Character Analysis and Reflection of the Play an Enemy of the People

¶ … Enemy of the People

Character Analysis & Reflection of the Play "An Enemy of the People"

Character Analyses

Tom Stockmann -- This part is essentially the role of the scientist. Dr. Stockman is an idealist, secure in his scientific world that the right thing, as he defines it, will be done. Tom Stockman is rational if not pragmatic. He underestimates the power that money has over common sense, good sense, and sometimes any sense at all. Stockman's world view is that of medicine, a paradigm that demands its practitioners do no harm. While money from tourism would certainly be nice, Dr. Stockman is unable to accept the idea that there are citizens in the town who would trade good health -- perhaps even their own good health -- for money. Further, he doesn't understand why the authorities don't respond to his discovery and move forward with making the corrections to the pipes, in concert with his original suggestions. Dr. Stockman has right (times 2) on his side: he correctly identified the cause of prior illnesses and his position as a doctor demands that he respond to that situation, and he advised against placing the water pipes in their present position, a recommendation that, had it been followed, would have avoided the central issue altogether.

Peter Stockmann -- This part is essentially the role of the business enterprise. As the mayor, Peter Stockmann has the commercial well-being of the town at heart. He argues with his brother about the need to go along with the majority in decisions that impact the township. Further, Mayor Stockmann is perfectly willing to subvert the truth if it will further his cause, which in this case is the development of the bath project. The issue of water contamination is further complicated by the fact that the Mayor chose the locations for the pipes, and so is directly responsible for the contamination, particularly since he did not follow his brothers' more knowledgeable advice. The sibling issues between the two brothers are an interesting subplot that adds to the complexity of finding an acceptable solution to the contaminated water problem. Peter thinks that Tom is rash, impetuous, self-righteous, and impractical. Tom thinks that Peter is pompous,

Hovstad -- This part is the role of the press, a major player in freedom of speech. As a journalist, Hovstad has a vested interest in printing the news and building a reputation for seeking the truth -- and printing it. That said, Hovstad is not at all above being deceitful if it means that he can get good readership as a result. Hovstad tends to think of life in terms of a class struggle, and as he came from a poor, lower class background, he is unlikely to side with the town's elected officials and those who are most likely to achieve significant economic benefit from the opening of the baths. Like any good editor, Hovstad strives to take the pulse of the readership and ensure the future of his paper. While he may be uncomfortable having to come down off his own press pedestal, Hovstad knows that rhetoric will only sell papers if it conveys the messages that people want to read. Hovstad is left wondering if investigative journalism -- despite the portrait of a dashing dare-devil reporter that it paints -- is not be all it is cracked up to be.

What is the appropriate role for scientific experts in a democratic community? To what extent should citizens trust the experts? Are they obliged to learn enough about science to judge issues concerning pollution, the environment, nuclear energy, etc., for themselves? Does the right to vote convey a responsibility to learn something about public affairs? Does a special knowledge of science give a person the right to lead or govern? As global challenges increasingly require specialized knowledge in science and technology, wouldn't it be better if governments were run by scientists and engineers?

The dilemma that Dr. Stockman faces in An Enemy of the People has contemporary currency. As modern society becomes ever more increasingly dependent upon knowledge -- on science and technology knowledge, in particular -- the role of scientists and engineers must evolve sufficient to keep pace with and essentially lead change. But this growing responsibility carries a moral imperative. Doubtless, there has always been some tacit moral imperative associated with science -- as there is in medicine under the Hippocratic oath -- but the consequences of attending to or ignoring science are perhaps greater than they have ever been in the history of mankind.

Multiple and competing demands are the stuff of science and engineering. Funding, governmental initiatives, extant research, the marketplace, and political will all readily impact the course of scientific research and development. It is perhaps more typical that these competing demands would collide, than not. When they do collide, the concept of a perfect frontier -- as in investments where all the market information is available to all the people at the same time -- is moot. The market, in the instance when information is withheld, is neither fair nor reliable. In some instances, pertinent scientific information is not available to decision-makers by omission, sometimes the relevant information is available but is purposefully not disseminated to decision-makers, and sometimes the information is not yet known.

In 1986, the space shuttle Challenger broke apart as it was launched for mission 51L. Extensive post-catastrophe analysis revealed that the space engineers had all the relevant information they needed to make the prediction that the Challenger was headed for disaster if launch was scheduled when temperatures were sufficiently low to make the critical O-rings brittle. In fact, the engineers communicated this information to the executive decision-makers a number of times, and in a number of ways. While the engineers may have had the unspoken picture clearly in their minds, the administrators did not -- or would not -- put the pieces of information together into a coherent whole. NASA was under tremendous fiscal and political pressure. It was simply not acceptable that the flight would be delayed -- the public relations wheels were already turning.

In 1991, Erin Brokovich stumbled across some real estate papers in a legal file that sparked her curiosity. Through her diligent and unorthodox efforts, PG&E was found to be knowingly polluting the drinking water of a little California town called Hinkley with hexavalent chromium, a known carcinogenic. In a story so familiar it has become classic, the unassuming heroine takes on a big corporation, and wins. The issue here was that the corporation was deliberately covering up the harm for which they were responsible.

Hydrofracking practices for oil and natural gas drilling have received a considerable amount of attention lately as the ramifications of the approach have been felt by an increasing number of citizens. Ground water -- indeed, drinking water piped into people's homes -- has become contaminated with the chemicals used to foster the hydrofacturing processes. Unsuspecting landowners, who are often struggling ranchers, are offered considerable sums of money for leased drilling rights by the hydrofracking companies. Similar to the PG&E water contamination issues, regulation is scant and laws inadequately address the current problem and the future threat associated with hydrofracking. A fundamental reason for this is that exemptions to seven federal environmental protection acts have been granted to natural gas and oil drilling companies. Issues related to global warming are similarly situated.