The play Twelve Angry Men is a prime example of communication in a group. Each of the characters of this twelve member jury represents a specific functional role within the group. These are twelve strangers, brought together for a week long murder trial. The entire play takes place in the deliberation room on a hot afternoon. Tempers are short as is patience for many of the jurors. This creates an agitation in the communication of the group as they deliberate the fate of the defendant.
Foreman, acts as the “procedure developer” and “evaluator” of the jury according to our text.
He is fair and takes the responsibility of deciding guilt seriously. He handles the task of taking the votes and managing that group’s trust of ensuring that the votes are fair and appropriate. When Juror 8 suggests a vote after his initial admission of doubt, the Foreman ensures that everyone is in agreement, “That sound fair, is everyone agreed?” (16).
Juror 3 is an angry, opinionated man. He also reveals that he is antagonistic, “How come you’re the only one in the room who wants to see exhibits all the time?” (37) to Juror 8. He is a bully, he persistently attacks or tries to intimidate the jurors who disagree with him. His role is “opinion giver”. He offers his opinion so that the rest will have to agree with him. He doesn’t bring relevant or new information to the process.
Juror 4 is smart, logical and concrete which is why he takes on the role as “harmonizer”. Although he remains on the guilty side of the deliberation, he does listen to other’s opinions and considers the information they bring to the table. He tries to keep things moving along in a businesslike manner, “If we’re going to discuss this case, why, let’s discuss the facts.
Juror 8 is smart, thoughtful, questioning. He searches for the truth in this case. He wants justice. He is the “initiator/contributor”. Throughout the play he asks for evidence, suggests reenactments and questions the evidence, “I think it’s logical to say she was not wearing her glasses in bed, and I don’t think she put them on to glance casually out the window” (61).
Juror 11 is a European refugee. He has lived unfair persecution. He values his role as a member of the jury, “I have always thought that a man was entitled to have unpopular opinions in this country” (28). He is an “information giver”, he offers experiences from his life.
Twelve Angry Men is an excellent way to learn the concepts of the nature of groups and solving problems in a group. There 12 men from very different backgrounds, each bringing a set of values and perceptions to solve a common problem, deciding the fate of the defendant. The entire play takes place in secured room where the jurors must interact with each other and come to a unified decision. Everything we learn about these characters is expressed through their dialogs with one another. The competition for power is a dominant element in this play. Juror 3 wants to run the show, coerce the others into finding the boy guilty and go home. Juror 8 uses information to persuade the other jurors of reasonable doubt in the case. Most of the jurors want to conform and vote guilty from the start. When they begin to listen and engage in effective communication and become creative in their approach to the case the dynamics of the relationships between the men begins to change.
The social, political, cultural and personal backgrounds comes into play with each and every one of the characters. Juror 11, is appreciative of the American system of justice and shares with the group the fact that he was persecuted in his country. Juror 3 confesses and terrible fight with his own son, the anger and resentment he feel towards his son is evident in his telling of the story. Juror 4 is well educated and self-made, this shows in his demeanor and attitude, he is calm and well spoken. Juror 8 is also well educated, an architect therefore logical by nature. Juror 5 grew up in poverty in a slum neighborhood, he takes the proceedings seriously but out of respect for the elders of the group he does not participate as full as he could.
References
Adler, Ronald & Rodman, George. Understanding Human Communication, New York,
Oxford Press, 2006.
“12 Angry Men, Character Analysis” Retrieved from
http://mail.colonial.net/~bpeskin/classweb/twelveangrymen/jurorlist.html
