The Right to Crime Leads to Resistance

By Candace Crockett

 

“It is only as a man puts off from himself all external support, and stands alone, that I see him to be strong and to prevail…”

                                                                                    -Emerson

 

            Ralph Waldo Emerson’s stance on human nature as seen in Self-Reliance is antithetical to that of Dostoevsky’s in Crime and Punishment. It is my sincere hope that, had Emerson read this novel, he would have considered more carefully the implications of embracing a self-reliant human nature. A self-reliant nature infers that the self is not relying on the divine for wisdom, but on personal judgments, scientific conclusions, and moral convictions. A self-reliant human being is one that believes that (s)he is capable of arriving at the same plane as God; divinity lies within. Following this nature leads to pervasive feelings of isolation from others because one feels independent from the thoughts of all human beings and thereby rejects any commonality among humans.  By failing to recognize the fallibility of the self and the limitations of personal thought and experience, one transcends and also defies his own humanity.

 Svidrigailov, the pernicious, obstinate character who successfully defies humanity, personifies Emerson himself.  Emerson’s words echo Svidigailov’s resolute theory on human nature: “… If I am the devil’s child, I will live then from the devil. No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it. A man is to carry himself in the presence of all opposition as if every thing were titular and ephemeral but he” (Emerson, 260). Emerson and Svidigailov share in the amoral belief that Truth is found only by following one’s own nature. Because divinity lies within one’s nature, it is logical that not following one’s nature is to reject the will of God. Emerson’s words spell out the very point Dostoevsky wishes to refute. Dostoevsky conveys that this notion of a personal “constitution” is the very cause of immorality and misery among human beings.

For it is in one’s personal “constitution” where isolation begins and the common Truth in all beings is defied. Raskolnikov, the self-righteous student who tests his ability to transcend human nature by committing murder, cannot fully accept his personal constitution as truth. He is dubious of Svidigailov’s character and thus Emerson’s theory. He fights his doubt, but he cannot ignore it. The novel traces his inability to resolutely live by his personal judgments, calculations, and convictions. The apparent perversity of his personal constitution is revealed through his persistent misery.  Ironically, recognizing this inability reveals to him the very essence of his humanity, and therefore Dostoevsky’s message that the Truth is not contained in the self alone becomes evident.

            After Raskolnikov kills two women with an axe, his precious reason abandons him and is replaced by feelings of isolation: “A dark sensation of tormenting, infinite solitude and estrangement suddenly rose to consciousness in his soul… what was taking place in him was totally unfamiliar, new, sudden, never before experienced. Not that he understood it, but he sensed it clearly, with all the power of sensation, that it was no longer possible for him to address these people in the police station, not only with heartfelt effusions… but in any way at all, and had they been his brothers or sisters, and not police lieutenants, there would still have been no point in his addressing them, in whatever circumstances of life” (Dostoevsky, 103). This is the first moment when Raskolnikov feels a complete disunion with society. He feels that he can never share “heartfelt effusions” with a single soul. And it is here that his isolation starts to dictate his perception of humanity.  Feelings of “obstinate, hate-filled loathing” consume him. These feelings eventually explode into an enormous cry:

“Where was it that I read about a man condemned to death saying or thinking, an hour before his death, that if he had to live somewhere high up on a cliffside, on a ledge so narrow that there was room only for his two feet- and with the abyss, the ocean, eternal darkness, eternal solitude, eternal storm all around him- and had so stay like that, on a square foot of space, an entire lifetime, a thousand years, an eternity, it would be better to live than to die right now! Only to live, to live to live! To live, no matter how-only to live!” (Dostoevsky, 158)

 

The reader realizes from this cry that Raskolnikov struggles to understand his newfound feeling of “infinite solitude and estrangement.” He is aghast at how a man could possibly want to live in pervasive solitude, yet he wants to firmly believe that one could live this way. Raskolnikov treasures the story of this man because he sees this man as himself.

Raskolnikov has cut himself off from society by committing murder, but he rationalizes his action by believing that killing, for him, is living. For him, the man on the cliff represents his hope that he will be able to live despite his awareness of his crime. He wants to live, as Emerson wanted to live. “I do not wish to expiate, but to live. My life is not an apology, but a life. It is for itself and not for a spectacle” (Emerson, 261). This paradoxical notion of killing for living is explained in Raskolnikov’s conversation with Razumkihin and Porfiry Petrovich.

            Razumkihin and Petrovich inquire about Raskolnikov’s theory, which states that certain persons of unique intellect can and are entitled to commit crimes and therefore transgress all laws. These so-deemed great men do not fall on the same plane with the rest of human beings. They are “extraordinary” beings who actually transcend their own humanity. “I merely suggested that an ‘extraordinary’ man has the right… that is, not an official right, but his own right, to allow his conscience to… step over certain obstacles, and then only in the event that the fulfillment of his idea- sometimes perhaps salutary for the whole of mankind- calls for it” (Dostoevsky, 259). The perversity of his suggestion lies in his assertion that an extraordinary man has a right to carry out his idea even if it is not salutary for the whole of humankind. He has the right because, in the words of Emerson, “Where he is, there is nature” (Emerson, 260). Morality does not pertain to these rare men because they are capable of transcending humanity; morality pertains only to the ordinary simply because they do not know how to ignore feelings of immorality. Simply put, it is in the extraordinary man’s nature to transcend humanity whereas it is in the ordinary man’s nature to act humanely.  Raskolnikov’s theory parallels Emerson’s idea that “good and bad are but names very readily transferable” in regard to following one’s true nature.

            Raskolnikov furthers his theory by saying that great men actually have a duty to become criminals because it is one’s duty to follow his own nature. Emerson’s  statement could easily serve as a  substitute for Raskolnikov’s words: “If you can love me for what I am, we shall be happier. If you cannot, I will still seek to deserve that you should. I must be myself… you will soon love what is dictated by your nature as well as mine, and if we follow the truth, it will bring us out safe at last”(Emerson, 272).  One can imagine Raskolnikov standing in front of his two comrades, stating Emerson’s exact quotation. Once again, the means do not need to justify the ends… morality is futile.  According to Raskolnikov, “… if one needs, for the sake of his idea, to step even over a dead body, over blood, then within himself, in his conscience, he can, in my opinion, allow himself to step over blood…” (Dostoevsky, 261).  This permission to shed blood in all conscience is very important to Raskolnikov because this allows the extraordinary to continue living well. This is what he wants more than anything… to live, only to live! If these great men are burdened by the moral implications of their actions, then they have recognized their affect on others. But this cannot be! For great men are completely independent from all humans; it is not possible for them to affect others!  And yet this is why Raskolnikov cannot be the great man, and it is this part of the theory that he cannot escape. For he has affected others, and in return has been affected, by his loving sister and mother, his dear friends, and the strangers on the street. He does not remain in a state of isolation. He does not remain indifferent towards all people. He tries to defy his humanity but he encounters moments of morality.

            Throughout the novel, Raskolnikov experiences the affect of love and moral action on people. He finds himself trying to protect a young girl’s innocence from a man’s demand for promiscuity. His hands tremble as he reads loving words written by his mother and sister. He leaves money on the windowsill of a stranger when it is clear that they live in abject poverty and need support. He defends a perfectly honest woman from a cruel accusation. These are just a few examples of how he shows compassion for others and his inability to disregard the affect of his actions on the common people.  Although he often withdraws from his impulsive selflessness and concern for others, he never withdraws so far that he envelopes himself in indifference.  Even though he tries to dismiss these moments of morality so as to pursue his self-reliant nature, he cannot ignore the love, admiration, and appreciation that people shower him with for his magnanimity and concern.  And although he cannot ignore his affect on others, he does manage to devalue himself. He has yet to see that the ability to be giving and caring is more valuable than the ability to reason well.

Porfiry confronts Raskolnikov on his belief that he is one of the great men of society. He says, “You place the most value on human intelligence, following the example of all young men.  A playful sharpness of wit and abstract arguments of reason are what seduce you sir… I mean, reality and human nature, sir, are very important things, and oh how they sometimes bring down the most perspicacious calculations!” (Dostoevsky, 342). Porfiry’s insight and keen perception drives Raskolnikov to the point of insanity. He cannot deal with the fact that his human nature is sensitive to the effects of his “perspicacious” murder-plan. Raskolnikov shouts out, “… it wasn’t a human being I killed, it was a principle! So I killed the principle, but I didn’t step over, I stayed on this side…” (Dostoevsky, 274).  The phrase “stayed on this side” implies that he was not able to do as Napoleon or other great men did; they were able to step over the blood without hesitation, without contemplation, without moral reflection.

He cannot step over the blood of the two women he murdered without doing this, and therefore he fails to be one of he and Emerson’s’ so-deemed great men. Ironically, Emerson states that, “Nothing can bring you peace but yourself. Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of principle.” (Emerson, 280). Dostoevsky shows, through Raskolnikov’s character, that Emerson’s statement cannot be farther from the truth. For Raskolnikov attempts to triumphantly kill a principle, but he is not capable of turning that principle into anything salutary for mankind. His principle rots alongside the dead bodies. Svidrigailov perceives Raskolnikov’s dilemma: “He got terribly carried away with Napoleon- that is, essentially what carried him away was that a great many men of genius disregarded isolated evil and stepped over it without hesitation… though he knew how to devise his theory, he was unable to step over without hesitation and therefore is not a man of genius” (Dostoevsky, 491). Because he places so much value on these great men, and he cannot become one of them, he can find no reason to continue to live. 

It is not until he speaks with his mother for the last time that Raskolnikov believes that life is not about becoming a great man: “ ‘Mama, whatever happens, whatever you hear from me, whatever they tell you about me, will you love me as you do now?’ he asked suddenly, from the fullness of his heart, as if not thinking about his words or weighing them” (Dostoevsky, 514). He proceeds to tell his mother that he loves her “more than himself, and whatever you may have thought about me being cruel and not loving you, it’s all untrue. I’ll never cease to love you” (Dostoevsky, 514). Although it has been clear to the reader through various examples that he is capable of showing compassion for other people, it is only here that he knows for himself that he can live for the sake of love, rather than for the sake of a theory.  He does not deny his love for his mother. For the first time, his actions do not correspond with Emersons’: “I shun father and mother and wife and brother, when my genius calls me” (Emerson, 261). He has chosen to set aside his genius for love in this moment. This moment provides a step towards understanding the meaning of humanity. Although he temporarily slips back into hating his lot in life--namely, that he cannot be self-reliant—he does not forget this moment.

His final moment of resignation comes when he dreams of a world where everyone walks around with their own personal reality—each person believes that the truth is contained in himself alone. Everyone lives in abject isolation, pursuing their own nature to the best of their ability. This leads to utter confusion, chaos, and killing. Pestilence grows further and further. This dream causes him to realize the perversity of his belief that people ought to be self-reliant. He asks, “Can her [Sonja] convictions not be my convictions now…Her feelings, her aspirations…” (Dostoevsky, 551). In realizing that it is much more valuable to be able to share in commonalities among humans, he is resurrected from the shadows of isolation. He does not have to depend on his own ideas to lead him to the Truth. He enters into his unknown reality- the reality that every single human being is resurrected in love, that love is the divine spirit that calls all people to bond together.  Furthermore, casting aside one’s humanity will not be met without friction. For even Napoleon was caught and Svigaildov shot… the self-reliant will not slip past the presence of love.

 

Works Cited

Emerson, Ralph Waldo. “Self Reliance,” Selected Writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson: Edited and with a forward by William H. Gilman. New York: A Signet Classic from NEW AMERICAN LIBRARY, INC., 1965, 257-280.

 

Doystoevsky, Fyodor. Crime and Punishment. (First published, 1866). Translated and annotated by Richard Revear and Larissa Volokhonsky. New York: Vintage Books, Division of Random House Inc., First Vintage Classics Edition, March 1993.