Sultana 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

An Enemy of the People is written by Henrik Ibsen. An Enemy of the People presents

a complex analysis of society and class. The play shows the triumph of the upper class being

irrational even. It presents how the upper class rules the minority or even the struggles of the

hardworking poor.

Dr. Stockmann has discovered that the new baths built in his town are infected with a

deadly disease and instructs the town to repair or close the baths. The Mayor, who is Dr.

Stockmann’s brother, does not believe the report and refuses to close the baths because it will

cause the financial ruin of the town. Dr. Stockmann tries to take his case to the people, but

the mayor intercedes and explains to the people how much it will cost to repair the baths. He

explains that the Doctor is always filled with wild, fanciful ideas. In a public meeting, he has

his brother declared an enemy of the people. This depiction in the society vividly portrays the

disempowerment of the people throughout the play. At the opening of the play, Catherine

Stockmann entertains various guests in her home. Her brother-in-law, the town’s mayor and

chairman of the board for the Springs, stops by and waxes poetic about how the Springs are

revitalizing their town. Not long after he leaves, Stockmann himself comes home. His

daughter, Petra, a young woman in her twenties who is a schoolteacher, hands him a letter

that came in the mail.

Stockmann reads it in private and returns to his family, exultant. He explains that he

had long found it suspicious that so many people were getting sick lately, and secretly

ordered tests of the Springs’ water. The letter included the results of the tests, demonstrating

that microscopic bacteria from the tannery above the Springs were polluting the water. His

family is happy for him, and he is confident that, when he tells his brother about it, the town

will move to renovate the Springs. Hovstad, the editor of the People’s Daily Messenger, who
 Sultana 2

is there visiting the family, is ardently supportive and tells him he will run the article in his

paper.

The next day, Catherine’s father, Morten Kiil, stops by. He tells Stockmann he heard

about the report but thinks it is a hilarious joke Stockmann wants to play on his brother. Then

Hovstad and Aslaksen, the newspaper’s publisher and Chairman of the Property Owners’

Association, arrive. Hovstad is on fire about routing the town’s entrenched authority, and

Aslaksen cautions moderation but says the people are behind Stockmann.

After the newspapermen leave, Peter comes by to talk to his brother. He tells him

sternly that he is angry that Stockmann went behind his back, and that the proposed plan will

bankrupt the town. Stockman is aghast at his brother’s behavior and says that Peter is only

upset because he does not want to be held responsible for it, as his administration approved

the Springs. Peter replies that a government needs moral authority, and he forbids Stockmann

to tell the public. Stockman says it is already getting out and he will use the press. Furious,

Peter demands that he keep his convictions to himself and stop trying to ruin the town.

Catherine and Petra enter as the brothers’ argument heats up. After Peter leaves, Catherine

wonders about Stockmann’s duty to his family vs. his duty to uphold the truth.

The next day Hovstad, Aslaksen, and Billing, a journalist, meet in the newspaper’s

office. They are excited to print Stockmann’s piece. Petra visits and tells Hovstad that she

does not believe the newspaper has principles because it wants to print a translated novel

about good people being rewarded and bad people being punished. She leaves after Hovstad

tries to ingratiate himself with her but accidentally criticizes her father.

Peter visits the office and manages to sow doubt and persuade the men not to run the

report, as it results in a high tax that will hurt the town. Peter hides when he hears Stockmann

coming.
 Sultana 3

Stockmann enters the office and begins to wonder why the men are hesitant about the

article. He sees Peter’s cane on a table and realizes what happened. Catherine and Petra enter

the office and Catherine condemns Hovstad for doing her husband ill. Peter comes out of

hiding and he and Stockmann argue once more. Stockman claims he will march through the

street if he has to, now that the newspaper will not print his article.

In Act II, Stockmann meets with Captain Horster, a traveling sea captain, at the

captain's house. Horster has agreed to hold a lecture by Stockmann. People begin to trickle in

and take their seats. A drunk man behaves obnoxiously. The townspeople seem antipathetic

towards Stockmann, especially when he takes the stage. It is suggested to have a moderator,

and Aslaksen is selected.

Peter gets to speaks first, criticizing his brother as wanting to destroy the town, and

painting him as the enemy. He says that his right to free speech is curtailed in a time of

danger. He also tells the story of the town before the Springs came, and how in the future

everyone would be rich. Finally, he asks that Stockmann not be allowed to read his report.

Stockman is frustrated but stands and promises he will not talk about the Springs. The

heckling ceases for a bit and he begins. He condemns the people’s ignorance and the tyranny

of the majority. He begs people to think of the risk of getting of sick.

The crowd is furious and hostile, and cares for nothing Stockmann says. He is called

an enemy of the people, and people shout him out of the room. Captain Horster says the

family can go on his ship to America with him.

In Act III, the family experiences the animus of the town. Rocks are thrown into their

windows, they are evicted from their home, and Petra is fired. They plan to go to America but

Catherine is nervous that things will not change.

Peter comes over and tries to get Stockmann to agree to a statement that he was

wrong, but Stockmann holds fast. Peter accuses his brother of a plot, as it seems Morten Kiil
 Sultana 4

is buying up stock in the Springs. Stockmann has no idea what is going on, but Peter assumes

he does.

Later Kiil arrives and confirms this, because he was responsible for the tannery that

polluted the Springs in the first place. He wants Stockmann to clear his name. Stockmann is

irate and refuses, and the men part with ill words.

Horster visits the house and tells them he cannot take them on his ship because the

owner got rid of him as captain due to his affiliation with Stockmann.

The Stockmann boys come home and Morten explains he was beaten up because

another boy called his father a traitor and he fought back. This enrages Stockmann. He

decides the family will not retreat –they will stay and fight for what is right. They will

educate the children at home and Stockmann will embrace his role as enemy of the people.

They have truth on their side and will be strong and victorious.
 Sultana 5

Chapter 2: Concept of Disempowerment

According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, disempowerment is to deprive one of

power, authority, or influence and make one weak, ineffectual, or unimportant. According to

Oxford English and Spanish Dictionary, disempowerment is making (a person or group) less

powerful or confident. According to Cambridge Dictionary, disempowerment is to take away

someone’s confidence and feeling of being in control of their life.

Throughout the play it has been vividly depicted that powerful class of the society

stooped the voice of rationality and voice of people. “You have no right to express ... an

opinion which might ... conflict with your superiors (Mayor, Act 2)” speaks the power of the

ruling class in response to a rational voice. This is one of the themes of the play is the

question of whether a person has a right or a responsibility to speak an opinion when others

disagree. The mayor argues the doctor, as an employee, has lost that right.

“The majority has the power ... unfortunately ...; but it doesn’t make them right (Dr.

Thomas Stockmann, Act 4)” speaks the helpless and hapless situation of a rational voice in

response to a major issue favouring the country people. Dr. Stockmann knows he cannot win

because the town is against him, but he wants to make it clear the power to make this

decision does not make them correct.

“A man who wants to destroy a whole society must be an enemy to everyone

(Hovstad, Act 4)” speaks about how one has been termed as an enemy instead of lover of

mankind just because of the political corruption. The crowd has been hostile to Dr.

Stockmann, Hovstad is the first one to term him “an enemy.” This may be an effort on

Hovstad’s part to ingratiate himself with the mayor.

“Submit to the authorities whose job it is to decide what’s good for society

(Mayor, Act 1)” speaks about the triumph of the ruling class. The mayor advocates for
 Sultana 6

people to obey the authorities, which means to obey him. This has been a brutal reality and

picture of censored society. No one can raise the voice against the authority. This

authoritative voice speaks about disempowering of people in An Enemy of the People. This

paper aims at exploring this picture of disempowerment in the following chapters where

hindrance in parrhesiastic practices and political corruptive manipulation will be discussed

respectively.
 Sultana 7

Chapter 3: Hindrance in Parrhesiastic practices

An Enemy of the People is the most straightforwardly polemical work Ibsen ever

wrote.” Ibsen has enriched this play with “the quality of a revolutionary pamphlet”

(Brustein 1965:71), and Dr. Stockmann, as Ibsen’s alterego and his charismatic social

rebel, echoes the dramatist’s concerns with the revelation of truth in the form of

parrhesia. The word parrhesia was initially documented in Euripides’ texts as the

individual’s “right to speak” or “to take the floor and speak publicly” regarding his

personal views about the truth regarding the well-being of the city or the state (qtd. in

Haj’jari 31).

Dr. Stockmann, as an intellectual member of his society, initially embodies the

features of such parrhesiastic figure in its democratic form. As a citizen of a town seemingly

ruled democratically, Dr. Stockmann possesses the right to express his opinion over the truth

of the Baths to other citizens and officials, whether it is accepted or not. As such, he enjoys

the right of parrhesia which was, in its ancient Greek form, given to any person who was the

wisest regarding the political well-being of the state. Accordingly, Dr. Stockmann enters a

“parrhesiastic game” with the mayor, journalists, and citizens, a game in which the one with

the right of parrhesia tries to reveal “the moral qualities which are required, first, to know the

truth, and, secondly, to convey such truth to others”. In ancient Greek democracy, as Roberts

says,

Parrhesia had a public aspect (an equal right to address the Assembly) and a private

one—the right to say what you thought in most settings. But even on the comic stage,

there was no license to mock certain deities or rites or to attack religion in general or

democracy in general. Anti-democratic writing, such as the Old Oligarch’s pamphlet,

 Sultana 8

and anti-democratic talk at home would have been unlikely to incur public

displeasure. (Roberts 2005:201)

Under each quality the parrhesiast proved him/herself as the true manifestation a socio-

politically honest person. Ibsen’s Dr. Stockmann follows the same traditional model and can

be argued to really win the title of a parrhesiast in the same way that a priest is canonized.

Frankness necessitates the fearless speaker to say everything that is in his/her mind and heart

through discourse, avoiding rhetorician, using the most literal terminology.

Frankness is then divided into the “pejorative” and the “positive” sense. The

“pejorative sense,” or “bad parrhesia,” is a form of “chattering,” a characteristic of

“the bad democratic constitution” where everyone is allowed to say anything in public

regardless of its consequences (ibid., pp. 13f.). It is to express “whatever comes to

mind without reference to any principle of reason or truth” and, therefore, a “bad

democratic city” emerges from the power relations between its citizens (Foucault

2011:10). The “positive” sense is to mindfully say that something is “really true,” a

fact arising from “an exact coincidence between [the parrhesiast’s] belief and truth.”

Having the right to say the truth thus requires the moral quality both in knowing the

truth and in honestly conveying it to others, although the parrhesiast may sometimes

necessarily remain silent before others while he knows the truth (qtd. in Haj’jari 32).

Accordingly, frankness to tell the truth is part of Dr. Stockmann’s attempts at revealing the

filthiness of the Baths. He is strikingly frank in addressing Peter and the mob regarding the

truth surrounding the spa. By scientifically investigating into its condition, Dr. Stockmann

believes that the water supply is filthy. Being assured of his discovery, he tells Peter about

that and which is crystal clear in their following discussion. Instances of Dr. Stockmann’s
 Sultana 9

conversation with Peter and the journalists as well as his public speech to unveil the problem

with the spa reveal his utmost frankness.

Dr. Stockmann. Quite so. Well, do you know what they really are, these great,

splendid, much praised Baths, that have cost so much money — do you know what

they are?

Hovstad. No, what are they?

Mrs. Stockmann. Yes, what are they?

Dr. Stockmann. The whole place is a pest-house!

Petra. The Baths, father?

Mrs. Stockmann (at the same time), Our Baths?

Hovstad. But, Doctor —

Billing. Absolutely incredible!

Dr. Stockmann. The whole Bath establishment is a whited, poisoned sepulchre, I tell

you — the gravest possible danger to the public health! All the nastiness up at

Molledal, all that stinking filth, is infecting the water in the conduit-pipes leading to

the reservoir; and the same cursed, filthy poison oozes out on the shore too —

Horster. Where the bathing-place is?

Dr. Stockmann. Just there.

Hovstad. How do you come to be so certain of all this, Doctor?

 Sultana 10

Dr. Stockmann. I have investigated the matter most conscientiously. For a long time

past I have suspected something of the kind. Last year we had some very strange

cases of illness among the visitors — typhoid cases, and cases of gastric fever —

Mrs. Stockmann. Yes, that is quite true.

Dr. Stockmann. At the time, we supposed the visitors had been infected before they

came; but later on, in the winter, I began to have a different opinion; and so I set

myself to examine the water, as well as I could.

Mrs. Stockmann. Then that is what you have been so busy with?

Dr. Stockmann. Indeed I have been busy, Katherine. But here I had none of the

necessary scientific apparatus; so I sent samples, both of the drinking-water and of the

sea-water, up to the University, to have an accurate analysis made by a chemist.

Hovstad. And have you got that?

Dr. Stockmann (showing him the letter). Here it is! It proves the presence of

decomposing organic matter in the water — it is full of infusoria. The water is

absolutely dangerous to use, either internally or externally.

Mrs. Stockmann. What a mercy you discovered it in time. (Act I)

The next factor is the parrhesiast’s “courage” to say something contrary to the

majority’s belief which is a proof of his sincerity. In order to say such dangerous things for

any change within the society, the parrhesiast should have an appropriate social status.

Besides, taking risks to speak the truth may subject the parrhesiast to a parrhesiastic game of

life and death. As such, the parrhesiast holds a specific relationship to himself as he risks his

life in telling the truth instead of reposing in the security of a life where the truth goes
 Sultana 11

unspoken. Conversely, the majority may react negatively to the truth by punishing the

parrhesiast who merely speaks for noble reasons and opposes the will of all. In this light, it is

not then surprising that Dr. Stockmann is covertly warned by his brother and the journalists

that they will not support him and that his position will be at stake if he follows his own path.

Nevertheless, Dr. Stockmann risks his life in speaking the truth. In accepting the parrhesiastic

game, Dr. Stockmann risks his life for truth rather than enjoying the security of living as a

high member of the town without telling the truth. He ignores all dangers and performs his

task in the name of truth and for the sake of [his] conscience. Dr. Stockmann persists in

telling the truth strongly and bravely in the very teeth of the government, as Meyer says

(1963:11). In Ledger’s view,

Dr. Stockmann takes an extreme liberal-individualist position, determined to exercise

his right to free speech, his right to publicize the truth, no matter what the

consequences are for the sider community. He is at once a libertarian, an individualist

and, significantly, anti-democratic, eventually campaigning for an aristocracy of the

intellect. He maintains that the rights of the individual and abstract concepts of liberty

and truth are more important than owning and property, earning a fortune and taking

care of the interests of one’s own family, all of which were central preoccupations of

nine-century bourgeois liberalism. (Ledger 2008:30)

Throughout the play it is found that there was a hindrance in parrhesiastic practices.

Dr. Stockmann wants to see the matter put right, naturally while his own life will be in

danger as the town stands against him and his family. The town’s lack of toleration in the

face of truth is then democratically paradoxical since they are disillusioned about their well-

being. The parrhesiast may thus insult the interlocutor’s pride and authenticity by telling him

what to do.
 Sultana 12

The play is full of “mechanical repetition[s],” or “the imposition of machinelike

regularity upon spontaneous, unpredictable human nature,” which give the play comic

effects. Many of these repetitions come from Dr. Stockmann: he curses the mob

repeatedly in his speech with “mechanical regularity” through such words as “devil,”

“damned,” “cursed,” etc. (ibid., p. 171). Ibsen also attributes to Dr. Stockmann “a

degree of self-involvement that could be problematical were it not mitigated

comically by his guileless histrionic nature.” Ibsen in fact emphasizes this “self-

inflation” by having Dr. Stockmann use “mirth-provoking” jargons just like those of

his enemies (Knutson 1993:166). Dr. Stockmann sees himself as a “newly awakened

lionhearted” man, for example (Ibsen 2005:96). This boasting is “mock-heroic cant”

(Knutson 1993:166), as it is in Peter’s threat against Dr. Stockmann’s claims: “I shall

smite them to the ground–I shall crush them–I shall break down all their defenses,

before the eyes of the honest public! That is what I shall do!” (Ibsen 2005:72) (qtd. in

Haj’jari 34).

Dr. Stockman’s opinion has been controlled and it reflects the obstacle in raising the voice for

the betterment of the people.

 Sultana 13

Chapter 4: Political Corruptive Manipulation and Violence

According to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, corruption is the impairment

of integrity, virtue, or moral principles. Corruption is an inducement to wrong things by

improper or unlawful means. Corruption is again, a departure from the original or from what

is pure or correct. The word manipulation comes from the verb ‘to manipulate’ whose

meanings are multiple with reference to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. First, to

manipulate, means to treat or operate with or as if with the hands or by mechanical means

especially in a skilful manner. Secondly, it means to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or

insidious means especially to one’s own advantage. Lastly, to manipulate means to change by

artful or unfair means so as to serve one’s purpose. These definitions of the two key terms –

corruption and manipulation– are conditioning my examination of this section. My analyses

are showing how some characters in the play are corruptive, corruptible and manipulatable or

manipulated taking advantage of circumstances arising to bend other characters to serve their

selfish, desires and purposes within a political environment. An Enemy of the People, is a

play whose central matter is about corruptive political manipulation. Peter Stockmann is the

Mayor of the town and Chief Constable, a ruthless politician, the Chairman of the Baths’

Committee who manipulates the corruptive and corruptible local press or newspapermen for

his own political survival. As I said above, politics is concerned with winning power and

holding it, Peter Stockmann is a local governor; he has fought to win his political position

and will not like to lose it. Hovstad supports him that any fight is good for survival:

“Hovstad: It is a natural law; every animal must fight for its own livelihood” (14).

Therefore, he is trying to do all he can in order to hinder anything that will get him

out of the place. When his junior brother Thomas Stockmann, a practicing medical doctor,

Medical Officer of the Municipal Baths after some medical experiments, disinterestedly

reveals him that the baths’ drainage is seriously contaminated, Peter Stockmann, pushed by
 Sultana 14

his selfish motives, rejects the doctor’s objective scientific findings on the ground that such

revelations will undermine the town’s welfare. It is also important to know that the mayor

formerly denies the findings of the doctor on the pretext that he is not convincing. Soon after,

he lets his junior brother know that the necessary repairs of the contaminated baths would be

too expensive for the town. His inconsistencies are obvious. An Enemy of the People also

addresses the irrational tendencies of the masses, and the hypocritical corrupt nature of the

political system that they support. It is the story of one brave man's struggle to do the right

thing and speak the truth in the face of extreme social intolerance. The play’s protagonist, Dr

Stockmann, represents the playwright’s own voice. Dr Stockmann’s scientific experiments on

the baths constitute the bone of contention in the play and the source of character revelation.

Dr. Stockmann makes a discovery that he thinks will help the town. He presses for changes to

be made to the baths, but the town turns on him. Not only have his scientific experiments

been a waste of time, and not only will the townspeople suffer, but his freedom of speech and

self-respect are being attacked. He then decides that the only reason that the leaders have

turned on him is that they are afraid of the people. He, thus, lashes out at the people. He is

motivated both by his anger and by true realizations about the corruption of the town together

with the political activists, the mayor, the newspapermen and leaders of sociopolitical

associations. This scientific discover serves as an opportunity to the town political activists to

satisfy their selfish needs on the detriment of the town’s welfare.

The newspaper men want to seize this opportunity to criticize the local government.

Hovstad, the editor of the newspaper People’s Messenger tells the doctor that he hopes to use

the information about the pollution of the baths as a starting point for an all-out attack on the

city’s leadership. He says that the real pollution comes from the city leaders. The doctor

agrees that conservatism is bad, but he is hesitant to attack the town's leadership, which is

made up of the most qualified men, including his own brother the mayor. Aslaksen, the
 Sultana 15

newspaper’s printer is the chairman of two Associations: the Temperance Society and the

powerful Householders’ Association; he wants to assure Dr. Stockmann that he can count on

his support. He wants to stage a moderate demonstration in favor of fixing the baths. Dr.

Stockmann does not think this will be necessary, as he is convinced that the baths' board of

directors will see that the repairs are necessary. Aslaksen emphasizes that he does not want to

upset the town leaders. Aslaksen wants to support the move to fix the baths, but already he

shows himself to be prudent to a fault. If the mayor can make the project look risky or

dangerous to Aslaksen, he might withdraw his support.

These two political people Hovstad and Aslaksen are being opportunistic about the

issue of the baths’ contamination. The state of the baths coheres with the state of the moral

state of these political activists. The Baths’ corruption is synonymous with their moral

corruption. They are trying to manipulate Dr Stockmann for their personal reasons. Hovstad

and Aslaksen agree that Dr. Stockmann will be very useful to them, although for different

purposes. Even Hovstad's enthusiastic support foreshadows danger. He wants to use the

report to topple the local bureaucracy. He seems to be interested in how useful the report is to

him and not how this report will call the Mayor and the Baths’ Committee to their

responsibilities. In other words, if someone can convince him that publicizing the report is

not in his best interests, he might not print it. Hovstad on his side wants to use the Doctor as a

political firebrand. Aslaksen is also running for council secretary.

At the same time, Hovstad and his assistant Billing would like to get rid of Aslaksen

and benefit alone from the Doctor’s discoveries knowing well that he is a friend, a colleague

who often lets them print on credit. Hovstad and his assistant Billing depend on him for

printing on credit, but they do not want to compete with him on the current favourable

opportunity. They want to be alone in the favours of Dr. Stockmann who might be able to

help finance the paper. They are supporting Dr. Stockmann because they would like him to
 Sultana 16

share his inheritance from his rich father-in-law Morten Kiil with them. We can see that

selfish interests are motivating these political men in their support of Dr Stockmann against

the Mayor. While Aslaksen wants political promotion Hovstad wants the Doctor to become

his financial asset. But, since their support for the Doctor is conditioned it will not last for

long, if another opportunity is offered to them they will undoubtedly seize it, they are at the

mercy of time’s whims and circumstances. They are opportunistic manipulators and are

themselves liable to somebody else’s manipulation. Let us see how they are manipulated in

their turn by the Mayor who is politically wittier than them. The Mayor is interested in

maintaining his position as the town leader. He is even very disturbed when Dr. Stockmann

talks of a younger generation growing up to change things. He also seems very insecure,

which is no doubt related to the rather competitive spirit shared by him and his brother the

Doctor. The popular opinion that the Baths were the idea of Dr. Stockmann enrages the

Mayor.

The Mayor is upset that the Doctor conducted the investigation without informing

him. He believes that the report exaggerates the situation. He says that the cost to make the

suggested repairs would be very expensive and will take two years. To justify his denial of

his brother’s findings he says that he is not convinced that there is a real problem. He goes on

to describe how losing the Baths would be a catastrophe to the town’s economy. To create a

false hope in Dr. Stockmann he says that the board might be willing to make some changes in

a few years. Dr. Stockmann reminds the Mayor that if his original plan for the construction of

the Baths had been followed, there would be no problem. It means that the Mayor had already

turned a death ear on him before. The Mayor insists that instead of arguing with him the

Doctor should merely submit to his authority. He demands that the Doctor conduct further

studies and make a public announcement that his findings were false. Because the Doctor has

been employed by him he claims that, when acting as an employee, the Doctor has no
 Sultana 17

individual rights. Because he does not want the discoveries of the Doctor to impinge on his

authority and power as the local Governor, the Mayor goes so far as to manipulate the

newspapermen to hinder the propagation of the bad news about the Baths. The Mayor

cunningly tells Hovstad and Aslaksen that if the doctor's plan for the Baths goes through, it

will mean a huge sacrifice for the town. The expenses will have to come out of a municipal

loan, and the Baths will have to be shut down for two years. Hovstad and Aslaksen begin to

change their minds about supporting Dr. Stockmann. The Mayor assures them that the

Doctor's report is pure fantasy, a personal invention. Consequently, Aslaksen and Hovstad let

him know that they will not print the article for the Doctor. Hovstad says he will not dare,

because the subscribers control the paper and the proposal would ruin the town. Happy with

Hovstad’s new decision the Mayor gives him an official statement he can print to quell any

rumors. The Doctor then resolves to hold a public meeting, but Aslaksen tells him that he will

not find an organization to give him a hall. Let us witness the reversal of situations, the

decisional inconsistency, the changing of the mind and the many-sided nature of Hovstad and

Aslaksen before and after the Mayor had poisoned their corruptible mind. Hovstad and

Aslaksen’s utterances before manipulation:

Hovstad: It is very desirable that the public should be informed of it without delay.

Aslaksen: There is no denying that the Doctor is a true friend to the town – a real

friend to the community, that he is.

Hovstad and Aslaksen’s utterances after manipulation:

Petra: And are you going to be the one to give it to them? …. Hovstad: You are

perfectly right, but an editor cannot always act as he would prefer. He is often obliged

to bow to the wishes of the public in unimportant matters. Politics are the most

important thing in life – for a newspaper, anyway. […] Petra: For shame...you are not
 Sultana 18

a spider! Aslaksen: That I won’t, Doctor. […] Peter Stockmann (The Mayor): Ah! –

may I ask then if Mr. Hovstad intends to join this agitation? Hovstad: No, Mr. Mayor.

Aslaksen: No, Mr, Hovstad is it not such a fool as to go and ruin his paper and himself

for the sake of an imaginary grievance. […].

Hovstad: You have represented your case in a false light, Doctor, and therefore I am

unable to give you my support. Dr. Stockmann: A false light! Leave that part of it to

me. Only print my article; I am quite capable of defending it. Hovstad: I am not going

to print it. I cannot and will not and dare not print it. Dr. Stockmann: You dare not?

What nonsense! – You are the editor; and an editor controls his paper, I suppose!

Until recently, we have seen the Mayor turning on Dr. Stockmann. When that

happened, the Doctor still felt confident because he had the media power of Hovstad’s

People's Messenger and Aslaksen’s Householders’ Association behind him. Now, we see

Hovstad and Aslaksen turning against the Doctor they have been supporting so far. We can

pitifully remark that the Mayor has had an easy time persuading and convincing them to turn

against Dr. Stockmann. This power of persuasion of the Mayor is what I term manipulation.

The Mayor has influenced their mind causing it to bend to his will. The Mayor has caused a

reversal of situation in their mind set up; he has successfully manipulated them just as they

were trying to manipulate the Doctor. There is no surprise that economic arguments and the

lack of visible evidence of the Doctor’s findings have been used to change Hovstad’s mind.

Consequently we can come to conclusion that Hovstad and Aslaksen who seized the

opportunity offered to them by the Baths’ experimentation, have on the first place

manipulated Dr Stockmann, and have finally ended themselves as political manipulated

manipulators. They manipulated the Doctor and the Mayor more powerful than they,

manipulated them without great efforts. We understand that Ibsen is trying to show us that the

media people Hovstad and Aslaksen and the Mayor of the Norwegian town are not
 Sultana 19

trustworthy politicians; they are simply victims of political corruption, they are unreliable

characters according to the dictates of politics. We learn that Hovstad and Aslaksen’s support

of the doctor is partly motivated by their individual desires and not the town-dwellers’ well-

being. Hovstad and Aslaksen wanted to use the Doctor for their various ends against moral

norms. From the beginning, Hovstad is eager to use the Doctor as a way to stimulate some

sort of political revolution. When the Mayor brings his carefully crafted arguments to men

whose integrity is already compromised, they are easily won over to his side, they have fallen

victim to the Mayor’s tactful manipulation. Whereas the Doctor remains consistent in his

opinions throughout the play, the newspapermen’s ideas change faster than the weather. The

Doctor and even the corruptive Mayor have clear motivations: The Mayor wants to stay in

power, whereas the Doctor is concerned with morality, science and public welfare. The

newspapermen, on the other hand, have many motivations, and, therefore, they cannot come

to a clear conclusion. Hovstad is a leftist radical, but he also wants to keep the paper in

business, and he is also interested in Petra the Doctor’s daughter. Ibsen uses these characters

to illustrate how difficult it is to have a clear opinion in modern society politics. Hovstad and

Aslaksen cannot afford to have dangerous opinions and are, therefore, helpless when the

Mayor has total control on them. Their political life is a proof that politics is a game, a filthy

game most of the time, if you know how to play it well you will prosper, you will survive, but

if you do not know you become a victim, a hollow and blatant loser. The French Emperor,

Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821) when in 1809 he had to divorce the empress Josephine for

political reasons, has this to say: “I still love you, but in politics there is no heart, only head”

This statement shows that politics can be a heartless human business.

 Sultana 20

Chapter: 5: Conclusion

Throughout the play it is found that Dr. Stockmann makes a discovery that he thinks

will help the town. He presses for changes to be made to the Baths, but the town turns on

him. Not only have his scientific experiments been a waste of time, and not only will the

townspeople suffer, but his freedom of speech and self-respect are being jeopardized. This is

how disempowerment of people has been vividly portrayed in the play. Dr. Stockmann

believes that an intellectual is a freethinker, his opinions and decisions should be based on

reason and not on any sort of authority, and he denies political dogmas according to which a

politician should be as cunning as a fox and as fierce as a lion.

The tyranny of the majority which is reflected in An Enemy of the People drama

makes the minority or the town be ruled by the majority because they have more power than

minority and it is how the tyranny comes out, and Dr. Thomas Stockmann the medical officer

of the baths and also as the minority tries to figure out the problem in the Government, but

the fact the problem is the Mayor himself and the people who have power in society as the

majority against the Doctor who tries to serve all people in the town by discovering a polluted

public bath.
 Sultana 21

Works Cited

Citing original text

Cite Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Cite Oxford English and Spanish Dictionary

Cite According to Cambridge Dictionary

Roberts, J. W. (2005). City of Sokrates: An introduction to classical Athens, 2nd ed. London:

Routledge.

Haj’jari, Mohammad-Javad. “On Dr. Stockmann’s Parrhesia: Ibsen’s An Enemy of the

People in the Light of Foucault.” Folia Scandinavica Posnaniensia, vol. 26, 2019,

(pp. 30-36). ResearchGate, www.researchgate.net/publication/338936354. Accessed

31 December. 2020.

Ledger, S. (2008). Henrik Ibsen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.