Overview

Central European dissidents gained global fame by serving as key protagonists in the collapse of communism in 1989. As writers, philosophers, and artists, they should be remembered for their ideas as much as for their political actions. This book takes the variegated and collected dissident oeuvre and reads their texts as expressions of their existential search for inter-subjective understanding and mutual recognition, showing how their ideas contribute to current conversations in political philosophy about thinking and action. Brinton examines the ways Cold War dissidents in Central and Eastern Europe turned to the past for inspiration in order to change and transcend their present entrapment, contributing to a more general narrative about how to change one's way of acting by altering one's way of thinking. Ideas such as 'living in truth,' the 'parallel polis,' creating 'civil society,' and 'anti-political politics' allowed dissidents to survive totalitarianism, recreate their intellectual universe, and re-humanize themselves amidst dehumanizing political situations. Our conversations about the relationship between philosophy, politics, and dissidence can be deepened by examining this legacy.

Full Product Details

9781137576026

Table of Contents

Reviews

Manuscript Reviewer/s: James Pontuso, Hampdgn-Sydney College 1) In your own words, please provide a short outline of the project. Aspen Brinton is an elegant writer with a talent for making lively connections between people, ideas, and events. Her work attempts to show the roots of dissent thought in Central Europe and the continuing relevance of dissident ideas not only for historians but also for political philosophy generally and more practically for those engaged in struggles against tyranny. 2) Does this proposal offer a useful and/or original contribution to the field? Is it addressing any new/emerging areas? Brinton has written an interesting and informative manuscript. Her broad presentation of dissident thinkers and principles in the context of philosophic ideas makes an important contribution to the field. Her mixture of varied intellectual strains deepens the understanding of dissidents. Her treatment of Charter 77 is excellent. Her exposition of the opportunities and dangers of civil society - comparing Hegel, Tocqueville and dissident writings is original and thoughtful. 3) Does it adequately engage with recent scholarship? Does it take existing scholarship forward? See suggestions below for revisions. 4) What are the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal? This is a very good book. The structure is fine. The ideas are presented well. The book builds on itself so that the reader understands where the author is going and how she got there. 5) Do you feel the author/editor is suitably qualified to produce a high quality book on this topic? Surely, Brinton is a fine writer and scholar. 6) If you are aware that the book is being considered for inclusion in a specific series, please comment on its suitability for that series. NA Market and Competition 7) Is this book likely to have interdisciplinary and/or international appeal? The book is interdisciplinary and will have a readership abroad. However, I am not a market analyst but a professor. The book will likely have a readership wherever the government tries to capture people's minds. 8) How does this proposal compare to the main competing titles in this area in terms of quality of writing and content? It will become required reading for everyone who studies dissident thought, much like Barbara Falk's The Dilemmas of Dissidence in East-Central Europe. Recommendation 9) Would you recommend: a) publish this book as it stands or after minor revisions Each chapter should have its own footnote numbers. The work certainly expands the concept of dissident. Although it is not quite clear what 'philosophical syncretism' is, it seems to work well as a method of interpretation for dissident literature since dissidents are such an eclectic group. Brinton is not merely explaining, she adds her own ideas in a useful way. I strongly suggest that the manuscript be published. Palgrave Macmillan should take the suggestions for revision as improvements to the book and not as a recommendation to reject the manuscript. As Brinton writes on (p. 53) Czechs, Slovaks, Romanians, Croats, Hungarians, and even Poles take the term 'Eastern Europe' as a mild insult. They claim to be Central Europeans, as distinguished from Eastern European Russians and Ukrainians. Central Europeans claim that So-viet imperialism, not a common identity, caused them to be lumped into the Eastern European camp. Moreover, as Slavenka Drakulic argues in Cafe Europa, during and after communism Central Europeans desperately wanted to be attached to Western liberal democracy, not to East-ern authoritarianism. Should not the title reflect this difference? In a long note on page 15, Brinton cites a 1995 article that dissident thought has not been taken as political philosophy. If Eastern Europeans include Russians, should not works on Ale-ksandr Solzhenitsyn be included? If so, Peter A. Lawler and especially Daniel J. Mahoney have written extensively about the political philosophy of Solzhenitsyn. Daniel J. Mahoney Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: The Ascent from Ideology Typo p. 48: Robert Horvath, The Solzhenitsyn Effect': East European Dissidents and the Demise of the Revolutionary Privilege.' Human Rights Quarterly, Volume 29, Number 4, November 2007, pp. 879-907. Brinton argues that many dissidents were not opposed to Communism. It is more accurate to say that most dissidents were anti-communists. They did not directly attack the ideas of Marx, Lenin, and other socialists because they would have gotten into trouble with the communist authorities. Persecution and the Art of Writing, which Briton mentions, sells well in mainland China. After 1989, few dissidents showed much enthusiasm for communism - Czech dissident Petr Uhl is perhaps the exception. Most dissidents thought Marxism was a ridiculous doctrine, some believed it was intrinsically evil. Those who favoured socialism looked to the Swedish model. Brinton treatment of anti-foundationalism (p 51) is excellent since dissidents were 'spiritual' without being zealous. As Havel writes 'if there is to be any chance at all of success, there is only one way to strive for decency, reason, responsibility, sincerity, civility, and tolerance, and that is decently, reasonably, responsibly, sincerely, civilly, and tolerantly' (Summer Meditations, The greatest issue with the manuscript is Brinton's treatment of Havel - unquestionably the leading dissident thinkers in Central Europe. Brinton's analysis is not wrong - Havel is a polyphonic thinker and no interpretation is 'incorrect.' But Brinton's manuscript is incomplete and such an excellent author should never be criticized for missing something. For example, she maintains that Havel was concerned with an 'existential revolution' (229). Findley and Tucker present this line of thought. But, Havel seems to reject the idea as president. 'Allow me to use this opportunity for a brief consideration of the phenomenon of waiting... There are different ways of waiting. At one end of the great spectrum there is waiting for Godot, who embodies universal salvation. I come from a country that is full of impatient people. Perhaps they are impatient because they have waited for Godot for so long they think Godot has finally come. This is an error as profound as the one on which their waiting was based. Godot did not come. And that is just as well, because any Godot that did come would be merely the imaginary Godot, the Communist Godot... You cannot wait for Godot. Godot will not come, because he does not exist. (Vaclav Havel, 'Speech to the Academy of Humanities and Political Sciences,' Paris, 27 October 1992).' The manuscript would be improved - or at least made more thorough - if Brinton considered the following texts. Some differ with her reading of Havel and may provoke her to show their defects - thus deepening her interpretation. Flagg Taylor, The Great Lie. An edited volume that includes many of the most important themes from dissidents in their own voice. David Danaher, Reading Vaclav Havel. Danaher's command of Czech allows him to penetrate the subtle shades of Havel's language. Delia Popescu, Political Action in Vaclav Havel's Thought: The Responsibility of Resistance. Directly takes up the question of Havel as a life-long outsider and dissident even when he held power. James Pontuso, Vaclav Havel: Civic Responsibility in the Postmodern Age raises the question of Havel's philosophy and its relationship to phenomenology and Heidegger. Carol Rocamora, Acts of Courage: Vaclav Havel's Life in the Theater maintains that Havel true opposition to tyranny was shown in his art. Critical essays on Vaclav Havel, edited by Marketa Goetz-Stankiewicz and Phyllis Carey offers wide-ranging commentary on Havel. Michael Zantovsky, Havel: A Life. Zantovsky was a member of Charter 77 and therefore experienced the life of a dissident.

'Brinton is an elegant writer with a talent for making lively connections between people, ideas, and events. Her book examines the roots of dissident thought in Central Europe and the continuing relevance of dissident ideas not only for historians but also for political philosophy generally and, more practically, for those engaged in struggles against tyranny.' - James F. Pontuso, Hampden-Sydney College, USA

Author Information

Aspen Brinton teaches courses on dissent, social responsibility, and international ethics in the Philosophy Department and International Studies Program at Boston College, USA. She has taught previously at the University of Pennsylvania, USA, Northwestern University in Qatar and Georgetown University, USA. She holds a PhD in Political Theory from Georgetown University.

Tab Content 6

Customer Reviews

Recent Reviews

Countries Available