Friday, April 27, 2012

Four Civil Servants + Two Merchants + Six Muzhiks = Twelve Angry Men


           As a student of political science, my anticipation for the impending trial had been mounting as the Brothers Karamazov progressed ever methodically toward its culminating point.  The trial had established a polarization within Russian society, which in its own manner helped to stress the adversarial nature inherent in a system of justice based on the concept of adversarial legalism.  There was more at stake in the provincial circuit court chamber than simply the fate of Dmitry Fyodorovich.  It was expressed that the trial had adopted nearly instantaneously a “Russian element” that separated it from the status of a mere criminal tribunal, and in its place was seemingly placed the fate of Russian society.  In the small town of Skotoprigonyevsk all the factions of society had gathered in order to witness the struggle between the Westernized and the customary.  Ultimately, this contest was to be decided by a jury of peers. 
Interestingly, this jury was composed of the common strata of society, and the representation of the elite was limited to the system under which the competition was to be held.  The jurors however, occupied the most important position, as the facilitators of the judgment.  In refereeing the contest they possessed the real presence in the courtroom.  As much as the orator (and by that I mean the defense attorney Fetyukovich) attempted to use lofty rhetoric to capture the factions, he ultimately failed in capturing the commoners that composed the jury. 
As a reader I was struck as both the prosecution and the defense depicted Dmitry Fyodorovich as the embodiment of the Russian predicament.  As a character Dmitry Fyodorovich was honorable and passionate, but also brash and aimless.  These characteristics represented a broader Russia that was also possessive of similar traits.  The guilty verdict bestowed by the jury shows the “popular fundamentals” of the common Russian were not represented in the Russian personification of the accused.  Dmitry Fyodorovich’s worst obsesses were borrowed foreign elements that tarnished his pursuit of the “popular fundamentals”.  The condemnation of the accused, despite the judicial error, embodied the tragedy of the Russian position. 
It seems that Russia was (and is) forever entrenched as the great pendulum between the East and the West.  As such its society was factionalized and its structure remained backward.  The twelve “angry men” in a manner of speaking constituted the “righting force” of Russian society.  In condemning Dmitry Fyodorovich the jury accomplished the task of denying the defense the ability to portray the life of the accused as merely the product of a tragic upbringing.  Instead, the jury ensured that Dmitry Fyodorovich served his due, as the resultant of his straying from the truest fundamentals of Russian life.
It is in the wrongful conviction of Dmitry Fyodorovich that it becomes more acceptable to agree with the narrator’s claim that Aleksey Fyodorovich’s retains the role as the story’s ultimate hero.  It is in Aleksey’s character that the “popular fundamentals” of Russian life are embodied.  Aleksey’s faith, continual “servitude”, and integrity seem to insulate him from the whims of foreign obsesses.  Unlike Dmitry Fyodorovich, who bowed to his aimless passions and brash designs, Aleksey retained the ability to stick to a self-restrained path that aligned itself with the core of Russian values.  The jury may have recognized the merits of the defense counsel, but ultimately in aim of preserving the sanctity of their common Russia, sought to it that the accused be declared guilty in order to save the very character of Russia itself.  Despite the adoption of a Western judicial system and a Westernized elite and intelligentsia, it was ultimately the jury of the muzhiks that corrected the course of the directionless Russia.  It seems that dedication to one’s own fundamental values is the only manner in which direction is truly found. 

4 comments:

  1. Although the muzhiks did not know the details that readers did about the events leading up to the murder, I feel as if their verdict of "guilty" symbolizes Russia's inability to see the truth in some matters. Also, I think that when the defense started to go on about what constitutes a real father, that he went a bit too far and thus lost votes in the direction of an innocent verdict.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's a pretty clever title Ben! Anyway, I find it difficult to wrap my head around the whole battle between traditional Russia and the Western world. However, as always you provide a detailed analysis that will act as a roadmap for the remainder of the semester. I was specifically struck by your analysis of Alyosha. Alyosha is the true hero because he is able to preserve the traditional values and remain unaltered by western influences. That might be as close as anyone can get in identifying Alyosha as a hero. From the book I found him kindly and good but a little out there. From the movie I found him disturbing and wanted nothing to do with him. And from your blogpost I find him an exceptionally strong individual due to his ability to maintain himself in a world opposed to his virtues.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This post was very interesting and well written. I liked how you compared the brothers and their perceived character in comparison to Russian values. I too found the composition of the jury interesting. Until the trial, the muzhiks had only played minor roles in the story. In some ways, I was expecting the upper classes of society to dominate the jury.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree that the defense attorney most likely talked over the heads of the jury, made up of muzhiks. It was a performance worthy of recognition, but not one that stirred the hearts of the common members of the jury. All they saw was a slew of evidence pointing to one man who seemed to take matters into his own hands instead of leaving things to the will of God. His actions continually embodied his character as a man of passion, one which is not suitable to one who wishes to follow God, and embodies the common people of Russia. His actions throughout his life are ones that reject common decency, as he was ejected from the ranks in the Russian army, continually participated in duals, and did not show a lot of respect for the Russian people.

    ReplyDelete