Belonging;_the_Crucible_and_12_Angry_Men

Q: How has your understanding of ‘Belonging’ been shaped by the set text ‘The Crucible’ and one text of your own choosing' The term ‘belonging’ can be defined as a feeling of personal attachment to a time, place, person or group of persons. The importance of feeling connected, at peace with oneself and ones surroundings and the lengths to which an individual will go to possess this feeling can be evidently seen in Arthur Miller’s play “The Crucible” and Sidney Lumet’s movie take on Reginald Rose’s screenplay “12 Angry Men”. Likewise, a feeling of disconnectedness and disparity is explored as strong themes in both texts through the idea that individuals will adhere to their own moral bearings despite the pressure of majority’s, thus evicting themselves from gaining a sense of belonging. Both texts have guided the notion of belonging to depend upon ones morals. If an individual is accepted within a cohesive system but fails to uphold his/her own morals, the acceptance will therefore become void and decrease in worth. Under such circumstances the individual must rise against the majority to resurrect their own values and hence attain, once more, a true sense of belonging. ‘The Crucible’ revolves around the Salem Witch trials where chaos erupts creating a dichotomy within the community. The Salem community was a Theocracy whom collectively believed that “in unity still lay the best promise of safety”. This comes to highlight the expectations that a communal idea or opinion will always prevail over that of an individual. ’12 Angry Men’ also demonstrates this notion of ‘majority rules’ and the idea that rising against this majority is both risky to one’s sense of belonging and questioning to ones morals. It is said that it is not easy “to stand alone against others...we gamble for support” showing the struggle faced by those such as the 12th Juror and John Proctor as they defy the general consensus. A panel of 12 jurors attempt to decide the fate of a man in a murder trial. It is said that “the burden of truth is on the prosecution” showing that power lies in the hands of others. This responsibility is further intensified as it is noted that they must be “impartial judges of the facts” which very often does not happen in reality. This is mirrored in ‘The Crucible’ as the society is said to have a “predilection for minding other people’s business” hinting that the community of Salem did not have a healthy sense of boundaries of privacy, hence helping to encourage and “feed the coming madness”. The plays ‘The Crucible’ and indeed ’12 Angry Men’ are used to highlight that people prey on outsiders, especially when the accusers are motivated by greed or fear. A ‘scapegoat’ is more or less created out of the minority and “long-held hatreds of neighbours” are able to be “openly expressed, and vengeance taken”. The role of the Salem Theocracy was to “prevent any kind of disunity that might open it to destruction” highlighting the controlling sense of belonging enforced by the community. Acts of individuality are often challenged and opposed by a majority, under the belief that they are threatening to the already established unit one through which; rigidity of values, thoughts and beliefs are filtered. This contrasts to the atmosphere seen in ’12 Angry Men’ where “freedom of speech” is reserved, as is the right to stay unbiased and mutual. The 12th juror member states he doesn’t believe he has to be “loyal to one side or another” in terms of voting ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ but rather is “simply asking questions” to provoke a rethinking of the sentence. This type of freedom is not seen in ‘The Crucible’. Danforth in Act III depicts the inflexibility of Salem stating that a person is either “with this court or he must be counted against it, there be no road between” emphasising the absolute nature of the sense of justice in Salem. The disassociation from ones group or community can be a distressing and testing experience. An individual, whom possesses strong moral bearings, and is faced with such a task as rebellion, will be able to withstand pressure and thus prevail. Within the opening prologue Proctor is conveyed as a character of individuality; being described as “not easily led” and a man “in his prime” whom possessed a “quiet confidence and an unexpressed hidden force.” Thus the context of Proctor is set up very early on, enabling readers of the play to foreshadow his rise against constraints of the norm within the Salem community. Likewise, though without the use of words, Lumet establishes character very early on. Lumet depicts the 12th juror, who we later learn to be defiant and strong-willed, standing solitary by the window. A long-shot from behind is then drawn in to form a midshot, which then pans to look the juror in the face. The first viewing of the characters face reveals a deep contemplative and stern expression, furthermore, the absence of speech dictates an air of seriousness to this man which sets him apart from the other 11 whom are very talkative. Towards the end of the play, Proctor imploringly requests for his reputation to be upheld, stating that he is “not worth the dust on the feet of them that hang!”, later turning to the judges and stating “I have given you my soul; leave me my name!” Lies and deceit are reoccurring themes delved into throughout both plays. The battle between these themes is evident. Individuals, with a strong sense of morality, will strive to reveal the truth. Both plays focus on the discerning of fact from fiction, which is the central cause for all complications. The context of a courtroom urges the unveiling of the truth imperative. In ’12 Angry Men’ an anonymous juror brings to attention that a proceeding in court isn’t “an exact science”, he continues on to question the remaining jurors as to whether they think they are “born with a monopoly on the truth”. Hence emphasizing the fine line which lies between fact and fiction, it is prone to human error and misjudgement. Furthermore the 12th juror comments on the bias nature of recited ‘facts’; “it’s always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of this. Prejudice always obscures the truth”. This can be strongly linked to ‘The Crucible. During debates of evidence Proctor exclaims “But the proof! The proof!” to which Mary Warren responds “I told you the proof. It's hard proof, hard as rock, the judges said”, thus expressing the fundamentality of concrete evidence, which is evidently lacking in the trials, so far only being based upon word of mouth. The ideas represented in ‘The Crucible’ as well as ’12 Angry Men’ are able to sinuate that individual morality will prevail above all in the end. Though struggles will be encountered, a minority with strong-willed minds and a strong bearing of ethical behaviour will be able to triumph to overcome a sense of rejection to gain a truer and purer sense of belonging. Any undermining of personal values will succeed in negating any sense of belonging and feeling of connectedness felt by the individual. In order to retrieve this sense of peace and reconciliation, a journey must be undertaken to develop one’s own moral guiding once more.