Intellectualism in Russia

   Slavophilia was an intellectual movement originating from 19th century that wanted the Russian Empire to be developed upon values and institutions which were derived from its early history. Slavophiles were especially opposed to the influences of Western Europe in Russia. There were also similar movements in Poland, Hungary and Greece.¹  

   The increased influence of Western Europe on the Russian Empire began largely during the reign of Peter the Great (1672-1725), the first Russian emperor. Czar Peter was influenced by everything European and after spending several months travelling around Europe he introduced western European clothing to Russia and even mandated that Russian men shave off their beard because he believed that facial hair was associated with Old Russia. 

    The movement originated in Moscow in the 1830s. Drawing on the works of the Greek patristics, the poet Aleksey Khomyakov (1804–60) and his devoutly Orthodox colleagues presented a traditionalistic doctrine that claimed Russia has its own distinct way, which doesn't have to imitate and mimic "Western" institutions. The Russian Slavophiles denounced modernization introduced by Peter the Great and Catherine the Great (1729-1796), and some of them even adopted traditional pre-Petrine dress.

     Aleksey Khomyakov is likely the most misunderstood thinker of the Russian nineteenth century.  He is, frankly, the synthesis of Orthodox thinking on papism and the West, and thus represents a major intellectual threat to the unthinking liberalism of the American talking class and the pseudo-morality of post-modern liberal capitalism.  His critique of the West is multilayered and complex, taking into account meta-history, theology, metaphysics, and political theory.  Either based upon a lack of desire or ability, there are few honest publications of the Slavophile phenomenon, and, honestly, Matthew Raphael Johnson believes that the dons of “Russian history” prefer it that way.  Therefore, like all else that is threatening about Holy Russia; Slavophilism is dismissed, slandered, and most importantly, completely misunderstood by the spoiled and tenured. 

     Khomyakov did not create the school of thought known as “Slavophilism”. This set of concepts and critiques has been in existence as long as Orthodoxy has been in existence.  It is little more than the conceptualization of a traditional way of life, one neither accepted nor appreciated by western intellectuals or westernizing Russians.²  This appreciation of a traditional way of life can be seen in the writings of Nikolai Gogol (1809-1852) and many other authors.

     The two central terms one needs to understand to begin with are extremely complex: the first is the notion of sobornost ("Spiritual community of many jointly living people"), and the second, integral knowledge. These two terms, though exposited by Khomyakov better than anyone else, are certainly not his invention, but are the philosophical armor of the Orthodox patristic tradition, expounded best, perhaps, by St. Isaac of Syria.  Both of these terms cannot be reduced to the notion that knowledge is primarily an individual phenomenon, nor is it reducible to the connection of concepts in logical sequence.

    It is important to keep in mind that the differences between the Westernizers and Slavophiles are not based upon the fact that one side cared about the future of Russia and the other did not.  It would be too simplistic to say that it was simply a matter of approach.  Some of the leading intellectual figures who supported the Westernizer movement were: Alexander Herzen (1812-1870), Timofei Granovsky (1813-1855), Nikolai Ogaryov (1813-1877), Vasily Botkin (1812-1869), Nikolai Ketcher (1809-1866), Yevgeny Korsh, and Konstantin Kavelin (1818-1885).³

    Prior to the Slavophile movement the Enlightenment had started entering Russia.   Philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) were becoming popular among certain aspects of the Russian population.  These philosophical positions were discussed and debated in various literary works of the time. 

   For example, The Grand Inquisitor in Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Brother Karamazov, was his way of showing what Utilitarianism would look like if it were accepted as a lived philosophy. Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill proposed a philosophy called Utilitarianism which taught that ethical principle to be followed was “the greatest good for the greatest number.” If more people benefit from a particular action than are hurt by it, then it is permissible and, in fact, encouraged.

    Ivan’s Grand Inquisitor has set himself up as the judge to determine who would suffer and whether or not this suffering in the greatest public interest. He believes that suffering is inevitable, so he might as well use it to his advantage. This includes burning people at the stakes that he considers heretics and even burning Jesus at the stake. Such philosophical ideas may have some immediate positive emotional appeal; however, once the consequences of these ideas are taken into consideration they often lose their appeal.⁴

    Slavophiles defended the historical identity of Russia and considered it a separate world, as opposed to the West due to the peculiarities of Russian history, Russian religion, and stereotypical Russian behavior. The greatest value of the Slavophiles is that they believed in the Orthodox religion as opposed to rationalistic Catholicism. For example, Aleksey Khomyakov wrote that Russia should become the center of the world civilization; not by becoming a rich or powerful country, but by becoming "the most Christian of all human societies." Particular attention is paid by Slavophiles to village life because they believed that the peasantry is a basis of high morality because it is had not been spoiled by civilization. The great Slavophile moralists saw in a village community with its meetings, unanimous decisions, and its traditional justice in accordance with customs and conscience.
   

   Slavophiles believed that the Russians have a special relationship with authority. The people lived as if they are in a "contract" with the civil system - they are community members, they have their own life, you - the power, you have your own life. Konstantin Sergeyevich Aksakov (1817-1860) wrote that the country has a deliberative vote, the force of public opinion, but the right to make the final decision belongs to the monarch. An example of this relationship may be the relationship between the king and the Zemsky Sobor (first Russian parliament in the 16^th Century) in Moscow between the state, which allowed Russia to live in a world without the shocks and the revolutionary upheavals like the French Revolution. "Distortion" in Russian history Slavophiles associated with the activities of Peter the Great, who "opened a window to Europe" thus violating the contract, the balance in the life of the country, and knocked her off the path charted by God.
  
   Slavophiles were often referred to as political reactionaries due to the fact that their three doctrinal principles were related to "official nationality": Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality. However, it should be noted that the older generation of Slavophiles interpreted these principles in a very particular way. They understood by Orthodoxy, a free community of Christian believers, an autocratic government which was regarded as an external form, which allows people to devote themselves to finding the "inner truth". At the same time they were protecting the autocracy, the Slavophiles did not attach much importance to political liberty. At the same time, they were staunch Democrats, supporters of the spiritual freedom of the individual. ⁵ 

    Prior to the Enlightenment there was no discussion of “personal rights”.  Instead there was a direct link between a person and the community which involved a sense of duty.  This relationship was based upon the idea that the feudal lord would protect his serfs and, in the event of some problem, the serf had a duty to fight for his lord’s interests. The Slavophiles understood this relationship to be true between the czar and the people.  These people would have seen topics such as “individual rights” as something which helped to bring about the French Revolution. 

     According to Matthew Raphael Johnson, people do not exist, they are abstract wills, as in Kant, or cogs in the wheels of history, as in Hegel, or bundles of repressed sexual desires, as in Freud, or abstract producers, as in Marx, or completely context-less entities “behind a veil” as in Rawls, or social atoms as in Hobbes, or mere acultural units as in Rousseau or Locke.  Such abstraction divorced from the context of a living society needs to be explained, and it is this that Ivan Vasilyevich Kireyevsky (1806-1856) set out to do. Must rights be separated from actual individuals or actual situations? Rights are either contextually created or they are abstract.  If they are abstract, then the community means nothing, and is subject, like the Roman Catholic Church and its rules.  If it’s contextual, then the western system of law and politics is illegitimate.  For the Slavophiles, western intellectual history is a gradual decline from rights and duties contextually defined, to a vision of humanity as a set of automata dictated to by ‘natural necessity’ and possessed, inexplicably, of “natural rights” whose primary duty, it seems, is to set the individual off from one another, the community as well as the state. For the Russian Slavophiles, this is the intellectual cause of liberalism, alienation, class warfare, and the rejection of reality by post-modernism, a phenomenon Kireyevsky had predicted.⁶

    In addition to Nikolai Gogol, some of the more well-known Slavophiles include Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821-1881), Lev Tolstoy (1828-1910), and Ivan Turgenev (1818-1883).  In the 1860s a movement known as nihilism developed in Russia.  This term first appeared in Fathers and Sons by Ivan Turgenev.  Nihilists favored the destruction of human institutions and laws, based on the idea that such institutions and laws are artificial and corrupt. At its core, Russian nihilism was characterized by the belief that the world lacks comprehensible meaning, objective truth, or value. For some time many Russian liberals had been dissatisfied by what they regarded as the empty discussions of the intelligentsia. The Nihilists questioned all old values and shocked the Russian establishment. They moved beyond being purely philosophical to becoming major political forces after becoming involved in the cause of reform. Their path was facilitated by the previous actions of the Decembrists, who revolted in 1825, and the financial and political hardship caused by the Crimean War, which caused large numbers of Russian people to lose faith in political institutions.⁷   

    This novel discusses the divide between two generations.  The “generation gap” is not a new concept.  Almost every generation believes that the younger generation is too impulsive and too prone to rash judgment.  Almost every younger generation believes that the previous generation caused all of the problems that they are facing and it is their job to correct these problems.  It is quite common for members of the older generation to offer advice to the younger generation and it is also common that the younger generation does not follow such advice.

        The main character in Fathers and Sons is Yevgeny Barazov, a medical student who has accepted the philosophy of nihilism.  He is mentor and friend to Arkady Nikolaevich Kirsanov.  Yevgeny falls in love with a wealthy widow named, Anna Sergeevna Odintsova, who entertains nihilists at her estate. However, his love is unrequited and this painful emotion to too much for him to bear.  He turns to his parents for support; however, when he receives no support his despair grows worse.

   Conversely, Turgenev shows us Arkady’s traditional happiness in marriage and estate management as the solution to Bazarov's cosmic despair and Anna's life of loveless comfort. (Arkady marries Anna Odintsova's sister, Katya, though he was also originally in love with Anna). The height of the conflict between Bazarov and the older generation comes when Bazarov wounds Pavel, Arkady’s brother, in a duel. Finally, Turgenev also refutes Bazarov's "insignificance principle", i.e., the nihilist idea that life is utterly insignificant and that nothing remains after death: after leaving and then returning again to his parents, Bazarov dies of typhus. The final passage of the book portrays Bazarov's parents visiting his grave.

They walk with a heavy step, supporting each other; when they approach the railing, they fall on their knees and remain there for a long time, weeping bitterly, gazing attentively at the headstone under which their son lies buried: they exchange a few words, brush the dust off the stone, move a branch of the pine tree, and pray once again; they can’t forsake this place where they seem to feel closer to their son, to their memories of him… Can it really be that their prayers and tears are futile? Can it really be that love, sacred, devoted love is not all powerful? Oh, no!

Their love causes them to remember Bazarov: he has transcended death, but only through the love of other people.⁸

     However, by Russia’s keeping the West at a distance, by her refusal to imitate the intellectual forms of the Western world, Russia was spared such dissolution.  Her westernizing philosophers and rulers were erroneous, for they were importing the seeds of revolution and class war.  For Russia, the patristic tradition from Greece and the Near East was a holistic way of thinking, taking to itself faith, social life, society, and philosophy into a larger whole animated by the Holy Spirit, rather than becoming a sect dedicated to the teachings of one man or office.  The spirit was internalized, and authority was something shared by the body of believers guided by the hierarchy (though not entirely by them), rather than alien ideas spoken in an alien tongue. The notion of the state and law immediately followed from this, for the state was not a cold and distant monster, but was represented by the “little father” who shared their concern and pain. However, the invasion of western ideas was starting to vitiate this idea. For the Slavophiles, the structure of the basically independent commune was always to be the living answer to the West and the guarantee of the communal and cultural idea of liberty that the West had long forgotten; of course, Khomyakov also believed that Russia was heading down that same path if the state continued her centralizing and standardizing tendencies.⁹

    An argument can certainly be made that Khomyakov’s ideas were proven true as a result of the birth of the Communist state following the Russian Revolution.  From 1917 until 1989, the Russian people were under the control of a group of men who encouraged the centralization of government, which Khomyakov opposed and also saw the average person as an isolated producer in accord with the teachings of Karl Marx.  These ideas were not in the best interest of the Russian people.

    While there is no longer any discussion of a formal Slavophile movement in Russia, the ideas contained within this movement are still alive.  The debate between the Slavophiles and the Westernizers continues to this day.   If my Russian friends are any indication of what is transpiring in their country, there is support for the idea of installing a new czar in Moscow.  The insights provided by Turgenev, Dostoevsky, and Tolstoy are still alive in Russia today. 

    The future of Russia is in the hands of the Russian people.  Regardless of what any particular individual may think of the leadership style of Vladimir Putin, for example, there is a long history of one person in charge of the Russian government.   Should Mr. Putin or someone else be chosen to be the next Russian czar it is important that Russian religion, history, and traditions be kept in mind should the topic of additional westernization be raised in the future. 

           

                                                          End Note

1)     “Slavophile”  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavophile  (accessed 3/17/12)

2)     Matthew Raphael  Johnson The Ancient Orthodox Tradition in Russian Literature (PA: Deipara Press, 2010), p. 207

3)     “The History of Slavophiles and Westernizers in Russia” http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20100902/160436673.html (accessed 3/17/12)

4)      “Suffering and Community in Brothers Karamazov” http://heideggerm1.blogspot.com/2011/08/suffering-and-community-in-brothers.html (accessed 3/17/12)

5)     “Westerners and Slavophiles” http://istorya.ru/referat/referat2/23642.php (accessed 3/18/12)

6)     Johnson, p. 218

7)     “History of Russia” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Russia#Nihilism (accessed 3/19/12)

8)     “Belief in Something Rather than Nothing” http://heideggerm1.blogspot.com/2011/10/belief-in-something-rather-than-nothing.html   (accessed 3/19/12)

9)     Johnson, p. 223

Profile of a Genius

   The term “genius” refers to something or someone embodying exceptional intellectual ability, creativity, or originality, typically to the degree that is associated with the achievement of unprecedented insight.¹  This term has been used  to describe various people throughout human history.  For example, in the realm of science, men such as Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), Albert Einstein (1879-1955), and Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), were declared to be geniuses because of their contribution to their field. 

    Genius can take many forms.  Based upon the definition given, there are some people who can be considered a financial genius, a political genius, or a musical genius.  Men such a Ludwig von Beethoven (1770-1827), Wolfgang Mozart (1756-1791), Pyotr Tchaikovsky (1840-1893), Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750), and others are considered to be musical geniuses.  Their contributions to music have passed the test of time.  The music they wrote is still performed by orchestras and studied by music students after all of these centuries. 

    Philosophy has produced its share of geniuses.  The contributions of Aristotle (384 BC-322 BC), Plato (424 BC-348 BC), Socrates (469 BC-399 BC), Moses Maimonides (1135-1204), Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109), Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), Martin Heidegger (1889-1976), Edmund Husserl (1859-1938), and others have had a profound impact on Western culture.  Their contributions in the area of ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology are still read by Philosophy students and discussed by philosophers to this day.  

    The title of genius extends to the field of literature also.  Writers such as Mark Twain (1835-1910), Charles Dickens (1812-1870), Edgar Allan Poe (1809-1849), Ernest Hemingway (1899-1961), Albert Camus (1913-1960), Lev Tolstoy (1828-1910), Anton Chekhov (1860-1904), Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (1859-1930), Mikhail Bulgakov (1891-1940), Mikhail Lermontov (1814-1841), and Walt Whitman (1819-1892) are each considered to be literary geniuses by countless generations. 

     One author, in particular, was a literary genius who has had a profound impact on future generations and whose philosophical insights spoke not only to his own generation, but to the present generation.  His name was Fyodor Mikhaylovich Dostoevsky (1821-1881). 

     Dostoyevsky was born in Moscow to Mikhail and Maria Dostoevsky, the second of seven children. The family lived in a small apartment on the grounds of Marinsky Hospital. The hospital was located in one of the city's worst areas near a cemetery for criminals, a lunatic asylum, and an orphanage for abandoned infants. This urban landscape made a lasting impression on the young Dostoevsky, whose interest in and compassion for the poor, oppressed, and tormented was apparent in his life and works. Although it was forbidden by his parents, Dostoevsky liked to wander out to the hospital garden, where the patients sat to catch a glimpse of the sun. The young Dostoyevsky appreciated spending time with these patients and listening to their stories.²

     From the age of nine, Dostoevsky suffered sporadically from epilepsy throughout his life and his experiences are thought ³ to have formed the basis for his description of Prince Myshkin's epilepsy in his novel The Idiot and that of Smerdyakov in The Brothers Karamazov, among others.  In fact, Dostoevsky’s son died as a result of epilepsy while Fyodor was in the process of writing The Brothers Karamazov.

     His genius was evident in regard to his ability to develop his characters in his novels and use these characters to discuss the important philosophical and social issues which were being discussed during his lifetime.  This is particularly true in The Brothers Karamazov. 

     In one particular scene in the novel, two of the brothers, Alyosha and Ivan, are having a discussion about God. Ivan is the embodiment of Enlightenment ideas. He does not believe in God and sees himself as a completely autonomous person who does not have to rely upon anyone. However, he also deeply resents his father because he realizes that he is dependent upon his father, to a certain extent, and this dependence goes against his notion of personal autonomy. Alyosha is a novice at a local monastery. He believes that we are completely dependent upon God and finds a sense of belonging and purpose for his life by being a member of a religious community.⁴

     This novel not only shows the dynamic of the relationship between the three brothers (Dmitry, Ivan, and Alyosha) and their father, Fyodor, it is also a murder mystery.  Fyodor is murdered and the reader has to determine which of his sons is responsible for murdering him.  In addition to his three sons, there is also a half-brother, Smerdyakov, who is treated very poorly by Fyodor.

      What was the patriarch of this family like? Fyodor Karamazov is portrayed as a rather self-absorbed man who believes in the notion that he is an autonomous human being; however, he too craves the attention of others. However, instead of receiving such attention in a positive way, he chooses to act like a clown. It has been said that there is no such thing as “negative attention” because any attention at all is better than no attention for someone who craves it so badly.

     Dmitry is very much like his father; however, instead of taking on the role of a clown, he takes on the role of a scoundrel. Throughout the novel, the only thing that is important to Dmitry is his own well-being and happiness. However, everything changes for him while he is in prison.

     After being convicted of the murder of his father, Dmitry is sent to prison and one evening he has a dream in which he encounters a little child who is suffering. Dmitry is moved with pity for this child and wants to find a way to relieve his suffering, but, instead, the little child kisses Dmitry on the head and comforts Dmitry.

    Dmitry tells his dream to Alyosha and declares that he is willing to suffer in prison if it means that others can be happy. Dostoevsky is asking a profound question. Does someone’s happy have to come at the expense of someone else’s suffering? Dmitry has spent his life thinking only about himself and now he is prepared to offer himself as a “martyr for happiness”.

   Alyosha, moved by his brother’s new found compassion, said that there is an alternative to this idea. The novel ends at the grave site of Illyusha Snegiryov, a child who had been mistreated and emotionally abused by his classmates. Illyusha’s father, Captain Snegiryov, had earlier been publicly humiliated by Dmitry and this brought shame on the entire family.

   IlIyusha was excluded from any “community” developed by the other boys in his village and his suffering became a source of amusement for them. All of these things contributed to Illyusha becoming more and more ill.

    At one point, Illyusha becomes convinced that he had killed a little dog. His caretaker, who knew the truth, refused to tell Illyusha that the dog had recovered. However, as Illyusha was close to death the other boys in the village experienced a sense of conversion. Instead of excluding Illyusha, they chose to include him in their “community” and his caretaker brought the little dog to him. Seeing how happy this made Illyusha was a source of joy for these little boys.

    IlIyusha was excluded from any “community” developed by the other boys in his village and his suffering became a source of amusement for them. All of these things contributed to Illyusha becoming more and more ill.

    While at the gravesite, Alyosha tells these boys that they will never forget IIlyusha. Illyusha was a fine, caring, loving, young boy who wanted to be happy. He tells the boys that they should love each other and that they will always remember when they were at the grave stone. The twelve boys, now in tears, take each other by the hand and return to the Snegiryov family home. ⁵

     Another novel which tells us something about life in Russia during the late 19^th Century was The Idiot.  The main character, Prince Myshkin, not only suffered from epilepsy, but was thought to be rather naïve.  He is such a beautiful soul that he is often taken for an idiot, and indeed, he considers himself to be stupid. However, while he suffers from mental illness, he is only “simple” in the sense that he cannot grasp evil. He thinks good of everyone he meets and expects that everyone else does too. This simple acceptance of people, and his simple way of living, leads those around him to befriend him and yet to feel themselves smarter and better than him. ⁶

     He is compassionate, benevolent, patient and forgiving. He arrives in Russia at the age of twenty six having spent four years in Switzerland treating his epilepsy and mental illness. He refers to himself as an 'idiot' because of this illness. The reason for his arrival to St. Petersburg is to start a new life with the help of his distant relative, Yelizaveta Prokofievna Yepanchin, General Yepanchin's haughty yet sensible wife. At the General's house he is attracted to Aglaya, the General’s youngest daughter, as a new hope. He is, to some extent, an amateur psychologist who can find out a great deal about people looking at their faces, pictures or handwriting. This ability draws him compassionately toward Nastasya Fillipovna as he sees great suffering in her and he wants to save her from self-destruction.

     On the matters of the real world, the world which people find it necessary to operate in, the Prince is not able to detect the proportion of things- as he himself puts it. This is because his view of the world is of no deceit or make over. He views all the people as good and debases himself in comparison to them. He has no definite tact to go about his objectives and insists on going to it openly and frankly. His insistence on doing good to all the people crosses the boundary of human limitations and practicability. In the end his actions end up hurting more than doing good. He gets obsessed with trying to save Nastasya. Parfyon Rogozhin out of his love for Nastasya, and seeing she loves the Prince nearly tries to kill him. In the end, however, he stabs Nastasya to death. Prince Myshkin chooses Nastasya over Aglaya overlooking their engagement and her love towards him. This stains the family reputation of the Yepanchins and devastates Aglaya's true love.

     By contrast, there is Parfyon Rogozhin.  He is a rich merchant's son who meets the Prince on a train, by which they are both going to St. Petersburg. Rogozhin is going home from hiding because he squandered his father's money to buy presents for Nastasya. Now that his father had died he is going to claim his inheritance.

     Rogozhin is the sort of person who when they want something do not stop at anything and go to any extreme to obtain it. He is a man driven by passion. His fate is intertwined with that of the Prince and Nastasya Fillipovna. Rogozhin is a rich man so he is an indulgent in his passions. His love for Nastasya is a full fervor passion, with both love and hate. She totally possesses him. When she asks him to buy her something for one hundred thousand rubles he does without a word of protest. When Nastasya runs away from him to Myshkin he follows her swallowing reproach and humiliation from her. He is totally mastered by this passion and to fulfill it squanders his wealth, time and energy. In the end when he knows for sure that he can never have Nastasya forever he kills her. He isn't totally bad, as many of his conversations with the Prince reveal, it is only that the passionate love for Nastasya that ruins him. ⁷

     Dostoevsky was very supportive of traditional Russian values.  Dostoevsky’s The Idiot is about an imaginary second coming of Christ, personified by Prince Myshkin, who is ridiculed, persecuted, and ultimately crushed by the Russian society of the 1860s, just as his predecessor in Judea had been centuries earlier.  Myshkin is therefore an unlikely ‘positive hero’ conjured up primarily for the edification of the Russian youth.  However, as Dostoevsky’s didactic intent had been somewhat disguised to increase the novel’s artistic value, his message was not altogether easy to unravel.⁸

   Russia underwent many cultural changes during the reign of Peter the Great (1672-1725).  Czar Peter desired to make Russia similar to Western Europe which included forcing men to shave off their beards, introducing European clothing, and changing the existing governmental structure.  One of the major challenges was that the structure which had existed up until that point was directly tied to Orthodox culture.  One thing which Czar Peter did was assume control of the Russian Orthodox Church by appointing an archbishop who was loyal to him. 

    The tie between Russian culture and the Orthodox Church is essential. Everything we know about Russian society is directly tied to their understanding of the importance of community.  Dostoevsky's ideas about the Russian soul are closely connected with Eastern Orthodox Christianity, its ideal of Christ, His suffering for others, His willingness to die for others, and His quiet humility about it. The Russians do not understand suffering for the sake of suffering. Depressed people have a dampened spirit and are without inner strength.  Without a healthy spirit the Russians would not have survived through the most tragic history among living nations. They would have perished like so many other nations. They love to share everything and especially joy of living. Folk music depicts that aspect of the Russian soul (chastushka). ⁹

      In The Idiot, Prince Myshkin represented the ideal Russian soul.  He represented the best aspects of Russian culture.  In contrast, there is Parfyon Rogozhin.  He is a rich merchant's son who meets the Prince on a train, by which they are both going to St. Petersburg. Rogozhin is going home from hiding because he squandered his father's money to buy presents for Nastasya. Now that his father had died he is going to claim his inheritance.

    Rogozhin is the sort of person who when they want something do not stop at anything and go to any extreme to obtain it. He is a man driven by passion. His fate is intertwined with that of the Prince and Nastasya Fillipovna. Rogozhin is a rich man so he is an indulgent in his passions. His love for Nastasya is a full fervor passion, with both love and hate. She totally possesses him. When she asks him to buy her something for one hundred thousand rubles he does without a word of protest. When Nastasya runs away from him to Myshkin he follows her swallowing reproach and humiliation from her. He is totally mastered by this passion and to fulfill it squanders his wealth, time and energy. In the end when he knows for sure that he can never have Nastasya forever he kills her. He isn't totally bad, as many of his conversations with the Prince reveal, it is only that the passionate love for Nastasya that ruins him.

    Parfyon Rogohzin can represent Russian society without its connection to the Church.  This society can easily be understood as a giant ship without a rudder.  This ship runs the risk of running aground without the proper direction and we can see in Rogohzin’s life that his life was moving out of control. 

    Nastasya Fillipovna can be seen as representing the transition from Orthodox culture to a culture where the Church has very little significance.  She finds Prince Myshkin’s personality and values to be appealing, but she is drawn to Rogohzin.  At one level, she knows that Rogozhin is not right for her, but she believes that Prince Myshkin is too good for her. 

    Another Dostoevsky novel which displays his genius was Crime and Punishment.  The main character, Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, has developed a theory that people are divided into two “camps” namely the ordinary and the extraordinary.  Rodion Raskolnikov believes that the “ordinary” person must pay the consequences for their actions, but this is not true for the “extraordinary” person. 

     An impoverished former law student, Raskolnikov considers himself to be one of the “extraordinary” people. He decides to test his “theory” by robbing and murdering Alyona Ivanovna, a local unpleasant and elderly pawnbroker, with an ax which he stole and theorizes that this robbery is justified because the money will be used for a “higher purpose”.  While attempting to flee from this woman’s apartment he is confronted by her half-sister, Lizaveta Ivanovna, whom he also kills.  He manages to steal a few items, but the majority of the old woman’s wealth and possessions are left untouched.

    Following the murder of these two women, Raskolnikov begins to descend into madness.  Prior to the murder he had begun losing his grip on reality, but the double murder has only made him worse.  His suspicious behavior points to him as the primary suspect of this crime, but there is no proof of his guilt. 

   Based upon the available evidence, Raskolnikov could “get away with murder”, if it were not for the fact that his conscience is tearing him apart emotionally. He does not want to confess to this double murder and have to pay the penalty for his actions, but he is finally confesses his actions to Sonia, a prostitute who has very strong Christian values and only becomes a prostitute because of her family’s financial state. 

    While he is confessing his crime to Sonya, this confession is overheard by Arkady Ivanovich Svidrigaïlov, a former employer of Avdotya Romanovna Raskolnikova, Rodion’s sister.  Arkady Svidrigailov, who was considered a suspect in the death of his own wife, attempts to seduce and rape Rodion’s sister, who convinces him not to.  He spends the night in confusion and despair and in the morning he shoots himself.

    The only person besides Sonya who knows what Raskolnikov did has committed suicide.  He could simply leave St. Petersburg and begin a new life somewhere else, but Raskolnikov goes to the police station and confesses his crimes. 

    The epilogue tells of how Raskolnikov is sentenced to penal servitude in Siberia, where Sonya follows him. Avdotya and Dmitri Prokofich Razumikhin, Raskolnikov’s friend, marry and are left in a happy position by the end of the novel, while Pulkheria Alexandrovna Raskolnikova, Raskolnikov's mother, falls ill and dies, unable to cope with her son's situation. Raskolnikov himself struggles in Siberia. It is only after some time in prison that his redemption and moral regeneration begin under Sonya's loving influence. ¹⁰ Sonia can be understood as representing traditional Orthodox values. He is plagued by horrible nightmares of what he had done and this young girl encourages him to do the right thing. 

    The specific concerns that spurred Dostoevsky to write this novel grew out of a larger pattern of reform and reaction that dominated Russian history throughout the nineteenth century. This pattern, in turn, stemmed from increased exposure to Western European ideas by the Russian upper class. Unlike Western Europe, Russian society continued to consist largely of peasants and lords, with a small, economically weak middle class. Dostoevsky was alone among Russia's major nineteenth-century novelists in terms of belonging to that middle class, for the others all came from the small, but powerful ruling class, or nobility. His contemporary, Lev Tolstoy, for example, was a count.

    Amounting to about one percent of the population, the nobility included large landowners whose estates subsumed entire villages, and who controlled vast numbers of serfs, the laboring peasants whose position resembled that of the slaves in the southern United States. Though nominally free, the serf was, in fact, bound to the land and the service of a lord. The character of Svidrigaïlov, a landowner and serial child rapist, who beats and sexually abuses his serfs which represents this system's worst abuses. Serfdom remained the leading issue for Russian intellectuals until its abolition in 1861, but even afterwards Russian leaders continued the pattern of alternating between reforms aimed at modernizing on the European model, and harsh, oppressive reactions against those attempted reforms.¹¹

   Each of the people mentioned displayed their genius in a particular way.  Fyodor Dostoevsky was certainly no exception.  Instead of simply challenging philosophical positions which he did not agree with, Dostoevsky brought those philosophical positions to life by placing them on the lips of his characters and showing what happens when those positions are taken to their logical conclusion.  

    A devoutly religious man who underwent a religious conversion while in prison in Siberia, it was obvious that he loved his country and understood that Russian culture must remain tied to the Orthodox Church if that culture was going to remain.  It could be said that life in post-Communist Russia confirms that Dostoevsky was correct.  The fact that people still read these novels is proof that there are still people who believe in the beauty of the Russian culture and that his novels support their beliefs.  Since the time of Peter the Great there have been debates over the influence of Western European culture on Russian society.  It appears that, thanks to men like Fyodor Dostoevsky, this debate continues. 

                                                            End Note 

1)     “Genius”  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius  (accessed 2/1/12)

2)     “Fyodor Dostoevsky” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fyodor_Dostoyevsky (accessed 2/1/12)

3)     Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, Richard Pevear, and Larissa Volokhonsky The Idiot (New York: Vintage, 2001), Introduction pp. xix

4)     “Suffering and Community in Brothers Karamazov” http://heideggerm1.blogspot.com/2011/08/suffering-and-community-in-brothers.html (accessed 2/3/12)

5)     “Suffering and Community in Brothers Karamazov”

6)     “The Kindness of Others” http://heideggerm1.blogspot.com/2011/06/kindness-of-others.html (accessed 2/3/12)

7)     “The Kindness of Others”

8)     Angela Brintlinger and Ilya Vinitsky (ed.) Madness and the Mad in Russian Culture (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007), p. 242

9)     “The Beauty of the Russian Soul” http://heideggerm1.blogspot.com/2011/10/beauty-of-russian-soul.html (accessed 2/4/12)

10)  “The Great and the Lowly” http://heideggerm1.blogspot.com/2011/09/great-and-lowly.html (accessed 2/4/12)

11)  “Crime and Punishment: Events in History at the time of the Novel” http://www.answers.com/topic/crime-and-punishment-events-in-history-at-the-time-of-the-novel (accessed 2/5/12)

The Desire to Overcome Loneliness

   Loneliness is an unpleasant affect, combining sadness and anxiety, a felt response to the absence of sufficient relational contact. Isolation is the condition of being separated from all important persons, things, and relationships.

   The relationship between loneliness and isolation is often stated simply, “If a person is isolated, that person will experience loneliness.”  The reality is more complex, as different conditions are required to produce loneliness in different people.¹ 

    What makes us happiest in life? Some people may point to fabulous fame and fortune. However, hands down, surveys show that friends and family are the real prize. Yet even though our need to connect is innate, some of us always go home alone. You may have people around you throughout the day or you may even be in a lifelong marriage, yet you may feel a deep down loneliness. Not surprisingly, isolation can affect one's mental and physical health to great detriment.²

   This is a very common theme in our modern culture, especially in light of the fact that many more people are living alone than ever before.  This theme also played a major role in the novel, Doctor Zhivago by Boris Pasternak (1890-1960).  The novel begins with the death of Yuri Zhivago’s mother, who dies when Yuri is a young man.  He goes to live with Alexander and Anna and their daughter, Tonya.  Eventually, Yuri becomes a medical doctor, he marries Tonya, and they have two children together, a son, Alexander, and a daughter, Anna. 

   Another major figure is Larissa Feodorovna Guishar. Born the daughter of a Belgian factory owner, Larissa's family, like Zhivago's, has fallen upon hard times. She ultimately becomes engaged to Pavel "Pasha" Antipov, an idealistic student who sympathizes with Lenin's Bolsheviks. Lara simultaneously has a discreet affair with her mother's lover, Viktor Komarovsky. A deeply corrupt lawyer, Komarovsky's connections extend to senior figures in both the Tsarist State and its revolutionary opponents. Despite her intense resentment of Komarovsky, Lara becomes very adept at using her sensuality to manipulate her besotted lover. Suspecting the worst, Lara's mother, Amalia Guishar, attempts suicide. Zhivago, along with his fellow medical student Misha Gordon, visit with a doctor and successfully save Amalia's life.

   Ultimately, Pasha Antipov is declared missing in action during World War I, but is captured by the Austro-Hungarian Army. After escaping from a POW camp, Antipov joins the new Red Army. He becomes notorious as General Strelnikov ("The Hangman"), a fearsome commander who summarily executes both captured Whites and many civilians. Meanwhile, Larissa becomes a battlefield nurse in order to search for her husband.

    Following the February Revolution, Larissa and Yuri serve together in a makeshift field hospital and fall in love. Neither, however, is willing to admit their feelings for the other. As he prepares to return to his wife and children in Moscow, Yuri expresses dismay to Larissa that, "the roof has been ripped off," the nation he loves.

    After the October Revolution and the subsequent Russian Civil War, Yuri and his family flee by train to their estate at Varykino, in the Ural Mountains. During the journey, he meets with General Strelnikov, who informs him that Larissa has returned to their daughter in the village of Yuriatin. Soon after, Larissa and Yuri meet and consummate their relationship.

    While returning from an encounter with Larissa, Yuri is abducted by Liberius, commander of the "Forest Brotherhood", the Bolshevik guerilla band. Liberius is a dedicated Bolshevik and highly effective leader of his men. However, Liberius is also a cocaine addict, loud-mouthed, and narcissistic. He repeatedly bores Yuri with his longwinded lectures about the glories of socialism and the inevitability of its victory.

    Subsequently, Yuri deserts and returns to Larissa; however, Komarovsky reappears. Having used his influence within the government, Komarovsky has been appointed Minister of Justice of the Far Eastern Republic, a Soviet puppet state in Siberia. He offers to smuggle Yuri and Larissa outside Soviet soil. They initially refuse, but Komarovsky states that Pasha Antipov is dead, having fallen from favor with the Party. Stating that this will place Larissa in the crosshairs of the Secret Police, he persuades Yuri that it is in her best interests to leave for the West. Yuri convinces Lara to go with Komarovsky, telling her that he will follow her shortly.

    Meanwhile, the hunted General Strelnikov returns for Larissa, who has already left with Komarovsky. After having a lengthy conversation with Yuri, Antipov commits suicide. Yuri finds his body the following morning.

    After returning to Moscow, Zhivago's health declines. He then lives with another woman and fathers two children with her. He also plans numerous writing projects which he never finishes. Meanwhile, Larissa returns to Russia for Yuri Zhivago's funeral. She persuades General Yevgraf Zhivago, Yuri illegitimate half-brother, to assist in her search for her daughter by Yuri. Ultimately, however, Larissa is arrested during Joseph Stalin's Great Purge and dies in the Gulag.

    During World War II, Zhivago's old friends Nika Dudorov and Misha Gordon meet up. One of their discussions revolves around a local laundress named Tanya, a Civil War orphan, and her resemblance to both Yuri and Lara. Much later, they meet over the first edition of Yuri Zhivago's poems.

    Yuri is a sensitive man with a poetic nature which is nearly to the point of mysticism. Zhivago's idealism and principles stand in contrast to the brutality and horror of World War I, the Russian Revolution, and the subsequent Russian Civil War.  The contrasts between his poetic nature and the events which have destroyed his country have led to a sense of loneliness and isolation. 

    Even though Yuri married Tonya and had two children with her, there is very little passion in their relationship.  This is in stark contrast to his relationship with Larissa.  He has a very deep connection with Larissa which seems to help him deal with his loneliness; however, this relationship eventually comes to an end also. 

    While fathering children out of wedlock might not be the ideal way to deal with overcoming loneliness, the need for human companionship is a very strong natural desire and if it is not met within a marital relationship it will be met somewhere else.  A major theme of the novel is how mysticism and idealism are destroyed by both the Bolsheviks and the White Army alike, as both sides commit horrible atrocities.³

    This is a novel that must be read not only because of Pasternak's unmistakable talent to depict the conflicts in the human mind, the suffering of doing something that largely contradicts your personal ethical norms, and the great love between two souls, but also because it questions the validity of the Communist revolution. At first it was a struggle for social equality and justice. Politically, this became a perverse struggle for power and control over the body, mind, and soul.⁴ Even though the Soviet government would not allow him to accept the award; Boris Pasternak won the 1958 Nobel Prize for Literature for this novel.

                                                     End Notes

1)    Rodney J. Hunter (ed.) Dictionary of Pastoral Care and Counseling (TN: Abingdon Press, 1990), p. 663

2)    “Loneliness” http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/loneliness 

3)    “Doctor Zhivago” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Zhivago

4)    “The Loneliness of the Individual in the Collective Society: Doctor Zhivago, The Russian Revolution, and Civil War” http://readwithstyle.blogspot.com/2011/07/loneliness-of-individual-in-collective.html