Author: Connor Thurston

Connor Thurston

Professor Siewers

ENLS 245 – Terror With a Human Face

9 May 2025

Demons: A Resistance to Totalitarianism

            When Dostoevsky’s third novel was first published many critics claimed that the title of the English translation, The Possessed,  was not accurate to its actual name in Russian. Bésy,  which stands for Demons, was the name Dostoevsky and critics thought accurately represented the main message of the novel. The difference between these two names actively reflects the main message behind  Fyodor Dostoevsky’s novel, which uses the concept of demonic possession to highlight the dangers of surrendering individual moral judgment to radical ideologies, similar to how Hannah Arendt and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn both show why people subscribe to totalitarian ideologies which differ from their own personal views. Both authors in their respective works pull from precedent in totalitarian regimes in the real world to analyze why this behavior is so prevalent. In her novel Eichmann in Jerusalem, Arendt seeks to validate her idea of the “banality of evil,” and apply it to the trial of Adolf Eichmann. Solzhenitsyn, without formally expressing it, shows how Arendt’s term applies to Soviet Russian society by recounting the events leading up to and including his imprisonment in The Gulag Archipelago. Both author’s in their respective works warn about the implications that the banality of evil could have upon society, arguing that the key to uprooting this evil lies in understanding how totalitarian regimes drive people to commit terrible acts. While Dostoevsky’s novel takes place in a fictional town, the turmoil which takes place within the town accurately depicts the political climate of  Russia in the late nineteenth century leading to revolution.

            The political atmosphere of Demons is built up through extensive scenes of dialogue in the social circles of the upper echelon of Dostoevsky’s fictional town. The chapter “The Wise Serpent” details the arrival of two of the novels key characters, Pyotr Stepanovich Verkhovensky and Nikolai Vsevolodovich Stavrogin. Both characters show up to a gathering at Varvara Petrovna’s estate after being away from their hometown for a substantial amount of time. While their reason behind coming back to town is left unclear in this chapter, the reader can deduce that Pyotr is trying to reintegrate himself into the Petrovna’s social circle. It is revealed to the reader later that Pyotr Stepanovich is a radical revolutionary, and he has come to manipulate the townsfolk in order to spark a violent revolutionary uprising. Upon first arriving at the gathering, Pyotr immediately and successfully gains the favor of Varvara and the other guests. Eventually Pyotr shifts the conversation to Lebyadkin, in which he claims that Lebyadkin abuses his sister, Marya Timofeyevna, in order to extort money from Stavrogin. Upon hearing this claim, Lebyadkin tries to confront Pyotr, but he hesitates. “Pyotr Stepanovich seemed to be displeased with Mr. Lebyadkin’s hesitation; his face twitched in a sort of malicious content. ‘Perhaps do you want to make some declaration,’ he gave the captain a subtle glance. ‘Go right ahead we are waiting.’ ‘You yourself know, Pyotr Stepanovich, that I cannot declare anything.” (Dostoevsky 193).  Later in the novel it is revealed that this is Pyotr’s claim is a lie, constructed by Pyotr in order to psychologically extort Lebyadkin into keeping quiet about Marya and Stavrogin’s secret marriage. This marriage is a secret that both Pyotr is using as leverage to establish power over Lebyadkin. Pyotr’s willingness to lie to and extort people like Lebyadkin is a reoccurring theme throughout the novel and speaks to the lengths that Pyotr will go to see that his revolutionary agenda is fulfilled. Pyotr’s justification for his actions mirrors the justification of totalitarian governments in silencing people and forcing them to conform to their ideas. In The Gulag Archipelago, Solzhenitsyn comments that revolutionary movements in Russia justified their actions based on “Ideology – that is what gives evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination. That is the social theory which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and other’s eyes, so that he won’t hear reproaches and curses but will receive praise and honors” (Dostoevsky 77). It is Pyotr’s ideological agenda which drives him to call out and extort Lebyadkin, exposing him as an abuser and wrapping him further in his plans for the town.

In the same way that Pyotr extorts Lebyadkin into silence, he also forces Lebyadkin into speaking against his personal thoughts. Instead of letting Lebyadkin sink away Pyotr hammers Lebyadkin with questions, refusing to let him leave the room until he has heard what he wants from him. “Allow me to leave, Pyotr Stepanovich,’ he said resolutely. ‘Not before you give me some answer to my first question: is everything I said true?” (Dostoevsky 191). Pyotr continues to toy with Lebyadkin, asking him if he is sober and if he recently threatened Stavrogin. All of these things are true, yet the context behind them is drastically different compared to what Pyotr is making it out to be. Eventually Pyotr threatens to reveal more about his family, and upon hearing this Lebyadkin gives Pyotr a crazed look. He then submits to Pyotr, saying “Pyotr Stepanovich, I am only now beginning to awaken!’ ‘Hm. and it’s I who have awakened you?’ ‘Yes, it’s you who have awakened me , and I’ve been sleeping for four years under a dark cloud. May I finally withdraw, Pyotr Stepanovich?” (Dostoevsky 194). Lebyadkin then hesitatingly leaves the room, looking as if he wanted to say something but ultimately thought against it. It is for fear of the Lebyadkin’s family honor that Lebyadkin gives in to Pyotr’s wishes and praises him when he originally wanted so badly to condemn him. Pyotr, as a radical revolutionary, hopes to get as many people on board with his ideology as possible. His metaphorical possession of others ranges from convincing people into revolution, to extorting people into praising him and wrapping them into his grand scheme for the future. Lebyadkin gives into Pyotr’s extortion partly because he values his family’s name and reputation. He sees Marya and Stavrogin’s marriage as a threat to his conformity into the town’s high society, so he praises Pyotr and gives into his coercion. A threat to conformity is a common tactic used in totalitarian governments to extort people into supporting their ideologies, which is similar to Arendt’s justification for the banality of evil. In conclusion to Eichmann and Jerusalem, Arendt states “That the ideal of ‘toughness,’ except, perhaps, for a few half-demented brutes, was nothing but a myth of self-deception, concealing a ruthless desire for conformity at any price, was revealed at the Nuremberg Trials, where the defendants accused and betrayed each other and assured the world that they ‘had always been against it’ or claimed, as Eichmann was to do, that their best qualities had been ‘abused’ by their superiors” (Arendt 175). This supports the idea that not all of the people who were involved with the Nazi regime harbored the same morally corrupt ideology which the defined themselves on. Some people did not oppose and even went along with Nazi ideology because they feared social isolation and persecution if they did not subscribe to their radical ideology, which mirrors the means by which  Lebyadkin is coerced into supporting and even praising Pyotr. This makes Lebyadkin the first cog in Pyotr’s plan to spark a revolutionary movement amongst the town.

Throughout the course of  the novel Pyotr slowly but surely wraps more people into his radical plans. He uses his father’s social connections to idealist revolutionaries to establish a group with the same radical ideology that he has, albeit with no plans of actually starting a revolution. In order to ensue chaos and destabilize the society within the town Pyotr is believed to have orchestrated many terrible events, including the incitement of a riot amongst the townspeople who burned down the governor’s house and the brutally murdered Lizaveta Nikolaevna. At this point in the novel Pyotr seems to have established a firm grip on the townsfolk built upon deception and deceit, but his possession is not as far reaching as he hoped. Pyotr realizes this when Ivan Pavlovich Shatov removes himself from Pyotr’s revolutionary circle and becomes more open about his transition into Orthodox Christianity. The fact that Shatov no longer believes in the revolutionary cause leads Pyotr to believe that he is a threat who knows too much and could expose the cell within the town.  This leads Pyotr to plan and carry out his assassination. Before committing the assassination, Pyotr’s peers expresses a great deal of apprehension which Pyotr combats with threats and deception. “Even if they knock off two degrees for you legally, it’s still Siberia for each of you, and besides, there’s another sword you won’t escape. And that other sword is sharper than the government’s” (Dostoevsky 601). The metaphorical sword Pyotr refers to represent an individual’s sense of guilt. Pyotr weaponizes this guilt and uses it, combined with the threat of imprisonment, to further deceive and manipulate his cell into murdering Shatov in the name of his ideology. This manipulative tactic was the very same tactic used by NVKD in the Soviet Union, in which guilt would be implied upon arrest and was used as an efficient means to extract a confession out of a prisoner. When talking about the ways in which the NVKD would extract confessions from abductees, Solzhenitsyn writes “Intimidation was very widely used and very varied. It was often accompanied by enticement and promises, which were of course false… Intimidation worked beautifully on those who had not yet been arrested but simply received an officially summons to the Bolshoi Dom- the Big House… He would be ready to give all kinds of testimony and make all kinds of concessions in order to avoid these dangers” (Dostoevsky 46). Solzhenitsyn recalls stories about interrogations in which people are convinced that they can make their situation better, when in reality they are already set for the gulags. This same tactic of deception which throws guilt upon the accused is used by Pyotr in convincing his inner circle that Shatov needs to be silenced.

Although Pyotr was successfully in convincing Virginsky and Lyamshin into being a part of Shatov’s assassination, it is clear to the reader that they are not prepared to kill someone to protect their revolution in the same way Pyotr is. Once Shatov is dragged onto the grounds of the estate and shot by Pyotr, Virginsky and Lyamshin are sent into a frenzy, “But when the stones were tied on and Pyotr Stepanovich stood up, Virginsky suddenly started quivering all over, clasped his hands, and cried ruefully at the top of his voice: ‘This is not it, this is not it! No, this is not it at all!” (Dostoevsky 604). It is clear to the reader that they did not wish to kill Shatov, but none of them had the courage to stand up to Pyotr and voice their concerns. They are ideological cowards forced to acquiesce to Pyotr’s wishes in the name of his revolutionary ideology. In an attempt to rally the group together and remind them of their purpose, Pyotr say “You are called to renew the cause, which is decrepit and stinking from stagnation; keep that always before your eyes as encouragement. In the meantime your whole step is towards getting everything destroyed: both the state and its mortality. We alone will remain., having destined ourselves beforehand to assume power: we shall rally the smart ones to ourselves, and ride on the backs of the fools. You should not be embarrassed by it. This generation must be re-educated to make it worthy of freedom. There are still thousands of Shatovs ahead of us” (Dostoevsky 607). Pyotr seeks to reaffirm his justification for committing these terrible acts, bringing attention to the beautiful future in which these terrible actions will build. Pyotr’s need for justification in this moment is a human trait which Solzhenitsyn seeks to analyze in The Gulag Archipelago. In a sarcastic comment meant to mirror the Soviet’s though process in revolution, Solzhenitsyn writes “The result is what counts! It is important to forge a fighting party! And to seize power! And to hold on to power! And to remove all enemies! And to conqueror in pig iron and steel! And to launch rockets! And though for this industry and for these rockets it was necessary to sacrifice their way of life, and the integrity of the family, and the spiritual health of the people, and the very soul of our fields and forests and rivers– to hell with them! The result is what counts!” (Solzhenitsyn 307). Solzhenitsyn uses a sarcastic tone at many points throughout his novel to highlight the irony behind the soviet revolutionary mindset. Here he claims sarcastically that “The result is what counts” and yet he lists the many important things that the soviets have compromised in the name of totalitarian ideology. Pyotr similarly compromises the life of Shatov, one of his peers, and the solidarity of his revolutionary cell in order to further his plans in the town. Pyotr’s ideology is destructive not just for himself who genuinely believes in it, but for others who surrender their judgment and surrender to Pyotr’s cause.

While Dostoevsky believes that politically radical ideologies are destructive and dangerous, he also makes a considerable effort to show how the absence of ideology can lead someone to become destructive to those around them. Nikolai Stavrogin is a character who doesn’t believe or subscribe to any political ideology. He is not spiritual or religious and doesn’t have a moral code, instead being purely driven by a nihilistic ideology. Because he does not see a point or moral purpose to life, he is arguable the most destructive character in the story. Much of his character is explained in the originally omitted chapter of the novel, “At Tikhon,” in which it is revealed that he sexually assaulted and drove a young girl to suicide purely because it gave him a sense of superiority and pleasure. “Every extremely shameful, immeasurably humiliating, mean, and, above all, ridiculous position I have happened to get into in my life has always aroused in me, along with boundless wrath, and unbelievable pleasure” (Dostoevsky 693). What is most disturbing about this chapter is the lack of remorse that Stavrogin feels towards his actions. Instead he gains immense pleasure in doing things which other people deem unspeakable, which is something that Solzhenitsyn deems is at odds with human nature. “To do evil a human being must first of all believe that what he is doing is good, or else that it’s a well-considered act of conformity to natural law. Fortunately, it is in the nature of the human being to seek a justification for his actions” (Solzhenitsyn 77). People seek justifications for their actions and in the case of Pyotr Stepanovich, the result outweighed the means. However the only thing that drives Stavrogin is a morbid, almost animalistic pleasure.

While Nihilism is referred to as an absence of moral ideology, it is important to mention that it is still ideology. It is an ideology which does not seek to justify the means by which it is achieved, and also accurately describes Pyotr’s radical political agenda. Stavrogin’s ideology is built upon an absence of religious faith and repentance. A key moment in which this becomes clear to the reader is when Tikhon seeks to turn Stavrogin towards Christianity. “You are in the grip of a desire for martyrdom and self-sacrifice; conquer this desire as well, set aside your pages and your intention– and then you will overcome everything. You will put to shame all your pride and your demon! You will win; you will attain freedom…” (Dostoevsky 712). Tikhon sees the self-destructive nature of ideological radicalism and tries to turn him onto a better path, and yet Stavrogin upon hearing his offer storms out of the monastery. His unwillingness to steer himself from his nihilistic ideology is inherited from his pride and ego, which reflects Pyotr’s devotion to his radical political ideology. Both characters seek to justify their actions through their extreme ideological views, and Dostoevsky shows the self-destructive nature of following their radicalism.

Demons is a novel which explores the dangers of subscribing to radical ideological values. Whether you are somebody who completely believes in this ideologies, or are somebody who uses it for personal gain, Dostoevsky makes it clear that there is no good that can come from ideas driven by violent revolution and nihilistic moral ambiguity. Arendt’s novel on Adolf Eichmann is key in explaining how totalitarian governments spread their radical thoughts into the minds of moral sound people. The idea of  the banality of evil is extremely prevalent in Pyotr and Stavrogin’s followers throughout the book. While Lyamshin and Virginsky are not comfortable with murdering one of their friends, they stay silent as Pyotr shoots Shatov. Lebyadkin is forced both into silence and unwilful appraisal as he is being socially extorted by Pyotr. Stavrogin surrenders all moral judgement completely, not to any political ideology but to nihilism, which brings about the same self-destructive tendencies. Dostoevsky shows the reader the danger of being on each side of the ideological spectrum and both Solzhenitsyn and Arendt show how these ideologies grow amongst countries and eventually sprout into totalitarian regimes. Solzhenitsyn believes that recognizing what breeds people’s possession is key in understanding how to uproot evil from society. “We have to condemn publicly the very idea that some people have a right to repress others. In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future” (Solzhenitsyn 81). Solzhenitsyn, Arendt, and Dostoevsky are authors who understand the meaning behind words. The Gulag Archipelago was a novel which was very influential in bringing the corrupt nature of the Soviet Union to the world and is often credited as a book which destroyed the USSR’s national reputation. In sharing these stories of political corruption and moral demise, Solzhenitsyn, Arendt, and Dostoevsky hoped to warn and prepare future generations about the dangerous of radicalism.  

In Chapter 3, Part 3 of Dostoevsky’s novel Demons, Lizaveta Nikolaevna Petrovna is left emotionally distraught after an especially devastating encounter with her abusive husband Nikolai Stavrogin. Nikolai treats Lizaveta very harshly throughout the novel, he keeps his marriage with her secret, lies to her frequently about his love for her, and insists on marrying her only because of the social uproar it would cause when others hear about it. This, combined with an argument with Varavara Petrovina in which she tries to convince Lizaveta that her relationship with Stavrogin is toxic. This causes Lizaveta to storm out of Varavara’s estate into the cold rain. Throughout the novel Lizaveta is portrayed to the reader as an innocent Christian architype. She is not possessed by any radical ideologies and she doesn’t plan or scheme like Pyotr or Stavrogin. She, as a christian is a character which is defined by her relationship to the cold and nihilistic Stavrogin. Her marriage to Stavrogin on the surface seems like a story about a rich aristocrat who falls in love with a poor servant girl, almost like a disney princess movie, however the real circumstances of their marriage is more sinister and is a testament to the harm that Stavrogin’s nihilistic personality has on Lizaveta. A large source of Lizaveta’s inner turmoil throughout the novel stems from Stavrogin’s treatment of Lizaveta, who is someone who is morally connected with religion. One way to read Lizaveta’s character is that she is an innocent character who is caught up in the evil machinations of other characters. Stavrogin is a character who fits into the Devil metaphor which permeates throughout the novel, in which people become possessed by radical ideology. One Scene which connects Lizaveta with the King James BIble is when she is assaulted in the crowd outside of Stavrogin’s house, which is filled with Pyotr’s supporters and followers. This particular symbolizes  the moral collapse of society, as Lizaveta is assaulted almost at random by three or four men. What is more jarring is that nobody seems to notice or care that she is being assaulted. The crowd of radicals are not portrayed as individuals, but as a mindless collective. “From the crowd, the tradesmen and another three men were seized. These three up to now have denied any participation in the evil doing, stubbornly insisting that they were seized by mistake, perhaps they are right” (Dostoevsky, 539). The ensuing chaos of the crowd made it hard for the assailants to be found, which is another way in which Dostoevsky criticized radical and harmful ideologies such as Pyotr’s. It is as if these people who assault Stavrogin have been possessed by revolutionary fervor, and they acted in a way in which they would not have if they had no connection to his ideology.  This scene mirrors the story of Levite’s concubine in the book of Judges 19:22-30  in which she is brutally assaulted by the Israelities which was brought on by there disconnection from God’s covenant. “So the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning” (Judges 19:25, King James V). Similar to how the Israelities forsook god’s covenant, the radical’s were wrapped up in Pyotr Stepanovich’s radical revolutionary ideology which caused the innocent to be unnecessarily and viciously harmed. This connection is just one of the many ways in which Dostoevsky wrote the teachings of the King’s James BIble into his novel to warn people about the demonic possession of radical ideologies.

At Tikhon’s is one of the most integral chapters to the whole entire message of the narrative of Demons, which is interesting because it was originally struck from the book by the editor. This was due in part to the contents of this section, which depicts the brutal actions of Nikolai Stavrogin as he rapes a little girl and pushes her to commit suicide. While Stavrogin’s actions may seem unsuitable to a general audience, the inclusion of this chapter in the novel is crucial to understanding the major themes of the novel and through the characterization of Stavrogin. In this chapter Stavrogin reveals to Tikhon his crime through a three page essay which he plans to publish to the world in the future. In this essay, Stavrogin reveals the reasoning for why he commits this deed, and all of the terrible deeds that he committed throughout the events of the novel. “Every extremely shameful, immeasurably humiliating, mean, and, above all, ridiculous position I have happened to get into in my life has always aroused in me, along with boundless wrath, and unbelievable pleasure. Exactly the same as in moments of crime, or in moments threatening my life. If I was stealing something, I would feel, while commiting the theft, intoxication from the awareness of the depth of my meanness” (Dostoevsky 693). Stavrogin reveals the origins of his nihilist viewpoint, he claims to take pleasure in the terrible things that he does because of the terrible ways that it makes him and other people experience. As a nihilist, Stavrogin doesn’t believe in a meaning to existence, and has lost all moral grounding which drives characters such as Pyotr or Stepan. He is not driven by any ideal, and that makes him the most morally dangerous character in the story. He claims that he does these terrible things because it brings him great enjoyment to do things in which others deem to be unspeakable acts. This explains the reasoning behind his secret marriage to Marya Timofeevna Ledyadikn. Stavrogin says “Once, looking at the lame Marya Timofeevna Ledyadkin, who was something of a servant in those corners, not yet crazy then, but simply an ecstatic idiot, and secretly madly in love with me (as our boys spied out), I suddenly to marry her. The thought of Stavrogin marrying such at last tickled my nerves” (Dostoevsky 701). Usually it would not be social acceptable for a man of Stavrogin’s social standing to marry a lower-born servant like Marya, but he does so anyways, not because he genuinely loves her but because it would be seen as socially unacceptable. Rape is one of the most social unnacceptable and denounced crimes in most societies, so the idea of exposing himself to the world for this crime would bring Stavrogin immense pleasure as it is one of the most unacceptable things a man can do. Stavrogin is driven by the displeasure of others, and this is partly the reason that he decides to go to Tikhon who is a religious monk, He expects Tikhon to look at him in disgust, but is displeased to find out that Tikhon still offers him remorse and redemption through religion. When reading this section, Eichmann’s idea of the banality of evil came to mind. Stavrogin is not an ideal character for the banality of evil argument. He is not so much possessed by the idea of nihilism as he is the embodiment of nihilism. He doesn’t commit these acts because he is influenced by other people’s ideologies, like Pyotr influences his inner circle, but he is influenced by the absence of ideology. This makes him one of the most dangerous characters in the novel because of his moral ambiguity.

Memo: 

In novel Demons, Fyodor Dostoevsky’s uses the concept of demonic possession to highlight the dangers of surrendering individual moral judgment for radical ideologies, similar to how Hannah Arendt and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn showcase how people subscribe to totalitarian ideologies which contrast with there own personal views.

Ideas: 

• Demons:
  • Talk about Pytor Stepanovich, who is considered a radical revolutionary, and how his ideological thoughts lead him to commit terrible things
  • Talk about the murder of Shatov. Pyotr Stepanovich and his inner circle murder him because he posed a threat to their organization. Pyotr believes that shatov will expose what they are doing to the town so they all murder Shatov. The people involved do not seem like they want to do this, and yet they do it anyway
  • Talk about how Nikolai Stavrogin was overcome with nihilistic thinking and spiritual passivity. He is the absence of ideology and is a nihilist who doesn’t believe in the meaning of anything. 
  • Dostoevsky argues that Stavrogin’s upper-class and emotionally hollow upbringing made him the perfect person to become overwhelmed by nihilism ideology. 
  • Because he is a nihilist who doesn’t who has surrendered all moral judgement, he does terrible things like rape and assault. 
• Eichmann and Jerusalem:
  • Hannah Arendt argues in this novel that Eichmann did not possess the personality of someone who would have been called a demon or villain. Instead he was seemingly possessed by the radical ideas of the nazis
  • Hannah Arendt coins the term the “banality of evil” and tries to make the argument that Eichmann was not a terrible person, but was convinced into extreme radical thinking through his chain of command.
  • Stavrogin, similar to eichmann, was not initially a terrible person but was taken up by and possessed by the ways of thinking by others in their circle.
• The Gulag Archipelago:
  • In this novel, Solzhentisyn talks about how people cannot be sorted into the categories of demons and angels. 
  • While it is easy to condemn people and call them a demon for their horrible actions, Solzhenitsyn is more concerned with understanding the reasoning behind why people become possessed with radical authoritarian ideologies. 
  • Solzhenitsyn believes the first step to combating authoritarianism is to understand how it convinces people to commit horrible deeds in its name. Once we understand that, we can start to understand and combat these ways of thinking, and I believe both Arendt and Dostoevsky would believe this

One passage in particular which stuck out to me when reading Demons by Fyodor Dostoevsky pertains to the characterization of one of the main central figures of the novel, Pyotr Stepanovich Verkhovensky. In the chapter titled “Instead of an Introduction, we are first introduced to a lot of the character’s in Stepan’s circle, which includes characters like Liputin, Yuila, and Shatov. In section 9 of this chapter Shatov and Stepan have a particular argument over the importance of national identity.  Stepan, in response to an argument made by Shatov dealing with the role of the peasants in a revolution, says “believe me this (he repeated the gesture across his throat) will be of no use whatsoever either to the landowners or to the rest of us in general. Even without heads, we will no longer be able to arrange anything, though it’s our heads that hinder our understanding most of all” (Dostoevsky 35). Stepan then goes on to detail some extraordinary thoughts on the character of the Russian people. He states that those who aren’t part of a collective or national identity will fall victim to atheistic and nihilistic views. These sentiments, along with a lot of the other ideas in this novel closely follow the emerging revolutionary ideas which were becoming very popular in Russia at the time of the novel (1869). The remark which brought Stepan to voice his opinion on the peasants class of Russia came from an earlier event in which he was reciting a verse from a poem. The verse goes “Peasants come, they’re bring axes, something bad will happen” (Dostoevsky 34). This again mirrors revolutionary thinking of the time and also leads Stepan into a somewhat disturbed and agitated mood as the argument goes on. Stepan states “These men of yours never loved the people, never suffered for them or sacrificed anything for them, no matter what they themselves imagined for their own good pleasure!” (Dostoevsky 38). All of these sentiments in which Stepan has dictated to his group of friends resemble the arguments of the leaders of the October Revolution, and while the revolution has not yet happened by the time of this story, there are people in Stepan’s circle who closely harbor those same sentiments. Later in the novel, these sentiments will be used by Dostoevsky to highlight the dangers of revolutionary ideals similar and wholly identical to Stepan’s. However Dostoevsky goes to great lengths to justify and define Stepan’s character, so by the time the novel ends, we are able to understand why Stepan has made his choses. The name of the novel, Demons, is a reference to the idea that normal people can become enamored by ideals in which they become consumed with. In the introduction to the novel written by Richard Pevear, he writes “it is not you who ate the idea, but the idea ate you” (Pevear 18). This hints at the theme of possession by ideals which we are starting to see in Stepan’s character. Oddly enough, Solzhenitsyn in the post-revolutionary era of Russia also wrote a lot about a sort of possession with political revolutionary ideals. Solzhenitsyn mirror’s Dostoevsky’s views however, in that they both believe that a person believes in those ideals for a reason. “To do evil a human most first of all believe that he is doing good” (Solzhenitsyn 77). Stepan, who ultimately does commit some evil deeds throughout the course of the novel, believes in his righteousness, just ass the October revolutionaries believed in the justified murder and slaughter of hundreds in the name of political freedom.

Chapter eleven of Hannah Arendt’s Eichman in Jerusalem seeks to provide readers with some context when it comes to the topic of mass deportations of Jewish people from countries like Bulgaria, Greece, and Romania.  Arendt goes into great detail about the processes and the political anecdotes which brought about the judenrein (deportation of Jewish people) of that country. While some countries like Denmark and Sweden sought to protect the rights of Jewish people by refusing the German’s commands, Arendt makes the claim that many other countries sought to do much worse than what the German had in store. One of such countries was Romania, which has had a long history of Jewish political strife. Arendt writes “In Rumania even the S.S. were taken aback, and occasionally frightened, by the horrors of old-fashioned, spontaneous pogroms on a gigantic scale; they often intervened to save Jews from sheer butchery, so that the killing could be done in what, according to them, was a civilized way” (Arendt 190). Arendt further goes into the tactics that the Romania’s would use to round up Jewish people for slaughter, including crowding Jewish people into “’two forests across the river bug,’ that is, into German-held Russian Territory, for liquidation” (Arendt 192). Upon hearing this, the Germans were taken aback and attempted to remind the Romanian government that the emigration of Jews back into Germany was more important than there misstep into the “Final Solution.” This would result in a number of disputes between the countries leaders. Until Romania eventually surrender to the Russia’s in nineteen forty-four.

Arendt’s goal in this chapter of her study on the Eichmann trial is to expose a line of reasoning which is similar to her theory of the banality of evil, which states that normal everyday people could be convinced to commit atrocities due to a willingness to refer to a chain of command and a structured career ladder. Arendt’s discussion on the S.S.’s dissatisfaction upon finding out about the Romanian’s treatment of Jewish people is used in her argument to justify her belief that Eichmann was not a extraordinary evil person. Her arguments in this book have been the topic of ripe discussion since its release, and it is important to remember that Arendt is not trying any anyway to justify or angelize Eichmann. Her goal is to explain how normal people can fall into committing seemingly evil deeds. Arendt uses Eichmann’s argument in this chapter as an example. Arendt states “His organizational gifts, the coordination of evaluations and deportations achieved by his office, had in fact helped his victims; it had made their fate easier” (190). While Arendt takes issue with this argument, she also sees some of the validity in it. Whether or not this completely justifies his actions is a whole other measure, because at the end of the day he participated in a process which killed millions of people. However he also saved them from a much more brutal death, despite there intentions to kill them anyways. It is a white spec of a deed surrounded in a pool of black.

Eichmann in Jerusalem was a controversial piece of literature when it first was published. Hannah Arendt’s thesis of the book has something to do with a term she coined because of the Adolf Eichmann trial, the “banality of evil.” This term refers to an observation about Eichmann’s personal life, in which Arendt claims that Eichmann’s reason for joining the SS was not caused by his wickedness or evil of character, but by his thoughtlessness and his willingness to conform to the leadership above him. Arendt claims that individuals can be convinced commit unspeakable acts simply because they want to conform to authority. This is backed up by Arendt’s claim that Eichmann personally knew and was close friends and family with people who were Jewish. “Eichmann new jews in his personal life and including dear friends and relative.” Arendt goes on to claim that while Eichmann was participating in the “force emigration” of Jewish people in Vienna as a bureaucrat he had an affair with a Jewish “mistress”. Arendt states that he was coaxed into his government job in Vienna, which was advertised to him as a job which had clear upward momentum in the party. While I do believe in the banality of evil as a concept, I do not believe (so far) that Eichmann’s case falls under this category. The concept is interesting though when applied to Ji Xianlin’s The Cowshed. Similar to how seemingly sane and non-malevolent bureaucrats in Germany were coaxed into commit atrocities on a mass scale, so where the members of the Cultural Revolution in China. Ji comments on how his students, who seemed politically conscious and nonviolent got swept up in the craze of the Cultural Revolution. Specifically Ji talks about one of his favorite prospects, Ma. Ma was one of his favorite students and he was grooming him to become his eventually successor when he got back to Peking University from the Cowshed. However upon coming back Ji attended a public denouncement of himself which was being held by Ma. Ji said, “I will not be the Golden Doll Paper doll of the Capitalist Academic Authority” (Ji, 135). The golden doll is a reference to an item which was buried with the Chinese when they die in a traditional funeral, and the Capitalist Academic Authority was a reference to what they would call Ji. Ji was surprised to find out that one of his most fond students turned on him when he found out that he had associations to anti-capitalistic ties, which were ultimately fake. This concept of the “banality of evil” could be applied to the members of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, as seemingly ordinary people with no malice towards others are led to commit horrible acts in the name of the revolution and communism.

In The Cowshed, Ji Xianlin talks in great detail about his experiences with what he calls “Struggle Sessions.” These sessions refer to moments when Xianlin would be taken by Red Army Members to be beaten and publicly humiliated in front of his colleagues and students. Xianlin defines this period of his life as The Great Struggle and he refers to this period of his life as one of the hardest and darkest times. He talks in depth about the moments in which he was forced into hard labor, harassed by his former students, and beaten because of a loosely tied together story of his dissenting opinions about the cultural revolution. During these events Xianlin says that he contemplated suicide many times, but he was ultimate dissuaded because of he feared for his families well being. While he was being subjected to these struggle sessions he was allowed to keep his position as a teacher which Xianlin states contributed to more of his public harassment as he was forced to continue working in order to keep supporting his family. While these struggle sessions were physically and emotionally devastating for Xianlin, he also remarks that over time the monotonous harassment became more and more bearable due to the fact that he had to endure it every single day. “With the practical experience I had accumulated, I could have earned a certificate in surviving struggle sessions” (Xianlin, 70). While these times were hard for Xianlin, in hindsight he is able to take something positive from his struggle. Xianlin’s sentiment towards becoming stronger through struggle mirrors Dreher’s thoughts on perseverance in Live not By Lies. In chapter ten, called “The Gift of Suffering”, Dreher talks about a friend’s experience with suffering through persecution during the communist era. Dreher talks about how in the present, people want to avoid suffering at all costs. Dreher’s friend thinks that this is not the correct mentality that one should talk to suffering, and should instead accept that struggle and suffering is a normal part of life. “She worries her friends don’t grasp that suffering is a normal part of life -even part of a good life, in that suffering teaches us how to be patient, kind, and loving” (Dreher, 97). When reading this passage, I wondered if Xianlin’s sentiments about struggle are similar to Dreher’s sentiment. Xianlin for example remembers the time of The Great Struggle as some of the worst parts of his life, but he does remark on the strengthening factor which hardship is able to foster. It is for this reason that I also think that Xianlin would take issue with Dreher’s stance on suffering because suffering has the ability to both break someone down and build someone up to a certain extent. The suffering that Dreher talks about is also trivial compared to the hardships which Xianlin faced during the cultural revolution in China.

Connor Thurston

Professor Siewers

Terror With a Human Face

7 May 2024

Rewriting History in Totalitarian Regimes

            As a work of dystopian fiction, 1984’s INGSOC is Orwell’s depiction of what the totalitarian regimes of his time would look like if they were to grow into the all-encompassing superpower that is Oceania. Because INGSOC has an almost absolutely hold on its party members some of the ways in which they maintain power may seem ironic. For example the party slogan “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength” comes off as completely nonsensical to the reader. One would expect that Party members wouldn’t believe this slogan. But instead they recite it like gospel, which is a testament to the control that The Party has over its members. INGSOC is able to make Its members believe ideas which seem completely nonsensical to the reader. Amongst members of the party this technique is called doublethink, and it is derived from a term called doublespeak which is language made with the intent of being obscure and misleading. As a member of the Ministry of Truth, Winston uses doublespeak to change past media articles and newspapers in favor or Big Brother and Oceania. While it is hard to believe that this would be effective today to the extent that it is in the novel, totalitarian regimes have utilized techniques similar to doublespeak and doublethink to sway the minds of their people through the media. In 1984, Winston’s job in the Ministry of Truth is to rewrite historical event to make The Party look more favorable, because totalitarian regimes utilize the media to obscure the truth according to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s accounts in The Gulag Archipelago.

            At the beginning of the novel the reader is introduced to Winston’s job at the Ministry of Truth. In Winston’s office there can be found slits in the wall with wire grates underneath it. Orwell states that these slits are referred to as memory holes, and their purpose is the disposal of papers unwanted by party members. “When one knew that any document was due for destruction, or even when one saw a scrap of wastepaper lying about, it was an automatic action to lift the flap of the nearest memory hole and drop it in” (Orwell 37). Winston’s job at the ministry is to edit or destroy previous media which could be held against INGSOC. “The messages that he received referred to articles or news items which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to alter, or, as the official phrase had it, rectify” (Orwell 38).

Winston’s job isn’t to just edit this newspaper, but to change the messaging behind it to bolster support for INGSOC and Big Brother. For example one of the first articles Winston edits refers to a prediction Big Brother made about the war on the South Indian front. Big Brother’s previous judgment about the war ended up being wrong so Winston is tasked with changing Big Brother’s written address to the public so that it seems like he accurately depicted the right outcome. Any hypocrisy committed by Big Brother is rewritten by the ministry, and the real account of what is tossed in the wire grate to be burned and never seen again. All existing evidence of fault by the Party is erased from the media, and by extension, from history and the minds of the people.

            The effects of Winston’s job is seen many times throughout the novel. The messianic image of Big Brother is used to bolster the support of the party members. During the two-minute hate at the beginning of the novel Party members shed tears of joy at the site of Big Brother on the telescreen, due to his image and reputation which has been propped up by the Ministry of Truth in the media. In Orwell’s dystopic future this indoctrination is extremely effective, yet very hard to put into action in the real world. For example it would be nearly impossible to track every real newspaper article and erase it’s existence from the public consciousness, which is a testament to the absolute control which INGSOC holds. Instead totalitarian regimes often resort to an easier tactic which brings about similar results. In The Gulag Archipelago, Solzhenitsyn comments on these tactics in the media. “What we remember is not what actually happened, not history, but merely the hackneyed dotted line they have chosen to drive into our memories” (Solzhenitsyn 120). Solzhenitsyn recalls hearing about the public trials of tried Soviet criminals over and over on the radio.

Solzhenitsyn claims that the information about these public trials was not withheld from the public, but they were still forgotten. He states, “Only things repeated on the radio day after a day drill holes in the brain” (Solzhenitsyn 120). It was not the fact that the unjust and unfair proceedings were hidden from the public or even altered, but they were not covered enough by the media to stick into the minds of the public. By picking and choosing what to “hammer” into the public, the Soviet Union was able to sway the minds of the people of Russia through the media.  Even though INGSOC in 1984 has social and political power which is far superior to the Soviet Union’s, they still resort to the same methods to hold power. Propaganda is driven into the minds of the people through the two-minute hate, and through the telescreens which seems to direct the lives of party members. This effects that these tactics have on the people can be seen through the proles of Oceania. When talking to the old man at the bar, Winston is disappointed to find out that he cannot answer any of his questions about the pre-revolution past. The man can only seem to remember arbitrary details, which shows the effect that the Party has had through controlling the narratives of the past. Similar to Solzhenitsyn’s frustration of media control by the Soviet Union, Winston feels that he can never truly recover the past.

Solzhenitsyn feels that the Soviet Union has controlled the narrative of the Gulag Archipelago through the media. By picking and choosing what the nation of Russia will hear on the radio, the Soviet Union effectively swayed the minds of millions of listeners, convincing the nation and the world that the Soviet Union was a just institution. It was only when Solzhenitsyn’s narrative was published in 1973 that the hypocrisy and corruption of the Soviet Union was brough to the world. Solzhenitsyn wrote and recorded what he had heard and experienced in the Gulags, similar to how Winston wrote about the hypocrisy of The Party in his journal. Like Solzhenitsyn Orwell wanted to emphasize the importance of both written history and history in the minds of the public in resisting totalitarianism. If Solzhenitsyn’s manuscripts were to have been found by his captors and burned liked the newspapers in Winston’s office, then the world would never have learned the true and horrible reality of the Gulag Archipelago

The Gulag Archipelago is a novel which was written for the intended purpose of telling the author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s story about his time imprisoned in the gulags of Russia. But Solzhenitsyn make it a point to talk about not just his experiences, but the experiences of the thousands of other people he talked to while Imprisoned. He remarks that they no longer get the chance to be able to tell their stories, so he must carry the burden of bringing them to the public. The first part of the novel details the events that led to his imprisonment and the experiences of many other individuals who were arrested by the NKVD. Solzhenitsyn also intertwines historical events to give background for the events that were currently going on at his point of incarceration. In the second chapter of his book, Solzhenitsyn talks about the waves of arrests which were going on at the same time he was arrested. Solzhenitsyn states “Stalin’s new line, suggesting that it was necessary, in the wake of the victory over fascism, to jail more people more energetically and for longer terms than ever before, had immediate repercussions of course on political prisoners” (Solzhenitsyn, 37), This new wave of incarceration not only brough along with-it harsher sentences for new prisoners brought in, but also harsher sentences for people who were already incarcerated, which included “Believers.” These people were arrested in the first wave of Stalin’s take over of Soviet Russia because of there religious beliefs. These series of arrests where exactly what Tomislav Poglajen had feared when he fled Croatia and took up his mother name in order to conceal his identity. He “knew that clericalism and passivity of traditional Slovak Catholicism was would be no match for communism” (Live Not By Lies, 9). Poglajen fled Croatia because he knew that a fascist ideology like communism would not tolerate the church under it’s rule of Russia, so he fled his country which was under facing the threats of Nazi rule and took up his mother’s surname, Kolakevic in order to keep his identity hidden from the gestapo. This proved to be the right decision, as both the Nazi’s and the Soviets were driven to incarcerate and undermine all aspects of Catholicism in their communities. Of Those who were affected by Stalin’s wave of terror, which took place a years after Poglajen fled his country, Catholics were persecuted and thrown into gulags with little to no due process. Dreher remarks that “a stranger who sees deeper and farther than the crowd appears to warn of trouble coming” (Live Not By Lies, 8). Polgajen in this respect was clearly the stranger, who fled from the Nazi’s and the Soviets, despite the fact that Stalin agreed give the nation of Croatia it’s freedom back from the Nazis. He could clearly see that it was a lie.