Block 2B: Crucible Group Analyses

10/23/2015

So like we discussed at the end of class, one member of each group should post a tentative thesis statement (even if it isn't yet compacted into one sentence - and by the way, it's not against the law to have a two-sentence thesis in a more extensive analysis like this). Add roughly a paragraph of context explaining where you're going with this.

A few things to consider:
-You'll need some kind of opening example, which could serve as an opening for your essay too
-Presentations must be 10-15 minutes.

I urge you to share as much information as you can - you can describe the thought process that led up to your idea, quote relevant examples from The Crucible or other texts (including the Bible), share concepts from the literary theories/lenses that you're using, and so on. Remember, this counts as a goup quiz raid (35 pts)

By Monday, everyone must comment on a different group's post, offering some kind of opinion or suggestion. That will count for a classwork grade (15 pts), which is one of the last grades of the marking period!

If you're wondering what the others are:
-There will be a quiz on Act II of the play next week,
-There will be a take-home test (50 pts) to complete over next weekend (apply two different lenses to three poems chosen from a list and outline two paragraph-length analyses - this would have been last week but I wanted to get to The Crucible so I decided on the take-home thing, which is probably easier anyhow).
-We will read through next week into the short one after, and after the short break, you will deliver your presentations. These are worth 100 points, and they provide an excellent opportunity to demonstrate and integrate your critical thinking and close reading skills, as well as your new-found content knowledge in literary theory (psychoanalysis, postcolonialism, etc.) If you wish, you can do your presentation in the form of a video or critical article that classmates watch/read outside class - don't worry. I won't assign any extra work on any night students are assigned a classmates presentations as HW.

As for your Crucible essays, in which member of the group will develop their own specific thesis on the general ideas in the presentation, this will be our first MP2 activity.

35 Comments

Willow Martin

10/25/2015 12:19:29 pm

Psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan conceptualizes the psyche as a binding knot “tied” by stifling social conventions, causing an endless conflict between Salem's Puritan society in Arthur Miller's Crucible explains the people's struggle to validate their imagined holiness, which they will go to any extent to defend.

In his reworking of Freud's psychological theory, Lacan describes the the three orders of the mind: the Real (id), the Imaginary (imaginary), and the Symbolic (superego). According to him, when humans are born, we are pure id, and have no sense of self as being a separate entity, only a bundle of natural drives. As we begin to develop and see ourselves in the mirror, we realize we are individual bodies, detached from the world around us. However, this sense of self often transforms into a narcissistic obsession, as we strive to realize this impossible, idealized self-image. Finally, as we begin to understand language and society, the Symbolic develops, causing us to conform to the law and attempt to translate our genuine desires to others through artificial vessels of communication (words).

This parallels the mental complex of individuals in Miller’s version of Salem. As people in Puritan society develop their Imaginaries, their senses of self-worth and self-divinity continue to preside as their Symbolic develops. Attempting to maintain their self-perception of being extraordinary, holy, the Puritans created a religion in which certain people are believed to have been chosen to be saved. This idea of predestination provides these “chosen” individuals with a sense of superiority over the damned sinners of the world. They continue to feel special and important, for their society has cultivated their narcissism, their Imaginary. However, the Imaginary, appropriately named as such, is devoid of truth. Humans in reality are not more divine or above others simply because they were selected (for essentially no reason) by God. This belief is astoundingly illogical, but it also fuels the Puritan’s self-admiration. So they continue to forces themselves to believe it, ignoring the myriad holes in their argument, and sacrificing others in order to protect their false images of themselves. Abigail, for example, accuses Tituba of forcing her to “laugh at prayer” and sundry other sins, claiming that she is a witch (Miller 44). However, these accusations are lies, meant to conceal Abigail's sinful actions by making it seem like she was bewitched, and thus did not commit the misdemeanors herself.

The inhabitants of Salem scapegoat citizens with less societal influence than them to excuse themselves from their own sins, and keep their reputations pure. In such hateful, violent actions, they’ve mangled the very thing their society was built upon: religion, specifically that of Christ. Puritans invert the teachings of Jesus, a man who preached peace, so that instead of helping the sinners who have lost their way, they purge and execute mercilessly. They obsess with damnation, rather than salvation, and tear others down in order to quell their own fears of going to Hell. But as evidenced by the historical overall collapse of Puritanism, with such a damaged and twisted foundation, the town of Salem will self-destruct and fall as a result of this scapegoating-craze.

Sydney Gannon

10/25/2015 06:33:40 pm

I agree with Willow's statement on the parts of the mind of a Puritan and how their religion comes into play with it. As the other parts of the mind (the imaginary and the symbolic) start to develop the id is pushed further and further down into the mind. That id is the part that I think comes out most in the so-called "witches." It could be considered the devil from their religious standpoint. The "good" Puritans don't show their id as much as the people being accused of witchcraft so they see that as a totally different thing in their community.

Erin Ostrowski

10/25/2015 08:41:22 pm

The part of Willow's statement that I really connect to is the last paragraph. I reflected on the fact that people push aside their own sins to blame others. In her example, the Puritans took the teachings of Jesus but omitted the parts that would make them look inward upon their sins so puritanism is built on a modified truth. The leaders of the society decided that they were chosen by God to be above everyone else and those were not the teachings of Jesus. He wanted everyone to be equal and everyone has the chance to prove themselves to God for salvation. In my response, I also mentioned the scapegoats and I agree on the fact that it will be an endless cycle that is so intense in this society, that is collapses. The Salem society was dealing with too many issues that they needed scapegoats for, thus destroying their society from within.

hannah daitz

10/25/2015 12:31:43 pm

In Willow’s analysis I agree with the fact that scapegoating causes the Puritans to self-destruct. I also think that scapegoating causes the society to go in circle rather then moving forward. If they keep blaming different groups of people, no progress is made nor can a logical explanation be presented. When Abigail is first accused of witchcraft she blames Tituba. Tituba then piles blame on Goody Goody. This keeps pushing blame to someone else until everyone is considered a witch. These actions of scapegoating are what start the domino effect of witch hunts in Salem.

Biggs

10/25/2015 06:06:04 pm

It's almost like with a society based on scapegoating, moving in a circle (no progression) is the BEST you can do; self-destruction will eventually take over, simply because it's not sustainable to be constantly stoking fear and hysteria to bring people together against a scapegoat. The question is, what can save us from this self-destructive cycle?

Ash Riegler

10/25/2015 04:01:13 pm

I'd like to include, along with all Willow had said which was nicely worded, on the point that the Purtians are acting as a complete opposite to what their religion actually is. As Willow has written, they are inverting such teachings and twisting them to justify their own actions. In the bible there comes the line where Jesus is quoted as saying, "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (Luke 5:32). So what stood out to me, and this is just a thought, is the idea that Jesus is calling to the sinners and so all these righteous people saying Jesus had chosen them, are they not the sinners? That might have been a bit confusing so allow me to clarify my words, since Jesus has come for the sinners then perhaps everyone who claims they have been chosen are actually the sinners but they simply seem to think they are righteous. For example, when it comes to the Puritans. They claim to be righteous but they go on to commit horrible sins. So perhaps they were the sinners from the beginning, simply convinced they were righteous.

10/25/2015 05:21:44 pm

I don't know. That sounds like witch-talk to me.

Griffin Cole

10/25/2015 06:48:30 pm

I think all of what you are saying is true except for the fact that these men still believe they are doing the right things in life. They feel like condemning the "damned" they will be though of as righteous instead of sinful. Also the fact of Jesus choosing them, shows how they might have been possible sinners but purified their lives and continue as "chosen men of god" to spread their purified life to their fellow members. These are all just my thoughts but I feel like the Puritans have their own very strong interpretation of the Bible- as many religions do- and see the things they are doing as a purification of themselves for Jesus.

10/26/2015 02:41:30 pm

This would definitely sound like witch-talk to the puritans, but it's a great point. Shouldn't they in some sense embrace their identity as sinners if that's who Jesus has "come to call"? It's actually their attempt to deny their own sins (think Abigail, but the society in general as well) that leads them to commit the REALLY horrible ones! Do we need to accept our own sinfulness (i.e., imperfections?)

10/27/2015 03:54:40 pm

I believe we need to acknowledge and accept our past sins, but still be wary of letting this acceptance transform into passivity. Instead of denying the occurrence of our wrong doings, like the Puritans in the Crucible do, we must carry them with us. However, remembering our mistakes does not have to be the burden that the Puritans, along with many people today, make it out to be. The Puritans regarded sin as evidence of permanent flaws within you that you (without God's Grace) can never fix. Therefore, when someone commits a sin, they believe this to be concrete evidence that said person is condemned to Hell for eternity. The Puritans refuse to acknowledge free will, and thus humans' ability to better themselves and learn from their failures. The Puritans then, fearing this incredibly illogical theory to be true, attempt to hide their sins from others and themselves, so that they may continue to believe they have been chosen, that they are indeed holy. However, the denial of one's past only leads to one repeating their mistakes. Therefore, we must all strive to remember our sins, but look at them like lessons, tools with which we may mold our extremely changeable futures.

10/27/2015 04:23:51 pm

I think that as a whole all would benefit from an acceptance of sins we have committed but if such a thing comes to be, then what would come after? In society we are always striving towards an ending we can never reach and the sins or wrongdoings we commit along the way keep us going, keep our morals in check. But if we wind up accepting all our mistakes is that sort of like us saying they are right? I'm not sure if my words are making sense, I can't quite formulate the idea fully. But I'm trying to get across this idea that accepting sins would change the life of a group, such as the Puritans. If all of the girls had spoken up on their mistakes, none of this would have happened. No trials, no hangings, so then would the Puritans search out another way to commit sin?

10/25/2015 06:28:45 pm

In Arthur Miller’s, "The Crucible", all women are defined as Eve’s meaning they can be consumed by sin much more often than men. Their main purpose in life is childbirth and children are born sinful, thus while inside the woman, children remove part of God’s grace from her.

Feminism is the advocacy of women’s equality and this equality was scarcely thought upon in the 17th century. In the New England colonies, Puritanism was the dominant religion as they escaped persecution from England. Naturally, feminism and theology are main ideals of this time period. The story of Adam and Eve in the Bible explains how the first humans were given paradise but Eve ate fruit from the only forbidden tree and God took away their paradise. Eve was then seen as susceptible to sin. Because of this biblical story, the Puritan society looked upon women as “Eves” and saw them as consumed by the devil when something bad happens. In our thesis statement we mentioned how the main purpose for women is to bear children. Before Baptism, children are consumed by original sin, the sin brought upon them by Adam and Eve’s wrongdoing. Thus, when they are still inside the mother, they are full of sin and the Puritans thought the mother inherits some of that sin. All of the "devilish" events were blamed on women because of this ideal. Their society says that man is too pure to be conjuring the devil so the devil must target lower class women whom everyone looks down upon. Finally, an example from the play is when Tituba and Abigail began naming random women for working with the devil so they would not be blamed. It is an endless cycle of scapegoating one another to save themselves. In conclusion, our essays would expand upon the ideas of feminism in the play and how the theology of the time period influenced that in order to explain our main point: there is no true reason that women should be looked at as “The Other” because they are not Eve and the other accusations caused women to be scapegoats based on no facts.

I would also like to look upon the idea of the scapegoats that I mentioned in the previous paragraph. As humans, we have a very difficult time accepting that we are at fault sometimes and other people take violent actions to blame other people for things. In the case of Salem, the males were nervous that they weren't going to get into Heaven, so they blamed women for bringing the devil upon them. Then, the women didn't want to be punished for this outrageous accusation, so they blame other women who are below them. In society, everyone just blames everyone else until they get to a person who has no one else to blame. Once this person is punished, everything is okay again until something else happens and the cycle repeats. Every social situation has this hierarchy of scapegoats and we can't live without it in order to feed our need to blame someone else. Scapegoats are rooted in the ideals of feminism and theology because someone needs to be below man, who obtained the top seat in the hierarchy. The only person who never blamed anyone was Jesus yet he became the scapegoat for exactly that reason. This idea also helped bring us to our thesis on how women are blamed much more often than men because without this hierarchy, the society could not be put at ease in conflicts. We added in the theological ideas of the time period and it brought us to how women were the ultimate scapegoat of that time.

Trey Soya

10/25/2015 07:32:55 pm

I agree that many of the Puritan women were the scapegoats for the society. If there was ever a problem, it would be blamed on the women. The men treat the women as the "other" and blame them. I also agree with what Mr. Biggs and Hannah said up top. Scapegoating is a vicious cycle and gets society nowhere. I would like to know what would happen to the Puritans if they stopped using women as scapegoats, would their society move forward, or would they find another "other" group like to the Native Americans to blame.

10/26/2015 02:38:29 pm

Great stuff! Here's a link you might find useful - it's a feminist analysis of how "the story of Eve has provided men with the reason why they should restrain and restrict women's social, sexual, religious, political, and economic freedom" by claiming "all women are like Eve, and their only chance of redemption is to fulfill a "patriarchal fantasy" of "absolute obedience and purity."

http://witcombe.sbc.edu/eve-women/1evewomen.html

And here's a link that summarizes the Scapegoat theory of Rene Girard, which ties into your argument about Jesus as well:
http://180rule.com/rene-girards-mimetic-theory-the-scapegoat/

Finally, the story of Jesus saving the adulterous woman from being stoned to death might be useful for your presentation, since it applies the anti-scapegoating ethic directly to women's role in society. http://biblehub.com/kjv/john/8.htm

Olivia Barkey

10/27/2015 03:04:13 pm

I agree with what Erin and Trey said. I think that women being used as a was absolutely common in that time. I believe that women we so degraded in that time and if any problems occurred, it was the fault of a woman. Even if you take a look at the bible a woman is blamed. Not to offend any religious or personal beliefs, but maybe Adam took the fruit first and not Eve. Remember when the bible was written, a was a male-dominated world. Fast forward to today and women are still facing oppression.

Keira Albano

10/27/2015 03:08:14 pm

I really find this thesis interesting and totally agree with it. In my groups thesis we said that puritans are continually scapegoating in order to feel better about themselves, and also feeling like they would be able to get a spot into heaven. Looking at it in a feminist way the men are scapegoating women thinking they are the only ones doing witch craft (besides the two men and 1 dog) because of the Eve in them which your group has brought up.

Olivia Smelas

10/27/2015 04:22:17 pm

I love the connections you made between Puritan women and Eve, you took it further than the obvious by bringing the factor of children (pure id) into it, which I hadn't really thought of. Going along with that, I was wondering if you guys had anything to support the correlations between devilish women and id controlled babies... What if the woman wasn't pregnant? Most of the accused women were not. Are you saying it is a woman's simple ability to bear children that brings out her devilish id? I think you guys should just include one sentence addressing this, just to clarify what you mean. You could also explore one of the many hypocrisies surrounding this, if all children are born with original sin, is there some stage of life in which males shed this original sin? Just something to think about... I totally agree with what you are saying about scapegoating and I think this is a really strong thesis statement.

Kelly Farley

10/27/2015 04:50:52 pm

I agree with the points that Erin made. Tituba is very smart when she names Goody Osborn and Sarah Good as the people she "saw" in her dreams with the devil. She knows that the only way she will get out of being blamed is to make everyone believe her. Of course everyone will be on her side if she named girls which were seen as "the other". Women are seen as eve, who was a sinner, therefore, the other townspeople are going to believe Tituba's accusations. Also, I liked how you talked about everyone in the puritan society blaming the person who is below them until that person has no one else to blame. It reminded me of when we talked in class about how people push other down because they believe it is the only way to rise to power. The puritan society is kind of like this. They all use other people as scapegoats to push them down, making everyone believe that they are powerful. I found it interesting what Trey said about what would happen if the Puritans stopped treating women as "the other". I think that they would just find someone else to make the other, otherwise their society would not be able to survive without someone to blame and make themselves look like the chosen ones.

Olivia Jordan

10/27/2015 07:09:20 pm

This is an excellent explanation of women being view as the “scapegoat” within Puritan society. I love how you tied in the Puritan’s twisted theological interpretations with feminine oppression during this time. Ever since Adam and Eve, women have been considered the “other” of every society, being that men were created first. But who’s to say that men cannot be the “other”, putting women at the top of the scapegoat-appointing pyramid. In no way am is saying that any gender should be oppressed, I’m just questioning why after how far women have come, we still are not equal to men. As you said, Jesus never blamed anyone for anything, as a male. Why couldn’t the puritans actually follow the correct interpretation of Christianity and use Jesus as a model of how to act towards their surrounding community?

Alexis Disbrow

11/1/2015 12:00:31 pm

I agree and really like this because women were often considered to be the scapegoats because they were easier to accuse. All women were seen as Eves (as Erin said) so when anything bad would happen they would say that the women were associated with the devil and were witches because it was easier for the devil to get to them, based on their interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve.

Will, Luke, Ford, and Trey

10/25/2015 07:21:31 pm

In Arthur Miller’s rousing play “The Crucible” strict principles of Puritanism provoke young woman's’ inner desires to erupt in a chaotic fashion. The superego is the strict laws the society follows. These laws oppress and confine the ID. The Ego tends to follow the Superego, but because the ID was restricted so much, the Ego became annoyed with the Superego and sided with the ID. The ID then just blew up all at once. This occurring creates jouissance, which means the ID is in complete control and is free to do whatever they desire. Jouissance was created when the young ladies were dancing in the woods, and when Abigail was drinking blood and trying to do witchcraft. The girls did all these things because the Superego controlled them so much and they just wanted to be free. The more the Superego overpowers the ID, the more the ID wants to break out. To make it simpler to comprehend, imagine trying to cram a bunch of clothes into a suitcase. You are the Superego, the suitcase is the Ego, and the clothes are the ID. The superego tries to push down and control the Ego, but the Ego cannot handle the pressure. The Ego then goes against the Superego, and the suitcase explodes with the clothes (ID). Towards the end of Act I, Abigail starts let the ID control her and create jouissance when she states, “I want to open myself! . . . I want the light of God, I want the sweet love of Jesus! I danced for the Devil; I saw him, I wrote in his book; I go back to Jesus; I kiss His hand. I saw Sarah Good with the Devil! I saw Goody Osburn with the Devil! I saw Bridget Bishop with the Devil!”(Miller 48) Abigail lies about desiring the Superego and admits she was (and still is) controlled by the ID. She then just let the ID out when she screamed and accused other women being with the Devil. The Superego’s authority must be restrained from overwhelming the ID to avoid much madness.

10/26/2015 03:53:05 am

I agree with this interpretation of the text. I especially like the analogy you guys tied into the paragraph. It's interesting to view the Superego as closing yourself up (like a suitcase) and the ID as opening yourself up (sometimes with the violence of explosion). As we look at that, we can see a contrast between this view of the ID and superego and the Puritan's view of the ID and superego. They viewed the Superego, according to your quote, as opening one's self to God, and the giving into the ID is turning your back on Him, closing yourself to God's Grace. However, I believe the interpretation of the ID being confined by the superego is correct. It's is evident as Puritan children are gradually roped in by society's strict law, or as the girls dance wildly in the forrest. Our IDs, especially when so strictly limited, yearn to break free. Our superego's prevent them from doing so. Whether such prevention is always a "good thing" is debatable.

10/26/2015 02:27:44 pm

This is really cool so far. I have a couple ideas that might help you guys develop it a bit more:

1. Jouissance is more the extreme enjoyment they're pursuing (the naked party vibe in the woods); the total breakdown of the superego that comes from them all setting free their ID in that moment of excess enjoyment is a byproduct of that - you guys can actually come up with your own term for the collapse of the superego and reign of the Id that follows the girls' indulgence in the obscene/immoral jouissance of lying to gain power.

2. Lacan, Freud's successor who developed the idea of jouissance, said it was a universal desire - we all want to indulge the ID and find that supposed fulfillment that would come with it. He links this to the idea of LACK, which he thinks is universal (we all have a sense of lack because like Prufrock, thanks to language in society, "it is impossible to say just what I mean"!). So you guys might think of the idea of lack, what the Puritans are missing in their lives and in their sense of self that causes the girls to go off the deep end in pursuit of enjoyment, power, pleasure, etc. And conversely, what kind of lack does the Puritan religion fulfill for people like Parris and Hale?

3. The Superego's authority must be restrained" to prevent it from "overwhelming the ID" and triggering this hysterical collapse of order. But, who can restrain the Superego, since the Superego is whatever rules and forces of law do the restraining in a particular society? Obviously the solution that men like Thomas Jefferson will put in our constitution is separation/limitation of Government powers, but even that depends on people in power to uphold that constitution. is there no solution to the problem you identify here?

Hannah Daitz

10/26/2015 03:23:16 pm

In Arthur Miller’s play “The Crucible”, reoccurring symbolizes are noticed throughout the play in our structuralism and post-colonial lens. The symbol of the “other” is always appearing in the Salem and in puritanism as a whole. First the Puritans pushed out anyone and everyone who did not believe in G-d the same way they did. Then once that “other” was eliminated a new flaw in society appeared. To solve this they looked at anyone who did not worship G-d in the perfectly proper way and accused them of talking to the Devil. In their society they always need an “other” to put blame on when something goes wrong. The society will jump to ridiculous conclusions to find someone to scapegoat. At the begging Abigail makes herself the “other” when she tries witchcraft and drinks animal blood. But when Abigail will get punished for her “otherness” she points blame onto others so people will continue to trust and respect her.
Another important symbol is the love triangle between John Proctor, Elizabeth Proctor and Abigail. Abigail strives for a sense of belonging and worth that Elizabeth has from Proctor. She goes to extensive lengths to prove Elizabeth of witchcraft just to eliminate her so she can have Proctor’s love and attention. Our main view and the start of our thesis is that Puritans ignore all of the flaws in their society and repeatedly blame issues on scapegoats to feel more powerful over people. This can be seen through Abigail’s fight for John Proctor.

10/27/2015 02:52:37 pm

I hate to be that guy, but "reoccuring symbols ARE NOTICED" is passive voice - it uses a linking verb and has no subject (noticed by WHOM?). And also, it's just spelled "recurring" for some reason - stupid English language!

Anyway, I would look at the "signs" that get someone represented by the symbol of WITCH (which is their version of 'The Other'). What kind of things do they INTERPRET as

The love triangle wouldn't be a symbol, since it doesn't "represent" something else. It's just a "structure." But your lens is structuralist, so that's cool too - just be precise as possible with terms.

There's a cool thread here: a flaw (usually a conflict) emerges in the society; to avoid facing it, they sacrifice a scapegoat to end the conflict. And throughout, they rely on a bizarre system of symbols/signs (like, what "shows" you're "truly" a witch, or "truly" destinted for a place in Heaven among God's Elect) to guide them in this destructive practice. People like Abigail, Hale, Danforth all gain power by presenting themselves as excellent interpreters of these signs, so their power comes from that secret "knowledge" of the devil's machinations.

Also - are there OTHER triangles in the play? There are, not with love but other kinds of desires. To name two, Putnam is constantly fighting with Giles, Proctor, George Jacobs and others over the same land. And Abigail and Danforth both want the top spot in the hierarchy. There is a lot of that imitative desire in the play - I recommend using Rene Girard as a theoretical source.

Shelley Banfield

10/27/2015 04:08:08 pm

Thesis statement: In the Puritan's attempt to avoid an imperfect society in Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" they create and 'other' to immediately blame once conflict arises.

As Hannah said, without the 'other', Puritans cannot function for very long. The Puritans become increasingly violent and irrational attempting to rid of the other in their newfound, seemingly perfect society. They highly resemble the city in Omelas in the way they have to physically hurt another (group in this case) to maintain peace. After kicking out non-puritans, they decide to hunt down every 'witch' within their society. I also believe the lies Abigail tells are becoming a bit insane although people believe them. These lies and stories are examples of the extremes people will go to in order to create an 'other' so a scapegoat can exist. I agree with this interpretation.

Melissa Velazquez

10/27/2015 05:21:33 pm

I agree with Shelly's group thesis. In "The Crucible" the people get power but putting other people below them. The people are the "other" because without those other people there would be no one to be greater then. The women all told lies to save themselves and seem like the poor one that needed to be saved. Abigail threatens to harm anyone who spills about her actions that night. The Puritans get violent and do the complete opposite of their beliefs

10/27/2015 04:28:21 pm

Just to sort of play devils advocate in a sense, I would like to propose a thought. If a society existed without an Other, would it be as efficient as it once was. Yes, granted bad things happen when we place the blame on another group, especially when they are innocent. But if the Puritans didn't have this 'Other', then their society would collapse in on itself. If the girls admitted to their wrongdoings, it would set the balance of their lifestyle off. To them, the idea of a good, innocent, or 'white' as used in the context person committing such sins is unthinkable. The only way they can continue their life is by furthering such ideas as the person beneath them is in the wrong. Because they can not accept that they are the wrong ones.

10/27/2015 06:35:00 pm

Definitely agree with what you are saying about the "other"(Witch). Anyone different in the Puritan society, or someone who wouldn't follow social norms was considered evil and part as the "other" group. Always using them as a scapegoat for the society's problems.

Griffin, Olivia B, and Ariana

10/26/2015 03:39:50 pm

1. In the Crucible, many of the women used the witch trials to accuse other innocent citizens in the village. This caused the women to give into their earthly desires, or giving into their Eve, even though other good, Christian women did not want to be viewed like that- like Elizabeth Proctor.

2. In The Crucible, by Arthur Miller, the plot of the story strongly represents a version of how the Puritans indirectly started the form of capitalism and Social Darwinism, and how they incorporated them into their village.

The first these we decided on, wants to express the idea of how many of the women that were strict Christians did not give into temptations easily and wanted to be treated just like the men at church; not be shouted at and treated like they were all sinners. Some of the women however, cause the stereotype to occur by giving into jealousy and violence and forgetting their role in society and church. This causes the other men and women to see them as stupid as Eve and, in harsh conditions, a minion to Lucifer. The girls, like Abigail and her friends, give into their jealousy and forget all about their beliefs; much like how Lucifer would enslave the minds of innocent humans to make them his. What throws the men off in The Crucible, however, is how the girls say they were minions to the Devil even though they were not. They once again give into the earthly temptation of lying and falling further into Lucifer's trap. This would lead into our second thesis.

In our second thesis, we link the past to the late 18th century. In the 1870's the theory of Social Darwinsim (the idea of survival of the fittest in a human society through gain of financial, social, or political power) started to emerge. As well as Capitalism, an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. These both can be incorporated into The Crucible because the girls throw each other under the bus repeatedly in the story, just so they can get their own way- thus "survival of the fittest". Also, the capitalism part comes in when the citizens just believe what the Reverends and Ministers say; if you're a witch, you're a witch...simple as that. Both of these theories could and will easily cause the downfall of the village due to miscommunication and pure insanity.

Luke Devine

10/27/2015 08:36:19 am

I party agree with the second thesis statement that you guys have created. The idea of "survival of the fittest" can be tied into the psychoanalytic lens. The ID craves the improvement of one's position in any aspect of life, which the girls are doing, however they are trying to control everyone in the society. The part of the thesis that I disagree with however, is the idea that capitalism represents something forced upon an individual. Capitalism is an open market, where private companies control trade. Fascism would represent the idea better, as a dictator forces all of his or her laws upon the people.

10/27/2015 10:54:51 am

This is an interesting question, but I think any system can be forced on a person. Fascism is by definition a system of force, but that doesn't mean capitalism is automatically an open market for all of society. For example, in Bolivia, private corporations took control of the water supply and forced people to pay for water that had always been free. And what about the distribution of money and property? If people could vote, do you think most people would want the best stretches of the jersey shore to be privately owned by extremely high-cost clubs? Finally, don't private companies have bosses and shareholders who dictate to workers what they must do (which they have to obey in order to eat, since those companies control who gets a job)?

Of course, my point isn't to defend or attack any system. It's simply that we tend to think whatever system we're used to is "natural" and "free," but in reality ALL systems depend on force in some way. What matters is how hierarchical a system is: in other words, who makes decisions? The few, or the many? In this society, Capitalism and Theocracy are combined, so the rich (Putnam) and the religious leaders (Hale, Danforth) decide on the laws...

Ford Zacks

10/27/2015 05:45:58 pm

Regarding your first thesis, I agree (and love) the idea that the girls outburst of ID is an allusion to the Bible. It is a very interesting perspective. I do have one disagreement. I would not say that the men are thrown off by the women. I would say that the men have thrown off themselves. If you look at the events in the village, the men are the ones that are forcing the girls to make fake confessions and blame others. The men don’t take “I’m not a witch” for an answer. Clearly the girls are taking advantage of this, but the wheels were set in motion by the men, not the women. As for the second thesis, I would have to agree with Luke that the village is leaning more towards a dictatorship like structure. The Puritans did not separate the church from the state. This means that all of their laws came straight from their worship. Now, who is the head of the church? It is Reverend Parris. He has total control over everyone because he leads the church. Yes, the Putnams, being wealthy, have more power than others, but in the end, Parris makes the decisions. I will give it to Mr. Biggs, there is a slight hierarchy, but I think it is just there to comfort the people in the village. People may think they have influence, but the church still overpowers everything.

Will Spencer

10/27/2015 06:00:26 pm

I really do like your second thesis statement, and I can reflect, as well as ask a few questions of my own. While reading Luke's statement, I can really develop my understanding of this topic. I want to bring up what Luke said about fascism, and how it relates to this. To my understanding, fascism is a far right type of totalitarian government, where there is a dictator. The dictator has complete control over absolutely everything, and his followers better go with what he's saying. My question is, who would be the dictator in this setting? The minister? Or is there no dictator, and perhaps it doesn't show signs of fascism. To me it shows signs of lighter scale fascism, since the people are scared to go against the government, or in this case the church. On another note, our group studied the psycho lens for this story, and I believe the id fits right into your 2nd thesis statement. Like you said, all the girls are pointing fingers at each other wishing it not to be there fault. However, can you really blame them for doing that? I mean if I was in their situation I would defiantly not be confessing.

10/27/2015 07:06:34 pm

The real defining characteristic of fascism is a particular vision of society as a single-minded entity, usually defined as a body. It comes from the Latin "fasces," which was a bundle of sticks tied together and fitted with an axe - it symbolized how, "bound" together a single will, the people would form a mighty nation. So it's any kind of far-right, nationalistic government run by a party whose leader is is seen as the "mouthpiece" of the social "body" (dictator after all comes from "dictate," as in speech. So the dictator speaks and others obey.

I would agree what we see in the Crucible is similar to fascism. The society is set up so that the dictator is technically GOD Himself, but since God is not there to "dictate," someone has to "speak" in His place, and that position (which Lacan's psychoanalysis calls the Name-of-the-Father, as in "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit") is constantly changing hands. It's Parris, then Hale, then Abby, then Danforth....

English and Philosophy