The greengrocer displays in his shop window the slogan “Workers of the world, unite!” Havel hypothesizes that the greengrocer does not actually have to believe the slogan. He displays as a matter of routine, fearing retribution if he were not to display the slogan. “He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life ‘in harmony with society,’ as they say.” (Havel, 1978, p. 41) The greengrocer analogy perfectly represents Havel’s idea of living within the lie. Behind the ideology of “Workers of the world, unite!” lies the greengrocer’s fear that his store will be taken away, that he will lose his livelihood, or even worse. The green grocer does not personally believe that the workers of the world should unite. Should he have believed it, he would have lived the lie. However, Havel illustrates that there is a dangerous difference between living the lie and living within the lie. Havel suggests that living within the lie is more dangerous, for one acknowledges that there is something wrong but choses to do nothing about it. This is precisely the attitude Havel warns
The greengrocer displays in his shop window the slogan “Workers of the world, unite!” Havel hypothesizes that the greengrocer does not actually have to believe the slogan. He displays as a matter of routine, fearing retribution if he were not to display the slogan. “He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life ‘in harmony with society,’ as they say.” (Havel, 1978, p. 41) The greengrocer analogy perfectly represents Havel’s idea of living within the lie. Behind the ideology of “Workers of the world, unite!” lies the greengrocer’s fear that his store will be taken away, that he will lose his livelihood, or even worse. The green grocer does not personally believe that the workers of the world should unite. Should he have believed it, he would have lived the lie. However, Havel illustrates that there is a dangerous difference between living the lie and living within the lie. Havel suggests that living within the lie is more dangerous, for one acknowledges that there is something wrong but choses to do nothing about it. This is precisely the attitude Havel warns