Crime and Punishment is a good example of an ideological novel, as it represents the cultural, political, and social concerns that a society has. Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment is an ideological novel because it examines society from the perspective of a criminal. He does not focus on the way society and culture works, but rather the failures of both. Raskolnikov is the antihero of the novel. His choice will have consequences. Dostoyevsky refutes the culturally dominant ideology of utilitarianism. Raskolnikov’s existence is based on the fact that he has only to make one decision in his entire life. In the end, his choice is incorrect despite its rationale. Stress and tension are the result. In order to satisfy worldly desires and justify his actions, he struggles to apply the principles and justifications of utilitarianism. He then attempts to adopt a nihilistic outlook. In spite of his efforts, he is unable to escape the consequences of his own actions. Finally, he discovers that he cannot escape the consequences of what he has done. Crime and Penalty becomes, in this way one of the earliest major existential and philosophical novels.
It is interesting to note that Raskolnikov, in Crime and Punishment’s ideological form, can justify and even commit his crime as he judges and condemns the evils committed by other characters. The evils that he sees, excluding Svidrigalov’s, are not considered to be immoral. Sonya and Dunya, for example, would have their selflessness hailed as noble. Self-sacrifice, it turns out, is the biggest crime in Raskolnikov’s view of existence.
Dostoyevsky follows Raskolnikov through his thought process as he contemplates the crime, its conception, execution and consequences. Raskolnikov dreams are a reflection of his various psychological states in relation to the murder. Raskolnikov fails to rationalize it with popular social, philosophical and political ideologies and ends up left only with his psychological suffering. Three dreams are related to the violent beatings of people or animals in front of a crowd. In the first of these dreams, a peasant who is drunk beats a poor horse. The crowd reacts in a variety of ways to the beating. While some are against it, others simply watch, while some even join in. Raskolnikov is the only one who actively tries stopping the beating, despite being a young child. In the next dream, Raskolnikov’s Landlady was being beaten. Raskolnikov and the crowd are all shocked as they watch, but nobody intervenes. Raskolnikov, in his third nightmare, beats an old woman he killed while onlookers laugh. Razumikhin represents honesty, innocence, morality, and virtue in the novel. This coincidence could be explained by Razumikhin representing Raskolnikov’s guilty conscience, which is protesting Raskolnikov’s attempts to justify the crime. Raskolnikov then becomes more annoyed at Razumikhin. Raskolnikov dislikes Razumikhin because of his belief that Raskolnikov will always be good.
Raskolnikov is hesitant to go to Razumikhin because he does not want to be “unduly crushed by any circumstance, no matter how dire” (70). Raskolnikov at first rejects the idea to visit him. He decides he’ll go to Razumikhin only after committing the murder. The murder makes him horrified. He decides to stop. Raskolnikov then has his first nightmare after he contemplates the murder as well as the possibility that he might go to Razumikhin in order to get financial help. Raskolnikov is a small boy when he dreams about a vengeful peasant beating an old mare to death with a hacksaw. Raskolnikov as a boy is horrified when he sees a peasant in rage whipping an old mare and beating it with hammers until it dies. Raskolnikov’s reactions to the mare’s beating are in stark contrast to his plans of murder. He is shocked by the idea of murder after he awakes. He tells himself “Good God!” . . Can I really use a hatchet to hit her in the head? . . “Is it Possible?” (78). Raskolnikov is represented by his split psyche in this dream. Raskolnikov finds himself in a difficult situation due to the conflict he has with his somewhat weak morality. . . Porfiry continues to elaborate on Raskolnikov’s ideas between the ordinary and extraordinary. Porfiry explains Raskolnikovs idea of the ordinary versus the extraordinary. Raskolnikov defends these ideas by utilitarianism. “…the unusual man has the right to let his conscience go over certain obstacles. This is not a sanctioned official right. It’s only allowed if the idea is so important that it could affect the well-being of all mankind.
Raskolnikov can’t justify his murder using utilitarian principles because he is horrified by the image of a horse being beaten. While he attempts to justify the killing of the woman with the above principles, his terror at having to commit the crime is too much to bear. The first dream is an example of this part of his psyche. It shows the dominant character and conscience in Razumikhin. This contradicts the dream as the peasant beating the horses is not “extraordinary”. Also, killing a stallion is not for the greater good. In this dream, however, not everyone is against the horse-beating; some people even take part. This would seem to suggest that there are some in the community who support this senseless crime. Raskolnikov is horrified in his dream that people continue to beat him, undermining his motive for murder. In the dream, Raskolnikov believes that he has committed murder but is horrified by how people continue to beat him.
Raskolnikov then has a bizarre experience which combines religion with utilitarianism as he justifies his crimes. He makes an inexplicable detour while returning home. As a result, he finds out that Lisaveta ivanovna will not be at home when the murder is planned (79-80). Raskolnikov was “absolutely convinced” that his freedom of thought and will had been taken away. Everything, he felt, was now irrevocably decided. Raskolnikov rationalizes murdering Razumikhin by dismissing his free-will and relying on predetermination, forgetting all about his dreams and Razumikhin.
Raskolnikov experiences a second nightmare after the murder. After visiting Razumikhin and burying his stolen items, he returns to his home. Raskolnikov’s rage is evident when he meets Razumikhin. Raskolnikov had not anticipated that he might have to confront him. Razumikhin represents Raskolnikov’s conscience. In his dream, the mare beat him with her whip in the street on the way home. He “undress[es] like a horse that has been blown out, [lies] on the couch… and instantly [falls] to a heavy sleep” (133). The imagery of animals surrounding the second dreams is similar to that in the first dream. He dreams of his landlady being brutally beaten by her husband on the staircase. He is shocked and “couldn’t imagine such brutality or such frenzy”, as he was in his first reaction. The crowd represents the society. They are shocked, but nobody intervenes. They’re too weak to interfere; they just see Raskolnikov as a monster.
Raskolnikov will face negative consequences for his choice. Raskolnikov might have chosen the right thing from a utilitarian view, but the psychological effects of the crime – suffering and negative consequences – overshadow the good that may have resulted. The dream that he has, which he finds horrifying, is also about a crime similar to his. He can’t see any reason for his landlady being beaten, much less a greater purpose.
Raskolnikov experiences his third dream after returning home from Razumikhin, where he met the artisan. Raskolnikov’s split psyche is on full display in this scene. He is both afraid to reveal his true identity and frustrated at Razumikhin because he hasn’t noticed. This innocent booby is never aware of anything!” (271). Raskolnikov – or, at least, part of Raskolnikov – wants his conscience prevail, for Razumikhin figure out what he did, and to be held responsible for his crime. Porfiry argues with Razumikhin over the ideologies of Raskolnikov, despite his contradictory behavior, thoughts and feelings about his crime. Razumikhin asserts:…The socialists reduce every issue to a common cause – the environment. Environment is a root cause for all evil… The human spirit is not supposed exist… That is why they hate the living process of the life so Your logic can’t help you overcome your own nature! There are a million possibilities that logic cannot foresee. You can ignore all the possibilities and just focus on comfort. It’s a simple solution! There is no need for any thinking. (273)
Razumikhin makes a case for embracing the human condition and nature, as well as the importance of individual choice. This is a purely existential argument. Porfiry rejects Razumikhins existentialist views and ideals. He then takes a more nihilistic stance and retorts that “environment matters a great deal in crime”.
Raskolnikov has a third dream in which he starts to doubt the nihilism of his first two dreams and rejects utilityitarianism. On his couch, Raskolnikov thinks “I had to rush over–I hadn’t killed a human being. I just killed a concept! But I did step over, and I was not able to do so. I was only able to kill! Even that seemed impossible! A principle? Why did that stupid Razumikhin abuse the socialists? They are an industrious group of men–practical people who want to bring ‘the joy of all’ to everyone.
Raskolnikov attempts to adopt a more nihilistic approach by telling himself, “I don’t think I killed a person. Instead, I killed a concept!” Raskolnikov questions himself and asks, “A principal?” He is rejecting utilitarianism by rejecting this notion. The horse image is a constant in his dreams, and he continues into his third one. Raskolnikov beats the woman with an axe in this dream. In this dream there is also a large crowd. They laugh at him instead of laughing along with him, or disapproving. This fits in with Raskolnikov rejecting utilitarianism recently, as was shown by Razumikhin and Porfiry. Porfiry asks Raskolnikov: “What happens when an ordinary person thinks they are extraordinary men?” Raskolnikov responded: “…that’s what happens a lot. Many people imagine themselves to be advanced, to be “destroyers”, and they do everything to declare the “new term” for themselves.
Raskolnikov articulates that he is already beginning to experience his fate – his inability even to make it very far. This foreshadows a doom to come. Raskolnikov also believes that his “extraordinaryness” was undermined by society’s mocking of him and his crimes.
Raskolnikov is ultimately overcome by his spirituality and conscience, and confesses the crime. He fails to use philosophical theories such as utilitarianism or Nihilism to defend his actions. He can’t endure any more of the existential and psychological sufferings, and is finally forced to confess and accept social punishment. Raskolnikov foreshadowed the same thing in his conversation Razumikhin-Porfiry. He will be punished with this, in addition to his penal servitude. Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment is a novel that can be interpreted as ideological. Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment deconstructs dominant ideologies using the choice of Raskolnikov, the criminal. He explores how many major modern philosophies are unable to explain cultural phenomena such as criminality. In order to disprove these philosophical views, he has created a novel which is fundamentally existential.
Sources Cited
Original: Furthermore
Paraphrased: In addition
Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. The novel Crime and Punishment is a classic work of fiction that follows the story of a young man who commits a crime and struggles with the consequences of his actions. Suffolk: Penguin, 1976.
