{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029867256637168143, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.198630136986301, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Sham, and the Damage, of “Living in Truth”

This essay criticizes Havel’s famous “living in truth” paradigm and parable of the greengrocer as morally wrong, politically false, and complicit in the later emergence of a backlash against liberal intellectuals and democracy. By vilifying the weak, Havel disregards the role resources play in enabling opposition. By insisting that the opposite of living in truth is “obedience,” he disregards the particular weapons of the weak. Havel’s approach is contrasted with Polish versions of independent civic activism, whose intellectual theorists, understanding their privileged resources and making a calculated play for political influence, urged people to disobey but never derided anyone for not doing so. In the end, “living in truth” is seen as of little relevance to the success of past opposition, and Havel’s approach dangerous to hold up as a model.