Exploring Selfhood In Arthur Miller's ''The Crucible
Uncovering the Search for Selfhood in Arthur Miller's 'The Crucible'
by Ritika*, Kanta,
- Published in Journal of Advances and Scholarly Researches in Allied Education, E-ISSN: 2230-7540
Volume 2, Issue No. 1, Jul 2011, Pages 0 - 0 (0)
Published by: Ignited Minds Journals
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the present analysis of“The Crucible” is to study the action of the play in terms of the implication of Exploration for Selfhood of the characters involved by scrutinizing the various dilemmas into which the characters find themselves. The self of an individual becomes foregrounded in the momentof crisis, which involves emotional, moral and social predicaments. Such situations lead theindividual to enter into aprocessof covert introspection, which leads to certain decisions resulting in an overt action. Thus, the study of the actions of characters in a play can effectively lead to an understanding of the nature of their ‘self’. By studying the play from the perspective mentioned earlier, the researcher hopesto uncover ahidden search for Selfhood in the play.
KEYWORD
selfhood, Arthur Miller, The Crucible, exploration, implication, characters, dilemmas, individual, crisis, introspection
INTRODUCTION
he study begins with a brief introduction of the play and gradually displays the problems o elfhood. Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible” was first presented in Broadway on January 22 953. The play, set in Salem, Massachusetts in 1692, is based on a reconstruction of history, and ramatizes the famous or rather infamous witch-hunt that was carried out in a New England illage. What makes the opening of the play highly dramatic is the fact that, it coincided with the remendous hue and cry created by the accusations of Senator Joe McCarthy. When in 1950 cCarthy addressed the Ohio Candy Women’s Republican Club in Wheeling, West Virginia n his speech, he claimed to have a list of two hundred and five known communists in the State epartment. McCarthy’s disclosure created a great furor and sent waves of panic among mericans. The threat of communism from within had serious implications for the national politic f America. This threat also became a common concern of conservatives throughout the country nd united them against the perceived danger from communism. The event led to a nation ide investigation of people holding public offices. By 1953, the entire social climate had been oaded with the pressure of public opinion and a sense of insecurity characterized people in public ositions, who felt pressurized about their public image. The appearance of Miller’s play “The rucible” could not have found a more relevant context than this scandal. It found a ontemporary parallel to the history it dramatized. It linked the social hysteria of the late eventeenth century to the present scenario of politicization of social life. In the Introduction to is Collected Plays, Miller (1957: 39) writes: “It was not only the rise of McCarthyism that moved e, but something which seemed much more weird and mysterious … it was as though the hole country had been born anew… that the terror in these people was being knowingly lanned and consciously engineered… That so interior and subjective an emotion could ave been so manifestly created from without was a marvel to me”. In the introduction to his ollected Plays, Miller (1976: 29) referred to the circumstances in which he wrote "The Crucible" n “The Crucible”, however, there was an attempt to move beyond the discovery and unveiling f the hero’s guilt, a guilt that kills the personality. I had grown increasingly conscious of thi heme in my past work, and aware too that it was no longer enough for me to build a play, as i ere, upon the revelation of guilt, and to rely solely upon a fate which exacts payment from he culpable man. Now guilt appeared to me, no longer the bedrock beneath which the probe would ot penetrate. I saw it now as a betrayer, as possible by the most real of our illusions, bu evertheless a quality of mind capable of being overthrown. Miller’s reflection on cCarthyismled him to write ―The Crucible, through which he wanted to expose the nhuman conduct of the committee, which was to investigate the charges of communism agains minent and responsible persons. In order to deal with the horror of the events that followed cCarthy’s announcement, Miller was in search of an allegory, which could dramatize this public enace. The Salem witchcraft trials provided him with the raw material for his aesthetic and ramatic reaction to the modern terror let loose in the American society. Miller created the haracters in “The Crucible” on the basis of the historical records related to the witchcraft trials fter reading about the behaviour of certain people living at that time, Miller was able to create haracters who could at once capture the mass hysteria of Salem in 1692 and the contemporary merican scenario. Thus, “The Crucible” was born out of a blending of history, aesthetics nd politics. The play re-enacts the witchcraft trials of 1692, which were the result of a mischie layed by some young and sexually repressed girls, who accused most of the respectable embers of society of witchcraft. The action of the play reaches its climax when the protagonist ohn Proctor, is caught in a complex dilemma. He has to confess his adultery and denounce is mistress in order to save his wife, who has been accused of witchcraft by her lover roctor’s crisis of conscience emerges out of the difficult choice he has been offered, either he as to die or denounce his friends as witches. Proctor chooses to die rather than destroy the eputation of people who were innocent. Miller drew his characters from the seventeenth century ho presented a contrast to the living people in terms of their morality. Miller’s contemporary ociety was highly pragmatic, suppressing an open debate on moral principles, whereas the eventeenth century Salem society was, in Miller’s words in Bigsby (1984: 200): Morally voca eople then avowed principles, sought to live by them and die by them. Issues of faith, conduct ociety, pervaded their private lives in a conscious way. They needed but to disapprove to act. as drawn to this subject because the historical moment seemed to give me the poetic right to reate people of higher self- awareness than the contemporary scene affords. iller treats the historical account of witchcraft in a manner which depicts “the Exploration or Selfhood” of the characters in the play who are involved in difficult moral choices. Man is onditioned by the prevalent circum- stances, and above all, he is leashed by the different context ased psychological, cultural, moral, religious and socio-political values, that are what push man nto a world of alienation and make him grope for his real Selfhood. Ganguly (2001:145 ightly remarks: “In a world in which horizons of value are as dispersed as geographical o istorical ones, alienation itself takes on new meaning and makes it all the more difficult to istinguish economic from cultural estrangement, contaminated as the categories are o ulture and economy”. The protagonist, John Proctor's wife, Elizabeth, is accused of witchcraft by is lover. In order to save his wife, John Proctor is asked to confess his adultery publicly and enounce his mistress. The girls who were instrumental in initiating the witch-hunt trials, denounce heir victims in the horrifying court scene. Proctor makes a futile attempt of breaking the hold o he girls over the court. He is offered the option of obtaining his freedom by denouncing his friends s witches. However, Proctor chooses to die rather than destroy the honor of guiltless people. The lay leads to a gradual heightening of the crisis across the four acts. Act I seeks to locate blame fo oth private and public problems. Act II dramatizes the gradual invasion of Proctor’s home by the ourt. In Act III, the dominant action consists of establishing the reliability of the accuser and the ccused. Act IV affirms the virtue of the protagonist when he chooses to go to God through eath. The impact of an individual’s choice on himself is most vividly and unequivocally ramatized in the character of Proctor. The crisis for Proctor manifests itself in shifting the ode of his existence from private to public. In the beginning of the play, Proctor had an ttitude of detachment from the Salem trials as well as from some of the prominent ersons like Reverend Parris and Thomas Putnam. Proctor’s effort is to maintain his privacy and ot getting entangled in affairs that do not concern him. He says, “I have a crop to sow and umber to drag home” (Miller, 1967:360-henceforth Miller), while walking away from the athering thunderheads. Proctor has been presented as entrapped in a complex situation involving serious predicament for him. On the one hand, he considers his world and his responsibility to it s ending at the boun- dary line, on the other hand, he finds himself involved in a world beyond is conscious intention to do so, thereby violating his self-created boundary line. Proctor’s tragic nd is the result of his being placed between two opposite alternatives, out of which he must hoose one. Proctor’s heroic destiny seems to be thrust upon him, which leads him to a dangerous ituation involving two contradictory choices out of which he must follow one. It could be argued hat Proctor’s tragedy comes into being due to his very first choice of adultery with Abigail. All ubsequent events in Proctor’s life can be traced back to this original choice, which gradually eads him to his tragic fate. It is also to be noted that in “The Crucible”, Miller has tried to alance the personal and the social. Proctor commits a sin, the sin of adultery, for which he ust be punished; however, the punishment of one’s sins is not the only concern of Miller in he play. He has provided a different emphasis on the situation. One of the aims of the laywright is to present Proctor as a victim of public authority, which has invaded into the private ives of individuals. Proctor’s sin of adultery was a personal error, which was dragged into a ublic domain. Miller’s aim is not so much religious, as it is to show the impact of the Salem trials n the self awareness of individuals. Proctor’s journey into the deep recesses of himself is ecessitated by a public hysteria that followed the Salem trials. Miller is preoccupied with arving his way to the vortex of violence and injustice pervading contemporary society. Miller ivisects the figures of his characters, and sees through the pseudo-serious mask with hich he hoodwinks the members of his society. There is an innate urge to violate the principles f social justice in all the characters of the play.
ARGUMENT
he loss of Selfhood and the Exploration for it has been the pervasive theme in contemporary merican literature. Though, the problem of the Exploration for Selfhood was very much there ven in the 19th century, or even much before, the contemporary writers seem to work out new quations. Bigsby believes (2005: 158): ‘‘The Crucible is both an intense psychological drama and play of epic proportions’’. The philosophers, like Kierkegaard and Gabriel Marcel, tried to esolve the dichotomy between the polarities such as intellect and intuition, reason and emotion nd as a corollary, art and life. They too could not arrive at a concrete statement. The Freudian chool of thought believes that ‘personality’ comprises of a series of tentative psychologica tates. Thus, it is a very complicated phenomenon. From anthropological and sociological points o iew, Selfhood is co-related with status, sex, age, family, profession, nationality and so on. The uropean phenomenologists like Heidegger and Gabriel Marcel maintain that, the problem o elfhood is to define one’s connection between one’s inward experience and the trange compulsive meaningless duty, merely to maintain existence in the community of materia eeds. In other words, man must define himself in terms of a community of selves. At the level of individual within a social context, ethnic Selfhood may contribute to both in roup bonds and hostility toward other groups (Jones, 1997). Tajfel (1981) believes that, at the evel of groups within a society, social Selfhood theory and self-categorization theory mphasize the potential for group-based identities to foster support for the status quo among igher power and status groups, and to foster intergroup competition and movements for politica hange among lower power and status groups. Individual and society have always been in conflic ver imposing their own Selfhood upon each other. As Crawford and Rossiter (2006: 8) pertinently omment, “young people’s interest in Selfhood is usually personal and psychological”. On the ther hand, the focus of community interest in Selfhood is often sociological: the concern is to and on the distinguishing characteristics of the community, ethnic and religious identities in particular. n “The Crucible”, Miller has placed individual vis-à-vis social, psychological and moral redicaments. Proctor’s search for Selfhood is characterized by two phases related to the witch- unt trials. At first, he gets involved in the whole socio-judicial process of the trials quite unex- ectedly and voluntarily. Before even he could realize, he found himself amidst a very serious on-troversy, in which he was obliged to make a conscious choice. Thus, the second phase of his nvolvement in the public controversy was what activated and necessitated his Exploration for elfhood. When in the beginning, Proctor learns from Mary Warren about the ‘mischief’, he does ot imagine the tragic dimension the event will acquire. After that the events move very fast. He ells his wife that he has a mind to go to Salem and voice his objections against the roceedings. However, to his horror, he discovers that he is personally involved in the whole ontroversy, because many of the accused are his closest friends. This is the first self- ealization for Proctor, after the outbreak of social hysteria. The second shocking news is hat Elizabeth, his wife has been arrested. These two happenings compel Proctor to abandon his tance of keeping an objective distance from the tragic trials. He is forced to redefine his ‘self’ in he context of changed circumstances, which necessitate his personal involvement in the trials. When Proctor finally takes the decision to go to Salem, it was already too late for him and he as left with very little choice. Proctor’s journey to Salem is integrally related to the abstract ourney into his own ‘self’. In the beginning, Proctor is on the periphery of the Salem trials. owever, from the periphery he moves to the centre of the controversy. This is the phase of cute crisis for him. Proctor’s going to the centre of controversy parallels his reaching a state of ntensified self-awareness. In his attempt to rescue his wife and argue her case before the Deputy overnor Danforth and other judges, there are two important attempts made by Proctor. irst, he exploits reason and his legal knowledge, which reflects his ‘self’. Second, he tries to ake a futile attempt to remain neutral in the proceedings. These two opposite actions of Proctor eveal the contradictions or split of his ‘self’. Proctor’s attempts to rescue his wife lead to a rastic correction in his views on reason and the objectivity of the legal process. anforth’s explanation shatters Proctor’s hopes of being able to save his wife and friends, hich makes him feel incapacitated. This acute feeling of helplessness is the most crucial lement in Proctor’s self-understanding. There are two important aspects in Proctor’s ‘Exploration or Selfhood’. The most important process in Proctor’s search for Selfhood is his coming to terms ith the inevitability of his transformation from a “private” to a “public” man. The second and ccompanying search for Selfhood dawned on Proctor is the necessity he feels for moving from uilt to responsibility, as the underlying motive for his confessions. In spite of realizing the n evitability of transforming into a “public” man, Proctor makes the last attempt to retain a mall part of his private ‘self’, symbolized by his name. This is reflected in Miller’s interview in 953, shortly before the opening of “The Crucible”: “Nobody wants to be a hero. You go through life giving up parts of yourself – a hope, a dream n ambition, a belief, a liking, a piece of self-respect. But in every man there is something he annot give up and still remain himself – a core, an Selfhood, a thing that is summed up for him by he sound of his own name on his own ears. If he gives that up, he becomes a different man, no imself (Nelson, 1970: 169)”. hus, the play dramatizes how a social event can bring about significant changes in the self erception of an individual. Proctor has been happy to maintain a secluded way of living efore the outburst of the mass hysteria, his self- imposed isolation is reflected in his own words: I have trouble enough without I come five miles to hear him preach only hellfire and bloody amnation. Take it to heart, Mr. Parris. There are many others who stay away from church these ays because you hardly ever mention God any more. (Miller: 359)”. roctor’s loosening faith in religion as a way of discovering God is clearly reflected in he extract. Danforth’s statements stir this ‘secluded and private man’ from the slumber of his gnorance. Cusatis believes that: Consider the role of religion in the play. Miller reverses wha ight be regarded as the normal moral situation: traditionally, societies have turned to religious uthorities for guidance about moral Explorationions; but in “The Crucible” the religious uthorities are villainous, seeking to force people to act against their consciences to save hemselves—to sacrifice their souls to save their bodies in the name of fighting the devil” Cusatis, 2010: 155) t is also interesting to observe that what initiates Proctor’s search for Selfhood is not an ac f self-discovery per se, but the absurdity of the legal process, which forces him to realize hat he can no longer remain a detached observer of the witch hunt trials. If he has to save his ife, the only alternative left before him is to accuse Abigail of deliberately plotting his wife’ urder and while doing so, as a necessity Proctor has to expose his private life and the sense o uilt he harbors to the inquisition. However, here too Proctor feels deceived, since the cleve irl exploits the atmosphere of public hysteria to trap him. This situation brings the private life f Proctor in a public domain. In a sense, Proctor suffers from a double guilt. At first, he feels uilty for his adultery. Second, he experiences guilt for remaining detached, which has led him to he situation of the present impasse. The awareness of guilt, thus, is one of the vital stages in roctor’s search for Selfhood. This is unequivocally reflected when he cries out to anforth: A fire, a fire is burning! I hear the boot of Lucifer, I see his filthy face! And it is my face, nd yours Danforth! For them that quail to bring men out of ignorance, as I have quailed, and s you quail now when you know in all your black hearts that this be fraud – God damns our ind especially, and we will burn, we will burn together! (Miller: 393)” “The Crucible” successfully dramatizes Proctor’s Exploration for Selfhood. Like Newman and eller, Proctor is seen in the end committed to his social responsibility, though ironically he is ore isolated than he was before. The action of the play clearly indicates that Proctor has not ost his conscience and thus, he is not a betrayer. His final choice to die should not be seen as he inevitable remedy for the atonement of his guilt. He dies not so much out of guilt, as out of is public responsibility. The transformation of a private guilt into a social responsibility is the haracteristic feature of Proctor’s search for Selfhood. Proctor’s sense of responsibility is evealed in the following words: I have three children - How may I teach them to walk like men in the world, and I sold my riends? Beguile me not! I blacken all of them when this is nailed to the church the very day hey hang for silence (Miller: 401).” hus, Proctor’s death is not heroic; it is emblematic of his public ‘self’ and his strong sense of ocial responsibility. The play shows the subtle influence of social and psychological factors on he ‘self’ of an individual and how amidst a situation of social crisis, an individual is able to ttain self-awareness. John proctor is a self aware character who struggles to assert his Selfhood nd worth as an individual in the content of public terror and finds himself unexpectedly ndergoing a hard reassessment of ‘self’. Though clearly a respected man in the community, roctor’s moral code derives from his own conscience, not from the Reverend Mr. Parrri’s fire- nd brimstone sermons. Elizabeth is the image of a “cold wife”, who is responsible for rovoking her husband Proctor to indulge in adultery, which eventually takes him to the allows. Elizabeth’s self-awareness consists in her complete reversal of her attitude to er husband, which is accompanied by her guilt for being unemotional in marriage. In a ense, Elizabeth’s character is parallel to the character of Danforth. As Danforth is detached to the ssue of witches and the community, so is Elizabeth in relation to John and Abigail. Elizabeth s unable to judge her husband adequately, because like the judiciary, she too much relies on evidence”. It can also be argued here that, the character of Elizabeth intensifies the pervasive ffect of the irrationality of the judiciary, as Elizabeth sits in judgment over her husband’s guilt, hich is reflected in the following conversation: ROCTOR: I cannot speak but I am doubted, every moment judged for lies, as though I come into court when I come into this house. LIZABETH: John, you are not open with me. You saw her with a crowd, you said, (Miller 957: 369). Like Proctor, Elizabeth too undergoes a self-realization of guilt: I have read my own heart this three months, John. I have sins of my own to count. It needs a old wife to prompt lechery ……you take my sins upon your, John….. John, I counted myself so lain, so poorly made, no honest love could come to me! Suspicion kissed you when I did; I ever knew how I should say my love. It was a cold house I kept! (399).” lizabeth not only recognizes her guilt as a wife, but also her responsibility in leading Proctor to eek fulfillment of love through adultery. On realizing her responsibility in Proctor’s tragedy lizabeth’s search for self traces a trajectory similar to that followed by John Proctor, in imultaneously becoming aware of his own guilt and public responsibility. The self- wareness of Elizabeth is significant not only for herself, but also for Proctor, because lizabeth’s final speech, in which she proclaims Proctor’s goodness, becomes a triumphant note n his tragic death. Although the law does not recognize his goodness, his wife does, which ertainly makes Proctor’s death a triumph over the absurdity of the judicial process. There is a risis of ‘self’ in Danforth’s personality, which arises out of his firm conviction in the ighteousness of the cause he stands for and his honesty in carrying out his mission. Danforth’s ision of the world is a closed vision, as has been said by Miller in Nelson (1970: 163): In alem, these people regarded themselves as holders of a light. If this light were xtinguished, they believed, the world would end. When you have ideology, which feels itself so ure, it implies an extreme view of the world. Because they are white, opposition is ompletely black.
anforth’s character, thus, can be better understood in terms of the self-other paradigm. His ‘self
epresents the negation of the ‘other,’ not out of hatred, but due to his extreme confidence in the nfallibility of his self and the rawness, irrationality and profanity of the ‘other’. Danforth’s self mage suffers from the flaw of lopsided- ness and a rigid mindset. This obviously is the impact o is profession, which does not allow for any human and intuitive considerations. Truth, fo anforth, is not to be sought for itself, but as a by-product of the legal rocedure. Danforth becomes very vulnerable, quite paradoxical to criticism, because his ‘self’ s deeply rooted in the legal machinery. His appearance clearly reflects his ‘official self’. he following interrogation of Giles Corey reveals Danforth’s self-conscious character. ANFORTH: Who is this man? ILES: My name is Corey, Sir, Giles Corey. I have six hundred acres and timber in addition. It s my wife you be condemning now. ANFORTH: And how do you imagine to help her cause with such contemptuous riot? Now be one. Your old age alone keeps you out of jail for this. GILES: They be tellin’ lies about my wife, ir, I DANFORTH: Do you take it upon yourself to determine what this court shall believe and hat it shall set aside? GILES: Your Excellency, we mean no disrespect for- DANFORTH: isrespect indeed! This is disruption Mister. This is the highest court of the Supreme overnment of this province, do you know it? (Miller: 381).It is clear from the interrogation of iles that Danforth resists any critique of law and court, because his ‘self’ is located in the mpersonal law and the court, which executes the law. Any covert or overt criticism of the legal rocess is seen by him as an attack on his ‘self’. The problem of self-dramatization in the haracter of Danforth is the frigidity of one’s thought process. Danforth is reluctant to cknowledge the presence of any new knowledge other than the one he possesses. He does not ecognize the role of intuition in understanding the phenomena around oneself. In this sense, he resents a contrast to both Proctor and Elizabeth, who are able to think differently, in tune with he changed or changing circumstances. Danforth reflects the case of fusion of the self with his ission. Although Hale, who also was committed to the trials, rejects the trials, Danforth does ot. This is because Danforth associates the authenticity of the trials to the legitimacy of his self’, therefore, giving up the trials tantamount to the negation of his ‘self’. For Proctor and lizabeth the trials lead to successive self- realizations, which bring about a change in heir perception of the world and also in their relationship with each other. Different critics have iven different views on Proctor’s character. Walker (qtd.in Bloom, 1999: 114) believed that Proctor’s character is like a classic tragic hero whose tragic flaw is his illicit relationship ith Abigail”. Porter (qtd.in Bloom, 1999: 114) saw him “as an agrarian hero whose work ethic nd ties to the land elicit the sympathy of the audience”. Meserve (qtd.in Bloom, 999: 114)) viewed Proctor “as a character who is adamantly in conflict with the social system” ’ Neal added that Proctor’s forced involvement in events that he tries to remain aloof from leads o the personal crucible ― in which he discovers his essential ‘goodness’’ (qtd. in Bloom, 1999 14). Thus, Proctor’s development in the play takes the form of a journey to self-discovery lassically illustrating Carl Jung’s process of individuation. According to Jung’s theory in The rchetypes and the Collective Unconscious, each individual possesses certain archetypes mages of the repressed aspects of one’s personality. During the process of individuation, an ndividual moves from the superficial level of the persona, which is the mask shown no society, to he deepest, most inner archetype. In order to individuate successfully, a person must confron nd accept these archetypal images. Fordham (1987) pointed out that the uncon- scious ontains innumerable archetypes, but we can become somewhat familiar only with those which eem to have the greatest significance and most powerful influence on us). While the ontents of the unconscious are infinite, the most powerful archetypes confronted during ndividuation are the shadow, the anima/animus, the wise old man/earth mother, and the self. The irst of these four powerful archetypes, the shadow, represents the animal urges, civilized desires ncontrolled emo- tions, and other feelings that we repress because society does not accept them he second archetype, the anima/ animus portrays elements of the masculine personality. Third, the ise old man/earth mother figure represents wisdom from within. After confronting and ccepting these three images, the archetypal self unifies these dissimilar elements of the ersonality (49-62). Having accepted these repressed personality traits, the individualized erson can act not simply as `a surface persona, but as a complete individual reconciled to al spects of life. John Proctor individuates from the persona he shows to his society, through the rchetypes represented by other characters in the play, and finally to the self, a point reached when e decides to die an honourable death. Fordham (1987) explains the persona as ‘‘the mask worn y an individual to signify the role being played in society. The persona displays those traits xpected of a person in a certain position’’ (48). Proctor, a farmer and a land-owner, displays a trong, respectable persona. Miller describes him as having a ‘‘steady manner,’’ a ‘‘quite onfidence,’’ and an unexpressed, hidden force’’ (18). While the people of Salem look at Proctor as strong, hard-working, no-nonsense man, Proctor himself knows that he is an adulterer, a leche ith a crisis; however, will he leave the persona behind and begin the process of individuation. To put it differently, John Proctor has the essential characteristics of a literary mind. He is apable of imagination and playfulness, and as such people are always dangerous and disruptive lato would banish the poet from his public because of his imaginative power to arouse ou assions. The church forced Galileo to retract his revolutionary theory of the revolution of the eavens by merely exploiting his own imagination, as Bronowski (1967: 214-216) pointed out, ‘He as to be shown the instruments of torture as if they were to be used’. “With Galileo’s medica ackground, his imagination could do the rest. That was the object of the trial, to show men o magination that they were not immune from the process of primitive, animal fear that wa rreversible’’. Finally, Proctor is confronted with the ‘self’, that archetype that unifies all the thers, which ‘‘unites all the opposing elements in man and woman, consciousness and nconsciousness, good and bad, male and female’’ (Fordham, 1987: 62). For Proctor, the ‘self’ i epresented by the name, not just for himself, but also for others. O’ Neal (qtd.in Bloom, 1999 14) has explained name magic’’ as the name’s being more than a mere symbol of a person ctually the person. As Huftel (1965: 131) has asserted, ‘‘a man’s name is his conscience, hi mmortal soul, and without it there is no person left’’. Miller uses the character of Hale to blend he personal and the social concerns in the play. At a personal level, Hale exhibits the missionary eal, at the social level, he is able to view the whole tragedy emanating from the Salem hysteria rom the point of view of the general public and more notably, from the point of view of the ccused. Thus, Hale is both an insider and an outsider. His particular position in the play invites an nvestigation in terms of his search for Selfhood. On a larger scale, Miller brings together the orces of personal and social malfunction through the arrival of the Reverend John Hale, who ppears, appropriately, in the midst of a bitter quarrel among Proctor, Parris, and Thomas utnam over deeds and land boundaries. In terms of search for Selfhood, Hale represents a alance between Danforth and Proctor. While Danforth is too adamant to change his position on he issue, Hale is quick to dissociate himself from the inhuman legal process. He says, “ enounce these proceedings. I quit the court!” (Miller: 393). His openly denouncing the court is he most visible indicator of his achieving self-realiza- tion, though it was too late. In spite of hi issociation from the trials, Hale cannot be equated with Proctor, as has been expressed by Nelson 1970: 171):“Hale lives in the comprehension of his unworthiness; Proctor dies in the awarenes f his value.” Hale tries to retrieve his lost self by earnestly imploring Elizabeth to convince roctor to choose life, saying, “Quail not before God’s judgment in this, for it may well be God amns a liar less than he that throws his life away for pride” (398). This clearly reflects a rofound change in Hale’s ‘self’. However, his search for self does not lead either to his rising bove the guilt of siding with the wrong nor is he able to stand by a cause. Thompson (1976 ointed out that, Miller’s protagonists struggle within themselves to find out the reason of no aining a "rightful place". They are faced up with the Explorationions of blame, of mora ertitude as they painfully search their inner selves and outside forces for the answers to wha hedges" and "lowers" them, denying them "self-realization."
CONCLUSION
he study reveals the differential effects on the selves of the characters involved in the istorical moment of a social crisis. It also displays a complex interface of personal, social sychological, moral and political factors in the search for Selfhood. The choice of a istorical moment facilitates the exposition of Miller’s hypothesis about self, because the Salem istory simultaneously creates a distance and proximity of the audience to the subject matter of the lay. The emphasis in ‘The Crucible’ is on the external aspect of human behavior, on an ndividual’s actions, though it is true that ultimately these actions can be traced to be originating rom a particular inner being. The study displays Miller’s basic attempt who wants to show man truggling against the society of which he himself is a part. This is the most valid and fertile oul-soil of his dramaturgy. At one point Hogan (1964: 9) remarked, “The one thing a man ears most next to death is the loss of his good name. Man is evil in his own eyes, my friends orthless and the only way he finds respect for himself is by getting other people to say he is a nice ellow”. Finally, the study has tried to show the inevitability of public intrusion into private ‘self’, and has ttempted to highlight the Exploration for self-understanding in the play, which revolves round he protagonist’s efforts and his subsequent failure in maintaining a boundary between his private self’ and his public role. However, the life has to flow ahead with all its ups and downs, as oethe says, ‘the whole art of life consists in giving up our existence in order to exist’’ (Bishop, 2009: 171) he study reaches its conclusion by showing that, an individual under different unsatisfactory ircumstances starts having conflicts with his existing ‘self’’ and tries to search for a new Selfhood
REFERENCES
Bigsby CW E (1984). A Critical Introduction to Twentieth Century American Drama 2: Tennessee W illiams, Arthur Miller, Edward Albee. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, p. 200. Bigsby CW E (2005). Arthur Miller. A Critical Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 158. Bishop P (2009). Analytical Psychology and German Classical Aesthetics: Goethe, Schiller, and Jung Volume 2. The Constellation of the Self. London: Routlege, p. 171. Bloom H (1999). History, Myth, and Name Magic in Arthur Miller‘s The Crucible. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers, p. 144. Bronowski J (1967). The Common Sense of Science. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, pp. 214-216. Crawford M, Rossiter G (2006). Reasons for Living: Education and Young People‘s Search for Meaning, Selfhood and Spirituality. A handbook. Victoria: Acer Press, p. 8. Cusatis J (2010). Research Guide to American Literature, 1945-1970. New York: Infobase Publishing, p. 155. Fordham F (1987). An Introduction to Jung‘s Psychology. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, pp. 48-62. Ganguly K (2001). States of Exception: Everyday Life and Postcolonial Selfhood London: University of Minnesota Press, p. 145. Hogan R (1964).Arthur Miller. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota press, p. 9. Huftel S (1965).Arthur Miller: The Burning Glass. New York: Citadel Press. Martine James J., Ed. Critical Essays on Arthur Miller. Boston, p. 131. Jones J (1997). Prejudice and Racism (second edition). New York: McGraw-Hill. Miller A (1957). Arthur Miller’s Collected Plays with an Introduction. New York: The Viking Press, pp. 39-369. Miller A (1967).Arthur Miller‘s Collected Plays with an Introduction.New York:The Viking Press, pp. 18-401. Miller A (1976). Arthur Miller’s Collected Plays W ith an Introduction. New York: The Viking Press, p. 29. Nelson B (1970). Arthur Miller: Portrait of a Playwright. London: Peter Owen, pp. 153- 39 Tajfel H (1981). Social Selfhood and intergroup relations. London: Cambridge University Press. Thompson JJ (1976). "Self-Realization in the Major Plays of Arthur Miller." Ph. D Dissertation. U of Neberska-Lincoln.
