Rask'olnikov's Theory Tad Hunt tad@csh.rit.edu Rochester Institute of Technology April 19, 1995 In Fedor Dostoevsky's book, Crime and Punishment, the main char- acter, Rask'olnikov, develops a theory about some people existing out- side the law. Philosophically, this is an interesting theory because of its assumptions and logical conclusions. Rask'olnikov's Theory The basis of Rask'olnikov's theory is straightforward. He pro- poses that there are certain people who have every right to commit any crime; that laws are not made for them. (P 219) This expands into a theory which states there are two main classes of people; the "ordi- nary", and the "extraordinary". The ordinary people have the right to live by the rules, whereas the extraordinary have the right to commit any crime or break any law. Another important part of this distinc- tion is that these aren't formal, written rights, but rights of con- science, and that the extraordinary can only overstep these boundaries when it is required to fulfill their ideas. Rask'olnikov uses Newton as an example. He says that if Newton needed to sacrifice the lives of any number of people in order to make his discoveries known to the world, than he had the right -- the obli- gation even -- to do so. (P 220) He also clarifies that Newton did not have the right to kill any random person, or go out robbing peo- ple. He also makes the observation that law-givers and regulators, for example, Solon, Mahomet and Napoleon, are without question extraordinary, and the "bloodthirstyness" of these individuals is remarkable. That is to say the extraordinary are characteristically blood-thirsty, and regardless of the measure of how extraordinary, they are all criminals to some degree or another. He abstracts these class distinctions further into a lower material class which serves to reproduce its own kind, and a higher proper class which has the ability of saying something new. (P 221) Furthermore, the proper group, for the most part, requires the des- truction of what exists in the name of better things, and the extent of destruction granted to members of this group is proportional to the importance of their[1] idea. The material group hardly rever recog- nize this right of the proper group, and thus applies its laws to it. The material group therefore becomes master of the present; they preserve the world, and the proper group master of the future; they give the world direction. Rask'olnikov goes on to explain that it happens quite often that members of the material group mistakenly believe they belong in the proper group, but this need not be an issue because the system is a law of nature, a self policing system; they will be either scourged for their zealotry, or they will punish themselves due to their con- science. (P 222) He believes even members of the proper group are not exempt from feeling the pains of conscience; that in fact suffering and pain are obligatory to them. (P 224) Additionally, he feels there is a law of nature which can be known which states there are few peo- ple born who are truly proper; in effect there are few new ideas. Philosophically Speaking In my opinion, Rask'olnikov's theory is not taken to its logical conclusion; superficially it is accurate, but probing its depths brings to the surface inconsistencies in his thinking. The concept of the ordainment of transgressors, or the proper class is accurate, how- ever his arbitrary dividing line is not. Rask'olnikov asserts that some law of nature decides who belongs to which class. This class distinction should be blurred; I believe that everyone has the potential to belong to either class, and it is the realization of this potential that equates to the law of nature spoken of by Rask'olnikov. Stating there exists a law of nature which divides people into two classes leaves the dividing line at an arbi- trary point. Actually, it makes more sense to avoid placing an arbi- trary dividing point by leaving the decision up to the individual; determined by the interaction of genetics and environment in their development. There is no class distinction, except in the mind of the indivi- dual. Everyone has an equal right to transgress the law. It is the collective of individual consciences and intellects which decide the limit to which this transgression is allowed. This collection describes a constantly evolving society, in which the norms and cus- toms change as the individuals in the society change and evolve. Some of the changes will be within the laws composing the society and oth- ers will fall outside the of them. If the change falls outside the law, then the instigator of the change will have transgressed the boundaries of society; in effect they will have moved toward Rask'olnikov's proper group. To attack Rask'olnikov's theory from another angle, it is not necessarily new ideas which place individuals in the proper class, it is ideas differing from the current structure of society that move individuals toward that end. In a society, change can be brought about by new ideas, or it can be a move back to an old idea. Espe- cially using history, we have seen the same ideas repeated endlessly. Transgressing the law is not enough to make an individual into a leader; what is required is that others believe that transgression is valid at whatever point in time it is made. Only with the support of the society, can a leader take power. Whether the support is taken through military or peaceful ways is irrelevant. Whether or not the leader has new ideas, or old ideas to implement, it is the support of the society that allows him the power to implement these ideas. There is a balance of power between the members of a society and the leaders of said society. This balance of power defines the line at which individuals move between Rask'olnikov's classes. Falls Apart I find Rask'olnikov's theory, on one level, to be valid, however, when it is examined at a deeper level, the validity of his theory departs in a few major ways. First, there is no law of nature which states that certain people fall on either side of an arbitrary class distinction. Second, any class distinction perceived by the indivi- dual resides entirely in their mind, it is their reaction to the members of society around him which influences their positioning of the dividing line. Finally, it is not new ideas that move individuals towards the proper class, it is ideas which cause society to change that move people in this direction, these ideas can be old or new. --------------- [1] Genderless Singular.