41 pages • 1 hour read
Henrik IbsenAn Enemy of the People
Fiction | Play | Adult | Published in 1882A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Themes
Truth, Self-Respect, and Resilience
Henrik Ibsen explores the relationship between resilience, self-respect, and truth throughout An Enemy of the People. The play presents Thomas Stockmann as the embodiment of self-respect and resilience—a man who lives by his ideals while others merely espouse ideals for the sake of personal advantage. Thomas remains determined to spread the truth despite the odds against him, even when it appears he will be exiled from his hometown for doing so. At first, other characters, especially Peter, Aslaksen, and Hovstad, support him and purport to care about the health of the town and its visitors before all other matters. As soon as the economic impact of fixing the Baths is mentioned, though, every other influential male character becomes hostile toward Thomas. Thomas displays both resilience and self-respect by not backing down, even when his entire community pressures him to do so. His determination wavers only slightly in Act V when he considers leaving town, but he ultimately decides that he cannot face his family unless he stays and fights. Many of the characters in An Enemy of the People display resilience in different ways from Thomas. It is clear that life in the unnamed small town is difficult, and that few economic opportunities existed before Thomas and Peter proposed the Baths. All main characters pride themselves on their resilience and see the Baths as a triumphant realization of many years of hard work to help bring their town into the modern era.
Self-respect is a necessary precondition for resilience in the world of the play: When characters base their self-image on the opinions of others, they are easily swayed away from truth. Morten Kiil wants above all to be seen as a local hero, and thus he cannot let it be known that his tannery has polluted the baths. As a result, he becomes a villain, hiding the truth in order preserve his reputation. In Act V, Kiil pressures Thomas to retract his report that the Baths are dangerous and that the tannery has made them so, saying, “I mean to live and die a clean man” (75). To Kiil, being a “clean man” means being viewed as such by others, whether or not that view is based in reality. Similarly, Aslaksen wants to be seen as reasonable and moderate, and as a result he turns against Thomas as soon as public opinion turns against him. These characters lack self-respect, and thus they lack resilience. Prizing the good opinion of others above all else, they go where the wind blows them.
By contrast, Thomas’s self-respect is the source of his resilience. He tells the truth even at the expense of his reputation, realizing that if he did otherwise he would be unable to respect himself. When Katherine suggests that their family will lose the respect of the community if he goes against what his fellow leaders want, he retorts that his respect for himself is more important than the respect of the community, and that he will not be able to face his children if he gives in to pressure. Thomas can be viewed as embodying self-respect in its truest form; he does what he knows is right only because he knows it is right, and he cannot imagine foregoing his own morals for the sake of others.
Majority Rule in Democratic Society
The question of what democracy really means is a major theme in An Enemy of the People, as it is in many of Ibsen’s plays. His life coincided with Norway’s gradual transformation from an absolute monarchy to a parliamentary democracy—a shift that mirrored similar transformations throughout Europe in the tumultuous course of the 19th century. A spirit of romantic nationalism and democratic reform pervaded Norwegian society at mid-century, and Ibsen’s own shifting political allegiances reflect the ideological ferment of his era. An Enemy of the People shows the playwright’s skepticism toward what he saw as a naively optimistic vision of democracy. The fate of Thomas Stockmann reveals how popular sovereignty can be exploited by those who use their economic and cultural privilege to manipulate public opinion.
This dangerous trend is personified through Peter and Aslaksen. Both characters believe themselves to speak for the people, as they are democratically elected officials. However, it is revealed early in the play that instead of following the will of the people when deciding how to govern, they believe that the people are obligated to follow whatever they personally believe is correct. In the opening scene, Peter says, “The individual ought undoubtedly to acquiesce in subordinating himself to the community—or, to speak more accurately, to the authorities who have the care of the community’s welfare” (7). The aside at the end of this quote demonstrates that Peter sees his own personal will as synonymous with that of the community. It also reveals what will later form the central drama of the play; in Peter’s version of democratic society, there is no room for individual belief. Even before Thomas tells him about the pollution, Peter warns his brother against saying anything that will go against the good of the community. Again, he conflates the community with himself, the good of the community with his own good.
From the start, Thomas rejects this view, believing that democracy can only function if every person is allowed to form their own opinion without fear of retaliation. At first, many characters state support of this outlook. Hovstad and Billing repeatedly declare that The People’s Messenger is meant to be a source of truth and a resource for the public to develop viewpoints independent of the wealthy elite who have historically dominated town politics. Aslaksen is beloved by the community but has been rejected from a role in local government, which he sees as a sign that the town’s leadership is not in line with the general public. When Thomas first tells these men about the pollution at the Baths, they believe him and offer their support as a way of proving that the government does not have the town’s best interests in mind. However, the sway of leadership is depicted through Peter’s influence on these men. As soon as he calls Thomas’s discovery into question and mentions the monetary consequences of believing the doctor, they fall into line behind the mayor, the ultimate community authority. With the most outspoken townspeople on his side, Peter knows that he cannot let Thomas tell the truth, as many people would likely agree that the poisonous Baths should be fixed. By painting Thomas as an untrustworthy, radical outsider, “majority” opinion becomes exactly what Peter wants it to be.
The Tension Between Public Health and Economic Growth
An Enemy of the People can be viewed as an early example of environmental activism in literature. Although the pollution at the Baths is largely a plot device that Ibsen uses to convey his messages about truth and democracy, the conflict between economic and environmental concerns was a growing issue during his life, and one that he often touched on in his work.
Thomas originally proposed the Baths project while working in a poor, rural town in the North, where he found a population of sickly people with few medical resources. Knowing that his hometown is a source of fresh, pure spring water, he sees the Baths not as a source of income but as a chance to help people with many different ailments find relief. In the first act of the play, he is busy writing a statement for The People’s Messenger about the health benefits of the Baths, using his authority as a doctor to legitimize them. Although the exact nature of the Baths’ therapeutic benefits is never discussed, it can be assumed that Thomas genuinely believes in them. Since he is wholeheartedly committed to telling the truth, especially when it comes to health, it can be assumed that he would not exaggerate or lie about this topic.
As the play progresses, it becomes clear that Thomas’s commitment to building a public health facility has long been at odds with the other members of the Baths committee, who see the facility primarily as an economic “goldmine” for the town. They built the pipe system for the Baths in an unsuitable location only because it was cheaper, and they ignored Thomas’s early suspicion that guests the previous summer had been sickened because of the Baths. This suggests that many of the town’s wealthy citizens, those who provided most of the funds for the Baths, view them as a profit-generating enterprise whose purported health benefits are valuable only insofar as they bring in more visitors and thus more money.
By the end of the play, it is clear that the town’s leadership is willing to actively damage people’s health in order to make money. It is suggested that apart from Morten Kiil, the major characters believe Thomas’s report about the pollution. He is depicted as a trustworthy person and a talented doctor. However, instead of listening to the doctor’s warnings, they decide that the contamination can never be revealed to the public, as it will jeopardize the Baths’ future. Thus, people like Peter and Aslaksen convince themselves and the town that Thomas is mistaken without regard for what may happen if the Baths remain open. Presumably, after the events of the play, the Baths will open for the summer, many people will fall ill, and the Baths will ultimately fail. This reveals an inherent issue with their decision; although they are swayed by the promise of immediate wealth, they are only going to make the problem worse.
Related Titles
By Henrik Ibsen
