Salem; A Crucible of Mass Hysteria

A Marxist Psychoanalysis of Arthur Miller’s The Crucible

Suman Gupta in his article titled “The Place of Theory in Literary Disciplines”, which
was featured in the Delia De Sousa Correa and W.R Owens’ book titled A Handbook to
Postgraduate Research in English Studies explains that “Theory (which is the conceptualization
of literature and criticism in general terms; hence the emergence of literary theories) is not a
given field of knowledge with many ‘schools’ which has to be sampled and picked from and
applied, but is an institutional extrapolation from an ongoing process of debating and thinking
about literature & criticism” (Gupta Qtd in De Sousa and Owens. P109. 2010). Literary theories
are not separate methods of application, but rather pieces of the same puzzle all in dialogue
together to form a whole picture that resembles the human experience. This paper aims to
concretize this notion of literary theories being in dialogue by exploring the intertwining of the
Marxist theory, mainly depending on Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin’s theories, and Freudian
psychoanalytic theory, based on Sigmund Freud’s writings, in Arthur Miller’s play The Crucible
with focus on Reverand Parris as a representative of the Bourgoise and John Proctor, Abigail
Williams and the people of Salem as representatives of the Proletariats. The Crucible portrays
the Marxist ideology of class division, yet more importantly, it traces religion, a concept long
debated among the Marxists, as the trigger to the class struggle. The characters in the play have
taken to 2 extreme measures for power attainment; Hysteria, triggered by the Id, and revolution,
triggered by the Superego. This is what this paper aims to explore further

As conveniently defined in Francis Mulhern’s book Contemporary Marxist Literary

Criticism, Marxism can be summerised as “a theory of the capitalist mode of production, its
fundamental classes and their antagonisms and of the organic relationship between the working
class struggles against the capital and the historical possibility of socialism” (Mulhern. P.1.
2014). These fundamental classes can be classified as the economically, politically and socially
dominant class called the Bourgeoise who exploit the “working class” called the Proletariat. The
Marxist theory, as Mulhern explains, focuses on the “capitalist mode of production”, which
indicates the economic, political and social factors that shapes the process of production,
meaning that it focuses on the conditions surrounding the relation between the Bourgroise and
the Proletariat. The theory also focuses on the “antagonisms” between the Bourgeoise’s and the
Proletariat’s, meaning that it focuses on each class’ behaviour and attitude towards the other.
This is where the role of the Freudian theory emerges to complete the picture. Sigmund Freud’s
Psychoanalytic theory focuses on the analysis of the aforementioned behaviourisms themselves
and their triggers. Freud explains that every human behaviour and emotion is dictated by one of
the 3 personality determinates; Id, Ego and Superego. Sigmund Freud’s theory is explained
thoroughly in Henk de Berg’s book titled Freud's Theory and Its Use in Literary and Cultural
Studies: An Introduction. As Henk explains, the Id is responsible for every lustful, aggressive
(and in Freud’s terms sexual) urge that controls human beings. The Superego “comprises the
norms, values and ideals that upbringing have instilled in us” (De Berg. P.50. 2004). As for the
Ego, in Freud’s words in his volume “The ego, the id and other works”; “In its relation to the id
it is like a man on horseback, who has to hold in check the superior strength of the horse; with
this difference, that the rider tries to do so with his own strength while the ego uses borrowed
forces” (Freud. P.19.1978). Therefore, the ego acts as a mediator between the two extreme forces
of the id and the super ego.

These 2 theories blend together in the weaved canvas of Arthur Miller’s The Crucible. To
begin with, Miller lets us into the Puritan societal hierarchy through passages of narrative prose
that interrupt the dramatization. “Simply, it was this: for good purposes, even high purposes, the
people of Salem developed a theocracy, a combine of state and religious power whose function
was to prevent any kind of disunity that might open it to destruction by material or ideological
enemies” (Miller, P.16, 1953). Arthur Miller establishes an alternative capitalist regime, perhaps
even a more unjust system than the capitalist regime, ruled and divided by religion; “a new
Jerusalem”. Some “people were forced to fight the land like heroes for every grain of corn”
(Miller. P.14. 1953), and others “carried about an air of innate resistance, even of persecution…
they and their church found it necessary to deny any other sect its freedom…they believed, in
short, that they held in their steady hands the candle that would light the world” (Miller. P.15.
1953). One party holds the candle, and the other fights the land for grain”. Church men are the
guiders, the intellects and the holders of not only the “means of production” but actually of “state
and religious power” and even heaven itself. While it is more common for Marxists to classify
the Bourgoise and the Proletariats by their economic power, Vladimir Lenin offers a
contemporary definition of class division. Quoted in Doug Lorimer’s book Fundamentals of
Historical Materialism: The Marxist View of History and Politics, Lenin defined classes as
“Classes are large groups of people differing from each other by the place they occupy in a
historically determined system of social production…by their role in the social organization of
labour” (Lenin Qtd in Lormier. P.143. 1999). This means that the Bourgeoise is separated from
the Proletariat not only by their net worth, but also with their social position as the case in The
Crucible. Miller has thus created in the village of Salem a contemporary Bourgeoise and
Proletariat, only divided not by their economic status, but rather their religious status and
“piousness”. Religion, rather than the shares, has created the hierarchy in The Crucible.

As aforementioned, the Marxist psychanalysis focuses on the analysis of the class’

behaviour in the light of the religious, social and political conditions surrounding them.
Therefore, one ought to examine the behaviour of The Bourgeoise class in The Crucible. First of
all, Why religion? Why is it that religion is the divider of the classes in Salem? Vladimir Lenin
in his article “About the Attitude Of the Working Party Toward the Religion”; “religion is the
opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism
about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious
organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for
the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class” (Lenin, 1909).
Church men in Salem have established a “practice of appointing a two-man patrol whose duty
was to “walk forth in the time of God’s worship to take notice of such as either a lye about the
meeting house, without attending to the word and ordinances…and to take the names of such
persons and to present them to magistrates, whereby they may be accordingly proceeded against”
(Miller. P.14. 1953). This manner of patrolling practiced in Salem is similar to the patrolling of
factory owners to check the production process, yet here in Salem, they check the
implementation of religious practices. This insistence upon the implementation of religion and
keeping the wheel of production and work going is what keeps the mass from revolting or
doubting. In other words, the Bourgeoisie keep the Proletariat of Salem in a state triggered by
none other than the Freudian “Ego”. According to Henk de Berg’s book titled Freud's Theory
and Its Use in Literary and Cultural Studies: An Introduction, the “ego” is the one that
“represses” and “resists” and it is the one that triggers the “methods that deny, falsify, or distorts
reality” (De Berg. P51. 2004). The “ego” is the compromiser, it is the one that represses the id
that revolts in anger, and the superego that questions morality. Interestingly, Marx’s choice of
the word “opium” is very much accurate, as the scientific symptoms of opium consumption is
“reduced anxiety” and “emotional detachment” and isn’t this what the “ego” is responsible for?
Protecting the human psyche from emotional stress and anxiety? Therefore, the Church men used
religion to drug the Salem mass into a state of a compromising, rationalizing, settling “ego” so as
to repress any form of revolution.

While the Bourgeoise kept the Proletariat mainly as a state of a compromising “ego”,
they themselves were mainly dominated by the “id”. Reverend Parris is a prime example of the
The Crucible’s Bourgeoise dominated by the id and his manner of exploitation to the
“unreligious” Proletariat is primarily id-driven. While Reverend Parris does not exploit the
unreligious Proletariat in terms of labour or cutting down wages, he is shown to be monetarily
benefiting from his position in Church and stealing away the Parish and the Puritans’ money. For
example, when asked why he did not attend church, John Proctor, a farmer and the protagonist of
the play, replies “Since we built the church there were pewter candlesticks upon the altar…but
Parris came, and for twenty weeks he preach nothin’ but golden candlesticks until he had them. I
labour the earth from dawn of the day to blink of the night and…when I look to heaven and see
my money glaring at his elbows-It hurt my prayer, sir” (Miller. P.63. 1953). He also is shown to
fight over taking more wood for his fire and a house that did not belong to him (Miller. P. 34.
1953). This drive and urge to gain money is primarily driven by the Id, as the Id is, as De Berg
explains, “comprises…the pleasure-seeking urges” (Berg. P.50. 2004) and what brings more
gratification than money and gold? Like a typical Bourgeoise, Reverend Parris exploits Salem’s
Proletariat resources and takes them for himself and in return gives them “the opium”; religion…
his sermons that preach nothing but damnation, the fear that keeps them at the “ego”. Another
manner in which Reverend Parris exploits the unreligious Proletariat is taking them as
scapegoats and shields. Let us not forget that, as Miller puts it, “the witch-hunt was a perverse
manifestation of the panic which set in among all classes” (Miller. P.16.1953). Reverend Parris
was among those who were struck with panic at the madness that unfolded in Salem. Parris was
primarily leading the witch-hunt controlled by his fear for his reputation and fear of rebellion;
fear…a concept primarily id-driven. When we first see Reverend Parris question his niece,
Abigail Williams about the conjuring in the woods, we think that he is concerned for his
daughter, yet soon we learn his more prominent motive; “{his} ministry’s at stake”, it is his
character that Abigail is “compromising” that he cares for (Miller. P10. 1953). As a result,
fearing for his position (ie: his class as a contemporary bourgeoise), and upon learning that his
daughter and niece are involved in the act of witch-craft, Parris leads the witch-hunt. Who,
however, were his first victims? Tituba, the non-Christian “negro slave” from Barbados, “Goody
Osborn” who “sleep in the ditches and so very old and poor” and could not remember the 10
commandments of the old testament (and that alone was enough reason to hang her) (Miller.
P.57. 1953) and more…so much more women. He considered “Bridget that lived three year with
Bishop before she married him” and “Isaac Ward that drank his family to ruin” plausible
scapegoats that not “many honest people will weep for them” (Miller. P.111-112. 1953); for they
were not as religious nor as esteemed as Church men. Parris did not hesitate to use the
downtrodden, the most unreligious proletariats who had no status in society as scapegoats to
cover up for his niece and daughter’s lies and pretense that he knew of very well. Reverend
Parris, The Crucible’s bourgeoise has not only exploited the Proletariat’s “means of production”
and products (ie: candlestick, wood and house) but also their very being…their very existence,
for his own good. And let us remember that, according to Sigmund Freud’s theory explained in
De Berg’s book; the id “possesses no values or rules…It is pure carving” (De Berg. P 50. 2004).
The psyche’s Id and the status of the Bourgeoise go hand in hand…to gain…and stay on top of
the human food chain; and, to Reverend Parris; all can be justified, for “all innocent and
Christian people are happy for the court in Salem” …All is well as long as religion is the excuse
and the trigger.

Now that the Bourgeoise’s class struggle and mannerisms were explored, we shift to the
downtrodden, the unreligious heathens…the Proletariat. According to Russel Haggar’s article
titled “Marxist theory and Capitalist Structure”; “Marx also believed that the Proletariat “would
eventually see through the lies of the ruling class ideology, be transformed from a "class in itself
to a class for itself, throw of their false class consciousness and overthrow the Bourgeoisie”
(Marx Qtd in Haggar, 2017). Indeed, the Proletariat’s of The Crucible overthrew the religious
Bourgeoise by the same tool they used against them; religion and God. Abigail Williams and
John Proctor are 2 characters that became “a class for themselves” and shook the Church’s
Bourgeoise, but each in his own way; one by hysteria and the other by rebellion. One rose to join
the Bourgeoise and the other rebelled against them.

Abigail Williams, Reverend Parris’ niece and one of the supposedly bewitched girls, is
one of the most prominent triggers and controllers of the witch-hunt in Salem and a key element
to the hysteria. Undoubtedly, Abigail is among the religious proletariats of Salem. Despite her
being the Reverend’s niece, she is among the “less religious” characters of the play. She is said
to “laugh during prayers” and is caught dancing naked in the woods in an act of witchcraft. More
importantly, Abigail is portrayed as an id-driven character from the beginning of the play. She
was kicked out of the Proctor household for having an affair with John Proctor. In the first act of
the play, she is seen trying once again to harp on John’s affection towards her once again. Finally
the whole witchcraft act she attempted was intended to kill Elizabeth Proctor, John’s wife, in
revenge for firing her off her household and for being an obstacle in her way to win John.
Normally, Abigail Williams would be at the bottom of the social-religious hierarchy of Salem;
an adulterous witch. However, she had managed to rise to the Bourgeoise class and join them
using religion as her When Reverend Hale almost got her to confess to witchcraft in Act I, her
response, and her stairway to the Bourgeoise church men was this; “I want to open myself!
{They turn to her, startled. She is enraptured, as though in a pearly light} I want the light of God,
I want the sweet love of Jesus! I danced for the Devil; I saw him; I wrote in his book; I go back
to Jesus; I kiss His hand. I saw Sarah Good with the Devil! I saw Goody Osburn with the Devil!
I saw Bridget Bishop with the Devil!” … {calling out hysterically…it is rising to a great glee}”
(Miller. P.49. 1953). Her respect, and more, was restored with words like “the light of God”, “the
sweet love of Jesus” and “the pearly light”. After this, “where{ever} she walks the crowd will
part like a sea for Israel. And folks are brought before them, and if they scream and howl and fall
to the floor-the person’s clapped in the jail for bewitchin’ them” (Miller. P.53. 1953). And thus
she has become the controller and the exploiter of hundreds of women, using them as scapegoats
for herself just like Reverend Parris; again all in the name of religion curing the city from the
“devil”. Thus, Salem became a “classless society” as Marx claimed it will be; for “the whore”
was now “jangling the keys of the kingdom”. Sigmund Freud has actually conducted a whole
study on the phenomenon of Hysteria. Quoted in Ronald Naso and Jon Mills book titled Ethics
of Evil: Psychoanalytic Investigations”, In his volume “Studies on Hysteria”, Sigmund Freud
“described the act of repression by which a hysteria begins as “on one hand an act of moral
cowardice and on the other a defensive measure which is at the disposal of the ego” (Freud and
Breur Qtd in Naso and Mills. P.47. 2016). He also theorised that hysteria is “psychogenic…they
spring from sexual needs of people who are unsatisfied and represent for them a kind of
substitutive satisfaction” (Freud Qtd in Naso and Mills. P.49. 2016). In Abigail’s case in
particular, we cannot deny that every word Freud says, even sexual desire as a reason for the
mass hysteria she caused, is immensely applicable. Yet, more importantly, it also stems from her
need to feel an authority, to rise above her original status as a religious and social Proletariat.
Again, the Id and the Bourgoise class go hand-in-hand together to rise above the Proletariat, yet
this time the power struggle has ended with one party joining the other rather than overthrowing
it; and still the Proletariats payed the dreary price.

Finally, to analyze the most ultimate, and the purest response to the Bourgeoise’s
exploitation and iron-fist; John Proctor’s rebellion. Like Abigail, despite being highly esteemed
in the Purtian society, Proctor is among the less religious, rather less obviously religious
characters in the play. Reverend Hale finds Proctor suspicious for being an unorthodox Christian
for his time. Proctor came to church “when {he} could, and when {he} pray{ed} at home”
(Miller. P.64.1953), but to Reverend Hale, “house is not a church” and he could not even
remember his commandments. He has openly criticized Reverend Parris’ for “preach{ing} only
hellfire and bloody damnation…you hardly ever mention God any more” (Miller. P.33-34.1953).
His animosity with Reverend Parris is enough to place him among the Proletariats of Salem’s
theocracy. Yet despite the Reverends’ opinions of his piousness and even Miller’s calling him “a
sinner” and even he himself not seeing any goodness in himself, John Proctor is hugely
influenced by his Superego, contrary to Reverends Parris and Hale and Judge Danforth who
represent the church and the supposedly “religious”. Indeed, he erred with his affair with
Abigail, yet to his wife Elizabeth he “wilted and, like a Christian, {he} confessed” and since then
he rarely left the house out of guilt and out of respect for his wife whom he had cheated on.
Every step Proctor took in his wife’s case was a superego rebellion against the Bourgeoise.
When a warrant to arrest Elizabeth Proctor arrives to John’s house, John questions the integrity
of the “accusers” and the integrity of those who have deemed them “holy” and “clean as God’s
fingers” and in rage at the vengeance that is haunting Salem, he tears the warrant apart. Not only
was this a direct act of defiance towards the dictatorial Bourgeoise church and court, but also a
manifestation of a superegoistic concept, despite it being a result of id-driven emotions such as
fear, anxiety and rage. The act of tearing the warrant was a defense to not only Elizabeth Proctor,
but hundreds of other women; thus, somewhat ironically, in his id hysteria, Proctor lit the first
flare of justice; a superego-centric concept. This desire to protect and rebel is also further
emphasized in the court, when Proctor refuses to drop the charges against Abigail and the girls in
exchange for his wife’s life; “These are my friends. Their wives are also accused” (Miller. P.84 .
1953) and till the very end of his downfall refuses to include any other names other than his in
the witchcraft accusations, thus provoking the Bourgeoise even further, and ascending himself to
the superego even higher. Finally, his last act, his choice to die was the last nail in the
Bourgeoise’s coffin. Not only did he die to save his name and other people’s name, but he also
was the spark the lit an upcoming revolution that Miller, in the play’s epilogue, explains that it
resulted in the overthrow of Reverend Parris and the whole court (Miller. P 126. 1953).

The same man that claimed “God is dead”, was the only character who “{had} his
goodness”, and was able to overthrow the Bourgeoise, thus making Marx’s theory come true; for
the Proletariats to “overthrow the Bourgeoisie through revolutionary means and initiate the
transition from capitalism to a future classless socialist [and subsequently communist ]utopia in
which the class exploitation and human alienation associated with the capitalist system would be
ended and all citizens would have the opportunities to develop their human capacities to the full”
(Marx Qtd in Haggar, 2017). Therefore, The Crucible, indeed, ended with the death of the
revolutionist and the superego, and the birth of the revolution. The Crucible is where Marxism
and Psychanalysis engage in a literary matrimony to give us hope that a time for freedom, for us,
just like it was for Salem, is near.
Works Cited

 Berg, H. (2003). Freud's theory and its use in literary and cultural studies.
Rochester, NY: Camden House.
 Correa, D. and Owens, W. (2010). A Handbook to Postgraduate Research in
English Studies. London: The Open University, pp.Chapter 7 (109).
 Freud, S. and Strachey, J. (2001). The ego and the ID and other works. London:
Vintage
 Huggar, R. earlhamsociologypages.co.uk. (2018). Marxist Theory and Capitalist
Class Structure. [online] Available at:
http://www.earlhamsociologypages.co.uk/marxclasscap.htm [Accessed 6 Jan.
2018].
 Lenin, V. (2018). Lenin: The Attitude of the Workers' Party to Religion. [online]
Marxists.org. Available at:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm [Accessed 6 Jan.
2018].
 Lormier, D. (1999). Fundamentals of Historical Materialism: The Marxist View
of History and Politics. Newtown: Resistance Books, p.143.
 Miller, A. (1996). The Crucible. New York, N.Y.: Penguin Books.
 Mulhern, F. (2014). Contemporary Marxist Literary Criticism. New York:
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
 Naso, R. and Mills, J. (2016). Ethics of Evil. London: Karnac Books.