Month: May 2026

Posted on

Václav Havel, responsibility as destiny

Oscar Pérez de la Fuente

Carlos III University of Madrid

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3708-846X

Abstract

Václav Havel (1936–2011), a Czech playwright and dissident, embodied the union of moral thought and political action in the face of communism in Czechoslovakia. After supporting the Prague Spring, he suffered censorship and imprisonment and became a symbol of the struggle for freedom. With the weakening of the Soviet bloc, he helped found the Civic Forum and led the Velvet Revolution (1989), which peacefully dismantled the dictatorship and initiated the transition to democracy, culminating in his election as president. Drawing on passages from Responsibility as Destiny (1991), the text analyses totalitarianism as a bureaucratic and ideological power that invades private life, substitutes truth for fiction, and produces fear and self-censorship. Havel proposes an ‘anti-political politics’, understood as service to the truth and to others. In this context, dissent becomes an ethical imperative: to denounce oppression, even if it is a solitary task.

Keywords: totalitarianism, dissent, freedom, responsibility

Václav Havel, a Czech politician and intellectual, was the last president of Czechoslovakia and the first president of the Czech Republic. He was born in Prague in 1936 and died there in 2011. He attended the Academy of Performing Arts in Prague to study theatre and had a distinguished career as a playwright.

His opposition to the communist government of Czechoslovakia led him to take action after having been a writer. As the leader of the Independent Writers’ Club, he backed the ‘Prague Spring’ (1968), leading to the subsequent ban on his books from publication. He became a symbol of the struggle for freedom and was imprisoned for five years. In 1989, Havel played a part in the creation of the Civic Forum, which served as the platform where most of the opposition gathered, following Gorbachev’s reforms in the Soviet Union that weakened the communist dictatorship in Czechoslovakia. He led the so-called ‘Velvet Revolution’, which took place that year, and, with the backing of a massive popular uprising, succeeded in dismantling the dictatorship without bloodshed and establishing a democratic system in Czechoslovakia. Havel was elected president.

Below, I will discuss excerpts from Václav Havel’s work Responsibility as Destiny/La responsabilidad como destino(1991), which brings together various letters from his time as a dissident, in the style of Minerva Strategy. 

“It is a totalitarian government of an impersonal, bureaucratic power, anonymously bloated, not yet unconscious, yet already operating beyond all conscience; a power based on the omnipresence of ideological fiction, capable of motivating everything without ever having to resort to the truth; power as a universe of control, repression and fear; power that nationalises and, therefore, immunises thought, morality and private life. Power that long ago ceased to represent the cause of a group of arbitrary rulers occupying and absorbing everyone, so that in the end everyone participates in it in some way, even if only through their silence; power that in reality belongs to no one, since it alone has taken possession of everyone” (Havel, 1991, 75-76).

These words of Havel aptly capture key aspects of totalitarianism and its exercise of power over people’s lives. Words and discourses lose all connection with the concrete reality of individuals, who are subjected to various forms of control over their public and private actions and even their thoughts. Under a bureaucratic and impersonal guise, founded on an ideological fiction, individuals’ freedom is curtailed. 

“I am an advocate of ‘anti-politics’. That is to say, of politics that is not merely a technology of power and the manipulation thereof—as a form of cybernetic control over people or as an art serving specific, practical ends or intrigues—but rather of politics as one of the ways of seeking and attaining the meaning of life, of how to protect it and how to serve it; politics as practised morality, as a service to the truth, as concern for our fellow human beings, genuinely human concerns, governed by human measures. It is a form that is somewhat, very slightly, impractical in today’s world and difficult to apply to everyday life. Nevertheless, I know of no better alternative” (Havel, 1991, 85–86).

This text was written in 1984; the Berlin Wall had not yet fallen. This historic event can yield various interpretations. Some might see it as a precursor to the anti-politics experiment in Italy with the Five Star Movement or as a precedent for certain populist positions so much in vogue today. It would be worth contextualising these words of Havel in that the search for alternatives to the Soviet conceptual framework must inevitably have human dimensions, linked to a practised morality and a notion of truth. Although this approach may appear distant from everyday politics and may sound somewhat utopian, like Havel, “I know of no better alternative”.

“I wouldn’t presume to comment on relations across the entire Soviet bloc. But I do think I can say, at least with regard to the Czechoslovak citizen, that his world is characterised by a constant tension between ‘their’ omnipotence and his own powerlessness.”

Since this citizen knows that ‘they’ can do anything: confiscate his passport, sack him from his job, order him to move from one place to another, task him with collecting signatures against the Pershing missiles, prevent him from studying, strip him of his driving licence, tap his phone and read his correspondence, build a factory under his windows that produces mainly sulphur dioxide, contaminate his milk with chemicals to an unbelievable degree, arrest him simply for attending a rock concert, arbitrarily raise the price of anything at any time, reject any humble request he makes without explanation, tell him what he must read first, why he has to demonstrate, what he has to sign, how many square metres his flat can be, who he can be in contact with and who he cannot’ (Havel 1991, 105). 

In this paragraph, Havel summarises how totalitarian power—which, by definition, is power without limits—can manifest itself in people’s lives. It is particularly relevant today to be able to distinguish between the rule of law, an autoritarian state and a totalitarian state. For example, in certain contexts, an authoritarian drift occurs that jeopardises the progress of the rule of law. Totalitarianism, however, goes further: it denies rights—such as civil and political rights—persecutes dissidents and censors critical voices. 

“We know that the dissident is a bit of a Don Quixote by the very nature of his cause: he writes his critical analyses and demands freedoms and rights alone, and alone—with nothing but his pen in hand—facing the colossal power of the State and its police; he writes, protests, shouts, pleads, and invokes the law; and he knows that sooner or later he will be imprisoned for all of this” (Havel, 1991, 130).

For Havel, this is the responsibility that comes with one’s fate: if one lives under a totalitarian regime, what Muguerza termed the imperative of dissent arises. This entails speaking out and fighting, to the best of one’s ability, against oppression, injustice, and human rights violations. Although this task is, at times, solitary and goes largely unrecognised, we must not lose sight of the fact that historic changes require courageous pioneers.

References

Havel, Václav (1991), La responsabilidad como destino, Madrid: El País/Aguilar, trad. Jana Novotná.

Fernández, Tomás, Tamaro, Elena (2004), “Biografía de Václav Havel”, Editorial Biografías y Vidas, available in https://www.biografiasyvidas.com/biografia/h/havel.htm [Visited: 1 May 2026].

Spanish version: https://webphilosophia.com/estrategia/vaclav-havel-la-responsabilidad-como-destino/

Posted on

Never Split the Difference

Oscar Pérez de la Fuente

Carlos III University of Madrid

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3708-846X

Abstract

This paper reviews Chris Voss’s Never Split the Difference through the lens of the Minerva Strategy Blog, contrasting the “art” of negotiation derived from hostage-crisis practice with the “science” of negotiation associated with the Harvard Negotiation Project. It highlights how Voss challenges rational-actor assumptions by foregrounding empathy, emotional attachment, and perception management as decisive factors in bargaining. Central to the analysis is Voss’s claim that eliciting “that’s right” signals genuine understanding and can unlock cooperative behaviour more effectively than a simple “yes” or “you’re right.” The discussion also examines Voss’s scepticism toward “middle ground” compromises, juxtaposing this stance with standard negotiation concepts such as BATNA and reservation thresholds. Additional attention is given to time pressure and deadlines as drivers of impulsive concessions, and to emotionally loaded terms—especially “fair”—as rhetorical devices that shift leverage by forcing defensive reactions. Finally, the paper considers “anchoring” as a method for shaping the counterpart’s reality by setting extreme reference points that make subsequent offers appear reasonable. Overall, the text presents Voss’s techniques as a pragmatic, psychologically informed toolkit that complements, and sometimes conflicts with, orthodox negotiation theory.

Keywords: empathy, negotiation tactics, anchoring, BATNA

In the opening pages of the book Never Split the Difference. Negotiating as if your life depended on it, the author, Chris Voss, is set to meet with several professors from the Harvard Negotiation Project. Chris Voss was a local police officer who had been promoted to the FBI and was part of a team that used hostage negotiation techniques. He embodied the art of negotiation, which is the practical application of various techniques and principles to strategic scenarios. The Harvard Negotiation Project represents the science of negotiation, where categories, terminology and analysis are established and based on certain assumptions, such as the idea that human beings are rational. 

Below, I will analyse Chris Voss’s book Never Split the Difference. Negotiating as if your life depended on it from the perspective of the Minerva Strategy Blog. It is remarkable because the Spanish title translation of this book is slightly different: Breaking Through the ‘No’ Barrier. 9 principles for negotiation as if your life depended on it. This implies some different nuances from languages perspective.

In the chapter Trigger the Two Words That Immediately Transform Any Negotiation, Voss carries out an analytical exercise in which he links the positive affirmation of empathy with the emotions and emotional attachment involved. He states: “Creating unconditional positive regard opens the door to a changing thought and behaviours. Humans have an innate urge toward socially constructive behaviour. The more a person feels understood, and positively affirmed in that understanding, the more likely that urge for constructive behaviour will take hold” (Voss, 2016, 112).

In short, when someone feels understood, they adopt a more constructive attitude. The conclusion is that the key words in any negotiation scenario are ‘that’s right’. Voss adds, “’That is right’ is better than “yes”. Strive for it. Reaching ‘that’s right’ in a negotiation creates breakthroughs.” But he clarifies that a ‘that’s right’ is not a ‘yes’ or a ‘you’re right’ (Voss, 2016, 112)

In the chapter entitled Bend Their Reality, Voss focuses on the topic of true interests and how differing perceptions and signals can sometimes distort approaches in negotiation scenarios. It is interesting because Voss’s views stem from the art of negotiation and his professional experience in FBI negotiation teams, and some of them are at odds with what is usually said in the science of negotiation.

It is one thing for the parties to make statements in formal settings, but quite another to understand their true interests. Before entering into negotiations, it is important to be clear about one’s own interests and to have the best possible information about the other party’s interests. It is also important to be clear about the best strategy for mutually defending the interests of both parties or, at least, the best way to reconcile them.

In another part of the book, Voss states: “Splitting the difference of wearing one black and one brown shoe, so don’t compromise. Meeting halfway often leads to bad deals for both sides.” (Voss, 2016, 139)

The middle ground is usually seen as an impartial basis for reaching an agreement. Before any negotiation begins, each party must be clear about: a) what their best alternative to negotiation (BATNA) is; b) what their satisfaction threshold is, or their specific minimum and maximum objectives in the negotiation. Negotiating involves giving something up to obtain, in return, something desired. It is a kind of transaction. To this end, information regarding the interests and expectations of both parties is key. This is what the science of negotiation would say; however, as we have seen, the art of negotiation is wary of middle ground.  

Later, in Never Split the Difference, we read that the looming deadline urges people to try to wrap up negotiations as quickly as possible and to act impulsively in ways that go against their own interests.

Ultimatums and deadlines are sometimes a negotiation tactic or gambit. On other occasions, they provide a good excuse to move the negotiation forward. Here, Voss warns us about the tendency to make concessions—which would otherwise not be made—under the influence of these time-sensitive circumstances. One must remain vigilant and know not to give in on points previously deemed non-negotiable.  

Voss also argues that the ‘J-bomb’—the term ‘fair’—is a concept with great emotional impact for people, who often use it to put the other party on the defensive and force them to make concessions. If the other party drops that bomb, don’t fall into the trap. Instead, ask them why they claim you are being unfair to them (Voss, 2016, 139).

Another negotiation tactic or gambit involves manipulating the perceptions and emotions of the parties by using emotionally charged terms such as fair, objective, impartial, neutral, etc. Although this may be a good way of reaching agreements in this manner, it is always worth analysing who stands to lose and who stands to gain from the application of these ‘abstract’ criteria, which are presented as magic potions for solving problems. 

In another passage of the book Never Split the Difference, Voss states that it is possible to shape the other party’s reality by setting their starting point. Before making an offer, you can emotionally anchor their mindset by making them believe they are about to receive a terrible offer. When the time comes to put a figure on the table, you set an extreme benchmark to make the ‘real’ offer seem more reasonable, or you offer a range to appear less aggressive. The true value of anything depends on the perspective from which it is viewed (Voss, 2016, 139).

References

Voss, Chris, Raz, Tahl (2016), Never split the difference. Negotiating as if your life depended on it, Harper Collins Publishers, Kindle edition.