Updating the Totalitarian Question: Subject, Truth, and Resistance in Post-Totalitarian Reality

v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} Normal 0 false false false false SL X-NONE X-NONE/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:SL; mso-fareast-language:SL;}

On the anniversary of Hannah Arendt's birth, it is extremely relevant to reconsider her analysis of totalitarianism in the context of contemporary conditions, which many describe as post-totalitarian, diffuse, and systemic. Although 20th-century totalitarianism seems to be historically over, its structures—the breakdown of the public sphere, the manipulation of reality, the bureaucratization of guilt, and the degradation of the individual into a function—are present today in more subtle but no less effective forms. It is necessary to go deeper than detecting politics into the very anthropological and ontological core of the problem: the loss of man's capacity for thought, judgment, and responsibility. It is precisely this loss that is the fundamental question linking her thinking to Kierkegaard's existential turn, Havel's analysis of the post-totalitarian system, and the vision of an existential revolution in the 21st century.

For Arendt, totalitarianism arises when individuals lose their inner orientation and capacity for personal judgment. The mass man, as she describes him, is isolated, atomized, and at the same time completely embedded in an ideological system that offers him false certainty. This man does not feel the need to think; Arendt's "banality of evil" is not driven by fanatics, but by bureaucrats without inner reflection. Arendt shows that life in such a system produces "subjects without an inner core" who adapt to the logic of necessity and renounce personal responsibility. This condition is a prerequisite for any totalitarian regime, which is merely a consequence of the disintegration of subjectivity.

Václav Havel in The Power of the Powerless continues Arendt's diagnosis, but shifts it to the context of post-totalitarianism, where repression is no longer explicit but structured into everyday routines, symbolic gestures, and the pressure of conformity. Havel's "life of lies" is not merely a moral category, but an ontological condition: the individual renounces authentic expression because he is dependent on a system that dictates what is "normal," "safe," and "acceptable." The post-totalitarian society that Havel describes is built on millions of small compromises.

It is interesting to note that this situation is emerging in entirely new forms in the 21st century: not only in political regimes, but also in technological structures, the attention economy, algorithmic regulation of information, and social pressure to performative identity. In this sense, Havel is more relevant today than he was at the time of his writing.

Kierkegaard recognized as early as the 19th century that the modern age creates a "public sphere" in which the individual is dissolved into abstraction. "The crowd is untruth" is his radical response to a process that, in Arendt's and Havel's perspective, leads to complete depersonalization. The existential turn in Kierkegaard means a return to the inner experience of decision-making: the subject must become responsible to himself, to his "eternal self," not to the expectations of the crowd. This is a decision that requires passion, risk, and a willingness to be nonconformist.

Since 2013, Kierkegaard conferences and contemporary existential hermeneutics have been exploring this very idea: today, the subject is losing not only its moral orientation, but also its ontological weight. The existential turn is therefore necessary not so much as a philosophical fashion, but as a condition for the preservation of humanity.

The internal transformation of the subject is thus a prerequisite for the transformation of the world. The existential revolution is not political, but ontological; it does not build a new ideology, but restores man as the bearer of truth, independent of the pressures of the system.

We must therefore transfer the analysis to the immediate present: post-totalitarian tendencies are evident today in digital surveillance, the algorithmisation of the public sphere, psychopolitical mechanisms, the culture of the performative self, and society's fear of exclusion and the breakdown of dialogue. The existential revolution is thus a break with the structure of "living a lie," which is no longer tied solely to political repression, but to the entire configuration of late modernity.

Without internal responsibility, there is no external freedom; without personal truth, there is no political truth; without the subject, there is no democracy.

We can argues that the key to understanding contemporary post-totalitarian reality lies in the existential renewal of the single individual. The Hannah Arendt anniversary encourages us to consider her warning together with the existential tradition, which offers not only a diagnosis but also a path of resistance and transformation.