‘Crime and Punishment’ by Fyodor Dostoyevsky is a much-celebrated work within the academic space for its complex characterization of the mind, the way it navigates and encapsulates the meandering motion of guilt, the notion of nihilism, and the idea of criminality. The general nature of the discussion that pervades much of the space around Dostoyevsky’s novel centers around the idea of criminality, money, poverty, immorality in murder, and guilt. The novel has maintained its relevance through the ages primarily because of Dostoyevsky’s minute and exact analysis of the components and the workings of the human mind, and how guilt, culpability, and anxiety reflect in an individual’s behavioral pattern. There has been extensive research as far as the psychological elements of the work are concerned but there is another fascinating aspect of the text that has been the subject of much discussion, and that is Raskolnikov’s inclination toward nihilism and his fervent attempt to redefine the idea of criminality.

This paper will focus on tracing the gradual cognitive disintegration of Rodion Raskolnikov, Dostoyevsky’s problem with nihilism as a philosophy, and an investigation into the nature and definition of criminality. And also, to what degree, if at all any, is organized religion linked to a structured and peaceful society, and will there be thoughtless killings and chaos in the absence of it?

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF THE NOVEL:

Guilt is crucial to the understanding of the frantic and miserable behavioral pattern of Raskolnikov. The hounding realization of guilt gnawing slowly at the edges of sanity tends to reduce a man to a mere specter of himself. It raises doubts, questions the idea of self, and questions morality and conscience. Morality is a shared set of religious/cultural/ethnic value systems which among other things primarily differentiates between the idea of good and evil. Guilt is the by-product of the conflict between shared morality and individual conscience. Guilt is enforced through morality. The inability to reconcile with guilt leads to the shattering of self. In Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov is a good example of how guilt wears the mind from the inside. It forces an individual to question their choices, decisions, and actions. Since the guilt in Raskolnikov’s case can’t be verbalized, externalized, or shared, because there are legal/societal repercussions to ethical transgressions, his mind becomes an echo chamber laden with guilt. It leads to mental-breakdown and psychological hostility directed not outwards but inwards. The hostility aims at the complete dissolution of self because if there is no reconciliation with self, dismantling, and reconfiguration of identity is required.

An important question that arises out of this explanation is what is the need for these definitions?

While analyzing Raskolnikov’s character it becomes very important that these terms be established, and understood in a certain chronological order, because it is in the understanding of the definition of these words, and the position they occupy in the chronological order wherein the man and the idea of Raskolnikov resides. These terms and definitions are crucial to the understanding of what makes Crime and Punishment a seminal text in psychological fiction and in tracing the transformation of the psyche of Raskolnikov after having committed the act of murder. The murder itself is followed by a pervading sense of guilt. Guilt as I have mentioned earlier is the by-product of the conflict between shared values (morality), legal/societal/religious (like “Thou shalt not kill”), and individual conscience. It is only when Raskolnikov decides to go against morality and commit the act of murder following his conscience that he feels guilty. Guilt in Raskolnikov’s case is accompanied by paranoia and illness.

Why do paranoia and illness accompany guilt? It’s because of Raskolnikov’s innate inability to reconcile and make peace with the fact that he has committed a heinous act. Since there is no reconciliation a shattering of self is required. Shattering of self is fundamental to the formation of a new identity because the old identity is stained with blood and therefore requires a major overhaul. Once the self is shattered, which in Raskolnikov’s case happens when he pleads guilty to the crime, there is scope for redemption.

His absolution is realized through the legal system. Prison for him serves as a rite of passage, and chamber of absolution through which, after having served his terms, he walks out having constructed a new identity free of guilt. This saves Raskolnikov from absolute self-annihilation which he would have otherwise suffered, had he not confessed to his crimes.

‘Crime and Punishment’ is a psychological masterpiece in the way it lays bare the complex thought mechanism that precedes and follows the act of murder. In his article ‘On Crime’, Raskolnikov mentions how the “perpetration of a crime is always accompanied by illness” (Dostoyevsky,367). Later on, in the plot when he commits the act himself, the disgust he feels does not just manifest itself in the psychological realm, he feels physical discomfiture because of it as well.

REDEFINING CRIMINALITY:

The novel is also a deliberation on the idea, the definition, and the very nature of criminality and how the legal system as an institution according to Raskolnikov is a “conservative vocation” (Dostoyevsky,370). This prompts us to perceive the legal system as archaic, conservative, and requiring a major overhaul, and that criminality by its very definition is restrictive and therefore requires a restructuring and redefinition. Raskolnikov posits that there is substantive evidence to make a case for this sort of radical redefinition, and he theorizes his ideas in an article titled “On Crime ''. The act of murder itself can be seen as a materialization of the thoughts he expressed in the article. He commits the act because he wants to place himself in the pantheon of great men like Napoleon and Lycurgus, and sees the law-abiding nature of humans as something baser and inferior. He writes that great men have a predisposition towards the destruction of the present so that a newer and better future can be constructed. Change is inevitable and change according to him is brought about by these great men and their ability to find in their conscience “a sanction for wading through blood” (Dostoyevsky,370). What he is essentially talking about is a sanctioned form of murder, that he legitimizes in the name of necessity, change, and progress.

Raskolnikov’s conversation with Porfiry Petrovich about the article is particularly interesting because it is a kind of verbal jostling or fencing that Raskolnikov engages in. Porfiry in that regard can be seen as a personification of Raskolnikov’s guilt and the verbal fencing as a materialization of his inner conflict.

In his article, Raskolnikov argues that men tend to fall into two categories, “ordinary” and “extraordinary”. Ordinary men live a life of subservience while extraordinary men have the distinct privilege to transgress legal or moral boundaries if they see them as stumbling blocks in the path of their success or as offering obstruction to humanity at large. This seems very closely linked to Bentham’s idea of Utilitarianism, a theory, which makes a case for the greatest good of the greatest number. Raskolnikov picks this utilitarian idea and applies it to justify criminality murder and legal transgression. He further adds that great men like “Mahomet, Lycurgus, Solon, and Napoleon were all without exception criminals, from the very fact that, making a new law, they transgressed the ancient one…” (Dostoyevsky,369) He even goes on to say that all extraordinary men, who have it in them to do something path-breaking are by their very nature criminals.

But as the story unfolds, we see a transformation in the ideas of Raskolnikov, and his attempts to redefine criminality are all but gone. He’s lost the battle with his conscience. Guilt has finally gotten the better of him. In one of his weakest moments, he confesses to Sonya Semyonovna of having committed a double homicide. He says, “I wanted to murder without casuistry, to murder for my own sake for myself alone… Perhaps I should never have committed murder again. I wanted to find something else; it was something else that led me on I wanted to find out then and quickly whether I was a louse like everybody else or a man.” (Dostoyevsky,587)

As I have mentioned earlier, this event is his breaking point, where we see the complete breakdown of self, and his attempts to redefine criminality have brought him to a juncture where there is a desperate struggle on his part to redefine himself. He’s understood the impracticality of redefining criminality and a fragile and egotistical part of his self surfaces. The usage of the phrase “louse like everybody else or a man” (Dostoyevsky,588), hints at the internalized toxic masculinity that has rooted itself into his conscience. Toxic masculinity can be seen as one of the possible causes or motives for the murders, the other being his fascination with men of genius and his yearning to be one among them. His attempt to be part of the masculine world, and exert power over society compels him to murder because his perception of the murder world is framed within the idea of masculinity.

DOSTOYEVSKY AND NIHILISM:

Dostoyevsky was a devout orthodox Christian. As such, he takes a certain philosophical and theological position in his writings. How deliberate these stances are is difficult to ascertain but what can’t be negated is that there is one. In one of his famous letters Dostoyevsky wrote, “If someone proved to me that Christ is outside the truth and that in reality, the truth was outside of Christ, then I should prefer to remain with Christ rather than with truth.”

David J. Leah writes, “Among the many influences on Dostoevsky, the major force was the Orthodox religion of his family and second wife, of the monasteries and peasants he encountered, and of the Russian culture.” Raskolnikov was raised in the Christian faith, but a series of unfortunate events like his father’s death, crippling destitution, mental illness, and the inability to continue with his education turns him into a nihilist. Nihilism is essentially a turning away from God and organized religion as the source of meaning and morality, and towards a belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. Raskolnikov for Dostoyevsky embodies the spirit of nihilism and the murder he commits is Dostoyevsky’s polemical attack on nihilism as a philosophy. For a devout Christian like Dostoyevsky, meaning and morality stem from religion, and in the absence of it, men according to him are capable of committing all manners of crime. Religion for him stands between order and chaos, and since Raskolnikov has forsaken religious faith for nihilism, he’s capable of committing murder which he eventually does.

In ‘Crime and Punishment’ Dostoyevsky warns people against the dangers of godless moral nihilism. If there is no God or religion, there shall be no morality, and everything, even rape, murder, and looting would be permitted. Steven Weinberg, an American theoretical physicist offers an alternative to this notion. According to him, “With or without religion good people will behave well and bad people will do evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” Religion for Dostoyevsky stands as a protective wall that prevents men from crossing ethical boundaries while Weinberg sees religion as more of a catapult that hurls men into a world where everything is permitted and sanctioned by religion.

Isaac Asimov also argues along a similar line when he was questioned in an interview that “if God is dead everything is permitted.” Asimov says that it’s a very reductive and insulting notion. This statement assumes that human beings have no feelings about what is right and what is wrong. Is it simply not enough that human beings do not resort to murder because they don’t want to? Because they fear the judgment of their individual conscience and not religious morality. Raskolnikov is hounded more by his individual conscience than religious morality, and it is his fear of his individual judgment (the guilt), which forces him to confess to his crimes. So, Dostoyevsky could not have been more wrong about religion and nihilism, because even in the contemporary context as Weinberg says religion and communal violence are harming society more than godless moral nihilism. And as far as the character of Raskolnikov goes, his desire to be one of the great men has a sounder logical base as a reason for the crime, than Godless nihilism.

Dostoyevsky is a master weaver of ideas and the way he threads together complex feelings, and emotions is a testament to the insight he had into the human mind and conscience. He was an archeologist of human existential suffering, a psychologist who mined deep into the human consciousness to excavate ideas, feelings, and emotions. Although the work centers around morality and ethics, Crime and Punishment never comes across as moralizing or didactic. Religion, morality, psychological turmoil, and criminality blend into each other and the narrative at large.

In trying to understand Raskolnikov, we also understand a part of ourselves. The gradual disintegration he goes through, the liminal space between sanity and insanity, between murderous instincts and composure in the face of absolute anger, is something we have all experienced. It is part of what makes us human. This is precisely what makes Dostoyevsky such a great novelist. His ability to portray the human psyche and emotions, in their most naked and vulnerable forms.

Dostoyevsky’s take on religion is somewhat redundant in the modern context. His turn away from the truth and toward Christ has lost a lot of its essence in the modern world. While we need an overarching belief structure to keep us from falling apart as individuals and as a society, organized religion is not the only structure. Asimov’s and Weinberg’s theory on God and religion translates better into the contemporary world and provides a more comprehensive alternative to theism.

.    .    .

WORKS CITED:

• Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. Crime and Punishment. Translated by Constance Garnett. Fingerprint Classics, 1866.
• Weinberg, Steven. “Faith and Reason.” Interview. Conducted by Margret Wertheim. PBS Miniseries, September 11, 1998.
• Asimov, Isaac. “World of Ideas.” Interview. Conducted by Bill Moyers. PBS Miniseries, 1998.
• Leigh, David J. "The Philosophy and Theology of Fyodor Dostoyevsky." The University of Toronto Press Journals 33 (2013): 86.
• Garber, Kathleen Donnellan. "A Psychological Analysis of Dostoyevsky Character: Raskolnikov's Struggle for Survival." Perspectives in Psychiatric Care 14 (1976): 16-21.