This essay aims to dissect Arthur Miller’s play, The Crucible, in particular, the behaviour and, at first glance, perplexing decisions made by the play’s characters. In order to form a comprehensive understanding of the characters within The Crucible, one needs only to look to Kohlberg’s moral precepts for explanation and understanding. He posits that there are three distinct categories which mold an individual’s behaviour and add nuance to their decisions. These three classifications are termed pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional behaviour. When making decisions, individuals take into consideration each of these three systems of thought to help inform the result of any given choice. By having a grasp on Kohlberg’s moral precepts, the viewer stands to have a drastically deeper understanding of the story’s details.
Within The Crucible, there exists a number of characters who are pre-conventional. Such characters behave in ways which are conducive to the goals of avoiding punishment and obtaining reward.
One character who exhibits pre-conventional thinking is Betty. Following Reverend Parris’s discovery of the girls’ seemingly suspicious dance in the forest, Betty pretends to be inert and bedridden with Parris praying at her side and pleading with her to “wake” and to “open (her) eyes.” (Act 1, pg. 6). Betty’s perception of her actions being deplorable was constructed as soon as the girls scrambled in response to Parris’s presence. Because she knew she had done something worthy of scorn, she pretended to be stricken with illness in order to shift the attention of the adults off her misconduct and onto the potential of a greater evil skulking about the community. Due to her charade, she was able to circumvent punishment.
Another example of a character who acts in a way to avoid punishment is Reverend Parris’s slave, Tituba. Such behavior is brought into the spotlight following accusations against the woman of having dark dealings with the Devil. Her slave master, Parris, demands she “confess (herself)” or else he “will take (her) out and whip (her) to (her) death.” (Act 1, pg. 44). Following a short stint of resistance brought on by the false claims levelled at her, in response to this threat, she falls in line with Parris’s demand and comes up with a story which not only diverts blame onto others but also hits many of the key aspects associated with devil worship in the minds of the Christians surrounding her. The ludicrous lies she told then saved her life and got her off the hook. She knew that none of those near would believe her if she tried to defend herself with any counter-argument due to her status as a slave, as such, she elected to take the path of least resistance by playing into everything the people wanted to hear out of her in order to get the best chance at survival.
Lastly, Elizabeth Proctor demonstrates such behavior when, while being pressured by the court to disclose her knowledge of John Proctor’s lechery, she lies for the very first time in her life with a simple, “no, sir”, (Act 3, pg. 109). to Danforth. Despite knowing of John’s sin, she went astray from the facet of unwavering honesty which had been consistent in her character throughout the narrative, thinking she would save John Proctor’s life. Because Proctor had been apprehensive about admitting in earnest the crime of lechery, even to his own wife until this point, Elizabeth thought her words to be consistent with whatever Proctor told the court prior to her entry. In that moment, the reward of continuing life with her husband unharmed, however black his mistakes, warranted lying. John is not only integral to the maintenance, prosperity, and health of the family but it is made clear that Elizabeth still cares for him despite the wintry home she kept following the incident with Abigail. Moreover, during that time period, the loss of the husband spelled the deterioration of the family’s overall quality of life and eventually, even their very ability to survive. Regardless of Elizabeth’s feelings toward him, it was in her best interest to keep him from the noose.
From the cases discussed, it should be evident that decisions oriented around the prospect of attaining reward as well as evading punishment are plentiful and find purchase in many characters within the play.
The Crucible contains many characters who exhibit signs of conventional thinking. Conventional patterns of behaviour are driven by a desire for group acceptance.
The first instance of conventional decision-making to be discussed is that of Reverend Parris. As his niece, Betty, lies in bed, immobile as if hexed, Parris is being inquired about as to the practice of witchcraft gaining a foothold in his home, he states how if such word got out to the wider public then “they (would) howl (him) out of Salem for such corruption in (his) house.” (Act 1, pg. 12). Such an unresponsive state befalling the child so quickly after the disbandment of the suspicious gathering she attended in the Devil’s last bastion against God was bound to provoke talk of witchcraft. As a result, Parris knows he has fallen under scrutiny. Seeing as how he is the town’s resident Minister and taking into account the immense influence of religion prevalent at the time, in that moment Parris shines a light on his anxiousness and fear surrounding the prospect of losing all his power and authority within the town. If the wider whole of Salem catches wind of the town’s most prominent man of faith harbouring dark arts in his own home, then they will lose all their faith and trust in Parris’s ability to be their compass. Parris trying to suppress any potential aspersion on his quality as minister is indicative of him believing that his position in the social hierarchy of the community has become fragile.
The next example of someone who exhibits behaviour driven by the idea of group approval is Mrs. Ann Putnam. While Cheever investigates those accused within the town, Francis Nurse brings to the Proctors’ attention an arrest warrant for Rebecca Nurse which states that she is charged for the “supernatural murder of Goody Putnam’s babies.” (Act 2, pg. 69). Ann Putnam has repeatedly given birth to unhealthy babies, however, the perception that pattern would garner her – that being a wife who is incapable of producing healthy offspring – is one that she aimed to obfuscate as such a reputation would cripple much of the respect and status she had in the social sphere of Salem. In order to hide her shortcomings as a wife one might deem ideal in the 1600’s, she searched for a scapegoat, at first, she accused one who played midwife to her in the past, Osburn. But soon her resentment towards Rebecca Nurse began to drive her accusatory finger. Out of frustration with Nurse’s history of being able to consistently deliver healthy children even though she has had so many during her life, Goody Putnam levelled the charge at her. Ann Putnam saw the witch trials, the general state of tension, and all the chaos within Salem not only as an opportunity to let loose her bitterness on someone she had always hated for being more successful than herself in a particular area but also to obscure that which could cause her to fall in favour within the public eye.
Finally, Mary Warren also puts on display this type of thinking. After a number of the points she used in her testification against Abbigail’s claims had not hit their mark in front of Danforth, she completely switches sides and comes crying back to Abby’s corner, first telling John Proctor that she will “go (his) way no more” and stating to Abigail that she will “never hurt (her) more”. (Act 3, pg. 119). Despite having been previously convinced with persuasive force and vehemence to take a stand against Abigail’s false accusations and to do what is morally righteous, she obviously cracks under the pressure after such stress continues to mount in the courthouse. She eventually has an emotional fit of sorts which further impairs her capacity to make logical, autonomous decisions. Soon, a turning point is reached and she lies, confesses to being a witch after the girls dig deep under her skin. Even though she was backed by important figures like John Proctor and Reverend Hale, none of their support mattered to her because in her mind, she was overtly challenging a large group of those she viewed as friends on her lonesome. She could not maintain her stance, no matter how justified it was in the larger picture because the cracks in her confidence and determination were being exploited by the more immediate concern of group acceptance.
Clearly, conventional thought processes inform many of the story beats within the play and give us glimpses into the characters who employ such processes.
Instances of post-conventional reasoning are demonstrated on many occasions within The Crucible. This category of thinking is oriented around making decisions based on one’s own principles and what one believes to be correct notwithstanding any potential reward, punishment or group acceptance.
A prominent character who demonstrates post-conventional thought processes is Abigail Williams. Throughout the narrative, one driving motivation of Abigail’s character that is highlighted is her desire to see Elizabeth Proctor, John’s wife, removed, by whatever means necessary so that she can pursue a relationship with John in her stead. The essential component of this ire is brought to the forefront with Elizabeth stating that Abigail “wants (her) dead”. (Act 2, pg. 58). Abigail is willing to go as far as to get Elizabeth hanged on charges of witchcraft in order to remove her as a barrier keeping her from John. The opportunity to continue such a relationship with the man, in her mind, outweighs the morally abhorrent actions she deems necessary to both neutralize the resistance put up by Elizabeth and obfuscate her intentions so that she may enjoy the fruits of such grim labour uninhibited.
The second character to consider is John Hale. He exhibits behaviour focused on his values without muddying his decision-making with the influence of punishment, reward, or group acceptance. While Hale witnesses the court turn against John Proctor, he announces his decision to “denounce (the) proceedings” and to “quit (the) court”. (Act 3, pg. 115). During the trial, Hale compares John Proctor’s earnest attempt at bringing the truth to light to the antics of Abigail’s immature pursuit of Proctor. After witnessing the travesty of justice which followed in the wake of the absurd pretenses orchestrated by Abigail, he reaches an epiphany. Hale realizes he must confront the fact that he is part of a faulty court. Eventually, he can no longer, in good conscience, align himself with those persecuting Proctor. This decision cost Hale the power, influence, and prestige which came with being a part of that system. However, he chose to do what he felt was right to protest against Danforth’s biased verdict. His perspective has shifted so greatly on the quality of John Proctor’s character and on the general sense of what is truly the most reasonable course of action regarding the witch trials that he is willing to relinquish his position of importance in an attempt to make an impact.
The final character worthy of discussion is that of Elizabeth Proctor. When Hale attempts to convince Elizabeth to counsel John to lie in order to save his own life, Elizabeth’s steadfast and exacting commitment to her faith allows her to catch onto Hale interpreting the Bible. She responds to his reasoning by proclaiming his logic “the Devil’s argument.” (Act 4, pg. 127). From her response, it is clear that Elizabeth will not tolerate an argument strengthened by an interpretation of the Bible, moreover, it is evident that she herself is so precise in her faith that she will not hesitate to deplore the words of a Minister who she perceives to be straying from the word of God. She does not want her husband to die, but in that moment, she adheres strictly to the principles instilled in her by her religion.
Post-conventional thinking is hard to maintain but such moments have the potential to make leaps and bounds toward the development of the characters and go to show us who many of them really are once they are put under pressure regardless of whether such force is applied by themselves or by others onto them.
In closing, from the examples brought up, it should be evident that Kohlberg’s moral precepts are concepts which impact the narrative and enable the viewer to more deeply understand the actions and decisions made by the characters in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible. In addition, the categories of pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional thinking, if understood, can help explain why we, and those around us make certain decisions when put in various circumstances. Thus, allowing us to more accurately understand ourselves as well as give us insight as to what we value most.
