The Genius Of “The Crucible”

The Crucible Poster

On the 22nd of January 1954, Arthur Miller‘s play “The Crucible” premiered at the Martin Beck theatre in New York City. Ostensibly, the piece was a dramatisation of the infamous Salem Witch Trials, and uses the names of actual people from historical records. It’s a rip-roaring work, filled with intense human drama; unrequited love, adultery, religious fervour and blatant, brutal injustice, all set against the haunting backdrop of 17th-century Massachusetts.

However, the piece also served as a brilliant, abstract condemnation of the paranoia of the McCarthy-era US. Miller himself was brought before the House Committee on Un-American Activities, the Joseph McCarthy-led group which investigated alleged ties to the Communist party. The US’ fear of “Reds Under The Bed” had generated the preposterous idea that Communism could somehow attack and assimilate the culture from within. The retaliatory actions that this generated seemed to exclude few. Luminaries such as Charlie Chaplin, Burgess Meredith and Orson Welles were investigated and encouraged to give up any contemporaries with alleged Commie leanings.

As the McCarthy Committee turned into little more than a witchhunt, Miller decided to write a play that would demonstrate the futility and injustice of such investigations – a play about the most famous Witchhunt ever, the Salem Trials.

In the play, the instigator of the trouble is Abigail Williams. A young teenager, she is infatuated with her married neighbour, John Proctor. Though they have had an affair in the past, Proctor

Joseph McCarthy

has realised the error of his ways and now wants nothing to do with the petulant girl. When Abigail and her friends are seen taking part in strange activities in the woods near the village, fears of witchcraft spread through the village. Abigail and her friends soon discover, however, that they can avoid repercussions by claiming they have been misled, and now want Jesus back in their hearts. They also discover that they can accuse others of consorting with the devil, destroying their lives and reputations without the need for any physical evidence whatsoever. The story concludes with a series of hangings, as the town becomes lost utterly to hysteria.

Though the story was written over a century ago, and created as a reaction to a contemporary event, it still resonates today. Miller’s genius was to create a work that was hugely critical of the injustices he saw around him, but also cut to the core of why those injustices become manifest at all in human nature. Abigail is a truly frightening creation; her adolescent fears and selfishness are loosed on society, respected because they are dressed up in the vernacular of piety. Her adept use of religious language allows her to abdicate responsibility for her childish actions; “I am but God’s finger, John”.

Bosch

Abigail’s actions don’t even represent some form of anarchic assault on democracy; rather, they are founded completely in her own vindictive nature. She’s the ultimate spoilt brat, a Jerry Springer horror who gets her way no matter what. With this character, Miller exposes the true nature of so much religious fervour and moral hyperbole – it’s almost all a scam, driven by fear and personal desires. Abigail’s youthful vacillations are even more destructive than those of the murderous children in Golding’s “Lord Of The Flies“, because she has managed to infect elders and social pillars with her vitriol. Trial By Jury, Habeus Corpus, all standard democratic legal procedure goes out the window because of  a horny teenager.

The story also illuminates beautifully the worldview of people in the 17th Century. In those days, there was little difference between the real world and that of the supernatural. Indeed, the veil between the two could fall away regularly. Demons like those of Hieronymus Bosch stalked the Earth, seeking souls to steal away. We seem to have come a long way since then; and yet, if you take a look at modern trends, such as that of self-help books like “The Secret“, we see ideas such as “The Law Of Attraction” – which is arguably just as real as any demons or angels. And yet, the fact remains that these avatars, these demons and intangible powers have yet consistent real-world effects in terms of how they are used and interpreted by people. Abigail uses imaginary demons to get John Proctor. Joseph McCarthy used them to attack a supposed Communist plot. Hunter S. Thompson used imaginary demons (chasing him across the Nevada desert) to illustrate his own nihilistic American Dream. The Bush Administration used imaginary demons (in the form of Weapons of Mass Destruction) to justify a war that continues today.

Miller seems to be asking us: In three centuries, have we really come that far?

f

In this scene from the excellent 1996 film version, John Proctor, played by Daniel Day-Lewis, must decide whether or not to sign his name to a confession of witchcraft:

f

f

f

This video of  the always-brilliant Stephen Colbert shows the reality behind many people’s religious bluster and their insistence on keeping religion a part of business, law and education:

f

Why Fundamentalism Reflects The Unevolved Mind

f

In March 2008, the outspoken Dutch politician Geert Wilders released his short film, entitled “Fitna” onto the Internet. The piece is a savage critique of fundamentalist Islam, and purports that the religion as a whole has an intrinsically bellicose nature.

Wilders supports this suggestion with a selection of warlike quotes from the Koran, such as:

“They but wish that ye should reject faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing as they, so take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah. But if they turn renegades, seize them and kill them wherever ye find them, and take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”

In order to indicate a link between these modern-day atrocities and the age-old texts, he shows us images of 9/11, the Madrid and London bombings and footage of the beheading of hostage Eugene Armstrong. We see clips of various extremist Islamic preachers, proclaiming in no uncertain terms that it is the Muslim’s duty to terminate any non-believers with extreme prejudice; “Annihilate the infidels and the polytheists”, “Allah is happy when non-Muslims get killed”, etc.

Wilders’ film ends with a written postscript:

“It is not up to me, but up to Moslems themselves to tear out the hateful verses from the Koran. Muslims want you to make way for Islam, but Islam does not make way for you. The government insists that you respect Islam, but Islam has no respect for you. Islam wants to rule, submit, and seeks to destroy our Western civilization. In 1945, Nazism was defeated in Europe. In 1989, Communism was defeated in Europe. Now, the Islamic ideology has to be defeated.”

The International community was acutely aware of the film’s prospective impact, even before it was released. When a video alleged to be a trailer for the short film was put on YouTube, Pakistan blocked the site from being accessed across the entire country. This actually resulted in the site going offline around the world for two hours.

When the film became available on the Internet, tensions grew. Political condemnation was worldwide and virtually unanimous. Public protests took place in Dam Square, Amsterdam. On the 7th of April, Indonesia blocked and continues to block YouTube because of its refusal to remove Fitna from its servers. Muslim nations have invariably threatened, at the very least, a review of their diplomatic relations with the Netherlands.

And a Fatwa has been put out on the life of Wilders himself. This is no empty threat; another Dutch filmmaker, Theo Vah Gogh (a descendant of Vincent’s family) was murdered after he made a film entitled “Submission”, about the physical and mental abuse that women often suffer in Islamic societies. The film was well received by some, but caused an uproar in Muslim communities.

As a result, on November 2nd 2004, a Muslim extremist named Mohammed Bouyeri murdered Van Gogh in Amsterdam as he cycled to work. Bouyeri shot Van Gogh eight times, slashed his throat (almost to the point of decapitation) and stabbed him in the chest. He also left a note pinned to the body, threatening jihad against Jews and Western governments. That was the climate in which Wilders made his own, arguably more controversial film.

Considering the circumstances, it seems very difficult for any non-religious person to side with Wilders’ film. Certainly, yes, it only presents one side of the story, but regardless of the film, the evidence seems highly stacked in favour of his argument. Fitna‘s featured preachers unequivocally desire conflict against the kuffars (non-believers) and believe that Islam can and should be the world’s sole religion.

The problem is that religious intolerance is considered such an awful taboo, such anathema to the mores of Western civilization, that it allows hate speech, indoctrination and mob mentality to exist untouched as long as it poses as the free expression of religious tenets. This allows aspects of fundamentalism to insinuate themselves into mainstream culture.

Islam is just one example of this phenomenon; Christian fundamentalism is rife in the USA; children are sent to camps to learn total submission to antiquated Catholic values. They speak in glossolalia and shed tears of joy, believing themselves to be conduits of the good Lord’s will. Of course, this all has practical uses, it creates an army of non-questioning youths who disdain abortion, divorce, sex before marriage etc; and who support totally the actions of a Christian president who wants to spread democracy overseas.

(Indeed, there’s been a lot of controversy recently about Barack Obama’s preacher, Jeremiah Wright, mainly because he has stated that 9/11 was a direct result of US’ interference with Middle Eastern nations. The very idea that America may have actually been partially responsible for the attacks that day is abhorrent to good American Christians, so they call the man a “traitor”.)

I don’t think that any religion is immune to this phenomenon (except possibly Buddhism, which embraces the questioning of even its most sacred beliefs), and Islam tends to enforce its rules with particular brutality. And it does so at the expense of countries that allow it to flourish. Indeed, the tremendous hypocrisy is that it abuses the open laws of countries that allow people of varying religions to settle there. They are allowed to practice their religions unmolested, and then preach hatred against the openness of the very cultures that allow them the freedoms of speech to do so in the first place.

I’m aware that it’s quite difficult to make this argument without getting into countrified “Not In My Back Yard” moralities. But there is a line. For example, the Latvian government recently jailed an Englishman for urinating on the Freedom Monument in Riga. The Freedom Monument is a tribute to those who fought and died in the Latvian War of Independence, and some drunken guy taking a piss on it was a terrible insult to the Latvian people. The Latvian foreign minister called the English “pigs” and threw the man in jail. And there was no international condemnation of the action.

On the other hand, when an English teacher in the Sudan allowed a class to name a teddy bear “Mohammad”, she was convicted of “insulting religion, inciting hatred and showing contempt for religious beliefs” by Islamic authorities. She was sentenced to 15 days in jail and was deported upon release. Not only that, but

“…approximately 400 protesters took to the streets, some of them waving swords and machetes, demanding Gibbons’s execution after imams denounced her during Friday prayers. During the march, chants of “Shame, shame on the UK”, “No tolerance – execution” and “Kill her, kill her by firing squad” were heard. Witnesses reported that government employees were involved in inciting the protests.” Wikipedia

Wanting to end someone’s life because of the name they gave a teddy bear suggests something more to me than simple religious offence. I think that many people, and certainly those who subscribe to the fundamentalist aspects of any religion, are assuming a personality type; the kind that tends towards the total abdication of individual responsibility.

True responsibility is an imposing prospect. It involves a lot of work. It involves searching the Gods, quite literally, for the meaning of life. It involves the realization that everyone else’s actions make just as much sense to them as yours do to you. It involves the admission that you, and you alone, are responsible for your actions; if you insult your friend, beat your wife, kill someone, it’s because you chose to do it, not because some ancient text gave you permission. It’s liberating, but it also deletes a huge portion of one’s ego and cuts you adrift from the woolly cotton braids of what at least purports to be “tradition”.

In that sense, it’s interesting that the word Islam actually means “submission”. Because that’s what fundamentalism demands. And it’s attractive. It entices so many because it offers the promise of an easier life. It offers a psychological return to the womb, where some all-powerful entity will provide you with all you need to survive; you don’t need to make any decisions for yourself, because everything has been already decided for you.

The problem with that, though, is that when these people see others taking responsibility for their lives, exploring the wonders and limits of existence, it drives them hog-wild. It wounds them so deeply because in their heart of hearts, they know that they are missing out. If there is any spark of human curiosity left in them, it flares up and reminds them that they have cravenly abandoned their duties. It’s like ol’ Fred Nietszche says; “Fear is the mother of morality”.

It seems similar, to me at least, to the actions of the classic sociopath. This person indulges in anti-social behaviour, but, when confronted with the the truth (or any criticism whatsoever) of their actions, reacts with furious disdain. It’s similar to a child who has been caught lying, but who continues lying to maintain their innocence. They know they’re in the wrong, and the only way they can react is with anger, tears and even violence.

Fortunately for religious zealots, this anger, these tears and violence can be channeled through the untouchable medium of religious outrage. Claiming insult of one’s theistic persuasion is thus used as the basis to lash out at others for any and all of man’s frailties; sexual frustration, mortality, depression, fear. All of this encourages a regression to tribalism – mob mentalities that rail against centuries of progress in racial integration. The non-believers are less worthy than believers, and that’s non-negotiable.

To reiterate, this is certainly not confined to Islam. And like other religions, Islam has an introspective, mystic tradition that encourages reflection, non-violence and self-discovery (Sufism). Christianity had a similar tradition, known as Gnosticism. In fact, it could be argued that religion regularly seems to reflect different personalities, or at least, personalities at different levels of maturity. People are drawn to whatever aspects of  their religion that tend to echo their own beliefs and experiences. If you desire peace and love, both Christianity and Islam can be argued to justify that. If you want violence and bloodshed, both can be argued to justify that, too.

(I wonder if so many of these old religious texts, written in such vague aphorisms, are actually meant to be gauges of man’s maturity as a civilization. Since they seem to be textual Rorschach tests, people tend to draw from them what they will; love, hatred, peace, violence, whatever.)

But what if the believers in violence and bloodshed start to encroach on the progress of peace? Well, that’s the heart of the problem; the cultures that have embraced racial and religious integration are slow to do anything for fear of violating their own democratic ideals. In doing so, they may allow hate speech to flow and the warlike traits of the collective psyche to grow.

I recently came across a proverb that went something like this:

“The problem with the world is that wise people are open-minded and unsure, but the foolish are absolutely certain.”

I think that sums it up. The heads of our democracies must be wary of and penalize those who would preach racism, insularity and violence. Doing so does not violate the tenets of democracy, it encourages them.

As I have argued, religion tends to reflect aspects of the individual personality. In the same way that the most peaceful person may sometimes feel a jolt of fury or jealousy, they must dispel these feelings instead of letting them fester and grow. But that involves a personal decision and personal action.

And it’s action that must be taken; otherwise, the fears and tribalisms can take hold from within and undo so much of the progress of personal and social evolution. Although a world of total peace and integration would be wonderful, we haven’t reached it yet. And if the road to it is left unpoliced, we never will.

f

f

Further Viewing:

Geert Wilders’ “Fitna”

Channel 4 Dispatches: Undercover Mosque

Documentary featuring undercover investigation into the influence of religious extremism throughout the UK.