Dystopian Society In The Crucible

Salem in the 1600s was a textbook example of an extremist society with sexist norms and no separation of church and state. Because it had no laws, only people considered authorities on law, it was always a society based on norms laid down by the first settlers and severity on the verge of madness. The power was imbalanced, focused subjectively in the people who had means to control others. Some people attempted to right the wrongs of the powerful, as people are wont to do eventually. Because of them, change indeed came to Salem, slowly and after excessive ruin and death. Before the rebels’ impact took hold, Salem’s Puritan society was a religious dystopian disaster, a fact illustrated excellently by Arthur Miller’s play, The Crucible. This religious dystopian disaster carried many flaws and conflicts that can be seen in other societies, both historical and modern.
Control over others was exerted mainly by the rich, the insiders, the educated, and the conservatives. The insanity of the times allowed the power amongst the positions to be scrambled when the allegiances of people changed. In Miller’s play, control was twisted

by choices; powerless yet evil people became powerful, and powerful yet moral people became powerless. Abigail Williams, as a young female, would typically be overruled by her society, but she used her rich and inside position to manipulate the conservatives of the time to rule her society for a time. Reverend Hale, as an educated male who had such high esteem that, like the judges, his outside position was irrelevant, would typically be respected; but a soon as he chose the moral side, he lost all control over the situation. The old were powerful, but only if they were rich and educated, like the judges.
The rebels against the society were not radical initially—in fact they were moderate compared to the extremist leaders. Radicalism only entered the picture when they were forced to fight back. Rebellion consisted of religious liberals and a mix of all other classes without bias; moralism was ironically the only exclusively spiritual power at work in Salem that had any real effects. In Miller’s play, the Proctors, the Nurses, the Coreys and Reverend Hale were Christians the same as their adversaries—but they had morals and the strength to stand by them. Their morals allowed them to stand by what they knew to be true or righteous regardless of the consequences. The rebels were none of them the saints that John Proctor once called them, but in the context of the times they were icons to be admired.
The traditional ways of society were severe, uncompromising and biased. According to the conservatives, witchcraft was real, all those who claimed to be victims of witchcraft were correct, and all those who were suspected of witchcraft were definitely witches. Religion ruled the courts, and the courts corrupted religion. The real victims were the ones convicted of leaving the religion, but in reality the only power they left were the corrupt courts. They attempted to change the traditional ways of the society because they saw them for what they were: corrupt, overly severe and insane. Those who moved to maintain or strengthen the traditional ways suffered from a selective sight; they saw what served their cause and omitted everything else, including logic. It may be that the “liberals” literally saw more in life.
Miller had a special context and a bigger mission in writing his play about the Salem Witch Trials. The anti-Communism fever of the 1950s was as damaging, in the context of its time, as the anti-Devil fever of the 1690s. Miller saw the trials of those victimized by Joseph McCarthy lose their careers and their livelihood for the slightest connection to the Communist Party. Likewise, the victims of Salem lost their lives for the slightest accusation of witchcraft. Suspicion held more weight than evidence in both eras. Miller wanted to expose this and send out a broader message to humanity, to not let fear or prejudice blind them to logic and moral standings. As their sight should be clear, so should their consciences.
The motives and struggles of those in Salem are similar not only to Miller’s time but also modern America and other modern societies.

Traditionalism and conservatism have always threatened the “rights” and easily strengthened the “wrongs” of society. Liberal ideals allow some people to see past the norms of the time into the heart of the matter or to predict a better future. Victimized people may be forced to see things differently even if they are not naturally liberal. The Crucible shows how these people—the liberals, victims and liberal victims—fought to stand by what they knew to be right, even when all of the voices and norms of society were against them. In the Salem in the play people who were accused were urged to confess based on the testimonies of others and the traditions of severe religious consequences and

connotations.
Society can be a battlefield in itself. Divisions of people constantly fight for a multitude of motives. Gender, race, sexuality, etc. have been deciding factors in people’s morality, in their choices, in their sight. The Crucible shows how one can be forced into a position in which one sees the insanity, prejudices and power imbalances of society. The play also illustrates, sadly, how sometimes the only difference one can make comes after one’s lifetime, as the trials only ended after the martyrs’ deaths and several liberal movements within society became successful after many leaders had died. Societal factions are in constant struggle to overturn each other, but it seems up to the liberals to make a real difference.