Tocqueville discusses the pros and cons of the Puritan form of democracy, which became the basis of American democracy. The Puritan settlers focused on morality but unfortunately were missing the principle of religious tolerance, for they often persecuted other sects and even one another. They wrote up “fantastic and oppressive laws” voted on democratically by the whole community (Tocqueville 39). This gives way to opportunities for a democracy of the majority to turn into a tyranny towards the minority through numerous forms of oppression, specifically religious in the example of the Puritans. On the other hand, the great modern constitutional principles were all laid down in the societies of New England; for instance, in the participation
…show more content…
Ibsen wants his reader to see the choices made by the educated to uproot this system, forcing the unaware to gain more insight and power as a member of the majority, realizing the amount of influence one can have in this modern society, if they play their cards correctly. This is illustrated through the idealistic Dr. Stockmann and his supporters, though most of them abandon him by the end of the play. He illustrates the corruption that can occur even in a people’s man like Aslaksen, who knows his power as the Head of the Householder’s Association and Temperance Society, "I have a certain influence in the town, a little bit of power, if I may be allowed to say so." (2.131). He ends up withdrawing his support from the doctor’s cause, giving most people reason to side against Dr. Stockmann. Ibsen portrays the character of Hovstad as a person of power in the community in the way that he controls the main source of media and news. At first, Hovstad seems to be on board with the idea of feeding the masses with knowledge regardless of the repercussions that he may face at the hands of those in charge, "The idol of Authority must be shattered in this town. This gross and inexcusable blunder about the water supply must be brought home to the mind of every municipal voter." (2.156). Though Ibsen emphasizes the mass stupidity and impressionability of the general public, he also brings to light the power they hold over their elected officials in modern
Ibsen wants his reader to see the choices made by the educated to uproot this system, forcing the unaware to gain more insight and power as a member of the majority, realizing the amount of influence one can have in this modern society, if they play their cards correctly. This is illustrated through the idealistic Dr. Stockmann and his supporters, though most of them abandon him by the end of the play. He illustrates the corruption that can occur even in a people’s man like Aslaksen, who knows his power as the Head of the Householder’s Association and Temperance Society, "I have a certain influence in the town, a little bit of power, if I may be allowed to say so." (2.131). He ends up withdrawing his support from the doctor’s cause, giving most people reason to side against Dr. Stockmann. Ibsen portrays the character of Hovstad as a person of power in the community in the way that he controls the main source of media and news. At first, Hovstad seems to be on board with the idea of feeding the masses with knowledge regardless of the repercussions that he may face at the hands of those in charge, "The idol of Authority must be shattered in this town. This gross and inexcusable blunder about the water supply must be brought home to the mind of every municipal voter." (2.156). Though Ibsen emphasizes the mass stupidity and impressionability of the general public, he also brings to light the power they hold over their elected officials in modern