Truth be told, it would be fair to say that our group agreed on little and argued on much. The majority of our analysis of the Marxist lens was launched into into orbit around the first question posed: “Did the bourgeoisie maintain their dominance over the masses after the witch hunts had concluded?” Citing the quotation “To all intents and purposes, the power of theocracy in Massachusetts was broken” (Miller, Act One, 125) Immediately two different viewpoints immerged, the decisive, albeit simplistic, yes and no.
The first of the two sides, yes, maintained that, despite the socio-economic purge instrumented by the courts under the veil of religious morality, the false consciousness of the masses was maintained. The bourgeoisie, more specifically exemplified through the actions of Putnam effectively murdering his neighbors to amalgamate land, achieved their end goals without any of the fallout of the travesty tarring their reputations to a point of disgrace. The side of no, on the other hand, spoke to the fact the reputations of the courts, and the jurors who operated them, had been innately tainted by the judicial nightmares that were the witch trials. In their opinion, the people of Salem had been …show more content…
Reading about his struggles with the HUAC helped me see how intricate an allegory Miller had weaved actually was. You see the text through a new light, understand who the characters are, and you see Miller everywhere, in the words of Francis Nurse(Miller, Act Three, 87) , the defiance of Giles (Miller, Act Three, 90), the actions of Proctor (Miller, Act Four, 133). Miller crafted the Crucible as a way to express his struggle with a society that would strike him down for espousing it plainly, and it’s only through an understanding of the era that birthed it that its meaning is truly
The first of the two sides, yes, maintained that, despite the socio-economic purge instrumented by the courts under the veil of religious morality, the false consciousness of the masses was maintained. The bourgeoisie, more specifically exemplified through the actions of Putnam effectively murdering his neighbors to amalgamate land, achieved their end goals without any of the fallout of the travesty tarring their reputations to a point of disgrace. The side of no, on the other hand, spoke to the fact the reputations of the courts, and the jurors who operated them, had been innately tainted by the judicial nightmares that were the witch trials. In their opinion, the people of Salem had been …show more content…
Reading about his struggles with the HUAC helped me see how intricate an allegory Miller had weaved actually was. You see the text through a new light, understand who the characters are, and you see Miller everywhere, in the words of Francis Nurse(Miller, Act Three, 87) , the defiance of Giles (Miller, Act Three, 90), the actions of Proctor (Miller, Act Four, 133). Miller crafted the Crucible as a way to express his struggle with a society that would strike him down for espousing it plainly, and it’s only through an understanding of the era that birthed it that its meaning is truly