Utopian Socialism
Most news and publications from Western Europe, including the literature on utopian socialism, was heavily censored in 19th century Russia. Least censored however were novels, specifically untranslated novels by French writers. It was through these books that Dostoevsky, and many others in Russia, learned of utopian socialism (Scanlan, 39). Dostoevsky was especially drawn to the work of George Sand, whose novels were immensely popular (Frank, 58). From Sand, Dostoevsky inherited a moral-religious understanding of utopian socialism where religious values could achieve utopia. Later in his life, in the 1876 issue of The Writer's Diary, Dostoevsky praised Sand for her vision of a future for humanity and describing her as “perhaps, the most Christian of all of her contemporaries” (Dostoevsky).
Dostoevsky's attraction to these ideas led him to join the Petrashevsky Circle in 1847 (Scanlan, 39). It was there that he was able to access the library of forbidden books, where he became more versed in the theories of Fourier and others, but he did not become particularly attached to one specific model of a socialist utopia (Scalan, 40). However, following his mock-execution and subsequent exile in Siberia, his judgment of utopian socialism changed. While in Siberia, Dostoevsky encountered the worst of human nature in the prison camp. The conditions he faced convinced him that the desire for freedom was a fundamental human trait and that the optimism presented in Sand's work was not universally applicable (Frank, 5).
While he was Siberia, the connotation attached to socialism within Russian society evolved radically. Not only was socialism more radical, but it also took on features of nihilism and utilitarianism, all of which Dostoevsky viewed as destructive because they were materialistic and atheistic (Scanlan, 43). As well, this type of socialism would require the establishment of a system which mandated equality and Dostoevsky interpreted that this would be in direct conflict with the need for freedom (Frank, 246). Shortly after returning from Siberia he would compare the conditions in the prison camp to the circumstances that would result from the models presented by some of the more radical utopian socialists, and that he would prefer a life of suffering to one without freedom. (Frank, 31) This idea became the precursor to what would later be the Underground Man’s discussion in Notes from Underground, a novel which responded to Nikolai Cherneshevsky’s What Is To Be Done? (Frank, 31).
Cherneshevsky uses the image of the Crystal Palace to demonstrate the achievements of his model of a socialist utopia. The Crystal Palace was an image that Dostoevsky considered synonymous with the materialistic, and this coupled with utilitarianism, as presented by Cherneshevsky, was in direct opposition to Dostoevsky's acquired sense of human nature (Frank, 289). In Notes from Underground , Dostoevsky uses the Underground Man to respond directly to this image, citing how imposed social organization for the sake of equality will inevitably lead to enslavement. Throughout the rest of his career, Dostoevsky began making the case that utopia could not emerge from the imposition of political institutions but instead from a sense of brotherhood. (Scanlan, 43)
Works Cited
Dostoevsky, Fyodor. A Writers Diary Volume 1: 1873-1876. Translated and edited by Kenneth Lantz, Evanston IL, Northwestern University Press, 1994, pp. 513.
Frank, Joseph. Dostoevsky: The Stir of Liberation, 1860-1865. Princeton NJ, Princeton University Press, 1986.
Scanlan, James. “Socialism, Utopia, and Myth” Dostoevsky In Context edited by Deborah A. Martinsen and Olga Maiorova, Cambridge University Press, 2016, pp. 39-47.