So as I watched the Crucible last night I noticed something. In the last scene John Proctor refused to sign the confession and give it back to the deputy governor. He said something along the lines of 'I've given you my soul but I refuse that you take my name," (sorry if that was a bad attempt at paraphrasing), and it made me think immediately of Hayakawa. Hayakawa writes continuously of the perceived importance of names, though they are truly only symbols. People seem to be incapable of differentiating the name from the thing. Proctor's refusal to sign his name seemed evidence of this. Admittedly, he already felt shame for confessing, but it seems odd that he would go against his principles but protest only to giving his name. This led me to wonder why his name was so important to him. It almost seemed as if he felt that signing his name and then giving them his confession would give them ownership of him. Proctor kept saying that he would not allow for them to use him. But wouldn't confessing alone allow him to be used as an example? They didn't really need the signed paper to say "Look, we're merciful. Proctor confessed and we spared his life. We're not the enemy," which seemed to be the purpose of their attempts to get him to confess. So I suppose my main question about it is, how is it that the signature would so drastically change the situation? Proctor would already be giving them what they wanted by confessing. Was it just the straw that broke the camel's back. Was it that he could only allow himself to give up some much of his self-respect and the act of signing would be too much? Or was it his attachment to the name itself? Did he feel that by giving them his name he would be left with nothing (well, nothing except his life).
And just one other thought. John's belief of his name's importance was shown earlier in the play as well. When he confessed to adultery he told the deputy he could believe it was the truth because he wouldn't "give up his good name" for a lie. I know we don't typically talk about the thematic elements of literary works but I was just wondering if anyone thought this was foreshadowing? I may well have just created that idea in my head because both parts made me think of Language in Thought and Action but I was curious.
Sorry if this post is not very clearly written. I was having difficulty remembering the exact lines that I noticed.
(Molly Dunbar)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
In this case, I feel that Proctor's name was really more of a symbol. To have a good name signifies respect from society and a good reputation. Proctor was concerned with his reputation numerous times throughout the play, with differing results.
Initially, as you stated, one reason that Proctor did not testify against Abigail was that he wanted to preserve his good name. He could have stopped her from the start by exposing her (and his) crime, but he refrained from doing so partly out of fear for his own reputation.
Yet at the end, his concern over his name leads him to sacrifice his life for his principles. In this case, I felt that his name wasn't just about his reputation any more. The name "John Proctor" reminded him of his true beliefs, of the "real" Proctor, and Proctor believed that by giving up his name, he truly would be renouncing himself.
However, as Hayakawa stated, the name is only a symbol and is not inherently connected with what it represents. If that is true, then what difference did it make to have Proctor's actual name below his confession? And yet, as we saw, it clearly did make a difference.
Though Hayakawa says the name is not the symbol, I feel this is a different situation. In a small village like Salem, your reputation would be very meaningful. John, in admitting that he was an adulterer, was ruining his name, which directly affects him. John would be looked down upon in society for the rest of his life, so in this situation, by ruining his name, he is directly having a negative effect on his own life.
Though the name may be a symbol, if you ruin the symbol aren't you ruining the thing itself? If you ruin the name of Nike by saying their shoes are of poor quality and are overpriced, wouldn't you be ruining Nike? I don't feel that, as Eric said, the name represented Proctor's true beliefs, but rather the name represented Proctor himself. And by ruining his name, Proctor himself would be ruined.
(Arvind Kalidindi)
My interpretation of Protor's refusal to give over the paper kind of follows Arvind's reasoning. While his name is only a symbol, giving over the symbol would ruin his name. Hayakawa talked about only believing in what is in one's extensional world. The paper, though only a record and not exactly in the Salem townpeople's extensional worlds, would be more concrete than just word of mouth. It would seem more valid and real on paper.
For example, in court shows, somewhere along the way, someone will inevitably demand the cold, hard evidence and not just hearsay. I suppose this reliance on the tangible could be related to Proctor's situation.
I don't know... it seems to me that he wouldn't give them the confession because he didn't want to be used as an example. In this situation, I think that the symbol is more important than the thing symbolized, despite what we have learned from Hayakawa.
Proctor is being symbolized by his name, and yet it is the name that the court really cares about because they want to use the confession to convince others to confess to dealing with the devil. Even though we were taught that the symbol is not the thing symbolized, it doesn't mean that other people are aware of this as well. I think that Proctor knew this and wouldn't give the confession because he didn't want to be mistaken to be connected with the symbolized.
But if Hayakawa has said that the symbol is not the thing symbolized, then why would John's confession/signature harm him as a person? Times have changed, and I guess that identity was everything back then in that austere community.
I believe that John Proctor also made mention that by signing the document, he would be harming the future of his innocent sons. He did not want them to live with a coward as a father who was willing to confess merely to save his life. He tells this to Elizabeth. He has harmed her with his adulterous acts, and he has not the heart to tar her name, her identity, as well. But hmm, this really does go against Hayakawa's principles, doesn't it?
But if you think about it, a name goes a long way. If the Smith family is considered to be wealthy, and the name Smith is mentioned in public, listeners recognize that person's status. Or maybe, that's just the thing! Maybe John Proctor wasn't concerned with the name itself as much as he was concerned with the connotation that would be tied with it! The name would not disappear, it would exist..but it would exist in shame.
(Sam Maliha)
I honestly don't believe that - in this case - what John Proctor fears is harming his "good name" and "preserving his reputation". Remember - he has already openly confessed to the court that he committed adultery. If anything, he realizes that signing it simply puts it on record, signifying a literal loss of his "name" as he's signing himself away, in some respects.
I actually interpreted his reluctance to be mainly based upon his unwillingness to bend to the will of the court - first. If I remember correctly, Proctor mentions something about shaming those who have hung before him - people who preferred to die rather than sign a false confession. Though I doubt others will follow suit if he agrees to sign the confession, Proctor is most concerned about those who have gone before him. I'm guessing that he cares more about those who have already sacrificed everything than those who are about to do the same. After all, the former group can hardly undo what they've done - their sacrifices are the most permanent.
I agree with many parts of the above comments. Regarding symbols, I believe the symbol is only as important as you make it. The more of a big deal John Proctor made out of his name, the more the court seemed to want to ruin it.
I thought it was quite interesting how the judge seemed to be portrayed as the devil. As Proctor said, "I've given you my soul, can't I at least have my name." That seems to imply that he sees the judge as the devil, to whom he has given his soul. Also, when Tituba was on the stage and said something about the devil coming, then the judge came in. I think that connection is interesting and ironic, considering that the judge is supposed to be the one fighting the devil, and, in reality, he's taking up the devil's role.
Emily T.
Post a Comment