Authority and Individual Freedom of Expression in An Enemy of the

Democracy is no longer free when subjected to intimidation and this creates concern when authority suppresses individual freedom of expression. In Arthur Miller’s adaptation of An Enemy of the People this was the issue at stake. He sought to concentrate on the language by making it more contemporary and he worked on the structure and ideas to bring out the political angle of the play clearly. Against the background of the McCarthy hysteria – Arthur Miller adapts Ibsen’s play An Enemy of the People as a mouthpiece by which his feelings about the political season at that time could be expressed.

Miller is a victim of the abuse of individual freedom of expression (Yannella 2011). In his adaptation from 1950, Miller points to the underlying problem of the society in which he lived in. What he sees as the central theme of the play

“--- the question of whether the democratic guarantees protecting political minorities ought to be set aside in time of crisis”(8) Miller continues:

“The play is concerned with the inviolability of objective truth. Or, put more dynamically, that those who attempts to warp the truth for ulterior purposes must inevitably become warped and corrupted themselves”(9).

Here the question of objective truth can be seen as the underlying factor of every democratic country but in a situation and environment where individuals feel their privileges and powers are being trampled on, where lies the truth? In other words, when freedom of speech is being suppressed how can one defend truth in the face of

democracy? And if people feel their individual privileges and powers are being suppressed then that is a danger to democracy. This danger to democracy can lead to distrust within society where people are not able to speak the truth and end up being corrupt.

For Miller the central character Dr. Stockman who was vilified by his town’s people for speaking the truth represents the liberal minded people of American who had been tagged

“un American,” as Bigsby puts it “[…] Stockman’s unpopular views strip him of his livelihood, a fate increasingly facing those in fifties America who were touched by the palsied hand of the House ‘un – American Activities Committee”(2005: 140). To Miller, the interest of adapting Ibsen’s play at that time was to bring out the political agenda of abuse of individual freedom of expression and how dangerous it was for a growing democratic country like America. Bigsby also points out that, “For Miller, then, the relevance of the play to America lay in its concern the pressure to conform” (2005: 142).

Bigsby acknowledges that, An Enemy of the People is “a play with multiple targets” and he further goes to explain what these targets are – “It is about corruption, but the

corruption here is to the body politic, […] and moderation is the fundamental tenets”

(2005:138). Diana Hoeveler in her article “Ibsen’s An Enemy of the People in America”

agrees with Bigsby and suggests that “the drama has persisted in popularity […] acts of aggression”(2007: 135). These interpretations argue, then, that An Enemy of the People can be used under different political ideologies because Ibsen’s text contains different political agendas. But the question here still remains – whether in the face of these political agendas’ democracy can still strive?

But as seen previously in the earlier chapter the pandemonium McCarthy created with his accusations, one can clearly say that it is dangerous for democracy to strive if people are subjected to a climate of fear; in other words, when people are made to live in a culture of silence. But one can also argue that in a society where there is absolute freedom of

speech and expression it can also endanger the power of those in authority as can be seen in An Enemy of the People – when Aslaksen cautions the Doctor to speak in moderation (Miller 65). But in a constituted democratic society, what does it mean to be moderate? I mean how can people choose what to say and when to say it when authority is a concern?

Wouldn’t that create a conflict between authority and individual freedom of expression?

In terms of structure and in seeking to bring out the political agenda at that time, Miller transformed the five acts of the original into three acts, but still kept to the plot of the original acts. According to Bigsby, Miller’s restructuring was “to shift the emphasis”

(2005:143). I believe in shifting the emphasis; Miller removes all references to suggest that certain individuals were better off than others in society due to their class.

In light of genocide, the holocaust that has swept our world on the wings of the black ideology of racism, it is inconceivable that Ibsen would insist today that certain individuals are by breeding, or race, or ‘innate” qualities superior to others or possessed the right to dictate to others. (Miller 10) In the same way, the dialogue in the last part of act 5 of Ibsen’s text “The strongest man is the one who stands most alone” is omitted, but instead “[…], remember now,

everybody. You are fighting for the truth, and that’s why you are alone. And that makes you strong.” (Miller 124). Nilu suggests that “this change plays down the importance of the egocentric aspect of Dr. Stockmann’s character. It is also in line with contemporary views on social change and does further give the end of the play a more optimistic and positive political flavor”(2007) which I believe as made Ibsen’s play more relevant to today’s audience as far as the issues of politics is concern.

In Act 2, scene 1 in Miller’s text; Dr. Stockmann’s character is exaggerated by Peter Stockmann with the aim of creating mistrust. Through this exaggeration, Peter is able to convince the newspaper editors to prevent Dr. Stockman’s article from being published:

It happens to be a fact. Plus another fact – you’ll forgive me for talking about facts in a newspaper office – […] that we live in a pesthole! (Miller 74)

Even though Hovstad tries to persuade Peter that Dr. Stockman’s article is based on science, Peter Stockman continues to speak badly about his brother:

This is based on vindictiveness, on his hatred of authority and nothing else. […]

understand it exactly so! (Miller 74)

As suggested by Nilu, “Peter Stockman’s attempt to create suspicion about Dr. Stockman corresponds to the suspicious atmosphere towards political dissidents during the

McCarthy period. This is still a relevant issue since the same kind of tactic is followed by authorities in many countries of the world today”(2007).

In Act one, scene two; Hovstad talked about how power belonged to just a few people who were bureaucrats and very authoritarian because they had power (Miller 44). He also talks about the ideology of idolized authority (Miller 49). This pronouncements from Hovstad, is a typical fascism style of Governance, where individuals are made to submit totally to the state and are made to idolize authority. During the McCarthy period this was the situation, McCarthy was against the idea of any one speaking against the government and saw these decisions as “un American” McCarthy uses the word “un American

activities”, which in a sense is referring to the state or the nation. Here, the “un American activities” is being used to refer to the insubordination of individuals to the state. With the fascist, they believed in an authoritarian hierarchical government and saw any individual with opposing views as a threat to its rule and did forcefully eliminate those people by removing them from the positions they occupied within society and that was what McCarthy period was all about, he blacklisted anyone he considered a communist.

I believe McCarthy used the word communist here because that was the precedent threat in the world at that time, but his approach and vindictiveness was very much a fascist style. Again what I consider very fascist in McCarthy’s time, was the total subordination of individuals to the state and the suppression of individual freedom of expression, In Miller’s Adaptation, Peter Stockmann an official of the state, believed that without moral authority there can be no government, this goes to confirm how he used his authority to influence the media to revoke his brother’s decision of publishing what he considered a threat to the health of the citizens in the Norwegian town.

To Senator McCarthy anyone in America who had a different opinion from that of the Government was considered “un American” and in the public meeting scene the focus was Dr. Stockmann’s anti liberal ideas where he was seen as opposing those in authority and the community.

In a similar situation the Mayor offers a reason for “stifling freedom of speech which is not in the original and perhaps says more for America in the 1950s than Norway in the 1880s […]” (Bigsby 2005: 143), - this can be seen as the power those in authority exempts and still do now - which was the conflict between authority and freedom of expression in America at that time and yet still the conflict between authority and freedom of expression still goes on in some parts of the world. “…after all we are a Democratic country. Now, God knows, in ordinary times I’d agree a hundred percent with anybody’s right to say anything. But these are not ordinary times. […] broke down all authority and left only revolution and chaos” (Miller, 89). Thomas P Adler further expands this point, he believes the “most significant given the Political climate; […] in the name of preserving security and avoiding revolution”(87). But in looking at

Democracy, must the adoption of totalitarianism, communism and fascism methods be a way out to resolve revolution?