Paste your essay in here…Eugenia Bullock
Fathers, Sons and Social Transformation in Turgenev’s Fathers and Children
In Fathers and Children (1862), Turgenev contrasts the young friends Bazarov and Arkady with Arkady’s father Nikolai and uncle Pavlev. In the young men’s embrace of the philosophy of nihilism and their desire to challenge the Western-inspired liberalism of the 1830s and 1840s represented by their elders, Turgenev foregrounds the political and social changes that preceded and followed the emancipation of the peasantry in 1861. As Isaiah Berlin observes, “the central topic of the novel is the confrontation of the old and the young, of liberals and radicals, traditional civilization and the new, harsh positivism which has no use for anything except what is needed by a rational man” (NYRB). Yet despite their antipathy to the values of Nikolai and Pavlev, as the novel develops Bazarov and Arkady experience new relationships that challenge their own convictions. Their romantic feelings for Anna Odintsova and her younger sister Katya challenge their belief in rationalism and anti-aristocratic radical social change. In this collision of ages and values and in the series of events that leads to Arkady’s marriage and Bazarov’s death, Turgenev suggests that the social transformation of Russia during this period is not simply defined by the sons’ revolutionary rejection of the fathers’ values, but instead complicated by the desire from both father and sons to sustain socially cohesive families in ways that reject the philosophy of nihilistic materialism.
The distinction between the two pairs of men is most evident in Bazarov and Arkady’s enthusiasm for the nihilism that was popular in mid nineteenth-century Russia. Bazarov in particular is keen to challenge the assumptions and non-scientifically proven customs and traditions of Russian life. He is scathing about the social class that Pavlev represents, describing “these provincial aristocrats” as “all vanity, society habits, foppishness” (p.21). Rejecting romanticism, Bazarov’s only passion is for that which can be scientifically observed and measured. Yet Bazarov’s harshness is undermined by Turgenev’s depiction of Nikolai and Pavlev. Even though they belong to the older generation, they have nevertheless attempted to introduce innovations on the estate designed to help the peasantry, and take an interest in Bazarov’s scientific experiments. They are not anti-enlightenment, but rather proud representatives of traditional Russian institutions. Pavlev cannot understand Bazarov’s rejection of principles, rules and authorities, and feels that the materialism he endorses is hollow and a rejection of civilization itself. Nevertheless, Nikolai feels that he’s become “antiquated” and that his “song’s been sung” (p.35). Yet even though Turgenev underscores the conflicting political and social views of the pairs, the reader’s sympathy is complicated by the human emotion at the center of the relationships. Nikolai, looking forward to the return of his son, feels despondent that Arkady is emotionally distant from him, largely because of Bazarov’s influence. This distance and sense of division is exacerbated in scenes such as those in which Arkady replaces the copy of Pushkin’s poetry from his father’s hands with that of Buchner’s radical philosophical work Stoff und Kraft. As the novel develops, Turgenev continues to show how the conflict between familial love and duty and political and social conviction, between the private and public spheres, shapes the lives of the main protagonists.
The degree to which the idea of social transformation based on young and old is problematic in the novel is usefully demonstrated in the episode of the duel between Bazarov and Pavel. On one level it is possible to see the outcome of the duel as symbolic of youth’s victory over the older generation. However, Bazarov’s acceptance of Pavel’s challenge complicates such an interpretation. Given that he rejects the conventions of aristocracy and that the duel itself is an anachronistic relic of an outmoded social code, the reader is surprised that Bazarov replies to Pavel’s request by stating “You can remain a gentleman…I also accept your challenge as a gentleman” (p.116). Even though Bazarov recognizes that Pavel’s suggestion that “each will have a short note in his pocket blaming himself entirely for his own demise” sounds “a bit like a French novel” (p.117), he nevertheless sees no alternative to accepting the challenge. The absurdity of the episode also belies a more important point; that in issuing the challenge, Pavel perceives Bazarov as in many ways his equal. Both have the opportunity to violently thrash each other, but instead they choose to adhere to a gentleman’s code. Both are almost illogically proud and stubborn, and rather than seeing them as representatives of vastly different generations, throughout this episode Turgenev invites the reader to consider their similarities rather than their differences. Bazarov emerges the victor and Pavel is humiliated, but the larger implication is that Bazarov himself, the nihilist representative of the new age of social enlightenment, has remained trapped within the old world of social forms and etiquette. By agreeing to participate in the duel his ideology appears enervated and prefigures the diminishment of his political and social convictions because of his romantic feelings, as well as his eventual tragic death.
The symbolic power of the generational divide in the novel is also complicated by the various romance and marriage plots. The clearest example of this is Arkady’s gradual alienation form Bazarov, especially after they first visit Nikolskoe and compete for the affections of Anna Odintsova. Following the early solidarity between the young friends, we now see division between them, and this sense of separation is enhanced through Odintsova’s claim that she and Bazarov are old while Arkady and Katya are young (p.76). In Bazarov’s attachment to Odintsova we see the weakness of his harsh rationalist persona as he is forced to confront his own destabilizing human emotions, perhaps for the first time. When left alone he “acknowledged with indignation the romantic in himself” (p.71). As Bazarov’s becomes increasingly unhappy and confused, Arkady drifts further away from his ideological mentor and instead embraces Katya’s love and the social stability it represents. Rather than see himself as a replica of Bazarov (and therefore a representative of a vision of social transformation), Arkady instead seeks reassurance from Katya that he has “shaken off” (p.129) the influence of Bazarov to become his own man, albeit one now invested in a traditional marriage. His reluctance to toast the memory of Bazarov during the final farewell dinner for Pavel (p.160) is a moment that truly symbolizes their spiritual and physical separation.
Nikolai’s relationship to his servant and mistress Fenichka also challenges the notion that youth represents radicalism and age represents conservatism in the novel. Fenichka’s ambivalent status is evident at the beginning of the narrative, when Arkady is aware that his father has an intimate relationship with her but unaware that he has a half-brother. As she pours tea for the men, the narrator notes that “She looked as if she were ashamed to have come in, yet at the same time somehow felt that she had a right to come” (p.19). Nikolai wishes to conceal the reality of his relationship to Fenichka from his son out of a sense of propriety, but as the novel develops her status as a character symbolic of moral transgression shifts, revealing how respectable Russian society can incorporate unconventional relationships and transform itself by enabling different social classes to mix. Pavel’s decision to defend Fenichka’s honor is the cause of his duel with Bazarov, and both Arkady and Bazarov ultimately encourage Arkady’s marriage to her, reflecting a desire to make the relationship socially respectable. In contrast to Bazarov’s romantic feelings for Anna Odintsova, which are ultimately revealed to be too socially transgressive and challenging for Russian society to accommodate at that moment in time, Arkady’s relationship to his mistress is shepherded toward a conclusion that reflects a desire to make the unconventional respectable. Admittedly, Arkady is marrying down in the sense that Fenichka is not an aristocrat, but the fact that he produces a second heir and ends the novel surrounded by a loving family reveals a vision of Russian society that is odds with the energy of radical nihilism. As Pavel suggests to Nikolai, “let’s do our duty […] and let’s see if we can achieve happiness in the bargain” (p.132). Nikolai’s relationship to and marriage to Fenichka is far from conservative, but it offers a model of how duty can lead to happiness in ways that appear more satisfying than what Bazarov’s philosophy seems to promise.
Bazarov’s death at the end of the novel leaves the reader questioning his significance beyond the immediate context of the narrative. On the one hand, Turgenev seems to imply that Russia is not yet ready for such men, untied, as Isaiah Berlin suggests, to tradition: “active, self-emancipated, independent men, free from fantasies, from romantic or religious nonsense” (NYRB). Yet the final image in the novel of a contented and conservative family unit is also somewhat hollow and dissatisfying, suggesting that Russia does indeed have a need for men such as Bazarov to impel truly meaningful social change. By situating Bazarov, a truly compelling and memorable character, within two pairs of relationships that correspond to wider social and political issues in Russia in the mid nineteenth-century, Turgenev not only leaves such questions open but also anticipates the enormous upheavals that would affect the nation at the beginning of the next century.
Works Cited
Berlin, Isaiah. “Fathers and Children: Turgenev and the Liberal Predicament.” The New York
Review of Books, 18 Oct. 1973, www.nybooks.com/articles/1973/10/18/fathers-and-children-turgenev-and-the-liberal-pred/.
Turgenev, Ivan Sergeevich, et al. Fathers and Children. W.W. Norton, 2009.