The problem of the relationship between man and society has always been occupied by the best minds of mankind. Many philosophers and writers tried to find or create that ideal society in which the potential of each of its members would be revealed, where each person would be treated with respect and understanding, in a word, create a social utopia.
But the last centuries have shown that no matter how beautiful dreams are, reality always dissipates them. Many scientists believe that the best social order was in the cities-policies of ancient Greece and that since then nothing like this has been created.
Nevertheless, I am sure that every reasonable person should try to contribute to the improvement of relations in society. There are several ways for this.
One of them, the way of the writers-enlighteners, consists in the gradual change in the world outlook of readers, in the reform of the value system itself. In this way, D. Defoe tried to help the society, who showed with his work “Robinson Crusoe” that a single human person can do a lot, J. Swift, who clearly depicts social injustice and suggests ways of salvation, and others, by the novel “Gulliver’s Travels”.
But there is another way, which throughout the history of resorting, perhaps, too often: radical, that is, revolutionary. Such an exit is inevitable when the contradictions between society and the individual have grown to such an extent that they can no longer
In literature, the second, radical, method was most vividly expressed, in my opinion, in the novel by F. M. Dostoevsky “Crime and Punishment.” A student of Raskolnikov, whose life can not be called easy, decides to kill the old woman-interest-holder, who for him personifies all the social injustice of Petersburg’s reality of the XIX century. Take away from the rich and give to the poor – the purpose of his idea. The same was, incidentally, the goal and the Bolsheviks, also striving to improve the situation of people, so that the one who was “nobody” would become “all” without thinking, however, that it is simply impossible to equip people with talents and abilities. In principle, the goal of making life fairer is noble. But is it worth to forget about what means it is achieved?
Raskolnikov had another opportunity. He could continue his studies, start giving private lessons, the future was revealed to him. But this would require too much effort and effort. It would be much easier to kill an old woman, rob her and start doing good deeds. Fortunately for Raskolnikov, he is too smart and begins to doubt his “rightness” (the crime led him to hard labor, but then comes the insight).
The confrontation between the personality of Raskolnikov and the society of Petersburg in the 60s of the XIX century ended in the defeat of the individual. A person who stands out from society is generally hard in his life. And the problem is often not so much in the society as in the crowd, crushing the personality and turning bright colors into gray ones. One of the classics once said that each person individually is wise, but the crowd is stupid. But, unfortunately, it is the crowd that determines the character of our society. Therefore, until the moment when there is harmony in the relationship between the person and the society, if such, of course, ever happens at all, for many, many years to come.