Social Hierarchy, Authority, and Rebellion Theme Analysis

The world of The Idiot is structured by strict social hierarchies that bestow authority based on factors such as rank, wealth, and gender, rather than on one’s actual character as an individual. This creates an unjust and unsustainable social system, which the novel takes a critical stance against. Yet although hierarchy and authority are shown to be very important, it is also clear that rebellions against them are occurring all the time. Characters are constantly rebelling against rules, norms, and expectations, suggesting that the hierarchies in place are not as firm as they might first appear. The novel suggests that it is indeed possible to resist hierarchy and authority in order to bring about a more just society, but that there are severe limits to the efficacy of such rebellions. Furthermore, some forms of rebellion are more effective than others.

In order to understand the theme of social hierarchy, authority, and rebellion, it is important to pay attention to the historical context of Russia during this era. In the 1860s, Russia was still structured according to a fiercely unequal social system in which the monarchy, aristocracy, and the church exercised unchecked power, while the poor masses suffered in difficult conditions, paid steep taxes, and were generally denied the right to education. Unsurprisingly, this dramatic inequality created social unrest, which is manifested in the novel not only through the many discussions of atheism and nihilism, but also in more subtle, everyday forms of rebellion. Much of the social unrest of the novel is organized around particular radical intellectual traditions, most significantly atheism and nihilism. Characters such as Ippolit and Doktorenko embrace nihilism not only as a way of explaining what they perceive to be the truth of the world, but also as a framework for rebelling against the hierarchy and authority that structure society. While the book does not suggest that the young nihilists’ critiques are entirely wrong, it does show that allegiance to such radical ideology is not necessarily the best way to rebel against societal injustice. For example, when Ippolit dramatically reads his philosophical treatise entitled “A Necessary Explanation” and attempts to kill himself after, the result is a resounding failure. Everyone is bored by the “Explanation” and unsurprised when his suicide is unsuccessful. Meanwhile, when Burdovsky and the other young nihilists attempt to trick Myshkin out of his inheritance, they reveal themselves to be hypocritical and foolish, and end up humiliated. Overall, the nihilists struggle to actually live out the ideas to which they have attached themselves, thus failing to effectively rebel against the societal standards they reject.

Prince Myshkin’s form of rebellion against authority and hierarchy, while perhaps not always more successful, is presented as more admirable than that of the nihilists. This is arguably because Myshkin’s rebellion begins with actions rather than ideology. For example, Myshkin is known as a radical “democrat,” not because he identifies himself as such, but because he makes a habit of engaging in conversation with all people, regardless of rank. Similarly, Myshkin is highly critical of Catholicism due to the intensely hierarchical, authoritative, and imperial nature of the Catholic church. Yet he does not just state this critique, he also lives it by embodying what the book suggests is the true form of Christianity. As a Christ-like figure, Myshkin criticizes unjust forms of authority and acts on these critiques by showing love, compassion, and forgiveness to everyone around him. At the same time, the novel also shows that this form of rebellion, while more successful than that of the nihilists, is also severely limited by the reactions of others. For example, when Myshkin reacts to the young nihilists’ attempt to trick him out of his inheritance with kindness and forgiveness, offering Burdovsky a smaller amount of money, Burdovsky refuses and Myshkin is left cursing himself for being an “idiot.” His act of kindness may arguably have been right in the moral sense, but it is perhaps not the best way to trigger social change because of the cruelty and corruption of others.

The most doomed form of rebellion depicted in the novel, however, is almost certainly Nastasya’s attempt to rebel against the constricting gender norms imposed on women. The patriarchal society in which Nastasya lives placed her at the mercy of Totsky, the male guardian who abused his power over her through sexual exploitation. Nastasya then goes on to suffer similar cruelty from Ganya, who tries to marry her for money, and Rogozhin, who is jealous and possessive, beats her, and ultimately kills her. Nastasya does not accept any of this treatment without a fight; indeed, she is arguably the most rebellious character in the novel. Her constant scandalous behaviour—which includes throwing Rogozhin’s money in the fire, writing letters to Aglaya saying that she is in love with her, and ditching Myshkin at the altar—shocks and horrifies those around her. In this sense, Nastasya does manage to effectively rebel against the authority and hierarchy governing society.

However, it is also true that Nastasya is repeatedly suppressed and punished for her actions, and ultimately ends up being brutally murdered by Rogozhin after she runs away with him. The other characters constantly call her a “madwoman,” and even suggest she should be tied up or whipped. Her rebellions may have had an impact on those around her, but she was ultimately powerless against the violent authority of patriarchy. The novel thus ends on a somewhat pessimistic note about the effectiveness of rebellion, although it also emphasizes the importance of refusing to accept unjust hierarchy and authority—even if this comes at great personal cost.