How does the difference between Chernyshevsky’s ideological character Rakhmetov and Dostoevsky’s tragic character Raskolnikov define the modern subject?

tarihinde gönderilmiş tarafından
85

19th-century Russian novels offer a philosophical space for discussion regarding the formation of the modern subject. While Rakhmetov in Chernyshevsky’s *  What Is to Be Done?  * represents the rational, disciplined, and ideologically pure “new man,” Raskolnikov in Dostoevsky’s *  Crime and Punishment * reveals the fragmented, contradictory, and tragic nature of the modern individual.

    1. Introduction: The Literary Construction of the Modern Subject

    The modern subject, conceived with the Enlightenment, is envisioned as a rational, autonomous, and self-constructing being. However, the 19th-century Russian novel serves as a laboratory that questions this conception. Chernyshevsky’s Rakhmetov represents the ideological form of this rational subject, while Dostoevsky’s Raskolnikov reveals its psychological and ethical limitations.

    According to Isaiah Berlin, Russian thought transforms the theoretical model of humanity in the West into a vital tragedy (Berlin, 1994). In this context, Rakhmetov and Raskolnikov are not merely characters, but two different forms of the modern human construct.

    2. Rahmetov: The Utopia of the Ideological Subject

    In Chernyshevsky’s  novel * What Is to Be Done?  *, Rakhmetov is the pure form of the “new man.” The fundamental principle Chernyshevsky relies on is “rational egoism”: a person behaves morally if they correctly understand their own self-interest (Chernyshevsky, 1989).

    Rahmetov’s characteristics are as follows:

    • Self-discipline based on asceticism
    • Suppression of emotions
    • Social benefit taking precedence over individual desire.

    Rahmetov disciplines his body to the point of sleeping on nails. This is an early example of what Foucault later called “the subject’s self-governance” (Foucault, 1988). In Rahmetov, the possibility of guilt disappears because ideology replaces conscience.

    Therefore, Rahmetov is conflict-free. He is a “should be,” not a psychology, but a program.

    3. Raskolnikov: The Disintegration of the Tragic Subject

    Dostoevsky’s Raskolnikov, however, is not an ideological but an existential model of the subject. Raskolnikov’s theory of the “extraordinary man” assumes that moral boundaries can be overcome by reason (Dostoevsky, 2011).

    But Raskolnikov’s difference is this: when theory is put into action, the subject is fragmented. Joseph Frank describes Raskolnikov’s murder as a “metaphysical experiment” (Frank, 1995).

    In Raskolnikov:

    • Reason and conscience clash.
    • Freedom is tested by crime.
    • Identity is fragmented.

    Here, the modern subject is no longer whole, but fractured. As Lacan points out, the subject is not conscious, but divided (Lacan, 2006). Raskolnikov is one of the first major figures of this division within the novel.

    4. Crime and Freedom: The Opposition of Two Subject Types

    For Rahmetov, freedom is conformity to ideology. By suppressing his own desires, he participates in the collective purpose. For Raskolnikov, freedom is transcending boundaries. But when boundaries are crossed, not freedom but guilt arises.

    In Chernyshevsky, crime is a technical deviation; in Dostoevsky, it is an ontological rupture. Bakhtin describes Dostoevsky’s novel as a “clash of consciousness” (Bakhtin, 1984). Raskolnikov is not monophonic; he is plural within himself.

    Therefore, Rahmetov becomes the ideological subject, while Raskolnikov becomes the tragic subject.

    5. Defining the Modern Subject: Program or Crisis?

    Rahmetov’s subject:

    • Computable
    • Controllable
    • Politically functional

    The subject of Raskolnikov’s story is:

    • Contradictory
    • Unpredictable
    • Ethically problematic

    The modern subject is constituted between these two extremes. According to Foucault, modernity is a process in which the subject is both constituted and dissolved (Foucault, 1988). Rahmetov represents the moment of establishment, Raskolnikov the moment of dissolution.

    Therefore, modern man is neither entirely ideological nor entirely tragic; he is formed in the tension of both.

    In summary

    The difference between Rakhmetov and Raskolnikov reveals two distinct destinies for the modern subject: one of utopia, the other of crisis. Chernyshevsky attempts to perfect humanity through ideology, while Dostoevsky demonstrates that humanity is incapable of achieving such perfection.

    The modern subject desires to be programmable, like Rakhmetov, but is fragmented, like Raskolnikov. Therefore, Dostoevsky’s tragic figure represents a more profound portrait of modernity.

    Source

    Bakhtin, M. (1984).  Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics . University of Minnesota Press.

    Berlin, I. (1994).  Russian Thinkers . penguin

    Chernyshevsky, N. (1989).  What Is to Be Done?  Cornell University Press.

    Dostoyevsky, F. (2011).  Crime and Punishment . (Trans. M. Özgül). İletişim Publications.

    Foucault, M. (1988).  Technologies of the Self . University of Massachusetts Press.

    Frank, J. (1995).  Dostoevsky: The Miraculous Years . Princeton University Press.

    Lacan, J. (2006).  Écrits . W. W. Norton.