Tragedy and the Common Man by Arthur Miller

Tragedy and the Common Man by Arthur Miller

Arthur Miller's essay, "Tragedy and the Common Man," explores the concept of tragedy in modern society, arguing that the common man is a suitable subject for tragedy just as much as kings and nobles. Miller emphasizes the importance of personal dignity and the struggle for rightful status, suggesting that the tragic experience is rooted in the universal human condition. He critiques the notion that tragedy is reserved for the elite, asserting that the common man's fears and indignities are equally worthy of exploration. This work is essential for students of literature and theater, particularly those studying modern tragedy and its implications in contemporary life.

Key Points

  • Explores the relevance of tragedy for the common man in modern society.
  • Argues that personal dignity is central to the tragic experience.
  • Critiques the elitist view of tragedy as exclusive to nobility.
  • Discusses the universal themes of fear and indignity in human experience.
, ,
  • newtopiccyclegrowin
276
/ 13
Tragedy and the Common Man by Arthur Miller
(emphases added by R. Cunningham)
In this age few tragedies are written. It has often been held that the lack
is due to a paucity of heroes among us, or else that modern man has had
the blood drawn out of his organs of belief by the skepticism of science,
and the heroic attack on life cannot feed on an attitude of reserve and
circumspection. For one reason or another, we are often held to be below
tragedy-or tragedy above us. The inevitable conclusion is, of course, that
the tragic mode is archaic, fit only for the very highly placed, the kings
or the kingly, and where this admission is not made in so many words it
is most often implied.
I believe that the common man is as apt a subject for tragedy in its
highest sense as kings were. On the face of it this ought to be obvious in
the light of modern psychiatry, which bases its analysis upon classic
formulations, such as the Oedipus and Orestes complexes, for instance,
which were enacted by royal beings, but which apply to everyone in
similar emotional situations.
More simply, when the question of tragedy in art is not at issue, we
never hesitate to attribute to the well-placed and the exalted the very
same mental processes as the lowly. And finally, if the exaltation of
tragic action were truly a property of the high-bred character alone, it is
inconceivable that the mass of mankind should cherish[es] tragedy
above all other forms, let alone be capable of understanding it.
As a general rule, to which there may be exceptions unknown to
me, I think the tragic feeling is evoked in us when we are in the presence
of a character who is ready to lay down his life, if need be, to secure one
2
thing--his sense of personal dignity. From Orestes to Hamlet, Medea to
Macbeth, the underlying struggles that of the individual attempting to
gain his "rightful" position in his society.
Sometimes he is one who has been displaced from it, sometimes
one who seeks to attain it for the first time, but the fateful wound from
which the inevitable events spiral is the wound of indignity, and its
dominant force is indignation. Tragedy, then, is the consequence of a
man's total compulsion to evaluate himself justly.
In the sense of having been initiated by the hero himself, the tale
always reveals what has been called his “tragic flaw,” a failing that is
not peculiar to grand or elevated characters. Nor is it necessarily a
weakness. The flaw, or crack in the character, is really nothing--and
need be nothing, but his inherent unwillingness to remain passive in the
face of what he conceives to be a challenge to his dignity, his image of
his rightful status. Only the passive, only those who accept their lot
without active retaliation, are "flawless." Most of us are in that category.
But there are among us today, as there always have been, those who act
against the scheme of things that degrades them, and in the process of
action everything we have accepted out of fear or insensitivity or
ignorance is shaken before us and examined, and from this total
onslaught by an individual against the seemingly stable cosmos
surrounding us--from this total examination of the "unchangeable"
environment--comes the terror and the fear that is classically associated
with tragedy.
More important, from this total questioning of what has previously
been unquestioned, we learn. And such a process is not beyond the
3
common man. In revolutions around the world, these past thirty years,
he has demonstrated again and again this inner dynamic of all tragedy.
Insistence upon the rank of the tragic hero, or the so-called
nobility of his character, is really but a clinging to the outward forms of
tragedy. If rank or nobility of character was indispensable, then it would
follow that the problems of those with rank were the particular problems
of tragedy. But surely the right of one monarch to capture the domain
from another no longer raises our passions, nor are our concepts of
justice what they were to the mind of an Elizabethan king.
The quality in such plays that does shake us, however, derives
from the underlying fear of being displaced, the disaster inherent in
being torn away from our chosen image of what or who we are in this
world. Among us today this fear is as strong, and perhaps stronger, than
it ever was. In fact, it is the common man who knows this fear best.
Now, if it is true that tragedy is the consequence of a man's total
compulsion to evaluate himself justly, his destruction in the attempt
posits a wrong or an evil in his environment. And this is precisely the
morality of tragedy and its lesson. The discovery of the moral law,
which is what the enlightenment of tragedy consists of, is not the
discovery of some abstract or metaphysical quantity.
The tragic night is a condition of life, a condition in which the
human personality is able to flower and realize itself. The wrong is the
condition which suppresses man, perverts the flowing out of his love and
creative instinct. Tragedy enlightens and it must, in that it points the
heroic finger at the enemy of man's freedom. The thrust for freedom is
the quality in tragedy which exalts. The revolutionary questioning of the
Ukraine?
/ 13
End of Document
276
You May Also Like

FAQs of Tragedy and the Common Man by Arthur Miller

What is the main argument of Arthur Miller's essay?
Arthur Miller argues that tragedy should not be limited to noble figures but can also encompass the common man. He believes that the struggles for dignity and rightful status are universal experiences that resonate with all individuals. By highlighting the common man's fears and indignities, Miller redefines the scope of tragedy to include those who are often overlooked in traditional narratives.
How does Miller define the concept of dignity in tragedy?
Miller defines dignity as the essential quality that drives individuals to fight for their rightful place in society. He posits that the tragic hero's struggle often stems from a perceived loss of dignity, prompting them to confront societal norms and injustices. This quest for dignity, according to Miller, is what makes the common man a compelling subject for tragedy.
What themes does Miller explore in relation to modern tragedy?
Miller explores themes such as the struggle for identity, the impact of societal expectations, and the inherent fear of displacement. He emphasizes that these themes are not exclusive to the elite but are shared by all individuals. By examining the common man's experiences, Miller illustrates how modern tragedy reflects broader societal issues and the human condition.
How does Miller's essay challenge traditional views of tragedy?
Miller challenges traditional views by asserting that tragedy is not solely the domain of kings and noble figures. He argues that the emotional and psychological conflicts faced by the common man are equally significant and deserving of exploration. This perspective shifts the focus of tragedy from high-born characters to relatable figures, making it more accessible to contemporary audiences.
What role does fear play in Miller's concept of tragedy?
Fear plays a crucial role in Miller's concept of tragedy as it represents the common man's struggle against societal forces that threaten their dignity. He suggests that this fear of displacement and loss of identity is a driving force behind tragic actions. By confronting these fears, characters in tragedy reveal deeper truths about the human experience.

Related of Tragedy and the Common Man by Arthur Miller