Hey, This is Cristy D.
At first I was curious about how the crucible would relate to what we had been talking about with Hayakawa, but I immediately began to see several connections. First of all the salem witch trials were all based upon the word of a group of girls who accused people of worshipping the devil and causing problems in the village. This quickly became a "non-sense" argument because the people were fighting over intensional meanings. They at one point referred to the crimes as "invisible" because no one could see them happening except the "witch" and the "victim". Because no senses could percieve the actual objects involved (the devil, the curse, etc.)it was a non-sense argument. (Like hayakawa says, angels have no extensional meaning because we can't see, touch, or hear them). Disagremments over intensional meanings, or non-sense objects can go on forever whereas an arguement over something with extensional value can be proven and the argument can end more easily. (-The floor is 15 feet long. - No, it isnt -Well measure it and find out!!!) In history class, we learn how not long after the Salem witch trials, the Enlightment began in the 18th century. People began to turn away from mystical evidence and more division between relgion and law could be seen than before. I am thankful that mystical evidence is no longer accepted because otherwise it would always be someone's word against another's.
This book made me think a lot about how important words are to our freedom under the law. After all, the job of the Supreme court is to INTERPRET the constitution and laws as they understand the words to mean. Because words can mean something completely different to another person; laws can be overturned when another judge comes into the court. Even our founding fathers had no absolute meaning for every part of the constitution. Hamilton and Jefferson for example were constantly bickering even after the constitution had been written. If the words had an absolute meaning they could have just referred to the document to solve their problems. The constitution is a living document because it is always being interpreted differently and of course can be expanded. however, it still preserves certain rights that can not be overlooked. In the crucible trials it seemed they made everything up as they went.
Back to the book....While I read The Crucible I became increasingly frustrated with the faults of Judge Danforth and the others who persisted in believing the girls without any real proof and taking their non-sense words to have extensional meaning. The idea that innocent people can be punished for things we can neither see nor touch is terrifying. Because it is a play we must extract from dialogue the plot and intensions of characters. In a way, this makes a play more interesting (or at least more interactive) than a book because the reader has more control over what is actually happening. The words stand on their own, apart from you, me and even from Arthur Miller.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hey, it's Erin. I've read Act 2 and I have some questions. What was the matter with Betty? Was she faking? Freaked out? Why did she act the way she did? And another question: does Mary really believe that some people are witches and are hurting her? Because in the beginning she acts as though she believes in all that, saying that Sarah Good tried to choke her in court. But at the end when Proctor demands that she go to court, she says that she can't charge Abby with murder, that Abby will kill her and the other girls with turn against her. So now it seems that she knows it's not real. If so, what's her motive? Fear?
Finally, I understand that the motivations of a lot of the accusing is profit. But are the parents telling the kids, say so-and-so's a witch? Or have the kids heard on there own, and decide that way? Can anyone even know?
Sorry for all the questions...
Hey, it's Erin again :)
I was thinking about "The Crucible" and "The New Doublespeak" by William Lutz in light of the Constitution and in a way they are related. Lutz spends a whole chapter talking about doublespeak in the law and sadly a lot of it shocked me. In "The Crucible" confessions were coerced under pain of death (they threatened to but Tituba to death and others accuse that didn't confess and accuse others were hanged). Ideally, forced confessions should be thrown out of court. But they aren't always. Lutz talks about "honest mistakes", where a coerced confession is presented and the person convicted. Although the confession might be proven to have been forced, it can still stand because they "would have proved them guilty anyway". Is that any different than the Salem trials?
As I read "The Crucible" I thought, "oh, well, that's not true; people are innocent until they are proven guilty". But Lutz talks about how someone can be imprisoned before convicted or tried, if they feel the person is going to run or continue to harm others, so it's "not punishment". That's assuming guilt, not innocence. Finally, Lutz talks about one case where the law passed by Congress wasn't specific enough to punish the defendant, so the court (I think it was the Supreme Court) decided that the words don't matter, just the intent, and of course they knew the true intent, right? That's not the kind of interpretation I want. So what's the difference?
One final (final for real this time) question and it's one I think that you always run into with these kind of topics: about guilt. Are those accused who turn around and point to others to save their own skin just as guilty as those girls who started pointing fingers? What about the people like John Proctor who waited to do something about it only when his wife was taken away? What about the system? What about US, if we were there?
(Yeah, I guess you can see that once I start asking questions, I don't stop too easily).
Hey, it's Ashley.
While reading the Crucible, I kept trying to imagine that I, too, was in Salem during the 17th Century. It made it a lot easier to understand the motives of the characters. I was struck by how strongly religion influenced the actions of Salem's citizens. (If you had Mr. Kingston last year for APUS, then you have already discussed the history of the Salem trials and the impact of religion.) I just kept thinking about how terrifying it must have been to live during that time period - obviously, they had none of the modern conveniences we have today, but they had to turn to GOD as the explanation for EVERYTHING. It would be as if you had no control over your own life and you were always subject to God's desires. Today, we can use technology to explain everything from the weather to how we are born. Back in the 17th Century, the only answer they had was that it was God's will that something happened. Religion permeated every aspect of life - especially politics.
So Erin, to answer your previous question, I believe that Mary was acting out partly because of tremendous societal pressure to find the witches (and the notoriety that came to her from being a member of the selective court) but mostly because she was so fearful of The Almighty. At first, Mary claims she was tortured by the devil. Later, she is reminded of the Commandment "Thou shall not bear false witness" and revokes her statement. Finally, she turns around and "confesses" that the devil had been tempting her the entire time. Mary's ambivalence is a result of religious influence. She is not sure whether to believe the Bible or whether to believe that the devil has actually taken her over, as seems to be the case for multiple other young girls.
Post a Comment