MIKHAIL BAKHTIN PROBLEMS OF DOSTOEVSKY'S POETICS: "THE POLYPHONIC OR HETEROGLOT NOVEL"
(SYNOPSIS BY DEBRA PROVIDENCE)

 Bakhtin begins his treatise on the novel by examining the work of Russian writer F. Dostoevsky. Bakhtin states that Dostoevsky’s novels differ from European realist novels in the manner in which voice is constructed. In the traditional realist novel the voice of the main character or hero is seen as the subject, the main point of view through which every other point of view is seen. The voice of the hero can also be seen as the voice of the author –their points of view are one and the same and they exist in a ‘subject’ ‘other’ relationship with the other, subordinated voices in the text. Bakhtin describes this particular conception of perspective as “monologic” and with it “there is no presumption of a plurality of equally valid consciousnesses, each with its own world.” (89).

Dostoevsky, Bakhtin states, created the polyphonic novel, where authorial voice/consciousness coexists with the consciousness of the other characters within the text. The consciousnesses of the author is not privileged in the text but rather interacts with and is even challenged by the fully realized/developed consciousnesses of the characters as though it were another character present in the text. This arises out of Dostoevsky’s desire to “see things side by side and simultaneous as if they existed in space and not time”. (90) The result is that every point of view is given equal weighting and all their truths are represented. They exist in a “dialogic communion” with each other.  This polyphonic nature of Dostoevsky’s novels (and Bakhtin refers to Crime and Punishment in particular) is in stark contrast with the monologic nature of Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe for example, where Crusoe’ voice (and by extension Defoe’s) is subject and the yard stick by which all other points of view (Man Friday in particular) is measured.

Bakhtin now suggests a methodology for the examination of dialogic discourse. He lists the characteristics of dialogic discourse as follows:

1)                 It exists among whole utterances as well as in microdialogue or among the signifying parts of the utterances, where the word becomes a sign of other semiotic positions/utterances.

2)                 It exists between  “language styles, social dialectics” (104) that are perceived as “language worldviews” (104) eg: nation language as referred to by Kamau Brathwaite and as used by Bruce St. John and Louise Bennett.

3)                 It can also exist in relationship to an individual’s complete utterance, and to its separate parts. It can exist “if we detach ourselves … and speak with an inner reservation… as if limiting our own authorship or dividing it in two.” (104)

These particular characteristics of dialogic discourse, Bakhtin says, places it beyond the scope of normal linguistics but a metalinguistic approach can be adequately applied.

            Bakhtin turns his attention to discourse and breaks it down in to three main categories. Firstly there is “direct and unmediated object oriented” (105) where speech is directed towards the referential object of which naming is an example. The second type is the “represented or objectified discourse” of which Bakhtin says the direct speech of a character is the most popular example. This type of discourse has referential meaning but is still distinct from the author’s speech and is viewed as both referential and as being the object of its reference. The third type of discourse is the double voiced discourse, a consistent feature of Dostoevsky’s novels, and the central subject of metalinguistic examination. In this type of discourse, the authorial voice /consciousness coexists with the voice/consciousnesses of his characters. Bakhtin further dissects double voiced discourse into three types. The first is unidirectional where a specific referential object is identified (similar to the first type of discourse). The second type sees a clash between two clearly marked voices –both subject and other are given precedence.

In the third type there emerges the hidden polemic where the “other” discourse “remains outside of the limits of the author’s speech” but nevertheless “acts upon, influences and in one way or another determines the author’s discourse” (107) Their relationship is somewhat antagonistic. The hidden polemic’s importance to literature is great. Bakhtin states that every style has an “internal polemic” and every literary discourse more or less senses its listener and anticipates objections and evaluations. Also, every literary style entails an “element of so-called reaction to a previous literary style.”(108) This can be seen as “signifyin” in the case of African American literary tradition or “writing back” in West Indian writing.

These three characteristics place double voiced discourse outside the scope of normal linguistics but in the realm of metalinguistics. Double voiced discourse, a feature of Dostoevsky’s novels, distinguishes the works of the Russian writer from the traditional monologic European realist novels.