Dialogues between Ivan and Smerdyakov after the murder of their father from The Brothers Karamazov: their educational implications

ABSTRACT

In the modern world, alienation and marginalisation are serious issues that make people doubt the existence of God. Due to the development of science and technology, which allows humans more space to act as they desire, society has become even more secularised. Fyodor Dostoevsky foresaw and struggled with these problems – as represented in his literary masterpieces, such as The Brothers Karamazov. However, his works are rarely discussed in educational fields. This study, therefore, aims to analyse and obtain educational implications from the dialogues between Ivan Fyodorovich Karamazov and Pavel Fyodorovich Smerdyakov during three visits after the murder of their father, Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov, in The Brothers Karamazov. Ivan rebelled against God because of the injustice in this world, while Smerdyakov had been a victim of such injustice from his birth. They cooperated based on the Man-God ideology advocated by Ivan. However, it did not liberate them; rather, they awoke with a sense of guilt. For educational implications, while Ivan did not consider Smerdyakov an equal, ‘good people’ treated them differently. They supported Smerdyakov and Ivan with care and realist senses by not only supporting the brothers in any situation but also predicting and accepting undesirable scenarios for them.

KEYWORDS:

• The Brothers Karamazov
• Man-God ideology
• Dostoevsky

Introduction

In current society, one of the most significant problems is alienation; a human being cannot feel joy and is miserable because of the imposed and forced nature of activities (Marx 1961; Sayers 2011; Schmitt 2002) and marginalisation – deprivation or ignorance of opportunities or rights of some particular groups forces individuals to become socio-economically or socio-politically disadvantaged (Bauman 2011). To overcome these problems, education needs to address many points. However, in reality, education, especially schooling, has been reproducing these issues instead of resolving them (Saito 2023; Lave and McDermott 2002).

Fyodor Dostoevsky was one of the great thinkers who addressed the issues of alienation and marginalisation in the nineteenth century (Ashikawa 2016; Hruska 2005). His works impacted the theologies, thoughts, and philosophies of contemporaneous society (Namli 2022). Dostoevsky’s works largely consider the justice and relevance of God in conflicting and exploitative societies, where many people are victimised and in despair. In a highly science-based, technological, and industrialised societies, believing in God becomes challenging for the majority; consequently, whether human beings will pay attention to the existence of God becomes a critical question (Chigwidden 2019; Francis, Astley, and McKenna 2019). The space that such a society provides humans allows them to believe they can manage without Him.

Dostoevsky highlighted such an issue; he called it the Man-God ideology in his last masterpiece, The Brothers Karamazov. The Man-God ideology states, ‘For if there’s no everlasting God, there’s no such thing as virtue, and there’s no need of it’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 531). The Brothers Karamazov has been a target of many studies, highlighting one of the brothers who advocated this ideology – Ivan Fyodorovich Karamazov (hereafter referred to as Ivan), who attracted the attention of other great authors as well (Namli 2022; de Macedo 2018). In particular, both Ivan’s emphasis on rationality and his inability to love others have been discussed (Beary 2018; Cohen 2014; Contino 2020; Moran 2009; Namli 2009, 2022). However, his counterpart or disciple of the ideology, Pavel Fyodorovich Smerdyakov (hereafter referred to as Smerdyakov), has been rarely discussed, except some studies which treat him negatively, as a form of evil (Kantor 2001; Kanevskaya 2002), positively, by highlighting the aspect of seeking divinity (Johnson 2004), or take both sides (Ashikawa 2016; 2018; Saito 2022; Hruska 2005). In addition, few studies explore the details and educational implications of their dialogues after Smerdyakov murders their father, Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov (hereafter referred to as Fyodor), while some studies exist in the field of literal studies (Ashikawa 2016; Contino 2020; Kantor 2001; Berman 2009; Holquist 1977).

The Man-God ideology, advocated by Ivan, enabled Smerdyakov to murder their father, Fyodor. Although it centres around the freedom of deeds, the ideology brought both to tragic ends – Smerdyakov committed suicide and Ivan became insane. The Man-God ideology did not solve the problems of alienation (Marx 1961; Sayers 2011; Schmitt 2002) and marginalisation (Bauman 2011), which Smerdyakov suffered from throughout his life. Instead, it resulted in the worst possible outcome in the end.

Ivan observed and noted the various human struggles and even rejected the Godly world. This was because of the unreasonable struggles that humankind have to experience, which he had discussed with Alexey Fyodorovich Karamazov (hereafter, referred to as Alyosha) in the Metropolis tavern. Then, the two, Ivan and Smerdyakov, united under the ideology to replace God with humans. However, this does not mean that they did not see and meet God after all their attempts to deny His existence and rebel against Him.

Thus, Dostoevsky’s works still have high relevance and the potential to encourage the practitioners and researchers of education, particularly those who are interested in religion and religious education, to radically revisit education in the twenty-first century. However, little attention has been paid to his works in the field of educational studies, with a few exceptions (Roberts 2005, 2017; Roberts and Saeverot 2018). In particular, the final masterpiece of Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, and its implications, have seldomly been discussed in the field of education, especially regarding three visits by Ivan to Smerdyakov, which would highlight their realisation of crime and punishment in the presence of God; indeed, such an omission is noteworthy given the immense potential importance of this final work. There should be more discussion pertaining to how Smerdyakov and Ivan shared the Man-God ideology and how they broke away in the three visits. Moreover, Smerdyakov, in contrast, started to refer to the people surrounding him, such as his stepmother, Martha Ignatyevna, as ‘good people’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 513) – a huge turnaround in his attitude towards them compared with before (Saito 2022). There should be more studies to examine the meaning of such a change in him.

The aim of this study

This study aims to analyse and obtain educational implications from dialogues between Smerdyakov and Ivan during three visits that take place after Fyodor’s murder. Particular focus will be on what relationships Smerdyakov and Ivan had during and after their cooperation vis-à-vis the ‘good people’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 513). The paper will be divided into four parts. After this introduction, the second section will depict Ivan’s visits to Smerdyakov in detail. Then, the third section will comprise a discussion on the educational implications of the analysis of the dialogues between Smerdyakov and Ivan. Finally, concluding remarks will be made.

The visits by Ivan to Smerdyakov

Pre-contexts

The visits by Ivan to Smerdyakov, upon which this study focuses, took place three times after the murder of Fyodor by Smerdyakov. Before the murder, there occurred a series of discussions between Smerdyakov and Ivan regarding whether Ivan should go to Chermashnya, as per the request of Fyodor. While Ivan was reluctant, Smerdyakov strongly recommended that he go. Smerdyakov predicted that he would have a fit of epilepsy and suggested a possible attack against Fyodor by his first son, Dmitri Fyodorovich Karamazov (hereafter referred to as Dmitri), before Fyodor’s marriage with Agrafena Alexandrovna. This was because Dmitri needed money. Smerdyakov even suggested that if Fyodor would die before the marriage, his sons would receive forty thousand roubles, respectively. Ivan asked why Smerdyakov would recommend him to go to Chermashnya, to which the latter replied, ‘I spoke because I felt sorry for you. If I were in your place I should simply throw it all up’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 237).

The thoughts and deeds of Ivan afterwards demonstrated a great ambivalence. The next morning, Ivan told Fyodor that he would go to Moscow. Fyodor begged Ivan to drop by Chermashnya to settle his business, but the latter did not give a clear answer. However, while leaving the house, Ivan told Smerdyakov that he was going to Chermashnya. Smerdyakov replied, ‘It’s a true saying then, that “it’s always interesting speaking with an intelligent man”’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 241). Suddenly, in the middle of the trip, Ivan wondered what Smerdyakov’s remark meant and why he told Smerdyakov that he would go to Chermashnya. Consequently, Ivan cancelled the trip to Chermashnya and left for Moscow. On the way, Ivan encouraged himself to completely separate from the old world. However, he suddenly cursed himself as well, ‘I am a scoundrel!’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 242). After Ivan left, Smerdyakov had a fit; subsequently, Fyodor was murdered.

The first visit

Ivan arrived back home five days after the murder. He visited Smerdyakov at a hospital for the first time. During this visit, three key points would have entered Ivan’s mind: (1) why Smerdyakov recommended that he go to Chermashnya; (2) whether the epilepsy fit was real; (3) why Smerdyakov remarked about God and ‘good people’; and (4) why Alyosha considered Smerdyakov to be the murderer, as well as whether he thought of Ivan as wilfully negligent.

Chermashnya

Ivan asked Smerdyakov about the recommendation to go to Chermashnya. Smerdyakov responded that he wanted Ivan nearer – Chermashnya was closer than Moscow – because he sensed that Fyodor was in danger. Smerdyakov had alerted Ivan because of his affection and devotion. Smerdyakov believed that if he pushed him to go to Chermashnya, Ivan would realise that Dmitri could murder Fyodor; Ivan would, then, decide to stay in the house. However, Ivan said that he had not realised the danger. Smerdyakov added that Ivan would have decided to escape from all the trouble, knowing what would happen to Fyodor, their father.

The fit: real or sham?

Before meeting Smerdyakov, Ivan persistently asked the doctors whether Smerdyakov was feigning the epileptic attack, but the doctors stated, in response, that it was genuine. Ivan asked Smerdyakov why he had said that he would be good at pretending to have a fit. Smerdyakov responded that it was because of his honesty and that he had never pretended to do so, denying his intention of murdering Fyodor. Smerdyakov said that it would not be wise to give evidence of his intention to the real son of Fyodor by admitting to that; thus, his reference to pretence would imply his honesty and innocence. Smerdyakov completely persuaded Ivan. Then, before leaving the room, Ivan said, ‘I won’t say anything of your being able to sham a fit’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 513). In return, Smerdyakov said, ‘And if you don’t speak of that, I shall say nothing of that conversation of ours at the gate’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 513). After getting out of the room, Ivan started to realise a deeper, ruder, more frustrating meaning in his final remark.

Smerdyakov’s remarks regarding God and ‘good people’

Additionally, Smerdyakov briefly mentioned two important existences – God and his surrounding people. Regarding God, in responding to Ivan’s remark about Dmitri’s accusation that Smerdyakov committed the murder, he protected himself and said, ‘No one hears this talk of ours now, except Providence itself, sir’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 513). He also then showed his appreciation to the good people at the end of Ivan’s visit. He said, ‘I am very thankful for everything, sir. Martha Ignatyevna does not forget me, and provides me anything I want, according to her kindness. Good people visit me every day’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 513).

Conversations between Ivan and Alyosha: wilful negligence

Two weeks since then, Ivan started wondering how Alyosha could reveal that Smerdyakov had committed patricide. In addition, he also wondered why Alyosha did not talk about Dmitri himself and only responded to Ivan’s questions, or why he felt so depressed when departing for the journey to, and even guilty at arriving in, Moscow. While wondering about such questions, Ivan happened to see Alyosha in the street and asked him whether he had considered that Ivan favoured Dmitri killing Fyodor – to the degree that Ivan ‘was even prepared to help to bring that about’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 515). Subsequently, Alyosha admitted this without adding ‘a single “mitigating circumstance”’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 515). After this conversation, Ivan went to see Smerdyakov for the second time.

The second visit

Ivan’s second visit to Smerdyakov took place after being discharged from the hospital. Smerdyakov was staying free of charge at one of Marya Kondratyevna’s twined cottages as Marya’s fiancé. The main points relating to this meeting are: (1) hostility demonstrated by Smerdyakov towards Ivan; (2) Smerdyakov revealing Ivan’s hidden intention; and (3) self-doubt harboured by Ivan.

Hostility demonstrated by Smerdyakov towards Ivan

During this visit, the relationships between the two started to differ more visibly. Ivan, as in the past, was frustrated by Smerdyakov; in particular, Smerdyakov was well-groomed and had a new pair of spectacles. This time, Ivan found that Smerdyakov’s attitude towards him had become more frustrating and harsh – he was hostile, arrogant, and unfriendly – as if saying, ‘we settled everything then, why have you come again?’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 516). The relational change was suggested in the first visit, but it became clearer throughout this visit.

Smerdyakov points out Ivan’s hidden intention

Subsequently, Ivan asked Smerdyakov about the meaning of his last remark on the first visit. Smerdyakov replied, ‘knowing beforehand of this murder of your own parent, left him to his fate, and that people mightn’t after that conclude any evil about your feelings and perhaps of something else, too’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 516–7). When asked whether he meant that Ivan had anticipated the murder, Smerdyakov responded that Ivan would have desired it. This response infuriated Ivan. He punched Smerdyakov on the shoulder and wept.

Smerdyakov said that Ivan was neither able nor willing to murder Fyodor himself but wished that someone else would do it for him. Smerdyakov added that Ivan desired Fyodor’s legacy before the latter married Agrafena. Thus, if Dmitri would murder Fyodor, Ivan’s share would increase. Smerdyakov added that Ivan confirmed his intention by saying that he felt something was wrong with him while leaving for Chermashnya, that is, despite rejecting Fyodor’s request, Ivan decided to go after Smerdyakov’s remark. Ivan said he suspected Smerdyakov was the murderer and threatened to prove it; however, Smerdyakov responded with a threat of his own, stating that he would divulge everything and said the public would believe him, not Ivan. Ivan left the house angrily.

‘Is it because I am as much a murderer at heart?’: self-doubt harboured by Ivan

These dialogues with Smerdyakov eventually bothered Ivan, who reflexively questioned himself about wilful negligence. After the visit, Ivan met Katerina Ivanovna and confessed his sense of guilt. Katerina then showed him a letter from Dmitri addressed to her. After reading it, Ivan was convinced Dmitri was the murderer because he clearly referred to his intention to murder his father. A month after he had spoken with Smerdyakov, he decided to hatch a plan to let Dmitri escape at the cost of thirty thousand roubles. He did this because he felt guilty about Smerdyakov’s remark regarding how advantageous it would be if Dmitri was convicted. However, this did not resolve Ivan’s guilt, and he wondered: ‘Is it because I am as much a murderer at heart?’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 521). Then, in another meeting with Katerina and Alyosha, he realised that she did not consider Dmitri to be the murderer. Katerina said that she had met with Smerdyakov. After the meeting, he understood her remark about the meeting more deeply and decided to meet Smerdyakov immediately for the third visit.

The third visit

The third visit was made at the cottage again. Marya informed Ivan that Smerdyakov was not well – requested Ivan to not ‘talk to him too long’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 522). Indeed – he experienced a great change from the second visit: he became ‘much thinner and sallower. His eyes were sunken and there were dark circles under them’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 523). Smerdyakov experienced physical, and probably psychological tension and pressure, most likely due to self-awareness of the crime. The main points to come out of the meeting are as follows: (1) the reversed relationships between Ivan and Smerdyakov; (2) Smerdyakov’s additional reference to God; and (3) Smerdyakov breaking off the relationship with Ivan.

The reversed relationships between Ivan and Smerdyakov

At this meeting, Smerdyakov approached Ivan and asked him about his awareness of their crime; Ivan, who used to guide him and had his respect, turned out to be very nonchalant about the criminal sense of their deeds. Ivan asked Smerdyakov about Katerina’s visit. Smerdyakov expressed his hatred towards Ivan and asked why he needed to be afraid, adding that nothing would happen in the trial. His remarks terrified Ivan. Smerdyakov observed Ivan and said, ‘It’s a strange thing an intelligent man should care to play such a farce!’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 524). This marked the first time Smerdyakov had spoken to Ivan with such rudeness. That is, Smerdyakov could not refrain from expressing his anger towards Ivan; now there existed no more previous hierarchical relationships between Ivan as the mentor and Smerdyakov as the mentee, respectively. The relationships had now turned around. Smerdyakov said, ‘You murdered him; you are the real murderer, I was only your instrument’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 524). Ivan was shocked and started to shiver.

Smerdyakov’s additional reference to God

While panicking, Ivan asked whether Smerdyakov was a phantom. Smerdyakov replied that there was no phantom, but said, ‘only us too and one other … That third is God Himself, sir’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 524). Smerdyakov became aware of the presence of God. Then, Smerdyakov pulled money – Fyodor’s three thousand roubles – out of his stocking. Smerdyakov said that he killed with Ivan and that Dmitri was innocent. Upon seeing Ivan shudder, Smerdyakov added, ‘You were bold enough then, sir. You said “everything was permitted”, and how frightened you are now’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 525). Then, Smerdyakov explained how he committed the murder.

Break with Ivan

What he saw in Ivan was a miserable, frightened, and cowardly man. Smerdyakov gave the money to Ivan because he no longer needed the money. Smerdyakov had previously wanted the money to start a new life in another place. This was because of Ivan’s teaching — ‘all things are permitted’ —, which was influenced by the Man-God ideology. This ideology completely persuaded and guided Smerdyakov at that time. Ivan asked, ‘you believe in God, since you are giving back the money?’ and Smerdyakov responded, ‘No, sir, I don’t believe’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 531) – yet with his references twice about Him, at least he would be aware of His presence. He criticised Ivan harshly by saying, ‘You are like Fyodor Pavlovich, sir, more like him than any of his children’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 531). Before Ivan left, Smerdyakov asked him to show the notes again and gazed at them for ten seconds. Ivan asked if Smerdyakov wanted anything, to which the latter replied, ‘Good-bye, sir!’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 532).

The consequences

The outcomes for the two were harsh. First, Smerdyakov committed suicide. He left a suicide note on the table, ‘I destroy myself of my own will and inclination, not to blame anyone’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 597). Then, for Ivan, after the third meeting, he lost his grip on his sanity. He saw and had dialogues with a devil (Chapter IX of Book XI). These dialogues would require another opportunity for further investigation. Regarding these dialogues, three points can be made, as follows. First, Ivan insisted that the devil would be his alter-ego; thus, what the devil depicted about him would largely reflect Ivan’s own ideas. Second, the devil insisted on the meaning of criticality; ‘Without criticism it would be nothing but one “hosannah”. But nothing but hosannah is not enough for life, the hosannah must be tried in the crucible of doubt’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 539). Third, the devil referred to the Man-God ideology mentioned by Ivan: ‘As soon as men have all of them denied God … the old conception of the universe will fall of itself without cannibalism, and, what’s more, the old morality, and then everything will begin anew’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 546).

Analysis

Accusing injustice

The first point is that Smerdyakov and Ivan conspired to protest or launch a ‘rebellion’ against, as Alyosha noted (Dostoevsky 2011, 213), the injustice in this world. As Ivan himself explored in the dialogue with Alyosha in Chapter X of Book V, he could not accept the injustice he had observed in various parts of the society — ‘Of the other tears of humanity with which the earth is soaked from its crust to its center’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 211). In this dialogue, Ivan described the pitiful cases of child abuse to Alyosha and said that he would not like to join the divine harmony because ‘those tears remain unredeemed’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 212).

Regarding this point, Sutherland (1977) contends that Ivan would not necessarily hope for ‘a better deal’ (34) regarding the victimised children because his main intention in rebelling was linked to the fact that he identified ‘Euclidean’ rationality as the only way to ‘make comprehensible what is incomprehensible’ (35). As Ashikawa (2016) argues, however, it should not be ignored that his negation of divine harmony came after a series of serious contemplations about God. Ivan was seeking God to the degree of almost saying hosannah to God in Moscow at the age of seventeen, as portrayed in the story of a thinker, narrated by the devil; the story might be premature, but it reflects Ivan’s zeal to seek God at that time (Ashikawa 2017). Yet, he also radically questioned the injustice (Ashikawa 2016) or ‘disharmony’ (Kantor 2001, 195) in this world, and deeply struggled to understand the paradox – the simultaneous existence of God and injustice.

Subsequently, Ivan stepped into the denial of God with his Man-God ideology (Ashikawa 2017). The previous studies discussing Ivan tended to refer to his inability to love others (Beary 2018; Cohen 2014; Contino 2020; Moran 2009; Namli 2009, 2022) or inner conflict regarding his stance on the life (Kantor 2001). Moreover, Contino (2020) eloquently elaborated on how Ivan would have the chance to be saved by God. However, emphasis should be placed on the conflict between his criticism of the injustice in the world and his seeking of God.

Smerdyakov was the one who had suffered from a series of injustices; his birth resulted from Fyodor raping his ‘God’s fool’ mother, and his stepparents were Fyodor’s servants. Indeed, he was full of anger about his life; he even told Marya, ‘Grigory Vassilyevich blames me for rebelling against my birth, “You rent her womb”, but I would have sanctioned their killing me before I was born that I might not have come into the world at all’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 194). This remark represents how resentful he would be against the injustice, marginalisation (Bauman 2011), and alienation (Marx 1961; Sayers 2011; Schmitt 2002), which he had experienced in his early life, even to a violent degree; in this case, the violence might be directed at him, but the result would have been the same even if it was directed at somebody else.

Ivan and Smerdyakov started to cooperate – Ivan as an instigator and Smerdyakov as a perpetrator, respectively. As Ashikawa (2016, 2021) argues, Ivan returned to his hometown, intending to commence the experiment ‘to destroy the idea of God in man’ and to preach the Man-God ideology, ‘all things are permitted’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 546), to Smerdyakov. Ivan’s reasoning and talents had built up the Man-God ideology to one of the children whose tears would soak the earth. Smerdyakov, as a contemplative, had two possibilities – either live for the divine or for evil (Saito 2022). As a follower of this ideology, Smerdyakov crossed the line to live for the evil.

Indoctrinating Smerdyakov with the Man-God ideology: its mechanism and end

The details of the interactions between Smerdyakov and Ivan are absent in the novel (Ashikawa 2016). However, the perspective of educational displacement (Sabic-El-Rayess 2021) may provide a helpful context to understand the mechanism of indoctrinating Smerdyakov. The theory of educational displacement was developed based on in-depth interviews with radicalised individuals in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Sabic-El-Rayess 2021). Accordingly, the radicalisation process would start with the self-identification of the students about their marginalisation (Bauman 2011) and alienation (Marx 1961; Sayers 2011; Schmitt 2002) or grievance (Sabic-El-Rayess 2021) in their educational institution. Then, they would start to explore alternative sources of information to the institutional one. Eventually, mentors would indoctrinate them, and the students would start to self-isolate from mainstream institutions and join radical groups.

In terms of the flow of the process, the case of Smerdyakov matches well with educational displacement theory. Indeed, Smerdyakov was well aware of his grievances, that is, the marginalisation (Bauman 2011) and alienation (Marx 1961; Sayers 2011; Schmitt 2002) in his earlier life, and he adhered to the Man-God ideology with the help of Ivan as his mentor. Nevertheless, although Smerdyakov exceeded Ivan in terms of deeds and actions, which surprised the latter and overwhelmed him eventually, as revealed during the three visits mentioned above, Smerdyakov was ultimately not free from alienation (Marx 1961; Sayers 2011; Schmitt 2002). He even referred to himself as Ivan’s instrument in murdering Fyodor. One of the tragedies of Smerdyakov was that the Man-God ideology failed to liberate him; instead, it further alienated him. Moreover, Ivan, the mentor, did not liberate him either. He never considered Smerdyakov as an equal human being but simply as ‘a prime candidate’, who may ‘go off and fizzle out’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 118–9) – Ivan treated Smerdyakov like a tool for his rebel. In addition, there were frequent abusive speeches against Smerdyakov – marking the very origin of his alienation (Marx 1961; Sayers 2011; Schmitt 2002) and marginalisation (Bauman 2011) — despite Ivan’s humane potential to recognise human tragedies in this world, different from ‘good people’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 513).

However, this mentor – mentee relationship, as depicted in the educational displacement theory, can be reversed. That is, the indoctrination can lose its effects in some critical incidences where the mentor demonstrates to their mentee some severe contradictions against the doctrine or personalities that they have demonstrated. In the case of Smerdyakov and his respect towards Ivan as his mentor, the fulfilment of the doctrine – ‘all things are permitted’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 546) – by murdering his father revealed the dullness, and eventual powerlessness of Ivan, as well as the deception of the Man-God ideology.

That is, Smerdyakov realised Ivan’s dullness over the three visits, in that Ivan had never suspected or realised (1) Smerdyakov as the murderer; (2) his own intention to lead the murder of Fyodor; and (3) his own crime and punishment; in the meantime, Smerdyakov himself suffered largely from the awareness of his own crime and punishment. Particularly, the third visit is critical; as Ashikawa (2016) argues, Smerdyakov committed the crime in two senses – the murder against Fyodor and ignorance and negligence of the love demonstrated by ‘good people’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 513), whose deeds will be discussed in the next sub-section. This perspective is different from some of the previous studies, which argued that Smerdyakov committed suicide because of abandonment by Ivan, which was demonstrated in his punch during the second meeting (Holquist 1977; Berman 2009). However, this viewpoint misses a brief but critical reference to ‘good people’, which would suggest that awareness of love is demonstrated by those people at all times, and behind whose deeds the divine love would be shown. This awareness of deeds by good people and the divine love behind them, however, would have led him to realising his crime and the divine punishment. This shows the turn-over of the mentor – mentee relationships with, and the end of indoctrination by, Ivan, in the most tragic form, resulting in his suicide. In this sense, the perspective of the current study is different from that forwarded by Kantor (2001), who claims that ‘death-bearing Smerdyakov is the result of elemental Karamazovian animal energies’ (201).

Work by good people

Indeed, both Smerdyakov and Ivan had ‘good people’ surrounding them: for Smerdyakov this was Martha, as mentioned earlier. Likewise, Marya and her mother would be too, who offered one of the cottages to Smerdyakov for free. Then, despite the claim regarding Grigory being dogmatic, stubborn and judgemental (Golstein 2004), it should be noted that Grigory was the one who decided to adopt Smerdyakov, understanding the importance of love and care for God and humans (Ashikawa 2016). By having those good people, and making a reference to them in such a positive way, Smerdyakov created sacred memories, contrary to the arguments forwarded by Hruska (2005). Smerdyakov, at least, realised the warmth of those people and described them so, finally. This recognition of ‘good people’ would suggest a drastic change in him – after the murder, he discovered the other side of his nature as a contemplative – the divine one was substantially active (Saito 2022). Smerdyakov finally realised his ‘sin’ – he did not return his love to the good people, who loved and cared for him (Ashikawa 2016).

For Ivan, Father Zossima provided ideological support and alerted him. As a part of his intention to destroy people’s idea of God, Ivan attempted to debate him about the possibility of human independence from divinity with reference to the judgement of a criminal, implying his Man-God ideology (Ashikawa 2016). He directly said, ‘There is no virtue if there is no immortality’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 65). In response, Zossima pointed out, ‘You are blessed in believing that, or else most unhappy’ and continued, ‘(i)f it can’t be decided in the affirmative, it will never be decided in the negative, you know that that is the peculiarity of your heart’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 65–6). Zossima pointed out a schism in Ivan despite his claim about the ideology and directed him to a possible way out of the labyrinth with his blessing (Ashikawa 2016; Namli 2022). However, simultaneously, Zossima did not forget to suggest a possible punishment caused by this ideology, ‘If anything does preserve society, even in our time, and does regenerate and transform the criminal, it is only the law of Christ speaking in his conscience’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 60). This is the origin of the punishment that both Smerdyakov and Ivan received.

Educational implications

The above cases of Smerdyakov and Ivan highlight critical issues for educators the mentors. As represented in the educational displacement theory (Sabic-El-Rayess 2021), Ivan, as the mentor, took the opportunity to indoctrinate and utilise Smerdyakov, the mentee, to achieve his own goal – and there was no care or relational practices based on warm emotions (Noddings 2013). Rather, the actual emotion that Ivan tended to have in front of Smerdyakov consisted of a great deal of frustration and contempt. Then, through the critical incident of the murder of Fyodor, Smerdyakov realised the deception in the doctrine and the mentorship. Ultimately, such relationships under the mentorship, as explained well by the educational displacement theory (Sabic-El-Rayess 2021), would be doomed to collapse, as Smerdyakov and Ivan experienced.

However, the ‘good people’ treated Smerdyakov as equal and practically supported him, in complete contrast with their treatment of Ivan. As Smerdyakov described, Martha kept visiting Smerdyakov after the hospitalisation, and both Martha and Grigory had been taking care of him since adoption. In addition, Marya extended generous support as well – offering the house and caring for his needs. Alyosha demonstrated his affectionate support for Ivan as well. When Ivan was going through the most difficult time of his life because of nightmares, Alyosha took care of him. Their devotion to care for (Noddings 2013) Smerdyakov and Ivan would have been ‘hard work and persistence’, and even ‘hidden from public view’ (Roberts 2017, 4). While Ivan did not necessarily work for ‘a better deal’ (34) regarding the victimised children (Sutherland 1977), those good people would be committed to work for the better deal of Smerdyakov and Ivan as part of their commitment and service to God.

Simultaneously, it should not be forgotten that ‘good people’ are realistic as well. Practical work requires devotion to time and actual labour – concrete activities for concrete persons. Without a real counterpart to work for, one cannot be cared for. This again contradicts Ivan, as he confessed that he could not love someone close to him (Beary 2018; Cohen 2014; Contino 2020; Moran 2009; Namli 2009, 2022), although he may love ‘those at a distance’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 204). Then, another aspect of being realistic is to expect uneasy and unexpected scenarios. One such example would be Zossima’s remark to Ivan about the punishment from Christ’s perspective – he was trying to caution Ivan regarding what he might experience by mobilising his rebellious ideology. Another example would be represented in comments by Alyosha, who consistently pointed out that Smerdyakov was the murderer right from the start – these words and deeds would function ‘to liberate and cleanse Ivan’s soul from despair’ (Kantor 2001, 215). Then, after letting Ivan rest after releasing him from the nightmare, Alyosha said, ‘Either he will rise up in the light of truth, or … he’ll perish in hate, revenging on himself and on everyone his having served the cause he does not believe in’ (Dostoevsky 2011, 551). However, this would not mean that he felt desolation; he was hopeful right before this remark. He was saying that God would save Ivan and prayed for the same. However, Alyosha would still not deny undesired outcomes as a part of his realistic predictions.

Being simultaneously caring and realistic in practice is extremely hard work – it is emotional labour (Hargreaves 2004). Educators who decide to entail these two aspects in their work would require mutual support and care in collegiality. Notably, Alyosha himself was educated by Zossima and fellows in the monastery, receiving much care and support. This suggests that the teachers who work in challenging contexts also need such mutually supportive and caring communities, where they can deepen their professional determination and devotion.

Concluding remarks

This paper aimed to analyse and obtain educational implications from the dialogues between Smerdyakov and Ivan after Fyodor’s murder. Special attention was paid to the relationships that Smerdyakov and Ivan had, in comparison with the good people. Smerdyakov and Ivan cooperated based on the Man-God ideology, aiming to overcome the injustice in the world – the alienation (Marx 1961; Sayers 2011; Schmitt 2002), marginalisation (Bauman 2011), and grievances (Sabic-El-Rayess 2021) they observed and experienced in their lives. Regarding educational implications, first, Ivan’s approach towards Smerdyakov was another form of alienation – treating him as his instrument – and marginalisation – using abusive language against him. Despite his idealistic compassion demonstrated in his anecdotes about the victimised children, Ivan could not treat Smerdyakov as an equal. Second, in contrast, the ‘good people’ as Smerdyakov called them, showed the ways of being that educators should learn – they treated him as an equal, demonstrating their practical care with realistic senses. Their way of caring for Smerdyakov was demonstrated to Ivan as well. This supports the view that there should be a professional community in which teachers to care for and grow with each other.

The literary masterpiece, The Brothers Karamazov, has numerous potential topics to explore. Even if future studies are limited to Smerdyakov and Ivan, many new topics can be proposed. There should be further investigations of, for example, the conversation between Ivan and Zossima. While it was briefly referred to in the discussion section of this paper, the conversation itself should be examined in further detail. Subsequently, there should also be additional investigation into the Man-God ideology by Ivan in further depth; indeed, the current study focused more on the relationships between Ivan and Smerdyakov and those with the good people.

Acknowledgement

I would like to extend sincerest thanks to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. I would also like to thank Mr Shinichi Ashikawa, a philosopher in the wilderness, for his precious comments and supports.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the School of Education, Culture and Society, Faculty of Education, Monash University [ECS Research Project Small Grants].

Notes on contributors

Eisuke Saito

Eisuke Saito is a lecturer for Faculty of Education, Monash University, Australia.