The "Demons" of Fyodor Dostoevsky (Besy, in Russian, variously translated as "The Possessed" and "The Devils") is a fundamentally political and social novel. It is directly inspired by the true story of a murder committed in 1869 by the Russian anarchist and nihilist Sergei Nechaev (Saunders 324). Peasant reforms (Dostoevsky 370), the third department (Dostoevsky 361), and the emergence of the zemstvo (Dostoevsky 211) enjoy brief mention. However, it is the Nechaev-style anarchists and older liberals who are the main players in the Russia of the “Demons”. In addition to the facts of the murder, "Demons" describes a much larger social and political conflict in Russia. Dostoevsky describes a Russian society divided between ideologies: the Westernizing liberals of the 1840s, the Slavophiles (Russian isolationists and nationalists), and the nihilists. Dostoevsky's feelings clearly do not coincide with the latter, as "Demons" offers an often satirical and always unflattering portrait of the Russian radical revolutionary movement of the 1860s and 1870s. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Dostoevsky's treatment of the ideological divide between pro-Western liberals and nihilists can be more generally characterized as a generational divide. Stepan Trofimovich best represents the older generation of liberal Westernizers, who called for a gradual modernization of Russia rather than a radical and rapid transformation of Russian autocracy and society. While the liberals of Stepan's generation (1840s) engage in heated debate, the narrator emphasizes the nature of liberalism in Russia in this period: For a while it was talked about us in the city, that our circle was a hotbed of free thought, depravity. , and impiety; and this rumor has always persisted. Yet what we had was only the most innocent, kindest, perfectly Russian and cheerful, liberal chatter. “Higher liberalism” and “superior liberal”, that is, aimless liberal, are possible only in Russia. (Dostoevsky 33) Stepan's westward-looking character is outlined at the beginning of the novel, and indeed at the beginning of his life: "he managed to publish... in a monthly, progressive newspaper, which translated Dickens and preached George Sand , the beginning of a deeper study” (Dostoevsky 9). Furthermore, Stepan's speech is satirically filled with single French phrases and interjections, reflecting the tendency of the use of French by the intellectual classes Stepan's French is later parodied when Kirillov composes his suicide note, abandoning Stepan's Francophone niceties in favor of the fiery language of the revolution. The narrator notes that Stepan's theses on European history draw the ire of the Slavophiles. invocation of the Slavophiles and their ability to deprive him of his office demonstrates the division between the nationalist Slavophiles and the Westernizing liberals. Dostoevsky, however, tempers the apparent power and influence of the conservative faction by adding that Stepan "could have moved on... if he had. simply given the necessary explanations" (Dostoevsky 11). Slavophiles play a peripheral role in the central generational conflict between liberals and nihilists, but their initial role in antagonizing Stepan Trofimovich (and vice versa) illustrates the presence of an ongoing philosophical debate in Russia well before the birth of Pyotr Stepanovich.Pyotr Stepanovich Verkhovensky, son of Stepan Verkhovensky, represents a more far-left faction of Russian thought than his father. As a nihilist and anarchist, Pyotr advocates the violent demolition and reconstruction ofRussian company. His "revolution" would establish Stavrogin as the hidden tsar, who would lead the uprising. Pyotr's extremism stands in stark contrast to his father's relatively passive "higher liberalism". However, despite the poor relationship between father and son, Dostoevsky establishes several important connections between the two generations of Verkhovensky men. Pyotr and his generation of nihilists, in their revolutionary fervor, reject the more purely intellectual nature of Stepan's "cultural" liberalism in favor of dramatic and even violent action. Thinkers of Stepan's generation, speaking in more moderate tones, find equally distasteful the extremes to which anarchists are eager to explore. The character of Pyotr is clearly based on the real-life anarchist Sergei Nechaev, who planned an uprising against the tsar's authority during the latter years. 1860. During a brief period of exile in 1869, Nechaev and Bakunin wrote "The Catechism of a Revolutionary," outlining the goals and mechanisms of a revolution. Upon his return to Russia later that year, Nechaev attracted a number of followers at the Petrovskaya Agricultural Academy in St. Petersburg. Among these followers, Ivan Ivanov was believed to have little loyalty and was considered a threat to the organization (Saunders 324). In the winter of 1869 Nechaev and several associates murdered Ivanov. The circumstances resemble those found in "Demons", when Pyotr and members of the anarchist circle kill Shatov. If one accepts that Nechaev is in fact the model upon which Pyotr Verkhovensky is based, it is difficult to argue that Dostoevsky is sympathetic to the anarchist. and nihilistic cause. Indeed, "Demons" is a strong indictment against the revolutionary movement. Dostoevsky's unflattering portrayal of Pyotr's ideals and methodology takes two important forms. Pyotr's organization, a clear parody of Nechaev's, is a satirical and often funny blend of chaos and extremism. The individuals involved in the organization – the explicit representatives of nihilism – are seriously flawed and are largely unsympathetic characters. “With Our People,” chapter seven of the second book, recounts a typically disorganized and often hilarious meeting of the revolutionary group. Shigalyov's attempts to organize the assembled guests are thwarted by his audience's stupid, drunken, or otherwise crude interjections. Dostoevsky describes these revolutionaries as a group of bumbling, panicked, and generally motley fools. A typical exchange on "With Our People" offers a good example of an imperfect and often ridiculous encounter: "No, I understand," shouted a third, "raise your hand if it's yes." “Yes, but what does yes mean?” “It means a meeting.” "No, not a meeting." “I voted for a meeting,” the high school boy shouted at Madame Virginsky. "Then why didn't you raise your hand?" “I kept looking at you didn't raise yours, so neither did I.” (Dostoevsky 399)Comments like that of the high school student reveal a more subtle and perhaps more damning accusation against Pyotr. Many nihilists are very young and still others, like Lebyadkin, are very stupid. Since these individuals would hardly organize themselves into a group of anarchist revolutionaries, it is up to Pyotr and Shigalyov to bring them together. In this sense, Dostoevsky portrays Pyotr, and consequently Nechaev, as talented manipulators, and relegates most of the other characters to the role of reckless spectators. While they are guilty of nihilism, they are perhaps more guilty of a youthful impetuosity and naivety that seems to pervade the group's base. The character of the group's leaders is questioned much more thoroughly. Among these leaders, Dostoevsky does not create a single sympathetic character. Stavrogin often shows abizarre and rude behavior in unsuspecting company, leading to an abortive duel. Dostoevsky exposes Stavrogin's sinister manipulation in a conversation between Nikolai Vsevolodovich and Lebyadkin: "Lebyadkin, expert in the role of buffoon, remained a little uncertain until the last moment whether his master was really angry or just joking" (Dostoevsky 268. ) Pyotr himself is often emotionally and morally empty, falsely bringing his father under the suspicion of the authorities at the conclusion of the third book. The apotheosis of this inhuman detachment is, obviously, the murder of Shatov. Dostoevsky's treatment of nihilistic anarchists is considerably different from his treatment of Stepan's "superior liberal" type. Stepan is relatively harmless and charming, and doesn't have the murderous cool that his son possesses in abundance. However, Dostoevksy maintains an important link between Stepan's circle of liberals and Pyotr's group of revolutionaries. In many respects, Pytor's group is a far-left parody of the "higher liberals" of the 1840s. An important element of the parody lies in the international nature of each organization. Stepan's liberals find inspiration and conversation in Western writings. The Russian public expresses admiration for Western thinkers and authors, and Dickens, George Sands, Goethe and Fourier are mentioned throughout the first part. This admiration for the West and the desire to cultivate similar intellectual advances in Russia during the 1840s continues into Pyotr's generation, but on an entirely different scale. The influence of the West in the 1870s, as presented in the context of the revolutionary group, is a much more sinister force. Stravrogin and Pyotr spend a considerable amount of time abroad; Dostoevsky often invokes Switzerland as a source of revolutionary publications and ideas. Nechaev fled to Switzerland, where he and Bakunin co-authored revolutionary pamphlets. The fugitive Nechaev probably chose Switzerland for its freedom of press and stability. Despite this historical fact, the role of Switzerland in "Demons" strengthens the bond between Pyotr Stepanovich and Nechaev. Belonging, real or presumed, to an international organization considerably elevated the status of the revolutionary group in a provincial city. Once again Pyotr and Stavrogin play the role of manipulators: "You surely introduced me there as some kind of foreign member, connected with the International, perhaps an inspector?" Stravrogin suddenly asked: "No, not an inspector; the inspector will not be you; you are a founding member from abroad who knows the most important secrets, that is your role." (Dostoevsky 386)In addition to adding credibility, an exaggerated international affiliation would have increased the conspiratorial air among the group members. Legitimate international influences – Stavrogin and Pyotr's early philosophically formative experiences abroad – as well as imaginary international support organizations are the main instruments through which Pyotr maintains control over the group. As an alleged member of a large international organization dedicated to the anarchic overthrow of the government, Pyotr demands absolute secrecy from the group's members. Although the presence of the secret police exists (which Stepan also manipulates when he frames his father), Pyotr actively exaggerates and lies about the need for absolute secrecy among the members of the group. Clandestine practices widen the gap between Stepan's relatively open and informal intellectual circles and Pyotr's artificially secretive group. Furthermore, such secrecy facilitates the unflattering bond with Nechaev and drives the novel's plot: Shatov is lured to retrieve a., 1992.