All the characters of the play An Enemy of the People hold different views on the happenings that take place in a small town. Some of their views are the ones that put them in loggerheads with each other. The conflict of interest among the main characters stems from a variety of issues top among them, the springs. Not all the characters are in support of the happenings at the springs and of course some of them are in favor of them and this creates the kind of stand that each one of them has. This essay is going to highlight the positions taken by three of the characters on this very central issue of the springs and they are Peter Stockmann, Dr. Thomas Stockman and Morten Kill.
His argument in support of the springs is again based on the fact that it will cost the towns people a lot of money to carry out the repairs that are necessary to improve the situation (Act II). In fact, he even singles out the rich as the ones who are to pay the price for any form of renovation. He insists that if at all anything is going to be done in regard to the springs, the town will have to secure a loan that has got to be paid off by the people through taxes. The fact is that the springs are a private corporation does not bother him at all and goes on to say that if it is the people who want the change then they are the ones who will have to foot the bill. According to him, this is supposed to scare the people from agreeing to have the springs renovated and he uses this as his way of duping them.
Doctor Thomas Stockmann on his part plays a major role of interrogating the morality that ought to be there in any society. With his belief in freethinking, he is the eye opener to how the town’s people’s lives are in danger and therefore seeks to enlighten them on the same. He does not wish any one to perish due to a problem that can be solved by the authorities. He therefore goes on to alert people that which he thinks should know in order to champion for his noble cause and therefore informs Hovstad and Aslasken. His position concerning the springs is that they be renovated so that they become people friendly because at the moment they are intoxicated and this is dangerous to the people of the town. His concern basically is geared towards the common good which apparently is receiving so much opposition from his brother Peter Stockmann.
Morten Kiil on the other hand is not very amused with the discovery that the doctor makes. He even goes on to tell the doctor that he is wrong because he is pulling his brother’s leg. Morten Kiil upon enquiring about the sort of creatures that have been found in the springs even says that the creatures cannot be seen (Act II). he thinks that if the creatures which happen to be bacteria cannot be seen therefore it is a lie that the doctor is trying to come up with. He does not seem to be convinced that such a thing can happen and therefore terms it as incredible. It is unfortunate that even after being told what it is all about he does not seem to believe the story that he is getting from Doctor and Mrs. Stockmann. He even exclaims that it is not only Peter Stockmann that will be fooled by the story but also sees it as a punishment for the people of the town because they hounded him out of the town council. He therefore sees the whole problem at the springs just as a good lie that is meant to trick the mayor but also the people of the town and therefore not a good idea altogether.
Doctor Stockmann seems to be the one to bear the brunt of the ignorance exhibited by the people of the town. This is as a result of them allowing themselves to be fooled by the mayor who seems to be serving his own interests and those of a few individuals who are rich and close to him. This leaves Doctor Stockmann and his family in a very awkward position despite the fact that they are the voice of reason in all this. But in order to solve the problem that faces him and his family, one fails to understand whether he should also join the bandwagon and ignore the imminent dangers. The ‘trilemma’ in which he is in seems to be self inflicted but it is his duty as a doctor to let the people know of the problem and whether they heed the call or not, at least he has done his part. In order to resolve this problem, he just needs to say nothing but the truth and if it sets him free or not, at least he has done his part. It is even more wrong to assume that everything is okay when nothing is okay really.
Doctor Stockmann has a career that he ought to be obligated to serve. It is fortunate that he is in a good position to serve the people, bring up a family and do as his employer wants. It can be considered a crime if he chooses to do as his employer wants but go against the ethical foundations upon which his job is built, that is to serve humanity. He therefore has a higher calling, which is to the people of the town than to his employer to the people. His employer has frustrated him enough but he has remained true to his career and his family. His family supports him fully in his endeavor to enlighten the people of the town about the bacteria infested springs. It is for this reason that he has and should tell the truth about what is really happening. Whether anybody agrees to his sentiments or not, the bottom line is that he should do what is right even if both his family and the people of the town object his position on the springs. It is therefore imperative that by him trying to do his duties as expected is the most important thing because who knows, the town’s people may get infected and this in turn can affect his family. His job should therefore come first because it stands to benefit everyone including his family and himself (Public Health Ethics PP 6).
In all these, Dr. Stockmann is no traitor whatsoever. The person who should be considered as such should be his brother peter Stockman. He is not and can never be traitor even though he seems to be on the receiving end and that everybody else in the town apart from his wife and children have turned against him. It is not true that the voice of the majority is always right (Flansburg pp 4). A single voice in a group of people can be right. It is evident in the text, that he stands alone to talk about the dangers that the contaminated springs pose to the town. He is not the traitor that the people are made to believe he is and the real traitor can be said to be his brother Peter Stockmann. He passes for the hero in the play because he is the one who finds out what the problem with the springs is and lets the people know. Despite the fact that he is not acknowledged for this fact, the truth is that he holds and presents the key to the success or failure of the town whichever way the people choose to go, is indeed a man of the people even though the people fail to see this.
In all the mystery that surrounds the contamination of the Kirsten Springs, Dr. Stockmann seems to be right. In as much as the people are made to believe otherwise, he is the one who sends the water samples to the lab and the truth comes out. He tries to tell his brother, friends and the town’s people about it but there are many hurdles that are placed his way. Even if he manages to tell the people the truth, they have already been mentally poisoned and therefore do not believe him (Brueggemann 204). He is right to have taken up his moral obligation to test the water, he was right too in his effort to publish the findings and let the people know and also, was right to stand for the truth even if it meant doing so alone together with his family. The voice of the majority was wrong in all aspects in all these.
Work Cited
Brueggemann, William. The Practice of Macro Social Work. Belmont: Cengage Learning. 2013
Flansburg, Darcie. An Enemy of the People a stirring tale of ethical issiues. Web, 31 March, 2006. Retrieved on 23rd July 2013. http://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/ci_3660341
Ibsen, Henrik. An Enemy of the People. Web. 27th Feb, 2010. Retrieved on July 23, 2013. http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=3274953
Public Health Ethics. Moral Combat in An Enemy of the People: Public Health Versus Private Interests. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Web. 3rd April, 2010. Retrieved on 3rd July 2013. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2844104/
