Comparative analysis of two dramatic works

¶ … Whistleblowers, men of courage, but not angels -- a comparison of two modern plays

An Enemy of the People" versus "Inherit the Wind"

Although the plays "An Enemy of the People" and "Inherit the Wind" deal with what seem like black-and-white moral debates -- namely the contamination of a local water supply and the suppression of free speech -- the moral complexity of the heroes of these great dramas elevate the subject matter beyond a mere clash of good vs. evil. There are no real heroes and villains in either play, as even the best characters, like Henry Drummond and Dr. Stockmann have character flaws that come to light in the protagonists' pursuits of the truth.

Inherit the Wind" depicts the great legal giant Harry Drummond defending a teacher who has illegally taught evolution to his high school class. But Drummond admits that he even voted for his legal opponent when Matthew H. Brady ran for president and that he has some respect for his opposition as a man. But as an attorney, Drummond questions Brady unmercifully on the witness stand, because Drummond has an obligation to win his case. After the trial, he regrets the suffering he has put the opposing counsel through, and knows that he is responsible for Brady's collapse. Likewise, in "An Enemy of the People," although Dr. Stockmann is technically correct about the public health threat posed by the bacteria in the town's baths, he is so zealous in the pursuit of the truth he alienates, rather than persuades people of the rightness of his cause.

Dr. Stockmann lives entirely for the public good, which sounds like an admirable thing, and may be necessary to some degree so that uncomfortable societal truths can be brought to light. While "his opponents have constantly tried to manipulate him by reminding him of his responsibilities to his family" he is deaf to their entreaties (Moi, 2000). But this also strikes the viewer as unnaturally dispassionate. While this "unworldly enthusiast" and scientist possesses an "innocent energy, a joy of life, a relish of open fighting and a recklessness that makes him completely incapable of petty political calculation" these qualities make him "easy prey for the machinations of his powerful brother, Peter Stockmann, and for the scheming of the editor of the liberal paper" (Moi, 2000). They self-servingly make Stockmann seem insane in their public characterization of the scientist. Stockmann is so naive he cannot understand why others are not as eager to close down the infested baths, even though the existence of the baths prop up the local economy and draw in tourists. Taxpayers are unwilling to pay for the added expense -- but rather than be sympathetic to these concerns, anticipate the opposition arguments, and attempt to persuade the populace otherwise, Stockmann foolishly assumes with his scientific view of the world that right will make might, in a reversal of the old cliche that might makes right.

Stockman's daughter, who is not even involved in his crusade, loses her teaching job, and his sons are thrown out of school. Although he decides to create a school of his own, and his wife and family say they will support him, they essentially have no choice in the matter. Stockmann ends the play by saying: "the strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone," even though his family has had to make profound sacrifices for him, as a result of his crusade, while he has ostensibly been acting for the welfare of all the people (Act V).

Teaching the theory of evolution to broaden the minds of the young people of his community likewise not only destroys the life of the teacher Bertram Cates, but also the life of his fiancee, and ruins the reputation of Hillsboro, where the national presses tar and feather the town as a place populated by narrow-minded religious zealots. Although the play may sympathize with Cates' desire to open up his students' minds, it shows that not every supporter of evolution is as equally high-minded. There is also: "E. K. Hornbeck of the Baltimore Herald, who has championed Cates in his columns and is greatly and haughtily amused at the spectacle of ignorance and bigotry before him" (Iannone, 1997). Hornbeck simply wants to sell newspapers at Hillsboro's expense.

Unlike Stockmann, Drummond sways the opinion larger public support of the nation, if not the jury of Hillsboro and contributes to wider public's perception of Hillsboro as a backwater. "Though the jury brings in the inevitable guilty verdict, it is clear that Drummond has triumphed -- and along with him, freedom of thought. The judge charges Cates a token fine of one hundred dollars" (Iannone, 1997). But there clearly is a social and financial loss to the sense of community of the town. "In discussing Brady's death after the trial, Drummond repudiates the journalist Hornbeck's scathing ridicule. As Drummond sees it, Brady was a once-great man who had ceased to move forward....In its closing scenes, the play emphasizes again what it suggested throughout: Brady's fundamentalism is wrong, but so is Hornbeck's godless cynicism" (Iannone, 1997).