Notes from Underground

In the 1840's, Dostoevsky was part of an intellectual movement in Russia that was heavily influenced by European thought.  This movement, spearheaded by Belinsky and Herzen, originally endorsed Christian Socialism, but later advocated a very rational and idealistic socialism that denied and denounced religion.  Dostoevsky identified with these intellectuals because of a common commitment to social reform, particularly to liberation of the serfs. He participated in a semi-revolutionary group that aimed for reform, perhaps even via overthrow of Tsarist rule, and in 1849 was arrested, sent before a sham firing squad and then exiled to Siberia for four years in a prison camp, four more in exile in Siberia as a petty military officer, and finally allowed to return to St. Petersburg only after two more years of banishment from that city.  The prison experience had profound effects on him, intensifying his own Christian faith and strengthening his belief in the deep wisdom of the Russian people - which he saw as a direct result of their belief in Christ.  Further, the extremes of behavior of other prisoners that he witnessed during his years in Siberia convinced Dostoevsky that the human need for self-expression, for free will, is stronger than any other human force or need.  Accordingly, he became increasingly distrustful and scornful toward those intellectuals who, in his view, were tainted by Western philosophy, especially when based in atheism and motivated by a belief in determinism.

Dostoevsky came to believe that the westernized, misguided idealism of the 40's, which he had originally shared, led directly to these utilitarian, mechanistic views of radical leaders in the 60's,  Notes from Underground is a powerful attack on the intellectual ideas of the 40's and 50's, forcefully depicted through the complaints and experiences of the Underground Man - but depicted through sharp satire and parody, which were misunderstood by the vast majority of readers.  Such misunderstandings were abetted by changes demanded by the censors that disrupted some of the logic of the presentation. Not a pleasant read, though occasionally punctuated by sharp humor.  Nevertheless, a powerful depiction of how social philosophy can distort character.