The Sign in the Window: On Complicity, Ideology, and the Architecture of Spiritual Harm
"I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace." — Václav Havel, The Power of the Powerless (1978)
What am I currently displaying that I do not actually believe?
Václav Havel — Exploring mechanisms of harm in systems
In October 1978, Václav Havel sat down to write an essay on freedom under communism. Within seven months he would be in prison, where he spent nearly four years. The essay was The Power of the Powerless. By 1989, the regime he was writing against had collapsed, and he was president of his country.
The essay sets itself a deceptively simple task: to understand how a regime that almost no one believed in could nonetheless command the obedience of an entire society. By the late 1970s, Czechoslovak communism had lost its revolutionary energy. The Prague Spring had been crushed a decade earlier; the leadership was grey and bureaucratic; the official ideology was something almost no one, including the functionaries, took seriously. And yet the system held. It punished dissent, censored books, destroyed careers. Havel’s question was simple: if almost no one believed in communism, what kept it running?
The greengrocer
His answer, and the central image of the essay, is the greengrocer. Havel asks the reader to picture an ordinary man who runs a fruit and vegetable shop. One morning, among his deliveries, the greengrocer receives a sign. The sign reads, “Workers of the world, unite!” Without giving it much thought, the greengrocer places the sign in his shop window, between the onions and carrots. He has done this for years. Everyone does it. Havel asks, with the dryness of someone who already knows the answer, why.
“I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be.”
The greengrocer is not a believer. He is not a propagandist. He is a man trying to keep his shop. And yet he is doing the precise thing the regime requires of him. Not the endorsement of an ideology, but the public performance of one. The sign, Havel writes, contains a “subliminal but very definite message,” which, translated into the greengrocer’s actual interior life, would read:
“I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace.”
This is the most important insight in the essay. Havel is not exploring whether people privately believe in communism; in fact he assumes most of them don’t. Instead, he is interested in the way ritualised, semi-conscious compliance becomes what holds the system of power in place.
The regime does not need conviction. It needs the sign in the window. Multiplied across millions of windows, the signs form what Havel called “the panorama,” the all-surrounding visual and moral landscape that “reminds people where they are living and what is expected of them.”
Havel could have written about the regime’s obvious villains—the Party functionary, the secret policeman—and produced a conventional anti-totalitarian tract. But the greengrocer is ordinary. He is not malicious. He has no ambition to harm anyone. He is most likely just trying to get by. And this is the point. The system Havel is describing—and this is true of every system of harm I have encountered in clinical work—does not stand or fall on its bad actors. It stands or falls on its greengrocers.
The church, in aggregate, is the greengrocer
Havel was writing about communism, but the structure he describes isn’t specific to communism. The greengrocer and the panorama appear wherever a system requires public conformity from people who do not, in their interior lives, fully agree. Over time, I have come to read The Power of the Powerless less as a historical document and more as a description of how systems, including churches and religious institutions, often work. The greengrocer is not specifically Czech. The greengrocer is anyone who keeps doing the expected thing, who keeps “hanging up the sign”—not because they have thought it through and come to believe in what it promotes, but because the cost of not doing it has been made too high.
Havel is not arguing that the greengrocer is morally equivalent to the primary players in the communist regime. He is arguing something more interesting and more uncomfortable: that the regime is the greengrocer, in aggregate. There is no entity called “the system” that exists somewhere apart from the people performing it. As Havel puts it, individuals “need not believe all these mystifications, but they must behave as though they did, or they must at least tolerate them in silence … For by this very fact, individuals confirm the system, fulfill the system, make the system, are the system.”
This is the sentence I want religious communities to sit with. Read “the church” wherever Havel writes “the system.” Individuals confirm the church, fulfill the church, make the church, are the church.
In my clinical work with survivors of spiritual abuse, religious trauma, sexual grooming in religious contexts, and high-control religious environments, I have come to think that the central wound is rarely inflicted by a single person. The pastor, the elder, the prophet, the teacher: they are ultimately responsible. But what survivors are most often grappling with, when the initial shock of naming the abuse subsides, is something more diffuse. It is the silence of the people surrounding the harm.
The mentor who said that’s just how he is, we need to give grace. The friends who said you must be mistaken, he never treated me that way. The board that said we’ll handle it, and then did not respond in any clear or tangible way. The congregation that kept showing up, kept singing, kept tithing, kept smiling in the foyer the Sunday after they became aware of the abuse.
None of these people would describe themselves as abusers. Most, if pressed in private, would say they were uncomfortable too. They had noticed the way the leader spoke from the pulpit about someone he disagreed with. They had registered the shunning when someone asked a difficult question in a meeting. They had wondered, quietly, why family after family had stopped attending. But they kept putting up the sign in the window, between the carrots and the onions. Each one kept attending, kept giving, kept listening to the sermons, and kept voting yes at the members’ meeting. Each did the thousand small things that constitute the panorama of the community: the laugh at the joke they found cruel, the quick change of subject when a difficult name came up, the careful avoidance of the survivor in the car park after the service.
The panorama
Havel introduces the idea of the panorama to describe the entire environment of slogans, signs, rituals, and public gestures that surrounds a person in a totalitarian society. No one slogan is read carefully. No single ritual is examined. But taken together they form an ambient backdrop to ordinary life, and that backdrop shapes and maintains the system. The greengrocer’s slogan, he notes, is not actually read by anyone. People walk past it. They look for tomatoes. It does not function as persuasion; it functions as ambient pressure. “They form part of the panorama of everyday life. Of course, while they ignore the details, people are very aware of that panorama as a whole.”
Multiplied across many windows, the signs become a panorama that signals to everyone that the system is agreed to by everyone, even when, privately, almost no one agrees with it. The system holds together through millions of small, semi-conscious acts of compliance.
This is precisely how high-control religious systems sustain themselves. The panorama is everywhere, and almost none of it is examined. It is reflected in the way the leader’s name is spoken with a reverence nobody was instructed to use. It is the public prayer that thanks God for the controlling leader’s calling, covering, and protection over the church. It is the sermon illustration and warnings about the dangers of independent thinking. It is the quiet knowledge everyone has that questioning the leader will cost you your place. It is the membership covenant with its clauses on “resolving conflict biblically,” framed so that raising concerns outside the limited and prescribed process is itself a form of sin or rebellion. None of these things, taken alone, seems highly alarming to most, and some may appear spiritual to many. Each could be defended, individually, as ordinary religious life. But no one is reading them individually. They are the wallpaper, the panorama. And taken together, they tell a church member, without anyone having to say it, what is expected, what is normal, what will be punished, what will be rewarded.
No individual sermon, no individual prayer, no individual public testimony, on its own, holds the system in place. Each “sign in the window”, on its own, is unread and seemingly harmless. Instead, it is the panorama of small signs, symbols and words that form the panorama in religious environments.
The signs in our own windows
In my work, I have seen that the harm in spiritually abusive churches rarely comes from the bad actor alone. The perpetrator is ultimately responsible for the abuse, but the system around them depends on everyone who saw something off, or heard something concerning, and kept performing as if things were fine.
Many of the people who eventually leave these churches were inside them for a long time, sometimes years. Many will reflect later that enormous harm was happening that they were aware of, and often experiencing personally, but they kept putting the sign in the window. They kept pretending everything was fine, not because they did not care, but because the system was designed to make silence feel safe and speaking up feel dangerous. After leaving, many will grapple painfully with the harm that their own silence allowed to continue.
“Living within the truth”
What Havel proposes as the alternative is unglamorous. He calls it “living within the truth,” and the suggestions he provides are modest. The greengrocer who has begun to live within the truth is not staging a public denunciation. He has simply “stop[ped] putting up the slogans merely to ingratiate himself.” He has stopped voting in elections he knows are a farce. He has begun to say what he really thinks in meetings. The shift is subtle, and most of the things he does, he does quietly. But Havel insists this quiet refusal is what the system genuinely cannot survive, especially if others do the same. “By breaking the rules of the game, he has disrupted the game as such. He has exposed it as a mere game … He has said that the emperor is naked.”
In religious communities, this looks, again, like very small things. Challenging a leader about something that you perceive could cause harm. Believing the survivor, even if the institution provides another narrative. Saying I’m not sure that was right, when the room goes quiet. Not laughing at the joke about the person who left. Exiting the prayer chain that is starting to resemble a gossip chain. Asking the pastor, on the way out, what was meant by a specific phrase from the pulpit. Questioning and challenging theological interpretations that oppress when interpretations that liberate are equally available in the text. Sitting with the survivor over coffee without explaining, defending, or reframing what happened to them.
The cost of taking the sign down
These things will not feel revolutionary in the moment. The greengrocer who takes the sign down does not become a hero overnight, and very few people may notice at first. But he becomes the person who has made things awkward. And there is a chance, in Havel’s chilling word, that the system will spew him from its mouth if it is a harmful one. He may be relieved of his post, transferred, his children’s prospects quietly threatened, and all of this not by malicious individuals but by other greengrocers performing the panorama exactly as he once performed it. “Most of those who apply these sanctions … will not do so from any authentic inner conviction but simply under pressure from conditions, the same conditions that once pressured the greengrocer to display the official slogans.”
In a religious community the form is different but the structure is the same. The questioner finds herself uninvited from the small group, then dropped from the prayer chain, then quietly removed from the volunteer roster. Old friends become distant; family members who remain in the church are warned about her. In communal living arrangements, housing may be at stake. In some traditions, the theological framing arrives too: she is bitter, she is rebellious, she has a Jezebel spirit, she was never really one of us.
This is, in my experience, often what happens to whistleblowers in religious communities. The people who shun them are rarely zealots. They are mostly other greengrocers, doing what greengrocers do, maintaining the panorama, protecting their own peace. The cruelty is not personal. It is structural. And this is precisely the point Havel wants us to grasp: the structure has no existence apart from the people maintaining it.
Sign by sign — the path towards repair after spiritual abuse
The slow repair of a community damaged by spiritual abuse does not happen primarily through dramatic exposures, though those matter. It does not happen primarily through official statements, though those matter too. It happens, if it happens at all, through the daily, ordinary refusals of small numbers of ordinary people to keep performing what they no longer believe, and to take down the signs. The architecture of harm is built sign by sign. It comes down the same way.
The question Havel leaves us with is this: what am I currently displaying in my window that I do not actually believe or support? And how is this sign contributing to a panorama that promotes harm to others?
Reference: Havel, V. (1985). The power of the powerless (P. Wilson, Trans.). In J. Keane (Ed.), The power of the powerless: Citizens against the state in Central-Eastern Europe (pp. 23–96). M. E. Sharpe. (Original work published 1978)
Tucker, A. (2000). The philosophy and politics of Czech dissidence from Patočka to Havel. University of Pittsburgh Press.
At Refuge Psychology, I offer evidence-based counselling and support for those recovering from religious trauma and spiritual abuse. My approach is collaborative and faith-sensitive. I will not attempt to change your beliefs but will support you in a way that is consistent with them. To learn more or to book an appointment, click here:
To make contact or to book an appointment, click here:
Disclaimer: Any stories or examples provided are an example only and do not describe a specific client, person or event. Some of the information we provide on our website may be information related to health and medical issues, but it's not meant to be health and medical "advice". We provide this information for your general use only. While we try to provide accurate information, it may be historical, incomplete information or based on opinions that aren't widely held. Your personal situation has not been considered when providing the information, so any reliance on this information is at your sole risk. We recommend seeking independent professional advice before relying on the information we provide. Find the full terms of service here: Terms of Service | Refuge Psychology
