Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Philosophical Thought
Reference:

F.M. Dostoevsky, L.N. Tolstoy on the relationship of personality, individual and society

Linde Andrei Nikolaevich

ORCID: 0000-0001-8195-0697

PhD in Politics

Associate Professor, Department of Regional Management and National Policy, MGIMO, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia

117437, Russia, g. Moscow, ul. Ostrovityanova, 9, k. 4

anlinde@mail.ru

DOI:

10.25136/2409-8728.2022.7.38506

EDN:

BZRJST

Received:

22-07-2022


Published:

29-07-2022


Abstract: The main subject of this article is the relationship of a human as a personality or as an individual and society in the artistic and philosophical creativity of F.M. Dostoevsky and L.N. Tolstoy. The main goal of this work is, in comparison with the structuralist approach, to analyze the main provisions of the approaches of F.M. Dostoevsky and L.N. Tolstoy, which touched upon the problem of the relationship of a human as a personality or as an individual and society. The main objectives of this article: to analyze how the concepts of the personality and the individual differ, and what is the correlation of the personality and the individual with society as a whole. Then it is determined what is the understanding of the individual and his purely functional role in the society of the structuralist approach. Finally, the understanding of a person as a unique personality, created in the image and likeness of God in the works of F.M. Dostoevsky and L.N. Tolstoy. It is determined what is the advantage of such an existential-personalist approach of two Russian thinkers over the structuralist direction and its approach to the individual as just a "cog" of a systemically-functionally regulated society. So, as shown in the article, structuralism presupposes the domination of the general, the whole over the individual, the particular and grades a human as a personality, turning him into only an atomic social individual. In contradiction to structuralism, F.M. Dostoevsky and L.N. Tolstoy develop an approach to man as a person and offer an original model of society as an interconnected community of personalities. As the study proves, thinkers also influenced the personalist philosophy of the 20th century, and their approach as a whole allows a human to realize himself as a genuine, independent personality, and not as an individual governed by a social system, enslaved by the society.


Keywords:

Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, personality, individual, society, freedom, community, personalism, system-functional approach, structure

This article is automatically translated.

Introduction

 

The problem of the correlation of a genuine human personality, a person as an individual and society was originally studied in the social sciences. This problem was also considered in philosophy. Depending on a particular scientist, thinker, this problem was solved in completely different ways. In this regard, it is important to analyze which approach is being developed by the Russian thinkers F.M. Dostoevsky and L.N. Tolstoy.

Thus, a person can exist either as a social individual mechanically functioning according to authoritatively established norms and values of society, or as a free person existing according to personally experienced laws of God. As N.A. Berdyaev writes, "An individual is a naturalistic, biological, sociological category. The individual is indivisible in relation to some whole, the atom... he is certainly thought of as part of the whole… The individual, however, is characterized both as a subordinate part of the whole, and as a selfishly self-asserting part... A person is also a personality… Personality is not a naturalistic, but a spiritual category. Personality is not an indivisible or an atom in relation to any whole, cosmic, generic or social. Personality is freedom and independence of a person in relation to nature, to society, to the state, but it is not only not egoistic self-affirmation, but just the opposite" [2, p. 32]. Thus, personality and individual are fundamentally different.

In general, in the social sciences and philosophy, two key approaches to the relationship between man and society can be distinguished: objective-structuralist and subjective-personal. The structuralist direction includes O. Comte, E. Durkheim, K. Marx, T. Parsons, N. Luhmann, etc. The personal approach includes M. Weber, M. Scheler, N.A. Berdyaev, G. Garfinkel, etc. From our point of view, the thinkers F.M. Dostoevsky and L.N. Tolstoy belong to the subjective-personal direction in philosophy, which creates the ideological foundation for the social sciences.

 

The main part

 

Let's analyze, at the beginning, the structuralist approach. In this approach, the structure is defined as "a whole formed by interdependent and interdependent elements, in such a way that each element can be what it is only in relation to other elements" [8, p. 77]. Thus, the general, structural prevails and dominates over the personal. Consequently, in this approach, a person is an individual strictly embedded in a structure that does not allow him to act as an individual, self-sufficient personality, but only as a separate element in interaction with individual elements. As a result, a person simply performs a certain function in the social system, but cannot express his true self, his independent self.

In fact, a certain subspecies of structuralism is the system-functional approach. Thus, in cybernetics, N. Wiener proposed the scientific and technical concept of a "self-reproducing system", adopted in social theory by T. Parsons for the analysis of society as a whole and the individual in society. The "system" is defined as follows: in a mechanistic technique or a natural individual organism at a higher level of development, elements are able to form into a common system that has the property of emergence - the irreducibility of the new properties of the formed system to the properties of its individual elements. Therefore, the processes in the system are combined into a common, consistent, "synergistic activity" [3, p. 20], gradually forming into "one organ" [3, p. 22]. But it is obvious that a society that is only at an early stage of development, and more complex, post-industrial societies, cannot be defined as just a single biosystem or as the life of an anthill system, etc.[1]

Thus, in the systemic analysis of society, understood as an emergent set of elements in a joint, consistent activity, the role of an individual is not precisely defined. Presumably, it will be understood only as an element of the general system, which contradicts both the philosophical, personal principles of personalism and the principles of the democratic ideal.

In such a system, a person can act as an independent individual, but very limited. The system-functional approach implements functional rationalism, which sets the goal for each individual to interact with people in life most rationally and with the greatest benefit for himself, and to define people around him only as objects - functional means to achieve their own goals. As a result, when each individual follows only his own goal and perceives the people around him only as functional objects to achieve goals, then all people become functional mechanisms and are integrated into the functional mechanical reproduction of the system directed by its creators-demiurgists.

F.M. Dostoevsky, as an existentialist philosopher who influenced personalism, also rejected the existence of society as an anthill system. He did not accept a social system in which each person does not act of his own free will, but is forced, being determined biologically and socially, when a person acts simply as "a tiny fly that buzzes around me now in a sunbeam, and she is even a participant in all this feast and chorus, knows her place, loves it and happy" [5, p. 535]. To such biological functioning F.M. Dostoevsky opposes a genuine meaningful existence, in communion with other people, understanding the deep meanings of life and in love for humanity and for God. F.M. Dostoevsky protects from the management of the state, rational system the primary consciousness of man, which by its nature is free, does not obey mathematical logic and exists on its own, not determined only rationally by the will, and not by a single calculation of utility for the individual. On the basis of free consciousness and will, a person proves that he is an independent person, and is not an externally controlled "piano key or organ pin" [4, p. 713], as representatives of the structuralist approach, such as K. Marx and E. Durkheim, want to present the individual: "I believe in it, I am responsible for it because, after all, the whole human thing seems to be, and really only consists in that, so that a person proves to himself every minute that he is a man, and not a pin!" [4, p. 719]. But F.M. Dostoevsky also asserts the importance of personality, the inviolability of its sovereignty and the need to express its individual consciousness, not only in philosophical statements, but also at the artistic level, in the very literary structure of his novels. Thus, M.M. Bakhtin argues that, unlike novels completely guided by one idea of the author, when the characters of the book serve only as a "mouthpiece" of this idea, F.M. Dostoevsky makes important and significant the consciousness of each character who carries his own, individual idea. Unlike monologue novels directed by one person – the author and his consciousness, F.M. Dostoevsky justified a polyphonic novel in which each person and her consciousness are significant. In F.M. Dostoevsky's polyphonic novels, each person is a person expressing his own idea and striving for an equal dialogue with other personalities and the ideas expressed by them: "Dostoevsky ... represents the 'truth in itself' in the spirit of Christian ideology, as embodied in Christ, that is, he represents it as a person entering into relationships with other personalities" [1, p. 40]. It is especially important that this concept of polyphony as a dialogue of ideas of personalities has also been applied in socio-political studies. Thus, the polyphony proposed by M.M. Bakhtin became the basis of the concept of a deliberative democracy, the center of which is a meeting of citizens on political issues, state projects, when the opinion of each individual is important, in contrast to authoritarianism and totalitarianism, when the point of view of only one person is significant – the ruling state. Thus, we can say that F.Dostoevsky also laid the philosophical foundation for a deliberative democracy (see for example: [13, pp.96-97]).

Now, let's analyze the problem of the relationship between man and society from the point of view of different approaches to individualism. The first approach is classical individualism, interconnected with the theory of rational choice, which assumes the egoism of the individual, his limited rationality, orientation towards achieving purely his own, egoistic goals. Another approach is the Christian–personalist one, which considers a person as a unique personality, created in the image and likeness of God, independent, but not losing a sense of belonging with other people-personalities and pursuing their personal goals in communication with other people. From our point of view, L.N. Tolstoy also belongs to the second, personalistic approach.

L.N. Tolstoy also criticizes excessive rationalism, which leads to incessant competition between people, a rational struggle between individuals for the best goods, when another person is seen as an opponent and as a result can be destroyed: "Reason has discovered the struggle for existence and the law requiring to strangle everyone who interferes with the satisfaction of my desires. This is the conclusion of reason. And the mind could not open itself to love another, because it is unreasonable" [10, p. 420]. Such is the existence of a rationalized society in which everyone can perceive the other as their opponent, "enemy", according to the revealed concept of "the struggle of all against all" in the approach of T. Hobbes.

In order to avoid this, to overcome it, L.N. Tolstoy contrasts such a life of society with life in truth, according to the principles of goodness, life in God. The thinker believes that it is necessary to live not according to purely rational desires, according to an egoistic mind, but according to the irrationally, soulfully comprehended truth of God: "Not to live for one's needs ... but one must live for the truth, for God ... and this knowledge cannot be explained by reason — it is outside of it and has no reason and does not it can have no consequences ... good is outside the chain of causes and effects" [10, p. 417]. Thus, people's lives are overcome as just social individuals controlled by the system, and people can realize themselves as full-fledged personalities, overcoming the limitations of the system-functional approach.

Nevertheless, the question arises which model of society as a community of independent individuals is an alternative to the system-functional structure of society. As we believe, such an alternative to the mechanistic functioning of society is a genuine community of personalities, an example of which is the sinless, "paradise" life of people in the story "The Dream of a Funny Man" by F.M. Dostoevsky [7]. In this community, people live naturally, freedom-loving, in intuitive mutual understanding with each other. Their life is based on the mutual love of everyone for everyone and everyone for everyone and the spiritual involvement of all people.

These principles are shared by L.N. Tolstoy. He believes that a true society can exist only on the basis of people's love for each other, and in general, every community as a community of people exists not on the basis of state structures, but on the basis that "people still feel sorry for and love each other" [11, p. 504]. It is important to emphasize the continuity of the ideas of Leo Tolstoy and personalism – the personalists also put forward the idea that society is based on love between people: "Love is the unity of the community… It is not added to the community later as a kind of excess, without the love of the community there simply would not be" [9, p. 53]. In addition, it is love that overcomes the state of people as individuals and helps them become full-fledged personalities, who then unite into a community with the help of love: "Love stands above the individual, it is aimed at the individual, appealing to her beyond casual connections and insignificant differences" [9, p. 53]. This shows the interrelation of the ideas of F.M. Dostoevsky, L.N. Tolstoy and the personalists.

Moreover, L.N. Tolstoy argued that if all people personally, internally, sincerely accept the basic Christian commandments and follow them in real life, it will be possible to achieve "the highest good available to humanity — the Kingdom of God on earth" [11, p. 504]. In general, L. N. Tolstoy considers Christian principles not loftily divorced from worldly life, but practical principles, applied ethics, according to which it is necessary to live: "the main content of Christ's teaching is the teaching about people's lives: how people should live among themselves" [12, p. 35].

Thus, F.M. Dostoevsky and L.N. Tolstoy propose an alternative project for the life of society: society as an overwhelming personality structure is being replaced by a free, autonomous community of people based not on a mechanistic, but on a sincere acceptance of spiritual norms and values of individuals, on the principle of love for each other, on Christian ethics, on the possibility of realizing a person not as an individual, but as a person.

 

Conclusion

 

Let's make the main conclusions to our study:

 

1. A person can be realized either as a social individual or as an independent person. The first way will lead him to enslavement by the system and continuous competition with other people, the second way – to the possible realization of his "I", his personality and peaceful coexistence with other people-personalities.

2. The structuralist approach formed in the social sciences leads to the enslavement of a person and to his existence as an egoistic social individual in society – as only a small part, an element of the general "system".

3. This structuralist approach is overcome in the philosophical works of F.M. Dostoevsky and L.N. Tolstoy, who proposed spiritual principles, following which a person is able to exist as a genuine person, in a free and equal community, outside the influence of the social system on him.

[1] This contradiction between: a person's own self, his inner world, the culture of society - and the external, formal technical system - is illustrated by a quote from F.M. Dostoevsky: "if society is organized normally, then all crimes will disappear, since there will be nothing to protest for, and that's it... they will become righteous. Nature is not taken into account! They don't have humanity, having developed in a historical, living way... it will turn itself into a normal society, but on the contrary, a social system... from a mathematical head... will suit all mankind and make it righteous... before the living process, without the historical living path... That's why... they do not like the living process of life: there is no need for a living soul! A living soul will demand life, will not listen to mechanics... The phalanx is ready, yes nature... She's not ready, she wants to live... With one logic, you can't jump over nature!". [6, p. 273].

References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The article is devoted to a rather relevant and, one might say, "eternal" topic of analyzing various aspects of the relationship between personality, individual and society, in this case, the source of consideration is such authors as F.M. Dostoevsky and L.N. Tolstoy. A characteristic feature of Russian philosophy is its connection with literature, which is vividly manifested in the works of many significant artists of the word – A. S. Pushkin, M. Y. Lermontov, N. V. Gogol, F. I. Tyutchev, I. S. Turgenev, etc. But traditionally, the work of F. M. Dostoevsky and L. N. Tolstoy, two iconic writers belonging as much to literature as to philosophy, has a very deep philosophical meaning. Their work had a huge impact not only on domestic, but also on world culture. It can be said that the Russian philosophy of the XX century in the knowledge of the spiritual world of man owes much to the influence of the ideas of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy. This does not mean, of course, that the philosophy of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy has become in Russia a kind of substitute for philosophical knowledge proper, but, taking into account the spirit-centricity of Russian philosophy and their influence on philosophical discourse, they have become cult figures in the analysis of various aspects of the relationship between personality, individual and society. Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy was an original Russian thinker. Criticizing the socio-political structure of modern Russia, Tolstoy hoped for moral and religious progress in the consciousness of mankind. He associated the idea of historical progress with the solution of the question of the purpose of man and the meaning of his life, the answer to which was intended to be given by the "true religion" created by him. In it, Tolstoy recognized only the ethical side, denying the theological aspects of church teachings and, in this regard, the role of the church in public life. He associated the ethics of religious self-improvement with the rejection of any struggle, with the principle of non-resistance to evil by violence, with the preaching of universal love. According to Tolstoy, "the kingdom of God is within us" and therefore the ontological-cosmological and metaphysical-theological understanding of God is unacceptable to him. Considering all power to be evil, Tolstoy came to the idea of denying the state. Since he rejected violent methods of struggle in public life, he believed that the abolition of the state should take place by refusing everyone to fulfill public and state duties. If a person's religious and moral self-improvement was supposed to give him a certain mental and social order, then, obviously, the complete denial of any statehood of such an order could not guarantee. This revealed the inconsistency of the initial principles and conclusions drawn from them in Tolstoy's utopian philosophy. A significant place in the history of Russian and world philosophical thought is occupied by the humanist writer Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky. Dostoevsky went through several periods in his socio-political pursuits. After his fascination with the ideas of utopian socialism (participation in the Petrashev circle), a turning point occurred associated with his assimilation of religious and moral ideas. Since the 60s, he professed the ideas of soil science, which was characterized by a religious orientation of philosophical understanding of the fate of Russian history. From this point of view, the entire history of mankind was presented as the history of the struggle for the triumph of Christianity. Russia's distinctive path in this movement was that the Russian people had the messianic role of the bearer of the highest spiritual truth. He is called upon to save humanity through "new forms of life, art" due to the breadth of his "moral capture." Characterizing this essential cross-section in Dostoevsky's worldview, V. Solovyov writes that a positive public view was not yet completely clear to Dostoevsky's mind upon his return from Siberia. But three truths in this case "were completely clear to him: he realized first of all that individuals, even the best people, do not have the right to rape society in the name of their personal superiority; he also realized that public truth is not invented by individual minds, but is rooted in popular feeling, and finally He realized that this truth has a religious meaning and is necessarily connected with the faith of Christ, with the ideal of Christ ." Dostoevsky had an "ecstatic sense of personality." He proceeds from the fact that the religion of Christ is the embodiment of the highest moral ideal of a person. The author in the bibliography relies on both domestic and foreign sources, he considers various approaches and points of view, appeals to both arguments and counterarguments, demonstrating different points of view. This work will be of interest to the part of the journal's audience that is focused on anthropology and social philosophy.