<b>Scapegoating Non-Conforming Identities: Witchcraft Hysteria in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible and Caryl Churchill’s Vinegar Tom</b>
Keywords:
The Crucible, Vinegar Tom, Scapegoating, Witchcraft, McCarthyism, Feminism, Misogyny, Patriarchal OppressionAbstract
Scapegoating Non-Conforming Identities: Witchcraft Hysteria in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible and Caryl Churchill’s Vinegar Tom
Abstract
When people are faced with different takes on their traditions that they firmly cling to so as to remain being who they purport to be, they are generally inclined to ostracise those who are different. In this sense, ostracising people by discarding them from their community is, metaphorically speaking, the same as leaving the goat in the wilderness as the verses from Leviticus explain the history of scapegoating. Just as the goat story from Leviticus, political and patriarchal power groups blame non-conforming individuals for all the problems in society, and ostracise them as witches only to take the upper hand, and enjoy absolute power. The pattern of punishment proves to be the same, that is, to leave the victim alone in a place away from home, be it the wilderness for a goat, or the loneliness and isolation for an individual. Besides, one of the most used and most efficient ways of scapegoating people, as the evidence shows, is to rekindle the tall-tale of witchcraft. This paper explores how and why witchcraft is deployed as a scapegoating strategy to silence and stigmatise non-conforming individuals on the pretext of maintaining order in society in Arthur Miler’s The Crucible (1953) and Caryl Churchill’s Vinegar Tom (1976) respectively.
References
Adiseshiah, S. (2009). Churchill’s Socialism: Political Resistance in the Plays of Caryl Churchill. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
Adler, T. P. (1997). “Conscience and Community in An Enemy of People and The Crucible”. The Cambridge Companion to Arthur Miller. Ed. Christopher Bigsby. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Bigsby, C. (1992). Arthur Miller: A Critical Study. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2004.
Blakesley, M. (1992). The Crucible. Oxford: Heinemann.
Brecht, B. (1964). Brecht on Theatre: The Development of an Aesthetic. Ed. John Willett. New York: Hill and Wang.
Budick, E. M. (1985). “History and Other Spectres in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible”. Modern Drama 28.4: 535-52. PROJECT MUSE.
Carson, N. (1990). Arthur Miller. Houndmills: Macmillan.
Churchill, C. (1985). Plays: 1. London: Methuen.
Coetzee, J. M. (2000). Disgrace. New York: Penguin.
Diamond, E. (1997). Unmaking Mimesis: Essays on Feminism and Theatre. London: Routledge.
Douglas, T. (1995). Scapegoats: Transferring Blame. London: Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1965). Madness and Civilisation: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason. New York: Random House.
Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage.
Foucault, M. (2006). Psychiatric Power: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1973-74. Ed. Jacques Lagrange. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gallop, J. (1982). The Daughter’s Seduction, Feminism and Psychoanalysis. Ithaca: Cornell UP.
Irigaray, L. (1985). This Sex Which Is Not One. Ithaca: Cornell UP.
Koorey, S. R. (1997). “Attention Must be Paid: The Misinvention of Women in the Life and Literature of Arthur Miller”. Diss. The Pennsylvania State U, 1997. ProQuest Digital Dissertations.
Kritzer, A. H. (1991). The Plays of Caryl Churchill: Theatre of Empowerment. London: Macmillan.
Kruger, L. (1990). “The Dis-Play’s the Thing: Gender and Public Sphere in Contemporary British Theatre”. Theatre Journal 42.1: 27-47. JSTOR.
Levack, B. P. (1995). The Witch-Hunt in Early Modern Europe. London: Longman.
Martin, R. A. (1977). “Arthur Miller’s The Crucible: Background and Sources”. Modern Drama 20.3: 179-92. PROJECT MUSE.
Megson, C. (2012). Modern British Playwriting: the 1970s. London: Methuen.
Miller, A. (2000). The Crucible. London: Penguin.
Miller, A. (1996). The Theatre Essays of Arthur Miller. Eds. Robert Martin and Steven Centola. New York: De Capo.
Paglia, C. (1991). Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson. New York: Vintage.
Popkin, H. (1964). “Arthur Miller’s The Crucible”. College English 26.2: 139-46. JSTOR.
Reinelt, J. (2000). “Caryl Churchill and the Politics of Style”. The Cambridge Companion to Modern British Women Playwrights. Eds. Elaine Aston and Janelle Reinelt. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. 174-93.
Robinson, D. M. (1994). “The Cultural Dynamics of American Puritanism”. American Literary History 6.4: 738-55. JSTOR.
Schissel, W. (1994). “Re(dis)covering the Witches in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible: A Feminist Reading”. Modern Drama 37.3: 461-73. PROJECT MUSE.
Schlueter, J. (2000). “Plays and Playwrights: 1945-1970”. The Cambridge History of American Theatre. Eds. Don B. Wilmeth and Christopher Bigsby. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. 294-330.
Stafford, L. L. (1977). “Scapegoating: How and Why Scapegoating Occurs”. The American Journal of Nursing 77.3: 406-9. JSTOR.
The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version Containing the Old and New
Testaments. (1952). New York: Thomas Nelson.
Thomsen, C. W. (1981). “Three Socialist Playwrights: John McGrath, Caryl Churchill, Trevor Griffiths”. Contemporary English Drama. Ed. C.W.E. Bigsby. New York: Holmes & Meier. 157-76.
Tunç, T. E. (2013). “The Healer and the Witch: Sexuality and Power in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible”. The Explicator 71.4: 266-70.
Wandor, M. (1986). Carry on Studies: Theatre and Sexual Politics. London: Routledge.
Welland, D. S. R. (1983). Miller, the Playwright. London: Methuen.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
All papers licensed under Creative Commons 4.0 CC-BY.- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
