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.
Related Themes from Other Texts
Social Hierarchy, Authority, and Rebellion ThemeTracker
Social Hierarchy, Authority, and Rebellion Quotes in The Idiot
“And are you a great fancier of the female sex, Prince? Tell me beforehand!”
“N -n-no! I ’m . . . Maybe you don’t know, but because of my inborn illness, I don’t know women at all.”
“Well, in that case,” Rogozhin exclaimed, “you come out as a holy fool, Prince, and God loves your kind!”
But another rumor he involuntarily believed and feared to the point of nightmare: he had heard for certain that Nastasya Filippovna was supposedly aware in the highest degree that Ganya was marrying only for money, that Ganya’s soul was dark, greedy, impatient, envious, and boundlessly vain, out of all proportion to anything; that, although Ganya had indeed tried passionately to win Nastasya Filippovna over before, now that the two friends had decided to exploit that passion, which had begun to be mutual, for their own advantage, and to buy Ganya by selling him Nastasya Filippovna as a lawful wife, he had begun to hate her like his own nightmare. It was as if passion and hatred strangely came together in his soul, and though, after painful hesitations, he finally consented to marry “the nasty woman,” in his soul he swore to take bitter revenge on her for it and to “give it to her” later, as he supposedly put it.
“I’m always kind, if you wish, and that is my only failing, because one should not always be kind. I’m often very angry, with these ones here, with Ivan Fyodorovich especially, but the trouble is that I’m kindest when I’m angry. Today, before you came, I was angry and pretended I didn’t and couldn’t understand anything. That happens to me—like a child.”
“He told me he was fully convinced that I was a perfect child myself, that is, fully a child, that I resembled an adult only in size and looks, but in development, soul, character, and perhaps even mind, I was not an adult, and I would stay that way even if I lived to be sixty. I laughed very much: he wasn’t right, of course, because what’s little about me? But one thing is true, that I really don’t like being with adults, with people, with grown-ups—and I noticed that long ago—I don’t like it because I don’t know how.”
“Maybe I’ll be considered a child here, too—so be it! Everybody also considers me an idiot for some reason, and in fact I was once so ill that I was like an idiot; but what sort of idiot am I now, when I myself understand that I’m considered an idiot? I come in and think: ‘They consider me an idiot, but I’m intelligent all the same, and they don’t even suspect it . . .’ I often have that thought.”
“Nihilists are still sometimes knowledgeable people, even learned ones, but these have gone further, ma’am, because first of all they’re practical. This is essentially a sort of consequence of nihilism, though not in a direct way, but by hearsay and indirectly, and they don’t announce themselves in some sort of little newspaper article, but directly in practice, ma’am; it’s no longer a matter, for instance, of the meaninglessness of some Pushkin or other, or, for instance, the necessity of dividing Russia up into parts; no, ma’am, it’s now considered a man’s right, if he wants something very much, not to stop at any obstacle, even if he has to do in eight persons to that end.”
“Yes, Prince, you must be given credit, you’re so good at exploiting your . . . hm, sickness (to put it decently); you managed to offer your friendship and money in such a clever form that it is now quite impossible for a noble man to accept them. It’s either all too innocent, or all too clever . . . you, however, know which.”
“I want to be brave and not afraid of anything. I don’t want to go to their balls, I want to be useful. I wanted to leave long ago. They’ve kept me bottled up for twenty years, and they all want to get me married. When I was fourteen I already thought of running away, though I was a fool. Now I have it all worked out and was waiting for you, to ask you all about life abroad.”
How did she dare write to her, he asked, wandering alone in the evening (sometimes not even remembering himself where he was walking). How could she write about that, and how could such an insane dream have been born in her head?
“You are innocent, and all your perfection is in your innocence. Oh, remember only that! What do you care about my passion for you? You are mine now, I shall be near you all my life . . . I shall die soon.”
As soon as some of our young ladies cut their hair, put on blue spectacles, and called themselves nihilists, they became convinced at once that, having put on the spectacles, they immediately began to have their own “convictions.”
“The pope seized land, an earthly throne, and took up the sword; since then everything has gone on that way, only to the sword they added lies, trickery, deceit, fanaticism, superstition, villainy; they played upon the most holy, truthful, simple-hearted, ardent feelings of the people; they traded everything, everything, for money, for base earthly power. Isn’t that the teaching of the Antichrist?! How could atheism not come out of them? Atheism came out of them, out of Roman Catholicism itself! Atheism began, before all else, with them themselves: could they believe in themselves?”
