What Are The Similarities Between The Scarlet Letter And The Crucible

Throughout history many events have occurred which has brought up the seemingly unanswerable question; what is it that make good people commit malicious actions? The reasons for these actions are presumed to be unknown, and are reliant on the the circumstances of the situation. Throughout history, in times such as the McCarthy era and Salem Witch Trials, people who trusted in the community, can be seen acting disorderly and immorally against innocent people. Even throughout literature in history including The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne and The Crucible by Arthur Miller, the situation and circumstances the characters were placed in resulted in the characters acting far from their normal selves. In an effort to explain what causes

once good people to commit evil actions, two psychologists by the names of Philip Zimbardo and Stanley Milgram conducted experiments to provide an explanation to the puzzling question. Their research has shown that anonymity and authoritative command can be credited to why generally good people perpetrate nefarious behavior.
Zimbardo’s and Milgram’s experiments both ultimately show that it is possible that good people can do unthinkable things when put in certain situations.

In the Stanford Prison experiment conducted by Philip Zimbardo, he gathered a group of students and he designated half of them to play the role of the guards and they other half were to be the prisoners. The ‘prisoners’ were assigned identification numbers and were only called upon by these numbers; while the guards were given uniforms. The anonymity of the guards made them feel like they had limitless power and they could do as they wish with no repercussions as their true identity would never be revealed (The milgram experiment video). As the experiment progressed the guards became more and more abusive towards the prisoners and tortured them as well. The guards were “being creatively abusive, night and day, in ways that went far beyond their instructions, such as leaving ‘prisoners’ in solitary confinement for long period and sadistically manipulating them physcologically with lies and shaming” (Aron 3). We can learn through this experiment how anonymity can make people commit bad actions they wouldn’t do if they weren’t anonymous, as we observe the inhumane actions of the guards. Similar results were produced in the research of psychologist Stanley Milgram. Milgram’s research made it blatant, that when the responsibility of your actions are taken off you, you can turn into an entirely different person. The experiment

was comprised of a person shocking a random individual on the other side of a wall whenever a question was answered with the incorrect response (each time a question was answered wrong the voltage of the shock would be increased); based on the commands given by an individual dressed in a lab coat. As expected there was some reluctance, but more likely than not, the people went through and shocked the test subjects. The research showed “65% of very typical people will give electric shocks to someone in another room if they are told to do so by an experimenter in a lab coat, and they will increase these shocks to what they are informed lethal levels if told they must do so” (Aron 3). The results of these experiments made it evident how authority can have a huge impact on the actions of the subjects.
The research of the psychologists show that when someone’s identity is taken away, they believe they can do as they wish, as they will not be held accountable. It is evident that anonymity is a cause of why good people may sometimes act evil. In The Scarlet Letter, the antagonist Roger Chillingworth is a clear example of how evil can come from anonymity. Through the duration of the story his identity is a lie, since in reality he is the husband of Hester Prynne. In the entirety of the book he hides behind this new identity he created and therefore doesn’t think twice when committing evil acts; whereas if he was still with Hester and was his original self, he might have not done anything. Chillingworth tortures the minister Arthur Dimmesdale by trying to “startle him with sudden fear” (Hawthorne 210). However, later in the story we are able to witness Mr. Prynne’s true character as he “bequeathed a considerable amount of property to little pearl [his daughter]” (Hawthorne 398). We are able to witness the generosity of the true Chillingworth here, proving that anonymity was the cause of his evil against Dimmesdale. Likewise, Zimbardo’s experiment and Roger Chillingworth both show that the feeling of being someone else can affect the way you act.
In Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison study, the guards embraced the new identity given to them, as Zimbardo explained “The ‘guards’ were given fancy guard uniforms [and] reflective glasses to hide most of their faces” (Aron 3).

This adds to how anonymity was created in the experiment and how it can make generally good people do evil things. This can also be observed in The Crucible, as John Proctor acts in a righteous way so he doesn't have to sign his name onto a lie, even if his was life was at stake. He was willing to save himself by lying, but as soon as it came to signing his name, his decision changed. Proctor had already untruthfully confessed in compacting with the devil. But why does he withdraw this confession when he is asked to sign his name? What is is so important in a name? To Proctor his name, was his identity and it represented everything righteous he stood for. He thought to himself about his children, “how teach them to walk like men in the world’ if he “blackened all of them when [his name] is nailed to the church” (Miller 143). We can see here that Proctor’s anonymity made him lie fo his own protection, but when his true character was about to be tarnished, he could not even keep up a lie to save his life. Yet again, we are able to witness how anonymity can cause people to do things they generally wouldn’t

do.
Just as significant, the influence of authoritative figures can also transform the way someone would act in a situation. Whenever someone is commanded to perform an action they are uncomfortable with, the first thing they think of is “Who will be taking the responsibility for this?” (Milgram Experiment Video). If they are told “I will” from a authoritative figure, Milgram’s research showed that most people were will going go through with highest level of shocking on a stranger (Milgram Experiment Video). The McCarthy era in the 1950’s showed the disastrous occurrences as a result of the influence by authority (in this case the government). Senator McCarthy triggered a sense of schizophrenia throughout the nation by conveying his “belief that a massive,profoundly organised conspiracy was in place and carried forward mainly by a concealed phalanx of intellectuals, including labour activists, teachers, professionals, sworn to undermine the American government” (Are You Now Were You Ever). McCarthy’s relentless accusations of communists residing within our country and his pursuit of preventing them through the establishment of HUAC, put Americans in a frenzie. Americans were told to report any unusual activity, which caused a ‘witch hunt’. People went as far as accusing their own family members and friends for meaningless actions. People turned on each other left and right since they were ordered to by the government. Countless lives were ruined by false accusations, which can be credited directly to the orders of the government. This clearly shows how authority can alter the way people perceive things, which more often than not, makes people act of their usual character into a more evil manner.
Another instance in which authoritative figures have had an unfavorable impact in history is the Abu Ghraib incident of 2006. Zimbardo also conducted research on the horrid actions of the American soldiers towards the prisoners they were holding in Abu Ghraib. He was called upon to try to understand as to why well renowned soldiers would commit such evil acts against the prisoners. Zimbardo’s research includes pictures which “showed Army reservist guards torturing and humiliating Iraqi prisoners - naked prisoners stacked in pyramids or crawling on the floor with leashes; naked terrified prisoners being threatened with attack dogs or having guns pointed at their genitals by hideously masked guards; and worse” (Wargo). The guards were given unrestricted and unsupervised power to do whatever they must to obtain information from the prisoners by higher authority, presumably the CIA. These commands from the authoritative figures caused the guards to dismiss their moral values, and do whatever they wished to get any information from them. The pressure created by the authoritative figures resulted in the soldiers commiting otherwise unthinkable actions.
In conclusion, Zimbardo and Milgram conducted their experiments and research to determine why people with strong morals may commit malevolent actions. In the end, they determined an altered identity and the influence of a figure of authority play a major role in why good people can do bad things. The McCarthy Era of the 1950’ and the Abu Ghraib incident along with literature such as The Crucible and Scarlet Letter, show us how even the best of people can be incensed to to act immorally. We can use the research of Milgram and Zimbardo to be more aware of our surroundings and situation and to hopefully prevent ourselves from committing any actions that we would regret.