Whitty 1

Kayla Whitty

Literature & Composition

Mr. Pace

May 22, 2023

Civil Disobedience

In the excerpt from Henry David Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience” and Arthur Miller’s

“The Crucible”, rebelling against the norms of society and disobeying authority was justified in

cases of protecting people’s civil liberties or their identity, this is not saying that going against

the law remained unpunished even if it was believed to be for the greater good.

A citizen’s civil liberties should be defined by laws within their countries, and if they

aren’t upheld, a person should have the right to stand up against the injustice that they are facing.

When discussing the government and its possible flaws, Thoreau questions “Why does it

(government) not encourage its citizens to be on the alert to point out its faults, and do better

than it would have them” (Thorau, 2)? The idea in saying this is that a person can not be a good

citizen if they aren’t willing to challenge a government that constricts their civil liberties.

Rebelling against the norm is how change in society is brought about, and those who fight for

that change are the ones who continue to be an inspiration to others. Even though laws within a

nation are meant to be upheld, there are many circumstances that could convince a person to defy

them. In “The Crucible”, many are struggling with feelings of mistrust and lack of freedom and

power over their futures, with many people in the town getting accused of witchcraft , then being

tried before the law without any concrete evidence. When asked about Reverend Hale’s

appearance at the jail, Herrick responds, “He goes among them that will hang, sir. And he prays

with them. He sits with Goody Nurse now. And Mr. Parris with him” (Miller Act 4, 123). By
 Whitty 2

sitting and praying with those who had been condemned, Hale was deliberately disobeying the

court and showing his lack of faith in the judges ability to identify those who were guilty of

siding with the devil. Hale went against the rulings of a court of law in order to give comfort and

a glimpse of hope to those that had been wrongfully accused without physical evidence. Both

sources build on each other by showing instances where it may be acceptable to go against

written laws or the expected social norm. When someone believes that they or other citizens are

not receiving their unalienable rights, it should be expected that they do everything in their

power to ensure that everyone is getting treated at the absolute least as human beings.

In many cases, people will lie in order to protect themselves or people close to them, even

if telling the truth may have benefitted them in the long run. In “The Crucible” there are many

laws and customs that may not be as common in this day of age, but nevertheless, citizens are

expected to abide by them. One act that was punishable at this time was the act of adultery, and

when asked whether John Proctor had ever turned away from his marriage, Elizabeth responded,

“My husband -- is a goodly man, sir... Is your husband a lecher [Danforth asking] No, sir”

(Miller Act 3, 113). Elizabeth was being tried for witchcraft after being accused by Abigail, the

teenager that John had committed adultery with, and if she agreed with the story that John told, it

would show that Abigail may have had ulterior motives for accusing Elizabeth Proctor. Elizabeth

however, lied to the court in order to protect the reputation of her husband, John. In this case she

went against rules regarding lying under oath in a court of law in order to shield her and her

husband’s identity. Thoreau writes about the government and how people in a society should

stand up against injustice. When referring to the machine that is the government, Thoreau states

that, “If it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I

say, break the law. Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine” (Thoreau, 2). He is
 Whitty 3

saying that if there is an unjust law and you are abiding by it, then you are continuing a cycle of

injustice both to you as an individual and to your fellow citizens. As a part of a community,

whether it be your family or a citizen of the world, let your actions and the reflection of your

conscience act as a way to reform the oppressing laws of the ruling government. Every person

belongs to a community, small or large, and it is their duty as part of a community to stand up for

justice and not comply with systems of injustice. In both instances, with Thoreau urging to go

against unjust law, and Elizabeth knowingly going against the law, they both justify these actions

by their expected outcomes. Elizabeth didn’t know that John was trying to save her, so when she

lied she was only trying to protect his reputation, as that is what she believes her duty is as a

married person, even though telling the truth could’ve saved her. Thoreau claims that if you are

abiding by unjust laws then you are participating in the injustice of others with your complicity,

and that by going up against the government might be the only way to protect one’s unalienable

rights.

Going against the norms of society or against laws set by leaders of a community is

justified in the cases where the authority is restricting citizen’s unalienable rights, or a person is

trying to protect their own identity and reputation. Thoreau and Miller both provide instances

where people either defy the law or go against the societal standard, and in these instances,

someone will always be able to find a way to justify them. So, going against the law is to be

expected if the law is restricting your rights, but there grows an issue regarding the lengths that

one could go in order to continue to justify their actions.

 Whitty 4

Work Cited

Miller, Arthur. The Crucible: A Play in Four Acts. Penguin Books, 2011.

Thoreau, Henry David. “Civil Disobedience.” 1849.