Fathers and sons who is right. Ideological disputes between “fathers” and “sons”

Ideological disputes between “fathers” and “sons”. Who is right?

Describing the social hostility that flares up between the heroes, the author reveals the destructive sides of Kirsanov's aristocracy and Bazarov's nihilism. The central place in the novel is occupied by the long disputes of the young commoner E.V. Bazarov and the aging aristocrat P.P. Kirsanov, revealing the essence of the work - the problem of “fathers and sons”. It is they who give special poignancy to the plot, serve as a characteristic of each hero, show the superiority of new, progressive ideas over old ones, and the eternal movement towards progress.

These heroes differ from each other in everything: age, social status, beliefs, appearance. “Tall in a long robe with tassels,” his face was “long and thin with a wide forehead, a flat upward, pointed nose downward, large greenish eyes and hanging sand-colored sideburns, it was enlivened by a calm smile and expressed self-confidence and intelligence,” and “his dark - blond hair, long and thick, did not hide the large bulges of the spacious skull.” This is the portrait of E.V. Bazarova. P.P. Kirsanov is “a man of average height, dressed in a dark English suit, a fashionable low tie and patent leather ankle boots,” “he looks about forty-five years old,” “his face, bilious, but without wrinkles, unusually regular and clean, as if drawn by a thin and with a light chisel, showed traces of remarkable beauty.” His whole appearance is “elegant and thoroughbred, retaining youthful harmony and that desire upward, away from the earth, which for the most part disappears after the twenties.”

Pavel Petrovich is precisely twenty years older than Bazarov, but even to a greater extent retains the signs of youth in his appearance. The elder Kirsanov is a man who is extremely concerned about his appearance in order to look as young as possible for his age. So befits a socialite, an old heartthrob. Bazarov, on the contrary, does not care at all about appearance. In the portrait of Pavel Petrovich, the writer highlights the correct features and strict order, the sophistication of the costume and the desire for light, unearthly materials. This hero will defend order in the dispute against Bazarov’s transformative pathos. And everything in his appearance indicates adherence to the norm.

Even Pavel Petrovich’s height is average, so to speak, normal, while Bazarov’s tall height symbolizes his superiority over those around him. And Evgeniy’s facial features are distinctly irregular, his hair is unkempt, instead of Pavel Petrovich’s expensive English suit, he has some kind of strange robe, his hand is red, rough, while Kirsanov has a beautiful hand “with long pink nails.” But Bazarov’s wide forehead and convex skull reveal his intelligence and self-confidence. But Pavel Petrovich has a bilious face, and increased attention to the toilet reveals in him a carefully hidden lack of confidence in his own abilities. We can say that this is Pushkin’s Eugene Onegin, twenty years older, living in a different era, in which this type of people will soon have no place.

What position does Bazarov defend in the dispute? He claims that “nature is not a temple, but a workshop, and man is a worker in it.” Evgeniy is deeply convinced that the achievements of modern natural science will in the future make it possible to solve all the problems of social life. He denies beauty - art, poetry, feelings - in love he sees only the physiological, but does not see the spiritual principle. Bazarov “approaches everything from a critical point of view”, “does not accept a single principle on faith, no matter how much respect this principle is surrounded.” Pavel Petrovich proclaims that “aristocratism is a principle, and in our time only immoral or empty people can live without principles.” However, the impression of an inspired ode to principles is noticeably weakened by the fact that Bazarov’s opponent puts in first place the “principle” of aristocracy that is closest to himself.

It is no coincidence that Pavel Petrovich, brought up in an atmosphere of comfortable estate existence and accustomed to the St. Petersburg secular society, puts poetry, music, and love in first place. He had never been involved in any practical activity in his life, with the exception of a short and easy service in the guards regiment, he was never interested in the natural sciences and understood little about them. Bazarov, the son of a poor military doctor, accustomed from childhood to work and not to idleness, graduated from university, interested in natural sciences, experimental knowledge, had very little to do with poetry or music in his short life, perhaps not even Pushkin read. Hence Evgeniy Vasilyevich’s harsh and unfair judgment about the great Russian poet: “...He must have served in military service... on every page he has: To the battle, to the battle! for the honor of Russia!

Bazarov does not have as much experience in love as Pavel Petrovich, and therefore treats this feeling too simplistically. The elder Kirsanov had already experienced love suffering, namely an unsuccessful romance with Princess R. and the death of his beloved, which aggravated his state of mind. Evgeny Vasilyevich's love pangs - an equally unsuccessful romance with Anna Sergeevna Odintsova - are still ahead. That is why, at the beginning of the novel, he so confidently reduces love to certain physiological relationships, and calls everything spiritual in love “romantic nonsense.” Bazarov is a realist, and Pavel Petrovich is a romantic, focused on the cultural values ​​of romanticism of the first third of the century, on the cult of beauty.

And he, of course, is offended by Bazarov’s statements about the fact that “a decent chemist is twenty times more useful than any poet” or that “Raphael is not worth a penny.” Here Turgenev certainly disagrees with Bazarov’s point of view. However, he does not give victory on this point of the dispute to Pavel Petrovich. The trouble is that the refined Anglomaniac aristocrat does not have not only Raphael’s abilities, but no creative abilities at all. His discussions about art and poetry, as well as about society, are empty and trivial, often comical. Pavel Petrovich cannot possibly be a worthy opponent for Bazarov. And when they part, the eldest of the Kirsanov brothers “was dead,” of course, in a figurative sense. Disputes with a nihilist somehow justified the meaning of his existence, introduced a certain “fermentation”, awakened thoughts. Now Pavel Petrovich is doomed to a stagnant existence.

Based on all of the above, I think that Bazarov’s real opponent is Nikolai Petrovich Kirsanov, although he does not enter into verbal disputes. He understands perfectly well that his arguments will not be convincing either for Bazarov or for his brother. Nikolai Petrovich simply lives according to his heart and conscience. Having broken his leg in his youth, which prevented him from making a military career, he does not become despondent, does not become embittered at the whole world, but studies at the university, then gets married, lives with his wife for ten years in love and harmony, which passed “like a dream.” After the death of his wife, he devotes himself to raising and educating his son. Then life sends him love for a simple girl, Fenechka, for a newborn child.

The hard-won knowledge that Nikolai Petrovich possesses - about harmonious existence, about unity with nature, about poetry, about love - can only be understood by a developed soul, which neither the “district aristocrat” nor the “leader of the nihilists” has. Only the son is able to understand this, who, in the end, comes to the conclusion that Bazarov’s ideas are untenable. Life itself puts everything in its place, sweeps away everything unnatural: Bazarov dies, having known love, softening his skepticism, Pavel Petrovich went abroad; Arkady marries Katya, lives on his father's estate, raises it from desolation and poverty; Nikolai Petrovich - marries Fenechka, becomes a peace mediator and works hard.

However, in 1862, in one of his letters regarding “Fathers and Sons,” Ivan Sergeevich especially emphasized that the entire “story is directed against the nobility, as an advanced class... An aesthetic feeling forced me to take precisely good representatives of the nobility, in order to more accurately prove my theme: if cream is bad, what about milk?.. if the reader does not fall in love with Bazarov with all his rudeness, heartlessness, ruthless dryness and harshness - if he does not fall in love, I repeat, - I am guilty and have not achieved my goal. But I didn’t want to “get upset,” to use his words, although through this I would probably immediately have young people on my side. I didn’t want to buy into popularity with this kind of concession. It's better to lose a battle... than to win it with a trick." 11 .

I.S. himself Turgenev was a representative of the same generation as P.P. Kirsanov, but of the heroes of his novel he felt the greatest sympathy for the young nihilist Bazarov. In 1869, in a special article “Regarding “Fathers and Sons,” the writer directly stated: “Drawing the figure of Bazarov, I excluded everything artistic from the circle of his sympathies, I gave him a harshness and unceremonious tone - not out of an absurd desire to offend the younger generation. .. With the exception of Bazarov’s views on art, I share almost all of his beliefs. And they assure me that I am on the side of the “fathers”... I, who in the figure of Pavel Kirsanov even sinned against artistic truth and overdid it, brought his shortcomings to the point of caricature, made him funny!” 12

The writer did not want to idealize Bazarov and endowed his hero with all those shortcomings that his prototypes from the radical heterodox youth possessed in abundance. However, Turgenev did not deprive Eugene of his Russian roots, emphasizing that half the hero grows from Russian soil, the fundamental conditions of Russian life, and half is formed under the influence of new ideas brought from Europe. And in a dispute with Pavel Petrovich, Bazarov, according to the conviction of the writer, and any thoughtful reader, is right in his main positions: the need to question established dogmas, work tirelessly for the good of society, and be critical of the surrounding reality. Where Bazarov is wrong, in utilitarian views on the nature of beauty, on literature, on art, victory still does not remain on the side of Pavel Petrovich.

In disputes, Bazarov has not only the advantages of youth and the novelty of his position. Turgenev sees that nihilism is deeply connected with social disorder, popular discontent, that this is a natural expression of the spirit of the times, when in Russia everything is overestimated and turned upside down. The author admits that the role of the “advanced class” is moving from the noble intelligentsia to the commoners.

In the novel “Fathers and Sons” by I.S. Turgenev overcomes the political limitations of his own views. He tried to rise and rose above the fray, showing the extremes in the position of both "fathers" and "sons". However, this is precisely why his novel not only did not reconcile, but even more aggravated the social struggle. And the writer himself found himself in a dramatic situation. With bewilderment and bitterness, he stopped, giving up, before the chaos of contradictory judgments: the novel did not satisfy either the “fathers” or the “children.” “The question that has arisen,” wrote I.S. Turgenev, many years later, was more important than artistic truth - and I should have known this in advance.”

noble nihilist bazaar children

(446 words) The problem of conflict between representatives of different generations has always been relevant. The struggle of fathers and sons, ideological disputes and irreconcilable views are what have always worried the minds of writers and philosophers. On the one hand, this misunderstanding seems quite natural, because time passes, everything changes, and therefore ideological views cannot lag behind the pace of life. On the other hand, everything is cyclical, the present is replaced by a well-forgotten past, so young people cannot refuse the valuable experience of their ancestors. I think young people need productive dialogue with their parents, just like the older generation. To see this, consider examples from the literature.

Let us remember the famous novel by I.S. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons". The title itself prepares readers for the conflict of times. The young nihilist Bazarov is completely opposite in his views to the nobleman Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov. Throughout the entire work we see their endless argument about everything in the world. For Evgeniy, the experience of his ancestors is garbage that needs to be “cleared away.” However, Pavel Petrovich is outraged by such a categorical position, because the younger generation should create, not destroy. The complex conflict of new and outdated views pushes the heroes to extreme measures. In the novel, the duel has become a kind of symbol of the eternal clash of “fathers and sons,” which very rarely finds a peaceful solution. However, the ending of the book proves that young and mature people need dialogue. Only those heroes who were able to establish communication despite ideological disputes were awarded happiness. This is Arkady and his father - people who have found mutual understanding. But the irreconcilable Eugene died without ever knowing happiness. His parents were doomed to visit the grave of their son, who during his lifetime did not find time for dialogue with them.

In literature you can find a lot of works in which such a conflict is “resolved” by the death of one of the warring parties. The well-known play by A.N. Ostrovsky's "The Thunderstorm" is a vivid example of the tragic outcome of an age-old dispute. The main character Katerina, having fallen under the complete subordination of Kabanikha, cannot endure such a life. After all, their views and foundations are completely opposite. The influence of the older generation turned out to be so disastrous that the youth simply disappeared from home: Varvara ran away, Tikhon rebelled against his mother, and Katerina threw herself into the water. However, in this way the dispute between “fathers and sons” is not resolved, but only hangs in the air. The characters in the play lacked the desire to establish mutual understanding among themselves, so their lives were destroyed by the confrontation. If Kabanikha, her daughter-in-law, daughter and son had sat down at the negotiating table at least once, the tragedy would have been avoided. They would separate families, stop reproaching each other and hush up grievances. This is precisely what they lacked for peaceful coexistence. Therefore, each of us must choose dialogue rather than an argument with our parents, because all people need to find a compromise solution.

The opposing views of parents and children on life is an important and relevant problem for all times that needs to be resolved. Constructive dialogue, built on mutual understanding and respect, is the only right decision that both generations must come to in order to avoid serious negative consequences.

"Fathers and Sons" is one of the greatest works of Russian literature. Each generation finds something interesting for itself in this novel and perceives the complex author’s position differently. This book contains historically important events associated with the change of generations and the emergence of new ideas. “Fathers and Sons” was written at the time of preparation and implementation of the peasant reform of one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one. In those critical times, each person had to decide on the position he would adhere to. Join the already passing class of nobles or stick to the emerging class of revolutionaries. It was then that Turgenev wrote his great novel.

Throughout the entire work, our attention is focused on the relationship between the nobleman Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov and the son of a poor doctor Yevgeny Bazarov. Turgenev gives a clear description of the main characters, and we are immediately confronted with a sharp difference in appearance, behavior and views on the main problems of life.

The romantic Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov is in no way compatible with the democrat Bazarov, who is indifferent to love relationships. Antipathy immediately arises between them, turning into heated arguments. It is in their bickering that different views on the social system, religion and people are revealed.

Bazarov believes that society is rotten and serious measures are needed: “Fix society.” This is precisely the benefit that Evgeniy sees. Pavel Petrovich agrees that society is not entirely in order. Then, when Kirsanov finds out that his nephew and Evgeny Bazarov are nihilists who deny everything and do not respect other people’s interests, he proclaims:

“We value civilization. Its fruits are dear to us”...

It is in these words that the conflict between “fathers” and “children” lies.

Bazarov and Kirsanov have completely different attitudes towards the nobility. Pavel Petrovich considers the aristocracy to be the main force that moves the people and contributes to the successful development of society. In the eyes of Eugene, aristocrats are not able to act and benefit people. Bazarov, as a nihilist, is accustomed to “acting, breaking,” instead of sitting idly by, like aristocrats. But despite having such a strong quality, nihilists also have weaknesses. One of the downsides is the poor soul having to hide feelings.

In the dispute about the Russian people, the truth is, of course, on the side of Bazarov, who knows how to get along with men. He soberly sees how “the grossest superstition is strangling the country.” Evgeniy connects his activities with the “national spirit”, considering himself the one who expresses the interest of the people. Kirsanov and Bazarov argue about which of them the man “recognizes as a compatriot.”

The aesthetic views of the main characters also collide in disputes. Their opinions are different: Pavel Petrovich highly values ​​art, Bazarov believes that Pushkin is “no good”, playing the cello is “ridiculous” for a man, and a decent chemist is twenty times more useful than a poet.

Their attitude towards the surrounding nature also differs. In response to the question of Arkady, who opposes Evgeny, the answer of the nihilist Bazarov sounds: “And nature is nothing in the sense in which you understand it. Nature is not a temple, but a workshop, and man is a worker in it.”

Despite the fact that Bazarov denies love and laughs at Pavel Petrovich’s romantic impulses, in Evgeny’s soul there is the ability to love and feel. Falling in love with Anna Sergeevna revealed the real Evgeny Bazarov. His heart suffers because of his averted feelings. In the case of Pavel Petrovich, the love for which he left everything, including his career, led him to spiritual death.

Thus, in the novel “Fathers and Sons” Turgenev depicted the struggle of two different generations, the struggle of the outgoing century and the new one, just emerging. But, despite this change of eras, there must remain a thread connecting one generation of people to another, only in this way is the progressive development of society possible.

The novel “Fathers and Sons”, written by I.S. Turgenev, is a work about the conflict of two generations, in which the contradiction between representatives of the old noble culture and adherents of new views is clearly indicated.

Historical basis of the novel

The clash of interests of liberals and revolutionary democrats on the eve of the events

1861 found expression in Turgenev’s work. The generational dispute in the novel “Fathers and Sons” is expressed by the opposition of the views of Bazarov and the Kirsanovs. According to Evgeniy, the reform will be of no use.

The Kirsanovs personify the outgoing culture of the nobility. Bazarov is a supporter of revolutionary democratic changes.

The dispute between generations in the novel “Fathers and Sons” is about the situation of the people, about the attitude towards art, history, and literature. The book talks a lot about the contradiction between two generations on a variety of issues, including the system of moral principles. It’s not for nothing that reviewers call this novel a work of ideological debate.

Dispute of generations in literature

Many authors touch on the issue of generational conflict. The contradiction between fathers and children finds expression in Pushkin’s novel “Eugene Onegin”. The main character of the novel, M.Yu., remains unclear. Lermontov "Hero of Our Time". Chatsky is lonely in Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit."

In each of these works there is a debate between generations. “Fathers and Sons” is a novel in which this contradiction is the main theme and involves almost all areas of life.

Idea and attitude towards the nobility

The generational dispute in the novel “Fathers and Sons” emphasizes the need to abolish the serfdom. The work shows the difficult fate of the serfs, the ignorance of the common people. The author voices this idea at the very beginning of the work in the form of Arkady’s reflections on the poverty of the people and the urgent need for transformations of the existing regime. Turgenev reflects in the novel on the fate of the country and people.

Author about the novel “Fathers and Sons”

I.S. Turgenev says about the political content of his work that its idea is directed against the nobility and rejects it as an advanced class. The author calls Arkady and his uncle, Pavel Petrovich, weak and limited. At the same time, he notes that these are the best representatives of the nobility. This state of affairs shows the failure of the aristocracy.

Ideological conflict P.P. Kirsanova and Bazarova

The generational dispute in the novel “Fathers and Sons” is especially clearly manifested in the clash of views on the existing order of things of Pavel Petrovich and Evgeny.

We can distinguish four circles of issues on which these heroes argue. Let's look at them.

The first question is the attitude towards the nobility. Pavel Petrovich believes that aristocrats are those who contribute to the development of society. Bazarov, on the contrary, says that aristocrats are not able to act and do not bring benefit to society. The nobility, in his opinion, cannot contribute to the development of Russia.

The second issue that causes a contradiction between the heroes is their attitude towards not recognizing any authorities and not taking anything for granted. He is independent, has independent thinking, the essence of the problem is important to him, and not the attitude of others towards it. However, no matter how practical Bazarov is, human feelings are also characteristic of him. He fell in love with and could not help but explain to her.

However, as Pavel Petrovich rightly notes, the extreme manifestation of nihilism can be the denial of such concepts that cannot be questioned. Bazarov rejects religion and morality, and asserts the obligatory nature of revolutionary actions for the benefit of the people.

The views of the two heroes on the common people and their fate differ. Pavel Petrovich glorifies the patriarchy of the peasant family and religion. Bazarov believes that the peasants are ignorant and incapable of understanding their interests. One must distinguish the prejudices of the people from their interests. Kirsanov talks a lot about the need to serve the fatherland, but at the same time he lives calmly and well-fed. Bazarov is closer than Kirsanov to the common people in his social status: he is a commoner and must work. It should be noted that Evgeny does not like inaction. Work captivates him; he does not respect idleness and laziness.

The last issue that causes disagreement between the two characters is the attitude towards

nature and art. Pavel Petrovich blesses everything beautiful. Bazarov is able to see only the useful in things and phenomena. For him, nature is a workshop where the owner is a person. He denies the achievements of culture and art because they have no practical use.

The attitude of contemporaries to the novel

The generational dispute in literature is a topic that has been raised by many writers.

However, immediately after its publication, the novel received critical reviews from both conservatives and Democrats. So, in particular, Antonovich wrote that Bazarov is nothing more than slander. The critic does not see the artistic value of this work.

Pisarev expressed a different attitude towards the novel. In the article “Bazarov” he justifies the hero’s indifference to the future of the common people. In addition, the author of the article agrees with Bazarov’s attitude towards art.

The dispute between generations in the works of many authors is not a new topic. However, it is worth noting that the novel deals largely not with the ideological clashes between fathers and sons, but with the contradictions between nobles and commoners, who personify the future of the country.