Polish film director Andrzej Wajda points out in an article that Raskolnikov in "Crime and Punishment" kills for a "theory." Raskolnikov had already expounded upon this theory in his justification for murdering the old pawnbroker and her sister. That theory went something like this: There are two groups of people, one group are your ordinary worthless scum of the earth and the other are geniuses like himself, Raskolnikov, who have the right merely for that reason to do what they will to the scum of the earth. He brings Napoleon into the argument, equates himself with him, claiming that Napolean took what he wanted and killed when he had to with no remorse because he had a theory and a belief in himself and its rightness, that his actions served a higher purpose. Thus Raskolnikov's actions served that same higher purpose.
In particular the argument was demonstrated again while he was engaged in one of his dialogs with the examining magistrate Porfiry Petrovich who is not entirely shocked by this theory. In fact he's the one who refers to it as a theory. Raskolnikov wasn't some crackpot, foaming at the mouth, who hadn't thought through his theory. In fact Raskolnikov is a brilliant ex-law student yet a sensitive & compassionate individual who demonstrates his compassion on a number of occasions in particular with Katerina Ivanovna and his love for his sister, Mother and for the prostitute Sofya/Sonia, daughter of Katerina Ivanovna and he also confesses to her, his Magdalene. In fact she is forced to hear his confession. So if he is a psychopath it would have to be determined by psychiatric treatment, but since he is not a living, breathing being we have to go by his actions in the novel where he tried and believed he did good after the murders. No that wasn't in particular to atone for the murders, he still believed his theory, but actually the "good" developed out of the feelings of empathy within him, particularly for Sonia. Svidrigailov, that swine points out to Dunya that she should think of the good her brother might do one day (even though Svidrigailov has ulterior motives and is trying to blackmail Dunya into marrying him) According to Svidrigailov, Raskolnikov is a genius and he may do more good in the world eventually that allows one to ignore such a transgression against humanity as murdering two "worthless" women, one who in Raskolnikov's eyes was definitely scum of the earth. . . However, Poor Lizavetta, who witnessed the initial crime, was just collateral damage.
But who else killed for a theory and still continues to kill for a theory? Everyone who has ever engaged in the violence of war in the modern era. Is Nazism a theory? Communism? Democracy? Even radical Islam? Not to mention all the other radical religious interpretations, interpreters & other smaller theories that operate where madmen masquerade with rationality. They don't foam at the mouth. Hitler fulminated. He didn't foam. Stalin ruled with an iron fist. No one dared think of him much less call him a Madman until he was dead. President Obama is as rational as any Professor can be and so was a no account like G.W. Bush and so were all Presidents and congressmen & congresswomen & all the judges. But they all live for theories. All of their theories are right. All of their theories justify murder. Or they find ways to justify it when they have to. They are no different then the murderers who fly planes into buildings or who drop Sarin gas in a subway or blow up children in marketplaces. Because those people also don't foam at the mouth. They're rational. They all share this one feature. They murder out of rationality and claim their theories are the true theories. They claim that their theories are better than the murderous theories against which they are opposed.
It's really no different than religion. Yes Islam is a religion. But its radical form, like radical Christianity, radical Judaism is also a theory. It is a theory that always proves that the adherent is always right and that they are doing it for the glory of God and the mass of people who would otherwise suffer if they didn't that they would lose the love of God. They claim to be merely the messenger listening to the words of a being greater than themselves. Political leaders, however, aren't listening to the word of a greater being but to their own inner greater being. That being is their so-called conscience. What Socrates called his "inner demon" they call their conscience. But most if not every political leader's only conscience is to maintain the power that he possesses and thus it is this power that is rationalized as his conscience and if conscience dictates that murder must occur to salve that conscience, well so be it.
So what about our savior of the nation, Abraham Lincoln? Our greatest President. Our most revered. The one who was so ignominiously slain in office? Our Lincoln who "freed the slaves," an act of, I believe, genuine courage and conscience, even if it was the conscience of many at the time. By doing so he risked his political power. And there was John Brown who murdered in the cause of ending slavery. He was following his conscience. But he had to do that just like Lincoln had to though the ends were different. Brown murdered as an abolitionist. It was a necessary belief ultimately a theory supported by religious and moral belief. And even with Brown there is an element of rationality. But that "good" thing, ending slavery, required at least according to Brown, murder. But it was limited, limited to the end of slavery. Lincoln, however, had to condemn thousands to death for a theory. It wasn't just a religious and moral belief that prodded him to end slavery or his conscience screaming to end slavery but the overriding theory. That theory was that the United States was a democracy and that it would not, that it could never be torn asunder by states seceding because their secession was over the question of slavery. So whether or not Lincoln was just excerising his free will, listening to his conscience or willing to risk everything in order to maintain his power and hold together the nation we can never truly know. But murder was the necessary supporting beam for his theory.
Yet there have been those in the modern era who did not believe that their theories should be supported by murder. And for that what was their pay back? Ghandi, MLK Jr. Even RFK who atoned for his sins was later murdered like Ghandi, like Martin Luther King Jr. for having a theory without murder as its driving force or main support.
In the modern era the ends always justify the means. and political leaders can always justify those means whether it means one dead, two dead or thousands upon thousands dead And so often it is done without anger, without prejudice, without concern for the knowable or unintended consequences along with innumerable innocents as collateral damage. But for Raskolnikov. though there really were no "ends" to justify his actions, his means are murder in support of a theory, a theory that is just as boneheaded as any theory that justifies murder as its bearing wall or main beam or driving force.
No comments:
Post a Comment