Mikhail Bakhtin on Dostoevsky

[Sitaram]

SFG75 directed me to this excellent site on Dostoevsky:

http://www.fyodordostoevsky.com/yabbse/index.php

The forum admin made some recommendations on critics of Dostoevsky

one of which was Mikhail Bakhtin

so, I decided to do some searching.

Wikipedia is a fine resource.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakhtin

(start of excerpt)

First, is the concept of the unfinalizable self: individual people cannot be finalized, completely understood, known, or labeled. Though it is possible to understand people and to treat them as if they are completely known, Bakhtin’s conception of unfinalizability respects the possibility that a person can change, and that a person is never fully revealed or fully known in the world. Readers may find that this conception reflects the idea of the soul; Bakhtin had strong roots in Christianity and in the Neo-Kantian school led by Hermann Cohen, both of which emphasized the importance of an individual's potentially infinite capability, worth, and the hidden soul.

Second, is the idea of the relationship between the self and others, or other groups. According to Bakhtin, every person is influenced by others in an inescapably intertwined way, and consequently no voice can be said to be isolated***. In an interview, Bakhtin once explained that, "In order to understand, it is immensely important for the person who understands to be located outside the object of his or her creative understanding—in time, in space, in culture. For one cannot even really see one's own exterior and comprehend it as a whole, and no mirrors or photographs can help; our real exterior can be seen and understood only by other people, because they are located outside us in space, and because they are others" (New York Review of Books, June 10, 1993). As such, Bakhtin's philosophy greatly respected the influences of others on the self, not merely in terms of how a person comes to be, but also in how a person thinks and how a person sees oneself truthfully.

Second, is the idea of the relationship between the self and others, or other groups. According to Bakhtin, every person is influenced by others in an inescapably intertwined way, and consequently no voice can be said to be isolated. In an interview, Bakhtin once explained that, "In order to understand, it is immensely important for the person who understands to be located outside the object of his or her creative understanding—in time, in space, in culture. For one cannot even really see one's own exterior and comprehend it as a whole, and no mirrors or photographs can help; our real exterior can be seen and understood only by other people, because they are located outside us in space, and because they are others" (New York Review of Books, June 10, 1993). As such, Bakhtin's philosophy greatly respected the influences of others on the self, not merely in terms of how a person comes to be, but also in how a person thinks and how a person sees oneself truthfully.

Third, Bakhtin found in Dostoevsky's work a true representation of ***polyphony, that is, many voices. Each character in Dostoevsky's work represents a voice that represents an individual self, distinct from others. This idea of polyphony is related to the concepts of unfinalizability and self and other, since it is the unfinalizability of individuals that creates true polyphony.

(end of excerpt)


*** I am reminded of the passage in The Book of Revelation which speaks of the voice of many waters, and also of Jung's notions of collective consciousness and Hegel's Zeitgeist.


That a person is never fully revealed or fully known in the world reminds me of Quoyle in The Shipping News of Proulx, who was so clumsy in the States, and yet manifested a different self in Newfoundland.

 

[SFG75]

Yet another thought provoking post, provided by Sitaram. Part of Dostoyevsky's greatness in my opinion, deals with how the characters are truly complex and multi-faceted. Even other classical literary writers are unable to create characters who are in a cloud of mystery. The unfinizability concept by Bakhtin points this out and reminds me of several threads on the other site about Raskolnikov, the lead character in Crime and Punishment. Right now, another member and I are examining whether or not he was insane, as well as what disorder he would have if he were insane. the other member believes Raskolnikov's actions and behavior fit the DSM-IV's technical explanation of panic disorder, which doesn't necessarily mean that a person is insane. I however, view his behavior, along with his hallucinations, as part of an organic mental disorder, such as delirium. Dostoyevsky and Nabokov are truly exceptional as their characters aren't just simply "the bad guy" or "the good guy" They have many different facets to their behavior and how they interact with one another. You could go thread page after thread page analyzing passages and scenes to figure all this out-hence the greatness of these works!.

The interconnected nature listed by Bakhtin is also an interesting concept. In The Brothers Karamazov, the dynamics of interaction between certain members of the family is very complex. You have the outright hatred and animosity between the father Fyodor, and his son, Dmitri. Tossing in Alyosha in any scene, is a guarantee that the sparks will lessen somewhat. Have Fyodor be around Peter Muisov, and you get to see the latter just flip out. In too many books, an individual is governed by their own thoughts and desires, not necessarily by the group dynamics of which they find themselves in. Obviously, it does play quite a role and Dostoyevsky noted it's importance.

On a completely different line, I love how psychology in general, can be discussed along with his works. This is an excellent article and includes a big write up on Freud and Dostoyevsky. Fyodor in The Brothers Karamazov, spent money much like Dostoyevsky's real father did. Dostoyevsky also suffered from *minor trances* as a young boy, which developed into epilepsy later in life. Interestingly enough, it's an epileptic Smerdakov who kills his father Fyodor in TBK. You also have Fyodor competing with one of his sons for the affection of a woman they both desire. It is also widely known that Dostoyevsky loathed his real life father. The desire to replace the father as being the favorite object in the eye of the mother can be said to be true, weird psycho-sexual issues not withstanding. He probably felt relief when his father was gone and it was just him and his mother. The subconscious feelings and wishes of death for his father could've manifested themselves through paralyzing *trances* as a youth, which is mentioned in the above mentioned hyper-linked article. There is some serious subconscious undercurrents that are too numerous to dismiss. Not all of Freud's findings are valid, but the role of the subconscious mind in regards to physical ailments is undoubtedly valid. Unfortuantely, all one has to do is utter the "F" word, and people dismiss the profound influence of the subconscious mind upon people's behaviors and ailments.

 

[LoeMa]

I would like to thank you for these two very, very interesting posts.
In reference to this I have to think of another book (not by Dostoyevsky ) – it’s “Stiller” by Max Frisch. It also deals with the subject of self-knowledge, the possibility to change yourself and the influence of other people/of friends – they do not allow this change, because they want to say: I know you. They want to put the people they know in categories. So it’s hard for someone to change and get the acceptance for this change.
Unable to abandon this wish of acceptance it seems to be impossible to get rid of this influence by others.

Greetings

 

[mrkgnao]

A very interesting thread which I will think on more. Spontaneous reaction:

*** I am reminded of the passage in The Book of Revelation which speaks of the voice of many waters, and also of Jung's notions of collective consciousness and Hegel's Zeitgeist.

I was reminded of a lecturer who once illustrated the collective unconscious with an image of an ocean floor (the collective unconscious) from which all the islands (individuals) rise up, all connected under the surface but looking like separate islands. Compare this with John Donne's "No man is an island"... As I said, I'll think on it more...


*mrkgnao*

 

[SFG75]

I was reminded of a lecturer who once illustrated the collective unconscious with an image of an ocean floor (the collective unconscious) from which all the islands (individuals) rise up, all connected under the surface but looking like separate islands. Compare this with John Donne's "No man is an island"... As I said, I'll think on it more...


*mrkgnao*

Jungian analysis of Dostoyevsky's characters would be an interesting subject as well. Jung's concept of the anima unconscious feminine side of males would make a great topic in regards to Alyosha of The Brothers Karamazov. Of all the brothers, he is the least physically imposing, he isn't a braggart, and he is one who doesn't retaliate physically when he is wronged. Not only that, but he is more of a "nurturer" than any of them. He seems to be in the middle of conflicts and impasses, though as an intermediar of sorts. Likewise, Jung's concept of extroversion and people finding meaning outside of themselves, is something that truly applies to the Karamazovs. They are out in the world and in Fyodor's case, loves the attention. The father and eldest son love that they are *sought after* by the ladies and that is perhaps what fuels their Oedipal conflict(sorry, just had to throw Freud in for good measure!)

 

[Flowerdk4]

Great thread, sitaram!
I shall read the article and your posts with great interest!

Its getting late over here, so I shall get back to you.

Flower

 

[aniela]

hi!
dostoyevski is my favourite writer of all time, and therefore i have read all of his work. though every time i re-read him i discover that i did not understand anything the previous times. and i think i will re-read him until i die, realising i still did not fully grasp all the implications of his ideas.
but i have one comment to make. i do not like this prespective on a writer's work (dostoyevski's in this case) based on his biography. of course a writer is a human being, and so inevitably influenced by what is happening in his life. but i find the analysis of a writer's work from this biographical point of view to be a little bit reductionist.
and i have also somehting against this "psychologizing" approach towards literature.
i have to go now, the library is closing. i will extend my point on the psychology of dostoyevski's characters sometimes next week.
enjoy your week-end.

 

[ions]

There's a quote written on the back of one of the mass market printings of Crime and Punishment that says something like: "The only writer I learned anything from about the psychology of man was Dostoevsky." --Nietzsche. I have to paraphrase because I don't have that printing.

Applying the idea of polyphony to Dostoevsky immediately makes me think of the narrator in Notes From Underground.

 

[Sitaram]

There's a quote written on the back of one of the mass market printings of Crime and Punishment that says something like: "The only writer I learned anything from about the psychology of man was Dostoevsky." --Nietzsche. I have to paraphrase because I don't have that printing.

Applying the idea of polyphony to Dostoevsky immediately makes me think of the narrator in Notes From Underground.

That Nietzsche quote is at the top of the home page of http://www.fyodordostoevsky.com

A few years ago, I went into a very large Barnes and Noble book store, with a very large philosophy section, and noticed that nearly half the books were about Nietzsche, which led me to believe that he is quite popular.

Someone said that "Notes from the Underground" was a great introduction to existentialism. I have to take another look.

 

[SFG75]

That Nietzsche quote is at the top of the home page of http://www.fyodordostoevsky.com

A few years ago, I went into a very large Barnes and Noble book store, with a very large philosophy section, and noticed that nearly half the books were about Nietzsche, which led me to believe that he is quite popular.

Someone said that "Notes from the Underground" was a great introduction to existentialism. I have to take another look.

He is generally credited with being one of the early pioneers of it. A good introductory read about key existential writings can be foundhere. Existential philosophy is very prominent in TBK, as well as The Possessed. Not only that, but he was given credit in the area of psychology, as you have already pointed out.

 

[Sitaram]

I have long felt that existentialism appears inchoate in Pascal's Pensees.

"The heart has reasons of which Reason knows nothing."

and that Pensee about the unfeeling universe which may crush me, yet I am superior to it, because I KNOW my frailty, but the universe knows nothing.


I have just now googled on : Pascal inchoate existentialism, and behold, Lord Google, always merciful, beneficent, has give me:

http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/jul1962/v19-2-article8.htm

(excerpt)

Miracle, perhaps, but certainly enigma-that man is capable of self-less love in an indifferent cosmos, of human warmth in the midst of cosmic coldness, of loyalty despite cosmic disloyalty. "Blow on these coals," MacLeish suggests, "and we'll see by and by. " See what? This is the question which he leaves unanswered for the audience and for himself. But the direction of such searching is akin to Unamuno's literary method-"by probing deeply the character of man belonging to a time and place, one can discover what is universal and common to all. . . ." To the degree that these literary analyses are discovering the universal in man, to that degree is Sartre's atheistic certainty challenged. If it be true that man is limited, not simply as with Sartre by a common situation confronting man, but by an innate, interior structure, form, essential vitality, then the search for self-identity is at the same time the clue in the search for cosmic meaning. Sartre is right-theism is an affirmation of human essence. But the reverse is no less true. The discovery of human essence is an affirmation of an ontological Godman relation-God is implied by the fact of human nature.

This growing awareness accounts in part for the tremendous contemporary interest in the novels of Dostoevsky, perhaps the greatest Christian novelist. Two questions obsessed Dostoevsky. The first is identical with the protests of many contemporary writers-in the presence of suffering and evil, can man live with God? But the corollary is even more basic-can man live without God? That is, is man so formed that either God exists or man must create Him in order to be a self? Dostoevsky traces the universal interior logic of man's existence, to exhibit partly in Crime and Punishment and definitively in The Brothers Karamazov a human essence for which the only options are the self-destructive man-God, or self-fulfillment through the God-man. It is Dostoevsky's second question which is now beginning to emerge in contemporary literature, more felt, however, than clearly realized. This literary wrestling with the problem of human essence is illustrated by the title of Luigi Pirandello's play, Six Characters in Search of an Author. Whatever this play may mean, the suggestion is that man's life is so molded, essentially drawn, as it were, that the playwright-character analogy seems somehow to apply.

If this is true, an answer is beginning to emerge not only to the question of self-identity, but to the human point of contact for the Christian witness. Herein lies the key to the underlying relation between Christianity and literature. Whether one is a Barthian Protestant or a Thomistic Catholic, he affirms an essential analogy between man and God. Although Classical Protestantism insists that man's essential self cannot be known without Jesus Christ, the resulting understanding is not unlike the Thomist definition of man as a composite of form and potency, driven by an impetus for actuality. Freedom cannot change the fact of this God-given form. The essential form of an acorn is oak-tree ness, and even if freedom were given to an acorn, its choice of maple-tree ness would produce only stunted oak-tree ness. Freedom is the capacity to fulfill essence or to deny it, not to replace it. In the Fall, man rejected his essence by striving to become what he was not-in trying to become more than a man, he became less than a man. Cosmic alienation, one's alienation from God, means inevitably an alienation of one's existence from his essential nature.

[Sitaram wonders if the "K" in Kafka's trial might stand for koan:}

It is Franz Kafka who represents best the manner in which this complex is being understood in contemporary literature. With a brilliantly symbolic style, Kafka portrays man's dilemma with the power of a parable. In The Trial, the respectable banker Joseph K. is "arrested" one morning, in effect by the question "Why?" What possible sense can the endless round of common-place routine have before the question of ultimate, real meaning? "K" tries to shake off this "arrest" in the sweet lethargy of the status quo. But the arrest will not let him go, not in the sense that he is forced to do anything, but once the ultimate question of WHY dawns in its fullness, "K" cannot let it rest. His relations with others are strained to the point of complete alienation. Obsessed with the search for meaning, he cannot understand all the others who do not sense the seriousness of this struggle. Others, in turn, cannot understand him, for he is indifferent to the rewards that bourgeoisie respectability bestows. Increasingly "K" comes to realize that it is "K" that he does not know. He is a divided creature whose only hope for fulfillment, completeness, self-acceptance, depends on a solution to the problem of cosmic alienation. In this understanding of the problem, Kafka speaks for most of the significant writers of our time-Camus, Faulkner, Sartre, Lagerkvist, Eliot, Bernanos, Mauriac. Cosmic alienation is the ground for man's social and self-alienation.

Contemporary literature, however, is not content with analysis but is intent on prognosis. There is no need to indicate more than the direction which these alternative answers are taking, for our task is to generalize concerning them. The first is "existential agnosticism," represented by Kafka and Lagerkvist. Such writers are agnostic concerning the nature of cosmic alienation, as to whether man stands before a Cosmic Creator Judge, impersonal law, or non-being. Yet this is not traditional agnosticism, for even in the absence of answers the questions cannot be set aside if man is to be a man. The search is its own justification. The question "Who is man?" is raised existentially in all its cosmic implications, but the "ultimate concern" of these writers resides in the problem itself.

The second position is that of "nihilism." Here too the problem of self-identity is existentially real, yet the "search" is given no justifying ground. Such a position verges on self-contradiction, for suicide rather than literary communication seems the most consistent action. Beckett stands closest to this position, spewing vindictives against a non-existent Deity for having the audacity not to exist. In Waiting for Godot, Beckett ruthlessly undermines all hope, reducing to absurdity those who await a deliverance which is never forthcoming. Tillich once said that what keeps some writers from the abyss which can bring faith is a Narcissus-like fascination with the literary portrait of their own despair.
(end of excerpt)

Well, if you find the excerpt tantalizing, you may explore the link and the site.

 

[Flowerdk4]

Being a Dane, I have read some of Søren Aabye Kierkegaards work. He was a philosopher but also with a great knowledge of psychology and religion. He is know as the father of existentialism. He was born 1813, so he was born a little before Dostojevsky.

When I first read Dostojevsky is was like reading Kierkegaards thought in an non-fiction way, it was so strange and so great at the same time!

I have a large biography of Kierkegaard by Joakim Garff and reading your posts, it strikes me that Kierkegaard also had some kind of fits. He got some kind of medicine in order to relax. Maybe they got the same kinds of fits??? And their fits came out of fear and stress and nerves???

I noticed that there is a book about both Dostojevsky, Kierkegaard and Kafka:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684825899/ref=pd_sbs_b_5/002-3560141-7392002?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155

I read the article, SFG75 and it was interesting to read a Freud view on Dostojevsky. I do think however that Dostojevsky made his characters more than you just an oedipus complex etc. Like he has a wider view of a person, a bit like Kierkegaard, who also mixed philosophy, religion with psychology.

Flower

 

[SFG75]

I read the article, SFG75 and it was interesting to read a Freud view on Dostojevsky. I do think however that Dostojevsky made his characters more than you just an oedipus complex etc. Like he has a wider view of a person, a bit like Kierkegaard, who also mixed philosophy, religion with psychology.

Flower

I think that the reason why Freud and others were so fascinated with Dostoyevsky is that he wrote about the unconscious mind and neurosis so vividly, though I do see your point. His characters are definitely more complex. I've posted elsewhere, though the specific thread eludes me at the moment, that when reading Dostoyevsky, you don't just get "the good guy" and "the bad guy" respectively. You saw the same thing with Nabokov and Lolita. You could speculate day and night about Lo and Humbert, as well as look up all the dissertations that have been written about them, and still not have "solved" the question of who they were entirely. You get terribly conflicted individuals who are at war with themselves and others around them. The Brothers Karamazov is very much like that. You have Alyosha who handles being tempted in the world, yet enveloped by his brother's conflicts which more than challenge him. You have another brother who is caught in jealousy, hurt feelings, as well as love for his father all at the same time.

 

[Flowerdk4]

I think that the reason why Freud and others were so fascinated with Dostoyevsky is that he wrote about the unconscious mind and neurosis so vividly, though I do see your point. His characters are definitely more complex. I've posted elsewhere, though the specific thread eludes me at the moment, that when reading Dostoyevsky, you don't just get "the good guy" and "the bad guy" respectively. You saw the same thing with Nabokov and Lolita. You could speculate day and night about Lo and Humbert, as well as look up all the dissertations that have been written about them, and still not have "solved" the question of who they were entirely. You get terribly conflicted individuals who are at war with themselves and others around them. The Brothers Karamazov is very much like that. You have Alyosha who handles being tempted in the world, yet enveloped by his brother's conflicts which more than challenge him. You have another brother who is caught in jealousy, hurt feelings, as well as love for his father all at the same time.

Yes then there is also the religious and philosophical elements!

You can look forward to be reading "The Idiot"

Flower

 

[SFG75]

Flowerdk-Do you believe that Raskolnikov was insane? Now is the time to play armchair psychologist herr dokterr.

DSM-IV

 

[aniela]

ok, i am finally back after all these strikes in here.
so, as i was saying, i do not agree with the psychological view of literary characters, and less when it comes to dostoyevky. i think literature is to be taken for what it is: literature. of course it is a field that quite ignores boundaries, and therefore it includes bits of philosophy and psychology and biology and whatever. but i still think it has its own specificity and it should be jusged for that.
does it really matter if raskolnikov was nuts or not? and then, can there be a great book with the characters not getting to the edges of normalcy. i guess every book deals with issues that we do not encounter in every day life, and so the characters are forced to walk on the frontiers of let's say "normal humanity". but overall, i consider psychological discussions on literature to go to a dead end. putting a diognosis on a character is like a closure. what are we going to do next? talk about what kind of medicine we should prescribe? i personally see psychology as a tool in dealing with human beings, not with fiction. and i find in literature the ground to talk about potentialities, about how far the human mind can go when confronted to life.
as for psychology choosing examples from literature, i think dear mr. freud would have had a hell of a life time to make his patients talk about such deep tendencies as death urges, especially when they are directed against their fathers. and then, maybe dr. freud would have had more troubles in making his point on real patients, as reality is rather complex and does not always confirm our dear theories. and i think there is where freudian psychoanalysis loses its grip with reality and so the efficiency problem appears.

 

[LoeMa]

I would say: If Dostoyevsky had lived another life, he would have written other books.
And because of this, I think it makes sense to talk about psychological aspects on literature – it need not necessarily be fiction at all. Such discussions can help to understand the author better and also to take a look into the mirror.
It is a reduction to concentrate on the biographical data of an author – but it’s the same, if you only concentrate on the book. I think in the most cases there is a link between the author’s life and his books – especially when they dive into the depth of the soul of human beings like Dostoyevsky does.

Greetings

 

[Flowerdk4]

Flowerdk-Do you believe that Raskolnikov was insane? Now is the time to play armchair psychologist herr dokterr.

Well I havent read so much of the book yet but No I dont think he was insane.
In my understanding then you cannot understand the world and act in it like he does if you are insane. I do however think he has some anxiety of some kind. Somthing inside of him is controlling him. And its going to be interesting to see what it is, when I read more.

If you would like to read an exelent book about the psychology Kierkegaard wrote about, then there is an american psychologisk who has written a book with lots and lots of reference to Kierkegaard.

"Existential Psychotherapy" Irwin D. Yalom.

Kierkegaard has written the book about anxiety. I think its called "The concept of angest" in english. Many pschologist still use this book as there is no other book with such a great understanding of anxiety. Just as a warning, Kierkegaard wrote in an old language and he invents concepts, which we have today, like conscience etc. but he names them differently. It can be hard to read Kierkegaard at first, but once you get his concept and his way of writing, then you can enjoy him very much.

What do you think of Raskolinkov??

 

[SFG75]

Discussions of psychology in regards to Dostoyevsky and his work is very appropriate. Freud himself wrote a psychoanalytic interpretation of Dostoyevsky's life and works. The author was famous for acknowledging the subconscious mind, dreams, as well as himself being a ball of neurosis. Just look at what the man went through. he was arrested, and went through a mock trial and execution. The event drove one man to suicide and two others mad. He was deeply in debt and became somewhat disenchanted with the utopian socialist dreams and other radicals whom he viewed as being dangerous(i.e.-Sergey Nechayev) His childhood was marred with the death of his mother and the development of a trance-like paralysis. The man loathed his father and in too many cases, the characters in his books are eerily similar to those in his life. Not only has the godfather of psychology opined about Dostoyevsky, but the theme of psychology and Dostoyevsky is very prominent in academic circles. I found this report online from a student that deals with guilt and repentance in Dostoyevsky's life. It is an interesting read, though I still have to look through it more closely. While it may not explain everything, it is also fair to say that it isn't a stretch to use the study of the mind to try and understand the characters and the man himself.

 

[Peder]

I take nothing away from the deep and penetrating thinking of the greatest theologians, nor of people who can psychoanalyze fictional characters. However, I am considerably fascinated by the fact that relatively humble people, like say myself, without the intellectual capabilities of the experts can also come to an understand and feeling of the God-man relation as well as an understanding and feeling for appropriate man-man relations in this World. In a real sense, I think every person is their own philosopher and their own theologian. And interestingly enough that is not the same as anarchy.
Pede

PS added in Edit: Sorry if my terminology offends, in which case please substitute 'person' for 'man' throughout.
Pr