sense of the beyond.
Not did Havel become a dissident without intending to. I think he may have also become a theologian without intending to.