The Way We Think When Reading Dostoevsky Today

Abstract

ABSTRACT Fyodor M. Dostoevsky’s analysis of the theme of Russia–Europe relations, as well as the nature of Russian society, is replete with concept-metaphors like “people,” “national principle,” “soul,” “spirit,” and so forth. These concepts and terms are proposed by the writer himself, and the method of research that is based on this terminology has been present in Russian public consciousness for almost a century and a half now. This creates the illusion that these terms can be used to understand the basic differences between Russia and Europe, particularly their fundamentally different property relations and rights. The writer’s answer to the question of difference is as follows: Russia’s greatness consists in its rejection of European darkness, and its troubles derive from an inconsistency, from the insufficient firmness of that rejection. This article argues that the reason for the long-term “explanatory power” of these terms used by the polemicist Dostoevsky has been determined by the insufficient development of those economic and political relations that objectively exist in Russia. Thus, the Diary of a Writer still resonates with the reader who is gullible but distant from “strong culture” (V. Kelle) and uninclined to reflection, the reader who never abandons the dreams of Russia’s “special path” that would allow it, “in one fell swoop,” to escape the difficulties of the modern world. But these dreams never come true, and, contrary to the calls for traditionalism, Russia stubbornly tries to follow the same path as the rest of humanity. The longer this process goes on, the more the explanatory power of political polemicist Dostoevsky’s concept-metaphors wanes.