Crime & Punishment

 Discuss the contention that, in Crime and Punishment, Dostoevskii challenges the claims of rational philosophy by means of an illustration of mans inherent duality. Illustrate your answer with reference to characterisation and narrative style.

 

In the broad sense, the rational philosophers involved throughout the essay will refer to those who support the idea of an attainable social utopia on grounds of either utilitarian or socialist principles. 

The psychological account of the crtime serves to undermine many misconceptions, in particular Raskolnikov's, about the feasibility of his deed . There are a host of blunders which occur dring the act itself, due to the failure of ‘Will and Reason’. Amidst waking dreams, and delerium, Raskolnikov wakes, an hour before the crime to start his preparations. There is little to suggests that Raskolnikov had made fully consciouss what trauma awaited him:

"Even his recent rehearsal (the visit he had made with the intention of making a final survey of the place) had only been an attempt at a rehearsal, not a real one, much as if he had said: ' Come on, I'll go and test it out, what's the point in lying here and dreaming...' - and had at once been able to go through with it, he shrugged his shoulders and ran away in bitter rage at himself."

As the terror builds up into a climax of frenzied paranoia his faculties begin to fail. The 'manhandling' of the old lady at the door, then leaving it open to cause another, unpremeditated, murder, and the subsequent realisation of this blunder, are all whole the result of trauma, epitomised in a 'Freudian slip': instead of leaving through the door Raskolnikov bolts it.

After the second murder he loses interest in continuing is enterprise, and immediately the need for self-preservation takes precedence. He scraps the remaining valuables. Simultaeneously the trivial details, which hasearlier subordinated to perseverance and resilience in the face of danger, become less than mere trifles: he spends several minutes washing the axe in the flat, compulsively checking for marks of blood on it and his clothes. Had it not been for the empty flat he would have undoubtedly been spotted, similarly, on the way in to the flat the cart allows him to enter unseen, all of this as if by 'Special design'. By the fact that his conceived idyllic 'murder' stops several moments short of becoming a continuous killing frenzy of witnesses, undermines his assumption in the simplicity of crime. This is merely the beginning: yet is Raskolnikov unaware as to the growth of this failure of will and proceeding delerium, the consequence of his fatal errors.

"A certainty that everything, even his memory, even the simple faculty of reason, was deserting him had begun to torment him unenduringly. 'What, is it really beginning now, this, the punishment beginning ?..."

What arises is after the crime, his punishment, is an animal fear, an egoistic one: self-preservation at all costs. Precisely this throws his cause to oblivion during the murder, and greatest fear immediately afterward. At the Bureau, upon hearing the summons was merely related to an out of date promissory note, he reacts with gratitude.

"An exultant sense of self-preservation, of having escaped from danger that had been crushing on him - that was what filled his whole being at that moment, and it contained no predictions, no analyses, no plans, or guesses about the future, no doubts and no questions. It was a moment of total, spontaneous, pure animal joy."

The same sense of relief arises upon having buried the stolen goods later on the same day.

Raskolnikov shows signs of a brutish, animal character throughout the worst parts of his gradual decent into delerium. He is unable to control his behaviour at all times, hates the presence of all people and interest in "...nothing but that murder!", as Zosimov points out.

In the interview with Zamyotov he shows his disregard in a childish fashion, a coarse and primitive way of responding to irritation, but in his case the act is one of plain sarcasm. Cleverly linked to the murder scene by the author, it shows a release in pent up fears, the transferral of one aspect of fear and hatred into an entirely new context. Alternatively, it could be interpreted as an act of hypocrisy: he hates himself for not being able to unload his guilt and transposes this energy into a defence of his criminal capabilities. Essentially, the constant flashbacks cause him to breakdown into an uncontrollable character, bearing resemblance to an animal.

Immediately after recognising the folly in burying the stolen goods a "physical revulsion to everything he encountered...He reflected that if anyone had said anything to him he would quite simply have spat at that person, or bitten him...”

It is from precisely this state of delerium, where the protagonist switches from self-effacing to stark arrogance, moments of calm to raging outburst, resoultion to futility ; in the exposition of these basic drives, where the irrational, animal nature is revealed and battling with a weak conviction in 'some' struggle towards 'some' unformulated cause; where seeds of true guilt start to grow.

Whence speaking to the policeman he is exposed to new sensation, an uncalculable one, even after the months of contemplation. The desire to be alone has been giving to him and now he feels its inexorable, foreboding presence.

"...even if they had all been his very own brothers and sisters, and not the police lieutenants at all, even then he would have had absolutely no reason to address them about any circumstances of his life that he could possibly imagine, never until that moment had he experienced such a strange and terrible sensation."

The greatest pain he suffers is bearing human contact: he knows that this love cannot be reciprocated without a lie behind it. His salvation lies in people.

Both Razumikihn, and Porfiry, represent the two strongest forces of his torment in the novel, both endowed with a necessary omniscience.Both are completely aware of all his deeds, but whether in mere conversation, as Razumikihn, or interrogation, like Porfiry, drill the protagonist with .

In conclusion, the author has thus used to great effect, dialogue as a method of psychological scripting, to reveal aspects of man's behaviour which may not have conformed to any given classification of man, in particular those who hold that man can be reduce to a rational product. His theories on will and reason fail him entirely during the process of crime and after wards. Amongst other factors which the author uses to heighten the dramatic process; are other intricate narrative methods. Although suitable in this context, they have strong ambiguity in their reference, and are placed only with difiiculty under a category. To summarise briefly: his dreams, hallucinations, orientation failures. Before making any final conclusions, I will list several of them and consider to what extent they may be attributed strictly to the spiritual aspect of Raskolnikov's conscience.

Despite the intense psychological turmoil Raskolnikov finds himself struggling through, Dosteoevskii' protagonist does not merely play a purely pschological role in the novel. In the immediacy of his murder, Raskolnikov's state of health degenerates, and the day after it, the atmosphere he finds himself is one of transient, fleeting fantasy where nothing is as it seems. Doestoevskii makes use of narrative in the shape of dreams, hallucinations of several senses, and references to a Divine presence or fate.

On the bridge, Raskolnikov finds himself:

"In some deep space below him, scarcely visible beneath his feet, he now beheld the whole of his earlier past - his old thoughts, old problems, and himself, and everything, everything...He seemed to be flying off somewhere into the heights, and everything seemed to vanish before his eyes..."

Several days later, a similar 'sensation' confronts him at the bridge, 

"At last red circles begun to spin in his eyes, the buildings begn to move, passers-by...all began to revolve and dance in a cricel. Suddenly he gave a shudder,and possibly saved once more from fainting by a wild, outlandish apparition. he sensed that someone was standing beside him...and saw a woman..she threw herself into the canal.". 

The old lady, represents an escape from the struggle which awaits, but he sees it as "vile"., he may be acting out of reason or ultimately fear of death. Awaiting more signs of fate, he is called to the building in pursuit of his struggle. 

At the bureau, it were as if someone whispered to him...something in his ear. He lifted his head and he was outside that building, right by its front entrance." Whatever the presence his, it is preventing him from a simple escape, as if he still had more of struggle to go through. After all, had he not gone to the flat then he would never have ended up leaving in time to witness Marmeladov's death. Conversely, his presence there leads to deeper suspicion of him from the bureau.

All of Raskolnikov's sensations, while capable of being interpreted as strictly psychological, also have a spiritual or supernatural quality to them. We are immediately aware that his mind plays tricks on him from the outset of his period of 'punishment'. Several days into his delirium, he forgets in a period of hours what events have occurred: 

"How long is it since you began these visits to the house?'

But I mean - I told you all that this morning; or have you forgotten?'

Raskolnikov began to refelect. The events of that morning flitted before him as in a dream. He was unable to recall

them single handed, and looked questioningly at Razumikhin'"

Amidst the rapid changes of mood, and the lack of a rational approach to his deeds, is the presence of the Divine. To this effect, the St Petersburg of Raskolnikov may be interpreted as being a spiritual focal point, or purgatory. His internal battle is equally matched in the physical aspect of his being, his perception of odd occurrences, such as the suicide of the old lady and imaginings of his landlady being beaten by Ilya Petrovich. As he is about to turn himself him, he hears a whispering, and as if by fate he finds himself before the flat where the murder took place.

Throughout the conversation with Zamyatov, one is unsure as to whether he knows whether he is speaking to a person as much as to his conscience:

"In the wake of his abrupt, paroxsmic explosion of laughter Raskolnikov grew suddenly reflective and sad...One might have thought he had completely forgotten about Zamyatov". 

The exchange between psychological and a supernatural powers is evident as a progression. At the beginning the novel deals with superstition, whereas the immediacy of the murder the descriptions are physical ones, and towards the end it picks up a fatalistic theme again. Whereas it could have been possible for Dostoevskii to use the Divine as a guiding force, this may have weakened the description of Raskolnikov's struggle, yet it stops short of giving Raskolnikov's confessions an entirely 'human' motive. This mixture between psychological detail and supernatural ambience is what allows Dostoevskii to ground Raskolnikiov's conflicting motives for confession in more than just the physical dysfunction and delerium. Lebezyatnikov's character as a satiric debasement of such views expresses it clearly in his reaction towards the insanity of Katerina Ivanovna:

"but you are aware that in Paris there have already been some serious experiments relating to the possibility of treating the insane by means of logica,..there is nothing patirulcalry wrong with the organism of the insane person, and that insanity is , as it were, a logical error, an error of judgement, a mistaken view of thinge. He would refute the arguments of his patient step by step and, would you believe it..."

The sense of Divine Providence is masterfully crafted into Raskolnikov's psyche as it leads up to the murder. In order to imbue the voice Raskolnikov with a taste for superstition, the author combines both the original motive for his murder, and his final judgement in one narrative sweep. In real time, Raskolnikov finds himself wandering off to the Haymarket with no reason only to find out about Lizaveta leaving the Old lady the next day. The sequence then skips back in time to give details about Raskolnikov's initial motive for his plan. The immediate result is a sense of unusualness, but at the same time precaution. To place subjective conviction in the protagonist, within the environment governed by a semi-subjective, semi-objective narrative, allows the reader to take a sceptical view of Raskolnikov's superstition. Ambiguity is maintained throughout. Are these premonitions signs of other forces at work, or are they Raskolnikov interpreting everything he sees as fate? Moreover, Raskolnikov's motives start to fall apart under his faulty judgements, as we are told that upon meeting the lady for the first time,

"he felt towards her, at first glance, without knowing anything particular about her, an unmasterable sense of revulsion..."

Yet later his Mother notes in the letter a bad habit of Raskolnikov's : "you musnt  judge him too quickly and hastily the way you usually do when you dont like somethkig about somebody at first glance".

In retrospect, Raskolnikov's motives almost appear more fickle before his crime than after. Yet to place the final coin in the basket, Raskolnikov openly realises the extent of his trappings:

"...throughout the whole month I've been pestering all beneficient Providence by asking it to be a witness that I wasn't undertaking my project in order togratify my own fleshly lust, but that I had in mind a splendid and agreeable aim...ha, ha!-"

A probem which arises out of this manipulation of determinism, is that there seems no limit to its use. After having denounced providence, to what extent is the reader justified in believing that the factors which lead him to confess are also not merely his own fancies? 

Dostoevskii differentiates between superstition and “True Providence”, through means of his narrative.the superstition Raskolnikov experiences prior to the murder are always held with scepticism. Yet prior to his confession to Sonya, this inner drive is described as something more akin to a 'sense of necessity' or inevitabilty. Similarly to his sensations of guilt, these inescapable necessities arise from a state of insecurtity, where instinct, as opposed to reason rules action. It is brought to the fore amidst Raskolikovs irrational behaviour, and manifests itself in the shape of 'pure feeling'. This is captured by the intense dialogues between Sonya and Raskolnikov in the novel. The interaction with characters serve as a means for Raskolnikov to learn about himself.

Each of the characters enters the consciousness of Raskolnikov through dialogue, direct or related through another. As functions in the consciousness of Raskolnikov, Sonya and Svidrigailov, are arguably the most important amongst all characters. It is towards these characters to which Raskolnikov feels himself drawn in his punishment. 

The short conclusion of Svidrigailov's miserable life serves as a parallel. We realise later that Sonya and Dunya are scared of Rraskolnikov's possible suicide, and Svidrigailov's harrowing story describes a possible conclusion to Raskolnikov's life.. This use of parallelism in the novel is a clear example of Dostoevskii's doubling. To enhance this effect, the author employs narrative techniques by suggesting the ominous and inescapable presence of another self lurking within his conscience. Throughout the mental torment Svidrigailov endures, the fate of Raskolnikov always remains in view.

Sonya, on the other hand, has her most important role as confidant. In Sonya, he recognises an indestructible affirmation of life, amidst the misery of bondage and sin, which he fails to comprehend. Moreover he fails to understand her faith, an initially attempting to deny it to her, he is ultimately stepping through his own fears, as he realises she will not be moved by his debasement of her faith.

Initially he confides in her because he feels they are similar. Although Sonya's sins are not of the same motives as Raskolnikov, yet she is ashamed of her sins, which binds them in status. Unlike Svidrigailov however, she represents a wall to him, one defined and clear outcome, which he fears later in the novel. Svidrigailov, who by his nature is the opposite to Sonya in that he finds no humility in the error of his ways, nor shame, represents the ultimate end of the spectrum in Raskolnikov's conscience. He has stepped over  and strayed far from the line, whereas Raskolnikov remains within reaching distance only because of Sonya. Therefore, it is Svidrigailov who is responsible for showing Raskoolnikov the result of not seeking redemption. Although the crimes of all three characters have different motives, ultimately by the virtue of their condition, the purpose of their interaction is to realise that what they have done is a crime in their conscience, the subject of the novel being one of mental punishment, not secular justice. In this sense, the crimes, which are all wrong to a certain degree are madein the conscience and the emphasis is on spiritual redemption, not through secular law.

Although these two characters aid in the final confession of Raskolnikov, they are not responsible for his change in outlook over his crime. The ending, and epilogue, are largely responsible for showing that despite there being hope in society, it is not to be taken from society, as Raskolnikov initially attempts to do, in his arrogant, vallerous deeds, and self glorifying acts, his dependence on Sonya, or his need to understand himself through seeing the faults of others; but in something else, something hinted at but left open ended in the novel.

-------------------------

Final Conclusion

The mixed sense of objectivity and subjective torment, are undoubtedly responsible for unleashing Raskolnikov's guilt, yet even these depend, for their feasibility on a conviction on behalf of the reader that the psychology of man always responds in uncontrollable ways when placed under pressure. The novel also attempts at rooting out a source for the conscience in a psychology, which is ultimately dependent on a purely philosophical stance. Whether man's conscience can be overthrown sucessfully or not is a matter of belief. Nietzschean advocates, would suggest an ability to overcome conventional morality in man, utilitarian's may be able to find personal advantage in Raskolnikov's confession after all, Kantian's amy find a transcendental element amongst the confusion, and behavioural psycholoists may already have an explanation for the deleriums, with a timely supply of pills.

The sucess of the novel, if not in this aspect may be attributed to the existential elements in the novel. 

As is referred to several times throughout the work, Raskolnikov is not guided by reason, but sense, moreover, it is not superstition which leads him on to Sonya and Svidrigailov, or his final confession, but a 'strange feeling of necessity'

What Raskolnikov discovers, is that there is no way of justifying his crime to himself, he merely has to accept his crime and the suffering it entails. To this extent, he tries to regain his conscience by doing good attempting to resume his struggle but this only serves to torment him further by. This struggle, which Raskolnikov goes through at the end, appears to be something tiresome:

"he was experiencing a sense of infinite moral weariness, even though his reason was functioning better than it had during all these recent days..."

The answer lies in Sonya, who may not hereself know why, and to an extent have no explanation, can only tell Raskolnikov a command from somewhere, the cause of which is unknown to her, of which she has no proof, and all that Raskolnikov has  as an option is to accept it or not: all this compounded with sheer ridiculousness in it simplicty.

"He began to think deeply about the process by which it might happen that he would finally, beyond all dispute, submit to them with humility born of conviction.'All right, why not? Of course that's how it ought to be..."

the sense of absurdity in aciton,  a strain prevalent in early twentieth century works of Camus, Sartre, and Kafka, is one which follows Raskolnikov beyond the story, and one which undermines every individuals convictions in his purpose in life, the: "why?",