Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Unconsciousness and Guilt in Parts I & II of Crime & Punishment

           I’ve been struck by Raskolnikov’s illness, and especially his extreme fatigue that peaks right after the commits the murders. The fever state and lapses into unconsciousness that Raskolnikov continues to experience seem like an unusual reaction to me. I feel like guilt in modern popular culture is often associated with hyperawareness and insomnia, as the guilty party worries that at any moment society will turn against them. These criminals display anxiety because they are extremely conscious of society and the expected response to the violation of its rules.  Raskolnikov, on the other hand, withdraws completely and sometimes literally, as he loses hours and entire days to unconsciousness. How do we reconcile Raskolnikov’s actions and reactions? 
            It’s clear that Raskolnikov was never particular tied to societal norms. He spend the first part of the novel wandering, and we learn that he has deserted his studies and pays no attention to money. He also doesn’t seem to accept the fairly logical conclusion that his inattention to fiscal responsibilities will affect his mother and sister. In this context, Raskolikov’s literal withdrawal from consciousness after his crime seems to be an exaggeration of the disconnect he felt before.
            Given all this, I’ve been wondering if we can really class Raskolnikov’s reaction to the double murder as guilt. He’s definitely worried that someone will discover evidence linking him to the crime, but at other moments he confesses to the murders. If Raskolnikov lacks a need to participate in a abide by the expectations of society, can he still feel guilty? And if not guilt, what do you think is motivating Raskolnikov's strong physical reaction to his crime? 

5 comments:

  1. I was thinking about the same thing. I wonder if R. is almost "unconscious" of his guilt--that is, he can't even think about it so it manifests as illness. Perhaps he is afraid of his guilt, or perhaps it's so ingrained in him that he doesn't even realize it's there.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think those are good points, especially since it seems that further along in the novel R. channels his guilt into religion instead of presenting it as an illness. His piety doesn't seem like a very healthy way to deal with guilt either, although it may be less dramatic than fainting spells, so I'm interested to see how it ultimately plays out.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I've also noticed that he never seems to actually regret the old woman's death... just that the murder went poorly and he ended up killing Lizaveta and gaining no money. I think an interesting way to look at the physical reactions and his guilt is to ask if he'd be experiencing the same thing if the murder had gone according to plan!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree that he doesn't regret the death, but then what do you think triggers his immediate strong reaction to his crime? Is it just the knowledge that he has endangered himself?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Like you guys, I think the "guilt" Rasko feels isn't really about having ended an old woman's life. I think I would say that he's experiencing some tension over the fact that he wasn't able to take the money (something that was talked about in a moral context earlier on) as well as his self doubt about whether or not he is the kind of man that's permitted to kill according to his "On Crime" article.

    ReplyDelete