"Raskolnikov's real life did not take place when he was killing the old woman or her sister. When he was killing the first old woman and still more her sister, he was not living his real life; rather, he was acting like a machine, he was doing something that he was not capable of doing: he was firing a charge which had been loaded inside him a long time before. One old woman had been killed, the other stood there in front of him, the axe was in his hand.
"Raskolnikov's real life took place not when he was facing the old woman's sister, but before he had killed either old woman, when he had not yet stood in a strange apartment in order to murder, when he had not yet held an axe in his hand, and did not have a loop in the overcoat on which he hung the axe--it took place before he had even thought of the old woman, when he was lying at home on his sofa, not thinking at all about the old woman or even about whether one could, on the basis of an individual's decision, wipe another human being, a superfluous and harmful being, off the face of the earth. His real life took place when he was thinking about whether or not he ought to live in Petersburg, whether or not he should accept money from his mother, about questions which had nothing to do with the old woman. The decision whether or not he would kill the old woman was made then, in that animal sphere of life completely independent of reality. Those decisions were not made when he stood in front of the other woman with an axe in his hand, but rather when he was not yet acting but only thinking, when only his consciousness was active, when barely perceptible changes were taking place in that consciousness. It is then that the greatest possible lucidity of thought is particularly important for the correct solution of the question which arises, and it is then that one glass of beer, one smoked cigarette can impair the solution to the problem, hinder its solution, deafen the voice of the consequence, and cause the question to be decided in favor of one's lower animal nature, as it was with Raskolnikov."
--Leo Tolstoy, from "Why Do Men Stupify Themselves?"
While this viewpoint is valid, it can also be argued that Raskolnikov only lives when he decides to stop thinking and take action. He contemplates his life in chapters before the murder, wondering what type of person he will be. He questions his ability to be the man that takes action or the man who only mulls over the idea of taking action. Real living and experience comes out of Raskolnikov leaving his conscious behind and letting his instinctive actions out.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tolstoy's above statement. Dostoevsky often states that Raskolnikov acted as if by a guiding force, and Tolstoy mentions an "animal sphere of life" as the state of Raskolnikov's mind when the decision to kill Alyona was made (note the passive voice: the decision was not made by him but for him). Tolstoy explains that we are controlled by this animal sphere when our minds are clouded. If our minds are impaired, then we have henceforth no longer living because our actions are dictated by our instinctive natures and not our lucidity of thought. Although Raskolnikov was not burdened by alcohol or tobacco at the time of the plan's formulation (while listening to the soldiers), his mind was obfuscated by anger at Alyona and despair at his financial situation. Therefore, he could not think properly and fell prey to his own animal instincts.
ReplyDeleteAnke Snoek writes in her book "Agamben's Joyful Kafka" that "nothing makes us more impoverished and less free than this estrangement from impotentiality." Tolstoy's comments seem to be reflective of this odd concept: the only time at which Raskolnikov is truly free or truly acting agentially is when he is "lying at home on his sofa, not thinking at all." Once one loses the option *not* to act, once one is already in the old woman's apartment with an axe, there is no more freedom of choice. Once Raskolnikov has made his initial decision, his actions become as if pre-scripted: he is an automaton, not an agent with the ability to chart his own future or make choices. Such an understanding of agency would seem a reversal of the traditional understanding of political resistance, where individuals are seen as exercising agency only through their actions. In Snoek's words, "evil does not have the form of the demonic but that of being separated from our lack of power." To study, consider, dream, muse, and think is the greatest form of political agency, not to go out and resist.
ReplyDeleteI do not think men stupefy themselves. No, it is an inherent flaw to believe that achieving greater morality must come at the cost of forsaking righteousness; such is the case in crime and punishment. Although the act of killing Alyona and Liziveta could free starving people's debts and give back money to the masses, it is not right to kill someone for the sake of money. Dostoyevsky already condemned killing for the sake of money in Raskolinkov's dream, where the drunk men drive the poor sick mare to death. I believe this speaks a message on how socialism should be carried out: redistribution cannot succeed coming at the expense of innocent people's lives(like capitalism) when it stands for the right of all people to live equally.
ReplyDeleteThe animalistic nature that we see in Raskolnikov definitely portrays an extreme shift where he no longer is in control, where fate is guiding his life. We see Raskolnikov as a caring young boy who treasure both human and animal life during his dream, but all these emotions are overpowered by an overarching force that most definitely makes him machine-like. All the coincidences that led him to Alyona's front door were predetermined instances in which Raskolnikov merely had no choice, and was forced to follow the path aimlessly, just as he does so when he walks down the street not really knowing where he is and where he is going. It is almost as if he is being tamed and domesticated, like an owner training his dog, and slowly Raskolnikov loses all freedom, and merely becomes an object for others to control.
ReplyDeleteThough I agree that the changes in the way he thought about other issues in his life eventually lead to the change in himself that allowed him to perform this act, I disagree that he was not living "real life" when he chose to murder the old lady. His choices on other matters would certainly shape the way he responded to this situation, but I don't believe he went from being able to think and make decisions to being just a cog in the machine; at some point along the line, he made the decision to go through with this murder, and perhaps after that decision was made he could have been swept up in it and functioned more automatically. But if he was capable of making choices at some point while during his time pondering, he would have been able to make this choice as well.
ReplyDeleteI'll concede that Tolstoy is correct in thinking that Raskolnikov's "real life" is not lived in situations where his consciousness is suspended in a sort of clouding of his vision, such as when he kills Alyona and Lizaveta. However, I do not agree with his point that this "real life" occurs when Raskolnikov is simply sitting and thinking. A life is made up of a combination of thoughts, words, and actions, so Raskolnikov's thinking about what course his life would take was not the same as living it. Tolstoy also mentions that "barely perceptible changes were taking place in [his] consciousness" while Raskolnikov was contemplating his life's path, but just because a change is unconscious does not mean it is not still a change. A person's thoughts and opinions may change consciously or unconsciously, but that change is not solidified until it is consciously put into words or actions. Since Raskolnikov is seemingly unconscious while committing the murders, his "real life" is not lived, but just thinking for hours on end does not represent this "real life" either. He is like a machine in that he lacks true agency due to the fact that his actions are not conscious, but he is unlike one because he experiences emotions, primarily fear, in the time surrounding the crime.
ReplyDeleteTolstoy's commentary seems to reflect the themes of Leo Carax's film "Holy Motors," which emphasizes the vague delineation between reality and "the animal sphere" in which free will is lost. "Holy Motors" plays on the concept of individuals becoming actors moving through real life as if it were a movie--actors, one review explains, bear the burden of emotional and moral consequences of the role they play while they carry out filmmakers' ideas. In a related manner, Raskolnikov takes the role of the actor when he commits murder. He is controlled by his setting, by the situation that others have set up--for example, the conversation between the soldiers is an external motivation, or the filmmaker. As the actor of the film, Raskolnikov bears the consequences of his actions (or rather reactions to the situation around him) while never truly exercising his own will. Only when our protagonist is alone, thinking about topics his own mind conceives, does he live for himself. Only then is he a "filmmaker."
ReplyDeleteSome of the biggest factors of Raskolnikov's nature (as we have seen it so far) is his animalistic nature and the plans that lead his life. Thus, I disagree with Tolstoy if only because I believe that Raskolnikov acted the most alive while killing Lizaveta because that murder was done in a fit of unplanned emotion. Although Alyona's murder was violent, it was still planned. The murder of Lizaveta demonstrated a break from Raskolnikov's traditional behavior - it was done in a violent and unplanned manner. Instead of acting "like a machine", he acted as an emotional being.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a turning point and the switch that allows him to possibly live real life. Raskolnikov has finally gone through with his great plan, and now he understands that he must live with the consequences. As he walks (and tries not to appear to be going too fast) back to his appartement, he is faced with the seriousness of what he has done. And this is his real life. He is not sure where he is going, but at the end, he makes it back to his safe place.
I agree with Tolstoy's view - Raskolnikov, in his confusion and internal "schism," does indeed "deafen the voice of consequence." Because of his internal turmoil and lack of coherent thought, Raskolnikov later concedes his agency to animalistic instincts, and is subsequently completely controlled by them, as we see in Chapter 7. Raskolnikov defers to the forces of nature in his acceptance of external values - his mother's and sister's wants and needs, and even the exchange of words between the college student and the soldier. Thus, he sacrifices his propensity to see consequence and act of his own accord, and is guided by an almost machine-like "rationality" and poise in his murder of Alyona and Lizaveta.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that Raskonilkov exists on two planes: in his mind and in his action. Both seem disjointed, as if only one can act at a time. I think that Tolstoy's analysis of Raskonilkov's actions fit the idea that Raskolnilkov is unable to do both at the same time, so that everything he does that is "rational" must be premeditated, which explains much of his penchant for giving out money--he is unable to think rationally (I can't give money because I have no money) when he is thrust into that sort of situation. This is when his emotions take over his mind. But when he murders the two sisters, he acts mechanically, and, while he may feel nervous and sweaty and have apprehensions about what he is about to do, in the heat of the moment, he acts. He acts and follows through with exactly what he had meditated on, as if he has lost the ability to say no, or to be passive. All of his action takes place when he is "inactive."
ReplyDeleteTolstoy is correct in that often times in real life situations, we see how Raskolnikov is virtually separating himself from his actual present self in order to perhaps persevere through certain horrid actions. Ultimately we see parallels in the murder with the instance toward the opening of the novel where he intentionally avoids his landlady for he is in deep debt with the rent. I conclude that Dostoevsky used the opening scene as a portent for the difficulty that Raskolnikov has with dealing with reality and the ways in which he avoids his issues; it typically seems as if something else in himself is directing his actions.
ReplyDeleteTolstoy accurately depicts how Raskolnikov has become disconnected with his actions as he plots and carries out the murder of the women. I agree that Raskolnikov's real life ceases to exist, but unlike Tolstoy I do not believe this happens until he actually follows through on his plans. When he is in the planning stages, Raskolnikov does not think that he will be able commit the crime. In this state he is delusional, but he has not yet become an anomaly. It is when Raskolnikov is met with a serious of perfect coincidences and outward motivations that he truly looses his "real life" and only then follows through with the murder that other men only imagine.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tolstoy's statement. In high pressure situations where thought process is limited, the human brian will respond by following instinct and muscle memory. From the glimpses we see of Raskolnikov's mind, it is likely he envisioned the murder over and over again, and so when he was finally in position to commit the act, it came easily. During the scene he is described as nervous and weak, and the act occurs almost without his direct control. This is because under the pressure of the situation, his mind relied on instinct and his instinct was to kill.
ReplyDeleteSomething I have noticed throughout the recent chapters is that Raskolnikov calls random chance events "fate", thus justifying the act of murder and removing responsibility from himself. Essentially, in his mind he has completely justified the murder of Alyona Ivanovna, and the random coincidences, such as finding the axe and overhearing when her sister would be out of the house, prove to him that his destiny is to kill her, and with good reason. However, this animalistic nature that Tolstoy describes emerges after the first murder when Raskolnikov kills Lizaveta. He does so instinctively and with no justification, for the purely selfish reason of not wanting to be arrested. It is this Raskolnikov that I think is the "real" Raskolnikov-- the one who commits murder without hesitation when in a pinch without time to plan nor think.
ReplyDelete