IndexJean-Marie Bonnet“Society against the individual in The Crucible by Arthur MillerRobert WarshowLiberal conscience in the CrucibleReflectionJean-Marie Bonnet“Society against. the individual in Arthur Miller's The CrucibleJean-Marie Bonnet's literary criticism, “Society versus the Individual in Arthur Miller's The Crucible” was published in February 1982. Bonnet focuses on two related poles in the work, discussing whether whether the primary conflict centers on self versus self or self versus society. In this way, Bonnet questions the emphasis that “individuals are purged separately so that the community as a whole can be preserved.” Instead, Bonnet questions whether the work is about “an individual's discovery of his true self or an entire community slipping out of hand.” In addition to his analysis, Bonnet criticizes the way Arthur Miller presents a clear thesis as he states that Miller himself is of no help as he makes two statements that are completely contradictory to each other. For example, in his Collected Plays, Arthur Miller writes: "The central impulse for the writing was not the social question at all, but the internal psychological question of guilt residing in Salem", however he continues to say, a few years later, in an interview with Richard I. Evans, "...the predominant emphasis in writing the play was on conflict between people rather than on conflict within someone." Bonnet still praises The Crucible as a “very successful work,” but comments that it “is not easily classifiable into traditional drama categories.” Subsequently, he puts forward an understandable and clear thesis that “The Crucible is a play about the individual and society is obvious if only because of the wide range of characters presented to the audience: they range from peasants and maids to ministers and officials of court. It is not possible to classify this play into a specific theme, so the arguments presented are mostly due to personal greed but can also be influenced by external social forces. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Examining the causes of all the problems residing in the town of Salem, Miller hypothesizes that each is caused by personal motivations rather than social forces. In The Crucible, Abigail Williams is easily described as a girl who has an “infinite ability to dissemble” (Miller 18). Abigail Williams begins her disposition as she acts out of jealousy for Elizabeth and lust for John Proctor. He accuses a number of citizens of being bewitched, which leads to public execution and this malignancy spreads and becomes a social phenomenon. Miller points out that “the overall tragedy can be seen as a magnification of petty and selfish quarrels caused by the individual's desires being restrained by the authoritarian state.” Examples of personal greed throughout the book are evident, but not limited, through: greed for the Putnams' land, a desire for revenge directed toward Martha Corey over a sick pig, the debate between the Proctors regarding lumber and to the estates, and Mrs. Putnam's "irascible bitterness" at having been able to keep only one of her many children alive. Bonnet takes note of how Miller uses language in the play, deeming it highly influential between characters where we see how language is used by one to manipulate another. Bonnet points out that "language is the demonic force of the play" and the characters are able to use it to directly or indirectly control the situation. Abigail uses language as she accuses innocent citizens of witchcraft to satisfy her owndesires and gain protection before being accused of being a liar and wins over not only the girls, but also Danforth and the entire community as we see how the social phenomenon, i.e. witchcraft, manifests itself in the community where personal greed is rooted. Bonnet reveals that "it is through [Abigail's] use of perverse language that she lights the fires of hysteria and maintains power over the group of deluded girls." Often, the language in the work is at odds with that of society's values, being theocratic with values ​​set on unity and honesty. Bonnet points out that "Proctor's speech is too frank and honest", almost deviating from what Salem's justice system is depicted in the play, and that "all communication (and understanding) between the individual and society through this half are blocked." Other characters, however, are still able to use language to, in a sense, manipulate circumstances in which their position is vulnerable. Citizens accused of witchcraft can save themselves if they confess to the accusation, but they are still subject to prosecution. Language plays a significant role in the show and in the community itself as it serves as a vehicle to control the flow of events, shifting the situation to suit one's protection. As Bonnet previously stated, the play cannot be easily classified within the traditional categories of drama and, in this sense, he concludes that "individuals who seek to assert their individuality are strangled by the web of social constraints". Robert Warshow The Liberal Conscience in The Crucible "The Liberal Conscience in The Crucible" is written by Robert Warshow in 1953. In his essay, Warshow harshly criticizes Arthur Miller's The Crucible, calling it "insubstantial and simplistic" as it connects the main ideas of the works in the real world, while also shedding light on both contemporary and historical American politics and philosophy. It goes deeper as it explores the consciousness upon which the trials are based and what motivated Miller to allegorize this or that with the real witch trials. Warshow advises us first how “we should not hold Mr. Miller responsible either for the inadequacies of his presentation of the Salem trials or for the many undeniable and important differences between those trials and the “witch trials” now taking place. " Regarding American tradition, Warshow questions whether this event in American history represents the true “cradle of Americanism” and asks where these witch trials belong in “tradition.” He gives us an idea of ​​how most Sometimes America manages historical moments and what comes from them, even going so far as, as I understand it, to criticize its own culture. Warshow admits that in trying to solve this problem, America is only divided between two paths: “the first is to consider the trials as a historical curiosity; a curiosity that by definition does not require any explanation” and the most usual: “assimilate them to the history of the progress of civil rights”. Salem were not political and had nothing to do with civil rights.” Warshow admits that in the process of categorizing historical moments in American history, one can only categorize the event in such a way that it benefits America and does not dirty it. the story. Warshow criticizes Miller for how he chooses to describe the characters and their motivations as "both plain and simple." After discovering the suspicious behavior the girls had engaged in in the forest, they were inclined to lie and "raise the accusation of witchcraft... to cover up their misbehavior." Reverend Samuel Parris chooses to ignore the truth, or rather toinvestigate witchcraft, as he finds it convenient to use the allegations as a scapegoat to “consolidate his shaky position in a parish that was murmuring against his “undemocratic” conduct in the church. .” Warshow carefully examines Miller's writing style as Miller conveys predictable, non-complex thinking to his characters. Warshow then describes how Miller easily transforms Proctor into the “everyman,” also painting him as a trope-like character: “Proctor falters a lot, can't understand what's going on, just wants to be alone with his wife and his farm, thinks to make a false confession, but ultimately dies for reasons he can't define but these are clearly good reasons, especially, it seems, he doesn't want to complicate others. Warshow takes aim at Miller as he explains and wonders why The Crucible appeal to the masses: “Mr. firm, one might almost say altruistic, Miller's rejection of complexity, the confident simplicity of his vision of human behavior, may be the main source of his ability to fascinate the educated public strangely depersonalized writer; one tries in vain to define his special quality, only to discover that perhaps it is not a quality at all, but something like a method, and a strangely bare method at that: his works are put together with the same precision and essentiality as empty as that skeleton of a house that made Death of a Salesman so wonderfully confusing. Warshow says The Crucible is being praised not because of how good a show it is, but because “we agree with Arthur Miller; he exposed brilliantly and courageously what was weighing on all our minds; finally someone had the courage to respond to Senator McCarthy. Although described as a literary classic, Warshow calls The Crucible not so much a masterpiece but rather a simplistic way to gain a brief understanding of what was, on American soil, a disturbing moment in history. Warshow believes that in the process of analyzing this work we have moved away from thinking about what is actually considered a respected work; we focus on the content and its symbolism rather than the complexity and richness of the writing. Warshow goes further, criticizing liberals and their values: “It is enough that someone said something, anything, to dispel for a couple of hours that indefinite but very real sense of frustration that oppresses these “liberals” – who believe in their deepest being that salvation comes from saying something, and yet they somehow find themselves without anything of much consequence to say. They say, of course, that Senator McCarthy has made it “impossible” to speak; but it can hardly be believed that they are satisfied with this explanation." Reflection "Society versus the individual in The Crucible" by Arthur Miller explains the conflicts that occur in the play which may have been influenced by the time period, social values , and personal motivations. Bonnet explores in depth the consequences that can arise from unstable societies founded only on immorality and lack of logic, providing examples of how the community of Salem acts on their own impulses of personal greed. Bonnet also touches on the stigmatization of "individuality" itself, emphasizing the fact that if an individual does not confess to the charges, he or she will be hanged. So, to explain, an individual, if accused, is given two options: confess and go to prison, or not confess and be executed. If one chooses the latter, he does not conform to the social values ​​expected of him, where these values ​​derive from theocratic society, causing the social structure to collapse. Bonnet explains that “such an adamant and rigid societyobviously implies that any form of individuality will be considered subversive and dangerous.” The show is set in the 17th century, which means women's rights are virtually non-existent; however, Bonnet presents an idea, very new to the way I have analyzed the play, that briefly touches on the character of Abigail. Bonnet states that “for women, like Abigail, witchcraft can be a way to assert their will and power in a male-centered and male-dominated system.” The work includes characters where women are mostly slaves and disempowered, but with Abigail we see how she is characterized by an "infinite ability to dissemble" and use her characteristic to assert power where it is rare for women to do so. Abigail uses her power to manipulate how the city should react and does so for personal reasons. And it goes further, influencing the way judges think, making them believe that witchcraft is real and how easily it resides in citizens, convincing them that the accusations are well founded, even persuading them that no investigation or logical thinking is necessary. . Abigail is a young woman without power and in which she is a servant of her family, but her character deviates from that of the norms since her character does not completely conform to what is expected of her, and this could be the only way she is able to assert her power considering the time when it is dominated by men. Towards the end of the play, John Proctor is given the choice of whether or not to admit to the accusation of being bewitched. Proctor admits this at first, but denies it the second time when he learns that his name will be visible to the entire city. Bonnet analyzes the topic of the word "name" and how it contributes to one of the main topics of the work, individuality, and the connection to that of values ​​in that time period. Bonnet explains that “the word “name” means at the same time something personal, but also something social, since it has a value as it distinguishes every individuality in society”. If Proctor had admitted the accusation, he would have confessed to a lie but would also have survived, however “this also underlines the victory of the social authorities over him”. Proctor is torn between choosing his own individuality and his own life. This also connects to Bonnet's thesis that characters' motivations are decided by themselves or if society has influence on their decisions. To summarize, Bonnet put into words what I understood throughout the entire work, a concept particular to one character but applicable to others: “individuals who seek to assert their individuality are strangled by the web of social constraint. The structure seems to indicate the personal victory of a character, who has come to an increased self-awareness and prefers to preserve his dignity rather than live in a society in which lying has reached the status of an institution". “Society versus the Individual in The Crucible” by Jean-Marie Bonnet and “The Liberal Conscience in The Crucible” by Robert Warshow, although they differ in main ideas and concepts, have some similarities in which they relate to the book giving a expansion and exploration of the themes of the work. Bonnet primarily explores individuality and the idea that the play is centered between self-versus-self and self-versus-identity conflicts, while Warshow nevertheless analyzes the inaccuracies and simplicity of the play, providing insight into how the characters' motivations and the results that arise from events are caused by the society in which one lives but also by personal motivations. Both authors point out how the accused innocent citizens suffered due to the community's inability to think logically and.”