Arthur Miller’s Argument in Tragedy and the Common Man

By Patrick Iwelunmor

ABSTRACT

This paper aims to amplify the major thrust of Arthur Miller’s thesis in Tragedy and the

Common Man. Considered to be a critical rethinking of the Aristotelean and Elizabethan models

of the tragic hero, Tragedy and the Common Man, establishes an incontrovertible nexus between

the common man and the heroic nature. Since tragedy, according to Miller, “is the consequence

of a man's total compulsion to evaluate himself justly”, it then means that both the noble and the

common man share this same existential experience, going by the inquisitorial nature of humans.

It is therefore unfair and fallacious to say that the attainment of tragic heroism should be the

exclusive reserve of Kings and other subjects of nobility. Miller’s argument is hereby objectively

appraised as a significant contribution to the development of modern drama, which has continued

to evolve in line with the dictates of the times.

INTRODUCTION

“I believe that the common man is as apt a subject for tragedy in its highest sense as kings were.

On the face of it this ought to be obvious in the light of modern psychiatry, which bases its

analysis upon classific formulations, such as Oedipus and Orestes complexes, for instances,

which were enacted by royal beings, but which apply to everyone in similar emotional
situations.” Arthur Miller’s main thesis in Tragedy and the Common Man is aptly conveyed by

the above quote. His observations inspire a rethinking of the tragic theatre and stimulates more

critical discourses in the development of modern tragedy. Just like his Aristotelean tragic heroes,

the common man all over the world is faced with the tragedy of existence which borders more on

the illusions of modern life as explicated through the prism of modernism.

For Miller, it is speculated that the modern age is unable to produce much more tragedies due to

the shortage of heroes among us. Critically speaking, this speculation is jaundiced from the

perspective of history, owing to the fact that Aristotle and Shakespeare on one hand and Miller,

on the other, lived in different temporal milieus and thus cannot operate on the same theoretical

trajectory. Miller amplifies this position thus:

“In this age few tragedies are written. It has often been held that the lack is due to a paucity of

heroes among us, or else that modern man has had the blood drawn out of his organs of belief

by the skepticism of science, and the heroic attack on life cannot feed on an attitude of reserve

and circumspection.”

Arguments in support of Miller’s perspective are pointing to the fact that the common man is as

much more qualified for tragedy than the nobles of Aristotle’s era. However, the main distinction

lies in the social and cosmological dissimilarities between the world of Aristotle and that of

Miller. Babcock (1987) shares this view:

contemporary tragic vision, but rather to the difference between Aristotle's world and our own.”

In the Aristotelean characterization of the tragic drama, tragic heroes should possess the

following qualities: (1) They should be good – representing some kind of goodness (2) The

characters should be appropriate – men should possess manly qualities. (3) They should be real

and believable. (4) They should embody consistency throughout. According to Aristotle, the

tragic hero should be "an intermediate kind of personage, a man not predominantly virtuous and

just, but his misfortune is not brought upon him by vice and depravity; but by some error of

judgement.” Based on the forgoing, Miller’s Tragedy and The Common Man is therefore a

germane argument that successfully justifies the tragic heroism of Willy Loman in Death of a

Salesman. The only point of departure from the Aristotelean model is in the commonness of the

tragic hero.

While one cannot discountenance the abundance of arguments which contend that Death of a

Salesman does not fall under the classical definition of tragedy as “a serious action, complete in

itself, evoking pity and terror in order to produce catharsis,” it is also expedient to situate the

critique of Miller’s effort within the confines of the modern age. In his evolution of the modern

tragic mode, what Miller has done is to reflect the crises of the twentieth century, even though he

also adopts some elements of the Aristotelean model. For instance, Loman, like his classical

Greek counterparts, is an embodiment of (peripeteia) as he suffers from a false vision of what

really makes a man achieve the American dream.

in the society where he lived and worked. This flawed self-judgement is responsible for his

eventual fall. Miller masterfully explores and amplifies the concept of hope by featuring

common people, owing to his belief that each person is useful to his community, irrespective of

occupation, race or intelligence. For this reason, he makes it possible for the audience to identify

with the characters, since they (audience), like the characters can live meaningful lives, as long

as they do not allow self-inflicted blindness (poor or wrong vision of themselves and their

community) and unrealistic dreams to hamper their discovery of the meaning of life. It is

therefore a triumph for the dramatic genre that a writer in the person of Miller is able to

constructively rethink the concept of the tragic hero by focusing on the common man and

establishing his capacity to attain tragic heroism. This is perhaps the most humanistic reasoning

from a modern writer.

A SHARED SENSE OF THE TRAGIC ESSENCE

Much as the Aristotelean tragic hero contends with forces beyond his control, so also does the

common man, who engages in a Sisyphean struggle against existential forces. Often, these

existential forces take the shape of his expectations and self-impression veiled in the togas of

illusion and unrestrained utopianism as typified by Loman’s pursuit of the American Dream,

which deceives even the commonest of men to think he can become successful in a society

where he controls almost nothing. It is unthinkable that a common salesman in a capitalist

society like America will aspire to economic success without being in the league of those who
control trade. Therefore, Loman’s illusory hope ends in disappointment and death. No wonder,

the experiences, which inspired the story and setting of Death of a Salesman and the thesis of

Tragedy and the Common, were the economic struggles of the average American family, the life

of Miller’s salesman uncle and the Brooklyn house where Miller himself grew up. Miller

therefore resists the fallacy, which disrobes the common man of the capacity to attain tragic

heroism. The concerns he raises resonate with the obtainable social order of the modern milieu.

In Tragedy and the Common Man, Millar makes an observational reconfiguration of the

Aristotelean definition of the tragic hero. He evidentially demonstrates the common man’s

capacity (middle or working class) to attain tragic grandeur. As a modern playwright, Miller’s

position cannot be detached from the events that he personally witnessed growing up in the

American society of the twentieth century. He therefore believes that the common man, in trying

to “follow the total compulsion to evaluate himself justly” in the face of societal restrictions,

becomes a tragic hero whose tragedy, in spite of the fear and terror it arouses, inspires optimism

and hope and thereby engenders social change. In other worlds, tragedy, beyond its Aristotelean

function of the purgation of emotion (catharsis) also inspires a new social order without

necessarily calling for a revolution:

“There is a misconception of tragedy with which I have been struck in review after review, and

in many conversations with writers and readers alike. It is the idea that tragedy is of necessity

allied to pessimism… This impression is so firmly fixed that I almost hesitate to claim that in

truth tragedy implies more optimism in its author than does comedy, and that its final result

ought to be the reinforcement of the onlooker's brightest opinions of the human animal.”
Miller’s reconfiguration of the tragic mode of drama in tune with modernist aesthetics and

realities have been profoundly exemplified in Death of a Salesman. Since one of the basic tenets

of modernism is to question the status quo, Miller’s constructive probing of the Aristotelean

paradigm for tragic heroism further elucidates his modernist temper, which aims at reinventing

the established traditions of the Aristotelean and Shakespearean schools of thought. Turku

(2013) corroborates the foregoing by objectively legitimizing Miller’s argument and its intrinsic

significance to the development of the tragic theatre:

“Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman dares to break the archaic Aristotelian pattern, pushing

the boundaries of what we considered to be the norm, changing from what has always been the

“ideals” of tragedy and to some extent, it has been claimed as the critical reinvention of the

tragic genre mainly through his hero.”

It must be noted that Miller’s enunciations in Tragedy and the Common Man are not a

condemnation of the Aristotelean model rather they aim at rethinking the assumption that only

the noble are capable of attaining tragic heroism. By immersing himself in this highly cognitive

labour of rethinking tragic heroism as prescribed by the Aristotelean and Elizabethan models,

Miller lends credence to the popular belief that dramatic criticism continues to grapple with the

puzzles of generic distinctions. (Singh, et al). He demonstrates this dramatic truth in Death of a

Salesman, which explores the dangers inherent in the American Dream and Willy Loman’s

failure to achieve his Sisyphean hope of success and happiness in post-war America. For

conservative critics who insist on the preservation of the Aristotelean and Elizabethan models,

they forget that concepts and theories, by their very natures, are evolutionary rather than static.

Stark (1962) reinforces the relevance and significance of Miller’s perspective:

than those which imitate the Greek or Elizabethan tragedies is illogical in that it presupposes

the idea that there have been no changes in philosophical, psychological, theological, or

scientific concepts between the Greek and Elizabethan periods or since the Elizabethan period.”

Being human and failing to attain the socio-economic standards, which the American society of

that time prescribed for success, Loman is frustrated to the extent of committing suicide. His

death, though tragic, inspires a new dawn for his son, who soon attained self-realisation with a

resolve to pursue meaningful work rather than wallow in the delusions and unrealistic

expectations that characterized his father’s life. One of the greatest thematic preoccupations of

the play is the loss of identity. Loman fails to fully realise himself and his true standing in the

American society. He thinks he can become prosperous and successful as a common salesman –

an illusion inspired by the America Dream. Unfortunately, his failure at self-realisation becomes

his greatest undoing. Despite the many mistakes he makes in the course of the play, Loman fails

to accept his shortcomings and invariably lives in illusion, believing he could become successful

and wealthy when he does not control the forces of trade and production in America’s capitalist

setting. Can (2019) offers more insight into the character of Loman:

“The protagonist of Death of a Salesman is a character who represents the struggle of modern

man in the materialistic society. We can easily identify ourselves with his suffering and his

inability to go beyond his limits. We do not only feel pity for him but we also sympathize with

him. Although he makes mistakes, we know that he has a pure intention behind them. The ethical

substance in his actions, namely, his demand for respect and dignity as a human, is valid for

everyone.”
Loman’s lack of self-understanding coupled with his warped impression of the society in which

he lives triggers the tragic essence in his quest to measure up to the standards of the American

Dream. Therefore, in a bold attempt to confront the existential question – “Why am I not

successful and wealthy as a salesman?” – a question that stands in between him and self-

actualisation, he questions the status quo of his very existence by taking his own life. Loman

thereby attains tragic heroism because he dares to question his socio-economic state of being by

throwing everything

into the challenge, including his ‘precious’ life. He is therefore no different from Oedipus who

blinds himself in what has been described as a surrogate death, which intensifies his suffering.

Whichever way we look at the two scenarios, death is involved: one is the death of the physical

body (Loman) while the other is the death of the sense of sight (Oedipus):

“No tragedy can therefore come about when its author fears to question absolutely everything,

when he regards any institution, habit or custom as being either everlasting, immutable or

inevitable. In the tragic view the need of man to wholly realize himself is the only fixed star, and

whatever it is that hedges his nature and lowers it is ripe for attack and examination.”

Again, Miller uses Loman’s characterization to buttress his thesis, which upholds and supports

the capability of the common man to attain the tragic-hero pedestal through his struggles against

the tides of life and time which throw spanners to the wheels of his progress and freedom. He

believes that both the Aristotelean and classical Elizabethan nobles evoke the same tragic feeling

dissipated by a common man like Loman, when faced with situations for which he musters the

readiness to lay down his life in an attempt to gain his rightful position in society. For Loman,
rather than face reality and work towards becoming a better person, chooses the easy route of

death in an escapist reaction to his eventual realization that he has failed as a father, husband and

business man. The tragic feeling that accompanies his death is a shared characteristic amongst

Orestes, Hamlet, Medea, Macbeth, as Miller himself posits:

“As a general rule, to which there may be exceptions unknown to me, I think the tragic feeling is

evoked in us when we are in the presence of a character who is ready to lay down his life, if need

be, to secure one thing-his sense of personal dignity. From Orestes to Hamlet, Medea to

Macbeth, the underlying struggle is that of the individual attempting to gain his "rightful"

position in his society.”

CONCLUSION

Conclusively, in Tragedy and the Common Man, Arthur Millar has aesthetically proved to be an

original thinker, a dramatic innovator and a new wave projector into the fresh demands and

essentials of modern dramaturgy. His fresh insight has affected a new way of defining the tragic

reality which should constitute a thematic framework in any work of contemporary relevance,

especially such that relates to the definition of tragedy in modern times. His radical approach is a

reinvention of the old concept which placed heroism only on the shoulders of noble characters.

The common man, who had suffered extensive oppression and non-recognition in the old

dramaturgy, has now found favour through the instrumentality of Arthur Miller’s new definition

of the tragic hero. His approach has divested history, from the Homeric to the Elizabethan

traditions which emphasized only people of the noble class, forgetting that, even within those

milieus, the common man was at the frontline of many heroic battles but was never

acknowledged. Thanks to Miller, today, the common man enjoys aesthetic recognition and
acknowledgement as a heroic character whose humanity has to be projected and protected in

contemporary society through the craft of the dramatist.

REFERENCES

1.Miller, Arthur. "Tragedy and the Common Man." The New York Times, February 27, 1949.

2.Miller, Arthur. Death of a Salesman. Penguin Classics, 2015.

3.Babcock, Kimberly John, "Modern Dramatic Tragedy and Aristotle's Poetics: A Comparison"

(1987). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. William & Mary. Paper 1539625396.

https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/s2-wdc6-xk68

4.Turku, Marsela, “Death of a Salesman, When Tragedy Meets the Modern Man.” Journal of

Literature and Art Studies, April 2013, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 224-229,

https://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol19-issue1/Version-2/K019126668.pdf
5.Singh, Anisha, and S.K. Singh, “Unfortunate fate of a common man, reflected through Arthur

Miller’s Death of a Salesman, a Comparative Study.” IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social

Science (IOSR-JHSS), Volume 19, Issue 1, Ver. II (Jan. 2014), pp. 66-68,

https://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol19-issue1/Version-2/K019126668.pdf

6.Stark, Howard James, “Arthur Miller's concept of tragedy” (1962). University of the Pacific,

Thesis.

https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uop_etds/1512

7.Can, Sedan, “Tragic Death of a Salesman: A Hegelian Perspective.” International Journal of

Humanities and Cultural Studies, Vol. 6, Issue 1, June 2019.

https://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/IJHCS/article/view/187/171