Arthur Miller shows small aspects of physical torture in The Crucible, but writes mainly on the
psychological side of torture. The play tells a story in Salem, Massachusetts
where a community is torn apart by the fear of witchcraft. Salem used a combination of state and
religious power for its form of government to keep everyone unified. In class
and in Scarry’s “The Body in Torture” we discussed how anything could be a
weapon in torture and that a weapon is not limited to the use of a gun or
knife. On page 31 the narrator says, “…the necessity of the Devil may become
evident as a weapon, a weapon designed used time and time again in every age to
whip men into a surrender to a particular church or church-state.” This is a
clear example of psychological torture. The threat of being physically whipped
or hanged often occurs in The Crucible,
but the play focuses more on psychological pain, betrayal, and loss of self.
Betrayal is used against other people and against one’s self. Calling out the
names of those seen with the devil betrays those called out because they then
too will be arrested and hanged. Abigail and Betty at the end of Act 1 use this
form of betrayal. John Proctor struggles with fight between holding onto the
idea of self and betraying himself at the end of Act 4. He is given the option
to betray himself and confess to a crime he did not commit in order to survive,
or to hold onto his sense of self and be executed. Arthur Miller strongly exhibits
how certain power and desire of power causes torture in his play The Crucible.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteVery thoughtful analysis of Miller; it was very fitting to have used Scarry's "The Body in Pain" to compare with "The Crucible". I very much agree with you in explaining that torture can be done with anything - and that with torture, anything can be used as a weapon, not necessarily being limited to physical "instruments" such as guns and knives. As you explained, though Miller's "The Crucible" does include a fair amount of physical torture, it is really centered more so around psychological and emotional torture.
ReplyDeleteFor example, John Proctor's ultimate decision at the end of the play is a very psychological one - choosing between pride/truth and death. This is directly parallel to situations such as the interrogation of a prisoner. A prisoner being interrogated may also have the same options - to either tell the interrogator what he/she wants to hear, or to be executed/tortured.
I agree with the commentary that Scarry states that the weapon does not have to be a physical object. I find that words are extremely powerful in this play because they lead to accusation which sparks the entire witch-hunt. This also creates a deep fear which psychologically affects the community during this time. Abigail's word seems to triumph over the word of the people she accuses and she gains power through this. This also makes the girls that she has enlisted as her followers to fear her and keep them in line to avoid being accused.
ReplyDeleteI agree the the form of torture in The Crucible is mostly psychological torture and the connection you made with Scarry's piece is very appropriate. Before, I never really considered that torture could be done without physically harming someone. It's clear, however, that in The Crucible torture comes out purely in the form of power religious figures have over the town as well as the power townspeople have over accusing other townspeople of witchcraft. This doesn't seem like torture at first glance but after reading Scarry's piece, it is obvious that this is a form of mental torture.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lauren that I had never really thought much about non-physical forms of torture before. I definitely like Sarah's reference to Scarry; not only the threat of the devil but many examples of words are used as weapons in this tale. It is really fascinating how words can be used as such effective weapons without harming people in the traditional "weapon" sense. Although people aren't physically harmed by the words of others, this does not mean that words are not just as effective of weapons as physical objects.
ReplyDelete