Saturday, June 1, 2013

Reading as a Solution to the Problem of Communication


        
         Reading as a Solution to the Problems of Communication

 Presented by: Dr. Rajesh Trivedi
Professor- Department of Humanities

Ms. Namrata Soni
Asst. Professor
Department of Humanities
                                    Gyan Ganga College of Technology,
                 Jabalpur
                     in
 the National Conference Help at Jabalpur Engineering College Jabalpur in Feb 13

Communication in the era of globalization has become an inseparable aspect of our personality. The rapid unification of the whole world and the consequent need of the common medium of expression have contributed significantly to the function of English in the new born world as an inevitable need of the individual as well as society, the nation and the world at large. The mutually interpenetrating spheres in the industrial setups and the new phases of the socio-political developments across the globe make it clear that communication is essential for defining the status of man as a denizen of the world. It is however unambiguous that English is the only medium that can be employed to unify the scattered parts of the globe and minimize cultural distinction through industrial unification.  The applicability of English as an effective tool for unifying the whole world into one industrial unit stands much above the questions marks. It is also undisputable that the role of English in this phase of the development has ceased to be merely social and decorative; on the contrary, it is more functional and organic in the perception of the new world.
It is paradoxical that until recently, English performed the function of the common second language of India, Indian subcontinent and many other Asian countries, however the change in status of English and its functionality was witnessed in early nineties when the process of economical unification began and the parameters of economy were redefined in a larger part of the world. In most of the countries like India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, English, which as a medium of instruction was confined to elites, and upper class, emerged as an essential pre requisite of the work culture in the multinational companies and the business setups of comparable status. It is a piercing truth that the mother tongue now ceases to be functional in the new work culture and English has come up as the governing work force replacing the essentials of communication in the new global scenario.  It is also undeniable that English now stands in equal terms with the first language and enjoys the same status.
Communication as an important tool and the effective measure of the modern day life style, demands certain important pre requisites that determine the nature and quality of the application of English in certain areas. The grammatical accuracy is the most important of all parameters defining the form and function of communication in the renewed socio- economic set up that came into existence after the globalization.
A comparison with the mother tongue makes clear the mechanism of developing communication. A child in his nascence develops communication through interactions with the surroundings and the first utterance that comes from him is credited to his mother and marks the birth of speech. The growing nascent on his way to childhood takes to writing and reading and it is ironical that he never takes to learning grammar as far as his mother tongue is concerned. The study of the second language or acquired language has a distinct mechanism which begins with the acquisition of command on grammar and is soon followed by reading and writing. Speaking comes last. The mechanism of learning English can be compared with a civil construction. Grammar is the lay out and writing and reading make the foundation while the speaking represents the complete structure. The problem of communication has acquired tremendous concern in the recent decades. It is paradoxical that despite continuous break down of the barriers of communication, and availability of resources, there is a meteoric rise in the problems of communication, resulting into incessant deterioration in terms of quality and functionality. The problem before the students of Hindi belt is that English has been something monstrous and their search for accomplishment remains unfulfilled. This is principally the reason why there is often some frustration among the students of Hindi belt. The mediocre calibers, just because of better communication secure better jobs and the students with rich technical insight make compromise and live on low wages. Students, during their formative years, come out with a number of pretexts; genuine or otherwise, for the lack of communication skills. However the quest for remedy is nothing but chasing a mirage.
It is obligatory for us to look into the problem of speaking in English that make oral communication in the second language a difficult task. As a result of the regular interactions with the students facing problems in speaking English, we locate the problems along the three dimensions. They are
·         Command on grammar.
·         Vocabulary
·         Problem of mindset or hesitation.
Grammar is unambiguously the backbone of any language and English is no exception to it. The students of under graduate or post graduate level taking technical courses are expected to have adequate knowledge of practical English grammar, however the real problem comes with application of grammar and vocabulary as the fact can not be denied that the language is essentially the knowledge of application. It is also unambiguous that the problem of communication occurs chiefly due to the lack of application of grammar specially in speaking. It is also closely observed that the students taking higher studies lack confidence not just because of the lack of knowledge of grammar but also   because of the limited opportunities to apply it in everyday conversations. Reading provided a practical and convincing opportunity to improve and update the knowledge of grammar as every sentence we read provides us with an opportunity to improve grammar. It is however an indisputable approximation that the writer of the book is well versed with the essentials of the language and the mistakes committed in due course of writing are rectified by the proof readers of the book. Thus the grammar that reaches the reader through books is of fairly reliable quality. Every sentence we read is a revision of the grammatical patterns and disciplines. In the circumstance of the reader’s familiarity with the grammatical structure, he enjoys the confidence of knowledge and in the circumstance of the ignorance (complete or partial), about some specific structure; the reader enjoys the opportunity to initiate his efforts for the knowledge of new patterns hitherto unknown to him. It is also a common observation that the students’ inefficiency in using grammar is not attributed to his ignorance but his forgetfulness about it due to lack of efforts as far as the application of grammar is concerned. Reading thus constitutes the most effective appliance to revitalize the knowledge of grammar with precision and immaculacy.
The problem of diction is another very threatening aspect of English learning activities in the Hindi belt which constantly alarms and admonishes the learners at school and college levels. It is indeed a remarkable observation that the problem of vocabulary persists regardless of the age and efforts as the complete command on the dictionary is neither possible nor desired. Reading is again the most effective weapon in surmounting the barrier of communication in English caused by the lack of words peopling the memory. Reading contributes to the volumes of vocabulary in many ways. The most important and common problem related to vocabulary is the partial or complete forgetfulness for old familiar words. Reading constantly stirs the memory of the reader and accounts for the recovery of long forgotten words in the mind of the reader. Words coming to our senses in due course of reading not only mobilize the memory and oblige recovery but also due to the obvious covering by the context, the reader succeeds in recollecting the meaning and experience inherent in the word. Enhancement of the personal dictionary is another very important outcome of reading. It is however noteworthy that it demands a consistent and conscious effort of the part of the reader. Simple casual reading does not suffice.  The young aspirants seeking command on English language need to more conscious and consistent and at the same time careful in recording their efforts. The situation at this point demands the participation of script in the realm of speech.  It is obligatory for the learner to keep a permanent record of the newly learned words and preserve them in some soft or hard copy. The aim of preserving the newly acquired knowledge of words is to capitalize the opportunity to revise them and make them a permanent member of the family of mind and memory. It is indeed important to specify the method of consulting the word as the simple or cursory glance through the dictionary would cease to suffice and push the word and the meaning both beyond the veil of oblivion. It is advisable to the leaner that the words besides the functional and allied meanings (if any), should be accompanied with the right context by writing the phrase or the sentence where they occur. The revision of the word if accompanied by the context, will contribute more to the permanency of form and function of it in times of application.
Let us not take some statistical exercise to support the point discussed above. It is understandable that a student (or even scholar) aspiring for accomplishment in vocabulary may easily consult five words a day and if the same is done for three hundred instead of three hundred and sixty five days of the year, we add fifteen hundred new gems in the treasure of mind and memory and a student during his undergraduate studies may consult and preserve no less than six thousand new words. Even if half of them are retained, the student secures an enviable position from the point of view of building the empire of words and diction.  Even a relatively moderate statistics provides ample scope for satisfaction. If we reduce the number of words to three per day, the learner after a simple effort of three hundred days, succeeds in amassing a sizeable number of nine hundred words per year and consequently three thousand and six hundred words in four years.  Even if half of them (one thousand and eight hundred) are retained, the learner enjoys a commanding position as far as his vocabulary is concerned. The most moderate figure would be one word a day and thus three hundred words a year and one thousand and twelve words during his under graduate studies which makes a fairly handsome number from the point of view of the enrichment of the vocabulary. 
It is indeed undeniable that no other application of the language may prove to be as fruitful as reading from the point of view of revising grammar and enriching vocabulary. Some scholars of language however demonstrate greater affinity towards listening but the fact can’t be denied that listening is an activity which is subject to the autocracy of time and the sender and the receiver have a time bound frame in which they communicate. Thus in the circumstance of ignorance or ambiguity, the learner has but a little scope to stop and revise or update. On the other hand time ceases to function in a tyrannical manner in case of reading and the learner had sufficient scope admissibility for new patterns of the language manifest either in form of some grammatical discipline or some new word structure.
The problem of mindset however is the most alarming of all problems as it inducts a snag in the flow of communication and simultaneously it deprives the students of the proficiency fluency in speaking English. Reading is again the most important of all tools to win over the problem of hesitation. It can easily be inferred that from first step that is acquisition on the command on grammar to curing the problem of mindset, there is one continuous process that works and lubricates the applications of various constituent elements of English language. The command of grammar acquired through reading come to the reader in the most practical form and thus it stands beyond all doubts and ambiguities related to its application. Likewise the diction acquired through reading does not simply convey us the ontological meaning of the words but it also acquaints us with various shades of meanings inherent therein. The command on grammar and diction prepares the learner to wage a war against the seemingly insuperable barrier of hesitation.
Let us now examine how reading helps us waging a war against this most fearsome enemy as far as the applications of different aspects of language are concerned.
It has often been said that books are our best friends. Though, it seldom happens that the saying is justly understood and appreciated and the application of the inherent implications is even indeed a much distanced phenomenon. It not only reveals the role of books as a source of knowledge and information, ideas and ideals, or an object of companionship, but it also reveals the mechanism of reading a book. The saying rests on the analogue between a friend and a book. It is however ironical that the reader’s response to the above cited saying is limited to companionship through casual reading. Reading as a hobby or habit seeks culmination in proper interaction with the book; the essence is often ignored by the readers. Reading a book never means a casual or cursory reading but a detailed and involved interaction with the book. We need conscious and continuous interaction with the object in hand. It is noteworthy, for the students aspiring for better communication that the casual reading with care and concern for diction and grammar never suffices as far as developing communication is concerned. Learning language amounts to mean that the patterns of grammar as well as diction make an integral part of our imagination. Books are of supreme importance as far as enrichment of imagination along linguistic dimensions is concerned.
The comparison between a book and a friend is often misinterpreted for sharing knowledge, keeping company, helping each other in times of need and the likes but while working out this comparison we always forget the most essential of all acts. The analogue between the friend and the book in hand can be worked out on the basis of this most fundamental gesture that takes shape in form of verbal interaction between the two friends. And, quite unfortunately, this most fundamental aspect of friendship is always ignored while reading a book. It can easily be made out that the most common and simple manifestation of friendship takes place in form of some talk that may be a simple chat regarding day to day subject or it may be a serious discussion on some topic of grave significance. In either case the friends talk; they converse they share and this sharing may be on any topic having any intention. It may be serious or of no material significance; it may be light, aimless and even futile or of some immense emotional or worldly importance, but the fact cannot be denied that the conversation makes the most important manifestation of friendship between two individuals. Two friends standing quiet and speechless is a rare phenomenon that is observed on some specific occasions marking something unbecoming.
The attitude of a reader towards the books while undertaking the task of reading is generally not the attitude of a friend but of a guardian at its best. The most common approach to books (especially in case of learners at initial stages) is that the books are posted at the high altitude and deified as a supreme power which cannot be questioned. This attitude leads to a lump and static reading. The reader is dawdles on the book for hours but ceases to acquire anything as reward for devoting time to reading. The fruitlessness of this kind of activity ultimately drives the reader away from the books and reading alike as despite devoting hours he fails to secure anything to his pre existing store of knowledge of the language. He fails to add new words to the vocabulary and the revision of the grammar also imparts him some short termed knowledge and confidence. Soon the new gains are pushed beyond the oblivion.  
It is a common experience of all of us that the conversation with the friend is neither monotonous nor follows a set patterns of stereotypes. On the contrary the conversation with a friend (or with friends) is dynamic and vital process that grows with the very act of conversation, punctuated by new moods and new tones with almost equal participation from both (or all) ends. The uniformity of tone or mood is neither possible in the conversation taking place amongst the friends nor is it desired. Again it is obligatory to point out that the conversation between two or more friends is characterized by swift, subtle and unpredictable tonal variations taking place in the course of interactions. There are moments of gentle rage and reservations; there are points to agree and disagree; there are times to forget the worldly wisdom and laugh and there are also times for grave introspection and the show goes on like this. A friendly conversation is also marked by some very grave serious debate that may take place on some very trivial issues, and also, there are moments of light hearted jesting ending up in the grave realizations.
The best way to read a book is through a conversation it contrived by the reader while reading a book. Books are our best friend means to say that we may talk to the book, listen to it, we act and consequently we react to it. We may argue and debate with it. We must express our love and appreciation and at the same time accept and reject the contents of the text. It is important to note that rejection of the contents of the book is as important as accepting them, though the rejection has to be a follow up of the gradual and systematic interaction with the book. It has been a common problem of the students of Hindi belt that they lack the required background for structuring the second language, or they don’t have English speaking minds to communicate with in the immediate surroundings. Thus it can be inferred that the problem is a natural follow up of the learner’s inability to interact. Books, against all odds, provide us with the company to interact in English required for improving the language in general and speech in particular.
The major factor causing hesitation is the possibility of being mocked at by the one we are interacting with. Mockery from the dear ones is indeed more painful than that from the strangers and this factor prevents the young learners of the English language from applying the language in the speech form. Books are of great help again to overcome this fear of being mocked at. Books put forth the ideas, opinions, emotions or any form of intelligence and encourage you to read but they don’t mock at the reader when he reacts to it in his own way. It is a common and natural observation that the day comes when the learners records the fluency in interacting with the books. Thus, the diversion of fluency from the much revered inanimate objects to familiar human beings becomes a relatively simple exercise in the light of the labor devoted to reading.  The continuous interactions with the books also make us realize that we can speak and the application of the language becomes an easy task.
Let us now discuss the types of reading and their correlation with the power of communication and its various applications.
The first very common type of reading is scanning. It refers to a quick and hasty glance on the text there before the reader. This is the reading that helps us in focusing on some desired piece of information. This is however not the ideal type of reading at the initial stages of leaning English yet in the circumstance of busy schedule, some new word can be picked up or some unfamiliar grammatical structure can be culled for further consultation. Skimming is also little different from scanning as it aims at picking up the important points of script. Newspaper reading provides one fine instance of this type of reading where the reader focuses more on capturing the highlights of the scripted material instead of opting for a detailed and thorough reading. The use scanning for a reader is same as that of the scanning where a new word or structure can be selected for further consultation in case it reminds the reader of the ignorance related to any of the constituents of the language. Detailed reading of the script provides us the opportunity to cover all the necessary constituent elements of the language discussed above. It also facilitates us with sufficient time to take the necessary steps to surmount all barriers of grammar and diction and even mind set. The necessary paper work required for a lasting account of our efforts is possible only if the learner sits with a pen and note book to take down the strange appearances of diction and grammar.
The role of reading is equally important in strengthening every area of the application of English. The acquisition of proficiency, through reading has been discussed above. It is remarkable to note that reading imparts proficiency and effectiveness to other areas of application- writing and listening also. The accuracy of grammatical patterns and structures and the command on diction makes him a good listener as decoding the right meaning of a scripted message becomes easy owing to the desired command on all the tools of the language. It is however noticeable that reading and listening invite close comparison as the reader and the listener, both are positioned at the receiving end and their prime duty is to decode the message. Time plays a crucial role in imparting distinction as the fact cannot be denied that the speech is an image in time and a scripted word is in image on the space and functions almost independent of time. Thus while reading a learner has all the scope to sit and talk and discuss with the book; to discuss the existing differences, to clear the prevailing doubts and to express discomfiture and proclaim rejection to the contents of the book. A listener can also do all that however it is possible only after gaining proficiency as, for a receiver it is easier to catch an image in space than to catch in image in time.
The interdependence of reading and writing is another very conspicuous phenomenon. The active reading helps the reader with the opportunity to reproduce the contents of the book in written form also.  The extraction of the meaning enshrined in different steps of the passage is the first step of the reader, however there is lot more to follow. The organizational skills-gradual and systematic unfolding of the point of view of the writer, determines the culmination of the art of a writer, and if the same is transmitted to the reader either through rigorous effort or some natural instinct, marks the culmination of the power to deliver as a writer as well speaker. The written material, if selected from good books, is presented before the reader in form of a well organized script, thus an active reader is bound to appreciate and analyze and consequently imitate the writer’s craft of organizing the material.
It is obvious that the paper subjected to your appreciation has greater focus on the learner’s scope to surmount the barriers while speaking in English but it is equally evident that reading accounts for a holistic development of the power of communication. The selection of the right stuff and right method certainly benefits the reader in all the areas of application, stuffing his mind with grammatical accuracy, the correct use of the word and proper organization. It is unequivocally the best remedy against the seemingly incurable problem of hesitation. The other regions of the application of the language also derive optimum benefit through reading. It lubricates the rough surfaces occurring in due course of listening and it also enriches the writer with optimum tools and technique of the representation and illustration of any form of intelligence he wishes to share with his reader.
The paper aims at discussing in details the problem of communication in English language manifest along various dimensions of application such as listening speaking reading and writing. It is justly concluded that the reading is the most effective weapon that succeeds in surmounting all the barriers of good communication in any form of application. Speaking is undoubtedly the most important as well as difficult application for the students of Hindi belt having Hindi or some regional language as the medium of instruction in schools. Thus greater emphasis is given to the factors causing problem in speaking and how these problems are solved by active and thorough and analytical reading. The other applications of English like writing and listening are also discussed and the ways to overcome the seemingly invincible barriers of communication are discussed.
The paper enshrines certain objectives, whether those objective are justly fulfilled or not will be ascertained after the critical analysis and appreciation of our views expressed in the paper by this scholarly audience.
Bibliography

Adams, M.J. (1990).Beginning to read : Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, M.A: MIT Press.

Chall, J. S. (1967). Learning to Read : The great Debate. New York : MacGraw.Hill.

Grellet, Francoise.(1981). Developing Reading Skills. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Inthira, S.R. and V. Saraswathi(eds.). (1995). Enrich Your English Book I: Communication Skills. Delhi: Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages and Oxford University Press.

Johnson, K. and D.Porter.(1983). Perspectives in Communication Language Teaching. London: Academic Press.

Pattison, Pat. (1987). Developing Communication Skills. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Prabhu, N.S. (1987). Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford University Press.

Snow, C.E, Burns, M.S & Griffin, P.(Eds.). (1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children . Washington DC: National Academy Press.

Trainer’s Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Williams, Eddie. 1984. Reading in the Language Classroom. Hongkong: Modern English Publications.


Saturday, February 16, 2013

Arthur Miller's All My Sons- A Thematic Study



  1. Miller is a social dramatist, and his plays deal chiefly with social themes like the one related to the relationship between the individual and the society or the family. He tries to bring out the conflict between the individual and society, and the efforts of the individual to gain 'his rightful position in his society' or his family which forms an important component of society. Thus, the relationship between the individual and his family also forms a theme in several of Miller's plays. His plays belong to the school of social realism which has been enriched by writers like Henerick Ibsen, George Bernard Shaw and John Galsworthy. They treat various social problems in a realistic manner, and deal with various themes related to the individual and society. One of the themes in them is the theme of personal guilt and social responsibility, which has been treated in several plays of his including All My Sons.
  2. All My Sons is, like most of Miller's play for e.g. Death of a Salesman and The Crucible, a social play, and deals with the theme of the relationship of the individual with the society or the family he belongs to. It focusses its attention on the theme of guilt and responsibility too. Like other plays of Miller, it presents his ideas on various social and economic matters, and voices his criticism of the capitalistic society of his time. It reveals Miller's Marxist leanings and his anti–capitalist stance, and embodies his condemnation of the tendency to profiteering found among the businessmen and manufacturers of the America of his time. Through Joe Keller, Miller portrays a product of the American capitalist system only to denounce him. It is a suitably representative play of the war years, and brings out the wartime atmosphere which breeds moral depravity among money–minded and greedy people who find in it an opportunity for making money through profiteering. Thus, social criticism may be said to be one of the ingredients of the theme of All My Sons. The remark by Nissim Ezekiel that follows, is about the themes of Miller's plays; and it is applicable to All My Sons as well : "In themes that frequently recur, Miller appears to be arguing strongly in favour of a certain positive relationship between the individual and society, against injustice, exploitation, competition and vested private interest. He also exposes the human tendency to put one's self above all else, which causes confusion and suffering. The basic principles of the economic system (capitalism) in which Miller's characters enact their drama are directly or indirectly blamed for the psychological distortions which they exhibit.1
  3. Theme of Guilt, its consequences and the responsibility for the guilt
  4. Guilt and the consequences of and responsibility for that guilt are the predominant thematic concerns in Miller's plays. In Death of a Salesman, Willy Loman's affair with a prostitute is a guilt. In The Crucible it is John Proctor's act of sleeping with Abigail Williams. In All My Sons, Joe Keller's guilt consists of the supply of defective cylinder–heads to the Army Air Force. The sense or the burden of guilt sits heavy on the conscience of these persons even though they may not be manifestly troubled by it. Joe Keller's guilt causes a breach in the ties of family relationship for which he poses to be caring so much. His elder son, Larry, embraces death, and his younger son, Chris, revolts against him, and confronts him with his responsibility for the guilt, even though outwardly he himself may seem to have escaped punishment by law because his partner Steve Deever is accused of the crime and sent to prison. The dawning of a sense of awareness of his responsibility for the guilt, however, disturbs him very much, and he commits suicide like Willy Loman in Death of a Salesman. Thus, guilt forms a chief theme in All My Sons, and leads to the tragedy in it.
  5. Next to guilt, comes the theme of responsibility, especially social responsibility, which has been treated by Miller repeatedly. Social responsibility means that a man should regard his own interests as secondary to the interest of the society or the country. An individual's responsibility to his country is more important than his responsibility towards his family or himself. However, Joe Keller attaches more importance to his responsibility towards his family – his sons and others in it – and tries to adopt all means, fair or foul, to bring about its prosperity by earning more and more money. In order to fulfil his responsibility towards the family, he ignores that towards his society and country. With utter disregard for the good of the country, he supplies defective equipment to the air force, causing thereby several air crashes and deaths. An awareness  of his responsibility in the guilt is created in his heart by his son (Chris) for whom he has worked so hard throughout his life. Joe Keller commits suicide, and thus punishes himself for his attitude of neglect towards a larger responsibility towards the society, and his excessive attention to the smaller responsibility towards his family.
  6. Relationships Are Important
  7. Familial relationships, especially father–son relationships, form another important theme in All My Sons, as they do in Death of a Salesman. Joe Keller has worked hard throughout his life to earn money for the well–being of his family, including his sons. But the adoption of dishonest means by him for this purpose, like the anti–social act of supply defective equipment, prove repulsive to his own sons. The elder one, Larry, prefers death to the ignominy brought to the family by his father; and the younger one confronts him with his responsibility in the crime of the supply of the defective equipment. There thus occurs a breach in the relationship between the father and his sons. The play reveals this breach clearly, and thus deals with the theme of father–son relationship in a realistic manner. It reveals, as Death of a Salesman does too, a disruptive and unavoidable conflict between successive generations, and the tragedy caused thereby.
  8. The exposure of criminals like Joe Keller, and of the ills of the social and economic system in which they are allowed to flourish, has been attempted by Miller in All My Sons. Such criminals are a threat to society, and they ought to be dealt with severely. They are not found in only one or two particular places or countries; they exist everywhere, and pollute the social atmosphere. As a social play, All My Sons deals with and exposes such criminals and their crime that are a product of the society to which they are related. Miller seeks to point out the relationship and interaction between the individual and society, neither of which can exist without the other. Thus, a theme of the play may be said to comprise the treatment of the social background or set–up which is responsible for turning an individual into a criminal, and making him commit an anti–social act. Miller remarks,
  9. The fortress which is the fortress of unrelatedness. It is an assertion not so much of a morality in terms of right and wrong, but of moral world's being such because men cannot walk away from certain of their deeds. In this sense Joe Keller is a threat to society and in this sense the play is a social play. Its 'socialness' does not reside in its having dealt with the crime of selling defective materials to a nation at war – the same crime could easily be the basis of a thriller which would have no place in social dramaturgy. It is that the crime is seen as having roots in a certain relationship of the individual to society, and to a certain indoctrination he embodies, which, if dominant, can mean a jungle existence for all of us no matter how high our buildings soar.2
  10. It is seen that All My Sons deals with various social themes, especially guilt, responsibility, father–and–son relationship, and the relationship between the individual and society. These themes are not narrow, but broad and universal, because they concern the whole of the human race, and not a particular society or community. Aristotelian universality is evident in the theme of All My Sons. Miller writes about basic human emotions and inner drives which are common to all men; he portrays the effects of the conflicts these impulses sometimes cause and their influence over man's sense of moral responsibility.  Miller's plays achieve a dignity and magnitude because of the treatment of the themes having a universal appeal and validity. And     All My Sons is no exception to this.
  11. 2.2    Conventional Realism in All My Sons
  12. Realism is used in two ways : (1) to denote a literary movement of the nineteenth century, especially in prose fiction; and (2) to designate a recurrent way of representing life in literature, which was typified by the writers of this historical movement.
  13. The realist sets out to write a fiction which will give the illusion that it reflects life as it seems for the common reader. The realist, in other words, is deliberately selective in his material and prefers the average, the common place, and the everyday over the rarer aspects of the contemporary scene. His characters, therefore, are usually of the middle class or (less frequently) the working class.
  14. A thoroughgoing realism involves not only a selection of subject matter but, more importantly, a special literary manner as well. The subject is represented, or "rendered" in such a way as to give the reader the illusion of actual experience. Realism implies the manner of portraying life as it really is, without any touch of idealism or romanticism. A realist concentrates on presenting real characters and natural everyday events and situations. In an attempt to record life as it is, he refrains from depicting imaginary characters, situations and events and tries to present truthful details of actual happenings. He deals chiefly with the common places of everyday life, and common people belonging to middle and lower classes of society. The occurrences in his works are such as happen in actual life, and the characters are such as are found in the course of daily life. The speech and behaviour of these characters are like those of the real common people.
  15. The element of realism may be found in poetry, in the novel, and in drama. Rudyard Kipling and W.E. Henley are some of the realists in English poetry. In the field of the novel, we have Flaubert, Balzac and Manpassant in France, Virginia Woolf and James Joyce in England, and Clifford Odits, Lillian Hellman and Arthur Miller in America.
  16. Arthur Miller is a social dramatist who deals with various social issues, especially the ones related to the relationship between the individual and the society or the family, in a realistic manner. His characters and situations are very often real, and his method of treating them has a touch of realism. Miller, at bottom, was a realist with a moral, social vision. Prof. Nissim Ezekiel remarks :
  17. The form of Miller's plays, is as he himself has described it, 'conventional realism'. Though he has freely used non–realistic theatre devices, he builds his plays on a ground work of facts and real, life–like relationships. The narrative proceeds from cause to effect, from the past to future. Words and actions in Miller's plays have consequences which reveal human nature in a particular social context. The realistic picture of life which Miller's plays project includes moral judgements on that picture.3
  18. Miller is a social realist who has presented real social issues and problems in his plays through real characters and situations. He employs the speech and behaviour and values of real people, as in his play All My Sons. He depicts the social set–up of his time as it is, and not as what he thinks it ought to, or might be. He does not idealise or romanticise the contemporary society which he depicts; he gives a realistic picture of it. Raymond Williams has this to say about Miller's realism :
  19. The key to realism or better, or better social realism, lies in a particular conception of the relationship of the individual to society, in which neither is the individual seen as a unit nor the society as an aggregate; but both are seen as belonging to a continuous process. Arthur Miller seems to have come nearer than any post–war writer (with the possible exceptions of Albrecht Goes) to this substantial conception  .... Miller has restored social criticism to the drama, and has written on such contemporary themes as the social accountability of business, the forms of successethic, intolerance, and thought–control, the nature of modern work–relations.4
  20. Several of Miller's plays are steeped in realism. An early play All My Sons can be regarded as an Ibsenite play dealing with an aspect of social reality. The character of Joe Keller supplying defective equipment for the air–force and causing the death of several persons, in air–crashes, is quite a real one, and could be found in the modern world of profiteering. The situation and the background of the play are realistic. They reflect the contemporary social reality in the materialistically inclined America.
  21. Miller is a realist, but his realism is different from that of other writers. In fact, he has expanded the scope of realism so as to include in it a bit of Sentimentalism and Romanticism. His realism is of a special kind. The words of Raymond Williams may be quoted here to explain this realism. He writes :
  22. Neither element, neither the society, nor the individual, is there as a priority. The society is not a background against which the personal relationships are studied, nor are the individuals merely illustrations of aspects of the way of life. Every aspect of personal life is radically affected by the quality of the general life, yet general life is seen at its most important in completely personal terms.5
  23. Miller himself has given his own view of the kind of realism found in his plays; he writes, "The idea of realism has become wedded to the idea that man is at best the sum of forces working upon him and of given psychological forces within him. Yet an innate value, an innate will, does in fact posit itself as real".6 Miller's realism is not confined to the treatment of contemporary reality. It has a wider frame of reference, and comprises the treatment of human condition in the world, in general.
  24. Garff B. Wilson says, "All My Sons is a realistic play, illustrating the theme that a man must recognise his ethical responsibility to the world outside his home as well as in his own home".7 A father's sin of producing shoddy war material for a profit results in the death of twenty–one American pilots and in the alienation of his family. Joe Keller, the protagonist, is faced with a choice of an aesthetic life, which is determined by a self–determined acceptance of guilt and duty.
  25. The economic upheaval of 1930s produced in Miller, the playwright, a strong social consciousness and drove him to examine the cause of evil in society and individuals role in it. When Miller wrote All My Sons (1947), the economic depression had almost been forgotten and the world war had further jolted the foundations of a stable society based on family hierarchy. Throughout most of Miller's work, the focus remains on the family, man, woman, two sons and their relation and responsibility to each other as well as society. This strain of social consciousness is Amercian in origin. In All My Sons, the hero Joe Keller represents this consciousness. His journey from self to non–self takes him to the end of his quest. In All My Sons, the light is thrown simply on social issues. Miller regards the human situation as a consequence of the individual and the tragedies inherent in the situation as a consequence of the individual total onslaught against an order that degrades. He also believes that the function of tragedies is to reveal the truth concerning our society which frustrate and denies man his right to personal dignity; and the enlightenment of tragedy is the discovery of the moral law that support this right.
  26. The cause of tragedy in the play, All My Sons lies in the inner–conflict experienced by Chris Keller, younger son of Joe Keller. Chris is torn between the affection and loyalty he had for his father and his concept of justice and universal brotherhood which the father offended. The characters in this play, however, exist mainly to illustrate the unhappy consequences of a disaster generated by a selfish materialistic society which respects highly personalised economic success. At the climax of the play Joe Keller comes to realize that all the young pilots killed and endangered by his selfish action are his sons as much as are his own two boys for whom he was building up his business. In reply to his mother's cry at the end of the play, Chris, the surviving son, says :
  27. Chris.   What more can we be! You can be better once and for all you can know there's a universe of people outside and you are responsible to it, and unless you know that, you threw away your son because that's why he died.  (127)
  28. In All My Sons family relations are predominant. For Joe Keller, there is 'nothing bigger' than a family. He is ready to sacrifice everything for the sake of his family. He admittedly appears as a good husband, good father and good neighbour, but fails to be the good man, the good citizen that his son Chris demands. Keller says, "I am his father and he is my son and if there is something bigger than that I shall put a bullet in my head". (81)  Chris makes clear that, for him there is something bigger than the family and after that realisation Keller commits suicide. Joe Keller is really a particular American product. He is a self–made man, a successful businessman with the imprint of the machine shop worker and boss still upon him. There is nothing ruthless about Joe, no hint of the robber baron in his make up , his ambitions are small – a comfortable home for his family, a successful business to pass on to his sons, but he is not completely fastidious in achieving his goals.
  29. Joe Keller is the most important character in the play, All My Sons. He is described as a heavy man nearing the age of sixty. He has been a businessman for the last many years but his appearance still shows signs that he had originally been an ordinary workman in some machine–shop and then a boss in the same place. He is not a well–educated man but he possesses solid common sense. He is interested in reading advertisements and not in the rest of the newspaper. He wants to know what people want; and, talking to a neighbour by the name of Frank, he refers to some intriguing advertisements, which he has come across. There is a fellow who wants a couple of New Foundland dogs, and there is another who wants old dictionaries. When Frank says that at one time he wanted to be a forester, Keller says that in his days there used to be no such occupation, and that in those days a man was either a lawyer, or a doctor, or a shop–worker. Thus, we find that Keller is a man who takes only a common–sense view of things. He does not, for instance, understand why a man should want old dictionaries. In other words, he does not know anything about book–collecting as a hobby.
  30. Like most of Miller's dramatic figures, Joe Keller is a typical American. His sub–urban middle class background, his belief in the material success and in the family as the ultimate social and moral unit all make him a typical American. Like other tragic heroes of Miller, Keller is also committed to an ideal, however, narrow it may be, of family loyalty. He is a self–made man in business and has earned money for his family only.  He says, "What the hell did I work for ? That's only for you". (69)  Keller assures Chris, who is thinking of driving away from house. He thinks in terms of the continuity of that materialistic success through his son, "I want you to spread out, Chris. I want you to use what I made for you ...... with joy, Chris, without shame ...... with joy". (87)
  31. His statement shows that he has committed the crime not knowingly, but vaguely in the nature of the risk taken by a man to whom nothing is bigger than a family and for this misconception he suffers and faces a tragic death in the end of the play. All My Sons is the author's contention that no individual's action can be self–contained, not even within the campus of the family. Miller who wrote All My Sons with human understanding but moral sinew as well as dramaturgy summarised his theme, John Gossner says as, "the responsibility of man to society or the responsibility to the world and outside his home as well as in his own home".
  32. Joe Keller is a social, amiable man with a strong sense of humour. He does not seem to be a man who would worry about things. He can enjoy the comforts of life, and he remains perfectly cheerful in the normal course of things. Kate says that, whenever Joe feels worried about anything, he falls asleep. He can even play games with children. He also makes jokes with Chris and Annie when Annie objects to his pronunciation of the word "broach". On this occasion Keller says that he had only attended a night–school for just one year, and that, therefore, he is not a well–educated man. But then he sings a verse, composed by  himself, and asks Annie what she thinks of his education in the light of these lines of verse which he is singing. Indeed, Joe Keller strikes us as an eminently social man with an amiable nature.
  33. Keller is a loving husband who feels very solicitous about the well–being of his wife. At the very outset, when he finds the apple tree, which had been planted as a memorial to Larry, lying broken, he feels worried to think of his wife's reaction to this happening. When, soon afterwards, Chris tells him that Kate has already seen the damage to the apple–tree, and that she has been shedding tears over it, Keller feels even more anxious about his wife and wonders what she had been doing so early in the morning when she had come out and seen the broken apple–tree. It greives him to think that his wife has not been able to forget the sad news which had been received three years ago about Larry. Joe says that, "What was she doing out here at that hour ? She is dreaming about him again. She's walking around at             night". (11). Thus, Joe says to Chris that it is impossible to drive out from Kate's mind the notion that Larry is still alive. He asks how they would be able to accomplish this purpose. Keller says that they cannot prove to Kate that Larry is dead. In other words, Keller does not want anything which would upset his wife. He tries to make her feel happy. It is because of her goading him on that he tries to earn more and more money. Thus, he is found to be a loving husband.
  34. Apart from being a loving husband, Joe Keller is also a loving and affectionate father. He desires the well–being of his family. He wants his sons to prosper in life. In the play, we find only one son Chris appearing physically, whereas Larry is merely referred to because he is already dead by the time the play opens. However, Joe loved both his sons. As he tells Chris, he has tried to earn money, even by dishonest means, for his sake, and to bequeath to him all his property and business establishment. He says to Chris that he has done everything for Chris. He has taken every chance for Chris. His approach may be wrong, but his love for his son is quite evident in his behaviour and actions.
  35. In fact, Joe Keller is mistakenly over–concerned with his personal responsibility or his responsibility towards his society or country as whole. For him, family is the most important thing, and there is nothing bigger than or above it. When his wife remarks to him about Chris that "there's something bigger than the family to him", he affirms that "Nothin' is bigger". (81) Because of his belief in the family being the most important thing, he tries to serve its interests, and thus ignores the larger interest of society. To earn money for his family, he does not mind putting the lives of other youngmen in danger by supplying defective equipment. He fulfils his obligations towards family, but ignores those towards the country. In the conflict of claims of personal and social responsibility, the latter gains an upper hand for him.
  36. Joe Keller commits a serious act of betrayal against his business–partner, Steve Deever. When Steve discovers the cracks in the cylinder–heads, he seeks Joe's advice on telephone about what should be done in this situation. Joe advises him to get the cylinder–heads reparied and their cracks welded, and supply them to the authorities concerned. Pretedning to be ill, he does not come to the factory to examine the damage. He assures Steve that if anything went wrong, he would take the responsibility for the supply on him. However, at the time of prosecution, he goes back on his word, and puts the entire blame on Steve's shoulders, saying that he was down with pneumonia at the time of supply, and thus had nothing to do with the matter. Thus, he betrays his friend–partner simply to save his own skin.
  37. In All My Sons the character of Joe Keller has been presented by Miller with social and psychological concerns. Besides, the tendency and the bent of mind are conditioned by the economic basis of social mischief. Joe Keller's thinking was the outcome of social mischief. Joe Keller held the opinion that he was needed by the army and they would let it go by. In the capitalistic society such shortcomings are regarded the common clay affairs. Joe Keller tries to justify his action on the flimsy ground. He said to his wife, "For you Kate, for both of you, that is all I ever lie for". (82) He being a businessman could not think beyond his family. He took a chance for his family. Joe Keller rises in his business by his constant devotion. He is deceived by dream. The social system had complete hold upon him. Like other Americans he believed in the law of success. This law teaches that there is no room for a man in society if he fails. He does not want to be a failure. He does not want to miss any opportunity in his business matters. He says to his son Chris,  that he is sixty one years old and it is not sure when would he get another chance to make something for Chris. At the age of sixty one, you don't get another chance.
  38. Keller even makes a show of generosity by saying that, when Annie's father, Steve is released from prison, he (Keller) would gladly provide him a well–paid job because he does not believe in crucifying people. In fact, he even urges Annie not to take too harsh a view of her father's supposed dishonesty in supplying defective cylinder heads to the authorities. He makes a similar show of generosity by telling Annie that he is prepared to help George to establish himself and earn a good income through his (Keller's) influence. Actually, of course, he is at pains to cover his guilt. He tells Chris that he had tried to save the business for his (Chris's) sake, and further that he had never imagined that the defective cylinder heads would actually lead to the deaths of air pilots. Another argument which he gives to defend himself is that everybody had worked during the war for monetary gain. He further says that, if he must go to jail for his dishonest dealings with the government, then half of the population of country must also go to jail because they are as guilty as he himself. He tells Chris that a man cannot be a Jesus Christ in this world. However, when Chris insists that, in the light of Larry's suicide, Keller should take the punishment for his misdeed, Keller agrees. When Kate tries to prevent him from going to the police, saying that his son Larry would not have wanted him to go to jail.
  39. After having been confronted by Chris with his guilt and his responsibility in the death of Larry as well as other young pilots, Joe begins to realise his guilt and grows a sense of disillusionment with money which he has earned with such a hard labour, for the sake of his family. He says to Chris about his money : "If you can't get used to it, then throw it away ...... Take very cent and give it to clarity, throw it in the sewer ...... If its dirty then burn it. It's your money, that's not my money". (86–87)
  40. Joe listened Chris realises Larry's letter. Kate said, "Larry was your son, too, was not he ? Joe Keller said with broken heart, "They were all my      sons" (89). Thus, the exposure of his guilt in the supply of defective cylinder heads, and of the fact of his being responsible for the suicide committed by Larry and the death of 21 young pilots whom he comes to acknowledge as his own sons, pains Joe very much. He became full of remorse and gloom. He realised the enormity of his crime to his country and society. Joe was in great dilemma which resulted in his tragic death because he took the extreme step of committing suicide.
  41. Joe Keller is a moving character whose place in All My Sons is quite important. He has been portrayed by Miller as a prototype of modernity which lies in those human minds who think that earning money is prior than anything, who even do not want to contemplate whether they are going on a right path or not. They don't even hesitate to trample others desires and ambitions to be a successful person specially in economic condition. This shows non–conventional attitude of a man who does not want to learn any lesson of morality and ethics from conventionality. Hence, Miller has succeeded in portraying him as a representative of modern man, a highly disillusioned man, a product of the contemporary social set–up comprising a trend of profiteering prevailing during the time of war.
  42. Chris Keller, son of Joe Keller, becomes a prototype of a person having moral values of living life. Unlike his father he prefers fellowship and brotherhood and follows idealistic attitude throughout his life. His importance lies in the fact that he brings such a turn in the life of the central character (Joe), and thus lends a tragic end to the play. Thus, Chris occupies a significant position in the action of the play, and is essential to its development and denouement. Chris is a man of conscience. In spite of his deep love for Ann and his desire to marry her, he feels hesitation in marrying her lest he should be thought to have usurped or snatched her from his brother Larry whom his mother still supposes to be alive. He is even prepared to leave her and go away. That is why Ann persuades his mother (Kate) to take Larry to be dead so that the great burden lying on the soul of Chris may be removed, and he may feel free to marry her. Chris's sense of morality may be seen in his feeling or regret over not having done anything to get his father punished for his crime. He remarks to Ann :
  43. Chris. I'm yellow. I was made yellow in this house because I suspected my father and I did nothing about it, but if I knew that night when I came home what I know now, he'd be in the district attorney's office by this time, and I'd have brought him there. Now, if I look at him, all I'm able to do is cry. (85)
  44. Chris had an idealistic view of the world before his coming to know about his father's crime. But the foundations of his idealism are crumbled when he faces the reality about it and about the people inhabiting it.
  45. Chris finds people killing others for serving their own interests. He finds men like his own father betraying the trust of their friends just to avoid suffering monetary loss. He learns about innocent people like Steve Deever being punished for no crime of their own. He is highly disillusioned, and his disillusionment seems to reflect that of all people around him in the war–torn world. His sense of disillusionment is expressed in the following words spoken by him to Ann with reference to the sacrifices made my men during the war :
  46. Chris. They didn't die; they killed themselves for each other. I mean that exactly; a little more selfish and they'd've been here today. And I got an idea–watching them go down. Everything was being destroyed, see, but it seemed to me that one new thing was made. A kind of responsibility. Man for man ...... And then I came home and it was incredible. I – there was no meaning in it here; the whole thing to them was a kind of a bus accident. I went to work with Dad, and that rat–race again. I felt ...... ashamed somehow. Because nobody was changed at all. It seemed to make suckers out of a lot of guys. I felt wrong to be alive, to open the bank–book, to drive the new car, to see the new refrigerator. (36)
  47. Unlike his father, Chris has a broader human outlook rather than a narrow personal view of the things around him. While his father regards the family as the biggest or most important thing in life, he puts the society or humanity as a whole on a higher plane than the individual or the family.
  48. It is Chris's idealism which also makes him tell his father not to make any offer of an appointment to Annie's father. Joe Keller just told Annie that he would be prepared to give a well–paid job in his business to Annie's father after that man's release from prison. But Chris says that he would not allow Annie's father to come near the family business. Chris also says at this time that Joe Keller's generosity at this time in making such offers would make people think him (Joe Keller) to be guilty in some way or another. When Joe Keller still wants to help Annie's father, Chris brushes aside Keller's remark and asks him to go and share himself in order to get ready for the dinner–party. Indeed, Chris cannot tolerate any kind of dishonest dealings or any kind of deception. Fraud or deception is against the grain for him. The same idealism is to be found in Chris's advice to Dr. Bayliss to give up medical practice and take up medical research even though medical research would mean a reduced income for him. Sue's grievance against Chris is that Chris had injected wrong ideas into her husband's mind. After all, a wife would want her husband to make the maximum amount of money that he is capable of making. Towards the close of the play, Chris does say that his idealism has left him and that he has now become a practical man who does not have the guts to force his father to face the consequences of his guilt. He tells his mother and Annie that he is no longer "human" and that he is now like everybody else. Referring to his father he says to his mother, "I could jail him, if I were human any more, I'm  practical now. You made me practical". (85)
  49. When his mother tells him that there is nothing wrong in being practical, Chris says that even the cats in the street are practical, and that the cowards, who ran away from the battlefield during the war, were practical also. What he means is that idealism is something essential in life and that practicality is the watchword of unworthy people. And he then says to his mother. "But I'm practical and I spit on myself". (85)
  50. The wide gulf between Joe and Chris becomes apparent to us at the very outset when Chris tells Joe that the time has come when they should both try to drive out from Kate's mind the notion that Larry is still alive and that Larry would come back home one day. Joe differs, and says that Kate would not believe them no matter how hard they try to convince her in this matter. Joe says that they have no proof to support their view that Larry is dead. Joe admits that Larry is dead, but he says that there is no evidence on the basis of which they can try to persuade. Kate to give up her belief that Larry is still alive. Joe further says that he and Chris may talk themselves blue in the face, but that Kate would still not believe that Larry is dead. The difference between Chris and Joe then deepens when Chris tells Joe that he has decided to marry Annie. Joe  points out that Annie is Larry's girl because she had been engaged to marry Larry. He says that in view of that fact Chris must not think of marrying that girl. Chris points out that Annie is no longer Larry's girl because Larry is dead. Joe replies that, from Kate's point of view, Larry is not dead, and that Chris has, therefore, no right to take Larry's girl. Chris thereupon angrily says that, every time he has tried to get something in life he had to pull back because of the apprehension that somebody else would feel hurt. Joe says that Chris is a considerate fellow, and that there is nothing wrong in being considerate. To this, Chris says, "To hell with that". (14) Joe then asks Chris to think over the matter again because, if he sticks to his resolve to marry Annie, Kate would feel deeply grieved and dismayed.
  51. Joe and Chris differ also in their attitudes towards the family business. When Chris says that he would leave home in order to get married to Annie and would settle somewhere else, preferably in New York, Joe says that Chris is talking like a crazy fellow. Chris says that he has been a good son too long, and that he has in fact, been a good sucker. Joe reminds him of the business which he (Joe) is running and urges him to stay on in this place in order to take charge of that business. Chris replies that the business does not "inspire" him, and he further says that he wants to lead his own life now. He makes it clear he wants to get married and beget children. He wants to build something to which he can devote himself. It would be better for him to work hard all day and come home to his wife and kids in the evening than to stay on in his parents' house without being allowed to marry Annie. Joe insists that Chris should stay on under the parental roof; and Chris then says that he can stay on here only if he is allowed to marry Annie. Thus, Chris does not care much for the family business to which Joe attaches the great importance.
  52. The two men, Chris and Joe differ from each other fundamentally in their views about life in general. Chris is a combination of idealism and practicality, while Joe is wholly practical in his outlook upon life. Joe describes the manner in which he had returned home after his trial in a court of law, and the manner in which he had been able to win the goodwill of his neighbours once again and also been able to reestablish his business. The manner in which he describes his achievement shows him as a thoroughly practical kind of man. Chris's outlook upon life becomes clear when he, speaking to Annie, describes his experience of the war and his subsequent disappointment. The men under his command had laid down their lives in course of the fighting, and they had all given evidence of their spirit of sacrifice and their sense of mutual comradeship. Each man under his command had shown a sense of responsibility towards the others, and each man had shown his readiness to die for the sake of others, and for the sake of his country. But on returning home after the war, Chris has found that life in general had not changed in the least as a consequence of the war. The war had not in anyway improved the lives of the people who had continued to be as selfish and money–minded as they were before war. The competitive spirit and the urge to acquire money had continued in the course of the war. Even in wanting to marry Annie, he feels a sense of shame, because his wish to settle down as a married man makes think that he is a selfish man. Joe never thinks of life in these terms. What he values most is money and his family. Nothing else matters to him. Besides, he is not at all an introspective kind of man.
  53. The contrast between Chris's idealism and Joe's practicality becomes even more striking when Joe says that whatever he had done in the matter of the supply of defective equipment to the Air Force during the war had been done in the interest of his family. He says that he had supplied defective equipment to the Air Force so that his business should not get ruined and he should not become a bankrupt. He had felt compelled to supply defective equipment in order to keep his business going for the sake of Chris and for the sake of his family. Thus, Joe places personal interest and the interest of his family above everything else. But Chris reacts with anger and dismay to Joe's defence of himself. Chris asks Joe indignantly :
  54. Chris.  What the hell do you mean. You did it for me ?
  55.     Don't you have a country ? Don't you live in the world ?
  56.     What the hell are you ? You're not even an animal,
  57.     no animal kills his own, What are you ? (76)
  58. Chris goes on to say that he feels like tearing the tongue out of Joe's mouth. Here the contrast between the two men becomes most conspicuous. Chris regards social responsibility to be something higher than self–interest and family interest. Chris feels so disturbed by his father's shady business and the motives behind Joe's fraud that he rushes out of the house to meditate upon the crisis with which he is faced. In the meantime, Joe has a talk with his wife Kate about the whole dispute between him and Chris. He tells Kate that he had made money for her and for Chris, and that he is now being blamed by both of them. Kate replies that she had not wanted money to be earned by foul means. Joe says that he had done everything for the sake of his family only, and that now he is being blamed by his own family. Kate replies that, in Chris's eyes, there is something bigger than the family. Joe insists that there is nothing bigger than the family. Then Chris returns and announces that he would be going away and taking up a job in some other city. He tells Annie that he is unable to do anything with regard to the fraud which his father had practised upon the Air Force. However, by this time Joe has himself begun to realize that Chris is not going to forgive him for what he had done. He does put up a defence of his actions once again, saying that, if he must go to jail, then half of the population of the country must also go to jail because everybody had made money by all sorts of methods during the war. He says that even during the time of peace people make money by all sorts of methods. But Chris replies that he admits that Joe is no worse than most men in the country, but that he had thought Joe to be better than  most men. Chris then reads out Larry's letter in which Larry had stated his resolve to commit suicide. Now, Joe can no longer resist Chris's moral pressure upon him; and so he gets ready to go to jail. He then goes into the house in order to get dressed; but, once inside the house, he shoots himself dead rather than go to jail. Chris's idealism has won the day. Chris has lost his father; but his idealism has won a victory over his father's practicality. The demands of social responsibility as represented by Chris have triumphed over worldliness and monetary greed as represented by Joe Keller. Thus, the very theme of the play has been developed and brought to a conclusion by means of the contrast between Chris and Joe which runs through it. Of course, Chris has his  practical side also. He is practical in wanting to lead a normal life, and he is willing even to work hard in order to be able to lead a happy domestic life. But the idealistic streak in his nature dominates his personality.                      C. W. E. Bigswy says :
  59. The play All My Sons is an assertion of the need for the individual to accept full responsibility for his actions, to acknowledge the reality of a world in which the idea of brotherhood is an active principle rather than a simply piety. It is an assault on a materialism which is seen as being at odds with human values, on a capitalist drive for profits which is inimical to the elaboration of an ethic based on the primacy of human life and the necessity to acknowledge a social contract. Indeed Joe Keller defends himself by insisting that his own values are those of the world in which he moves. As he asks, rheotrically, 'Who worked for nothing in that war ? ......' It's dollars and cents, nickles and dimes ...... And is son is forced to acknowledge this ...... Yet he still continues to press his demand of the ideal until his father can no longer live with his guilt and he intensified loneliness. And this is the basis of the play's submerged theme – a concern with guilt as a principal mechanism of human behaviour, and with self–interest as a spectre behind the mask of idealism.8
  60. All My Sons is a drama which has issues related to love, friendship, marriage, business, profession, etc. These issues are treated in it quite realistically. Loyalty and betrayal, intimacy and deception, have also been dealt within it.  A comparative examination of various kinds of relationship – e.g. relationship between husband and wife, father and son, brother and sister, and so on – has been attempted in it too. The interaction between different members of a family, such as in the Keller family and Deever's family, has been closely analysed and shown by Miller in this play. The social atmosphere during the second World War, and the evils that vitiated it have been brought out by him too. The ill of the judicial system under which an innocent person like Steve Deever has to spend several years in jail, while the guilty man like Joe Keller goes scot–free, has been presented for our scrutiny. The capitalistic system which breeds the evils of profiteering, hoarding and money–making by unscrupulous means, has been indicated by Miller through the characters like Chris. Thus, various social issues have been treated in     All My Sons, that impart it a touch of realism.
  61. However, the play is not so much concerned with ordinary or narrow issues related to particular individuals in a society, as with larger social issues affecting all men belonging to different societies. As Prof. Nissim Ezekiel points out :
  62. Miller's concern with large social issues is really the key to our understanding of the play. In All My Sons family relations are predominant. To Keller 'nothin's bigger' than the family. It's everything to him. When Chris discovers his father's complicity in the sale of defective cylinder–heads to the Army Air Force, he turns against him. Rather than go on living, Keller shoots himself. Keller's death is a parable of our times. Through it Miller points to our inescapable social responsibilities. Any evasiveness or refusal is severely punished. Plays such as these are, therefore, specially relevant today.9
  63. The appeal of All My Sons lies in its contemporary relevance, which may be said to be due to the universal nature of the issue, raised by it.
  64. The play deals, not only with narrow issue of the relationship between an individual and his society but, with the larger issue of the relationship of human beings as a whole with the society of which they are members. Joe Keller is not merely a particular individual, but a representative of all men like him whose relationship with their social set–up is explored in the play. Joe is the head of the Keller family, and the welfare of his family is his sole concern. But this concern leads him to ignore the interests of a larger body, i.e. the society and the country. The supply of defective cylinder–heads by him may have been beneficial for his family; the country which has to suffer the loss of twenty–one of its younger pilots, because of his anti–social act. The issue here is whether a man should be loyal to himself or his family or to the society as a whole.
  65. A related issue is whether one can justify his act of betraying his friend for his personal interests. Joe betrays his business–partner Steeve Deever to save his skin, and thus acts in a selfish manner. The question is : Can society and social relationships survive in an atmosphere of such selfishness and betrayal. Should mutual trust and sense of responsibility not be a bedrock on which all social intercourse may be firmly based ?
  66. Another larger issue treated in All My Sons is related to the consideration of the relative importance of personal responsibility and social responsibility. An individual may be responsible to himself and his family; but he should also feel responsible towards the society. Now the question is, whether he can justifiably evade his social responsibility to fulfil his obligations to a smaller social unit like the family. In owning the responsibility towards his family or his sons, which impels him to earn money by dishonest means, Joe Keller seems to disown his social responsibility. He is too much concerned with earning money for his family to keep in mind the good of his society, or to avoid doing any harm to it. The result is his anti–social act of the supply of defective equipment to the Air–Force. He does not feel any regret for it, but rather tries to justify it on the ground that others are indulging in earning money too. He claims to be caring much for his family (or his sons); but he causes the death of his elder son, Larry, because of his act. He has finally to commit suicide. Thus, the evasion of social responsibility hardly gives him any happiness; it only results in his tragedy.
  67. All My Sons also deals with the large issue of a crisis in national character. In an era of capitalistic economy in America, the people here have become so money–minded that they can go to any extent to earn money, and to become rich. Loyalty, trust and friendship have begun to be treated as secondary to monetary gain. The interests of the country can be sacrificed at the altar of profiteering, as happens in the case of Joe Keller who hazards the precious lives of young pilots because of his greed. Chris rightly remarks, "This is the land of the great big dogs, you don't love a man, you eat him! That's the principle, the only one we live by". (86) Joe Keller is simply a product of this state of affairs in the American society. When Joe talks about his business and tells Chris that he committed the dishonest deed for him, Chris retorts to him :
  68. Chris. For me! – I was dying everyday and you were killing my boys and you did it for me ? What the hell do you think. I was thinking of the goddam business ? Is that as far as your mind can see, the business ? What is that, the world – the business ? What the hell do you mean, you did it for me ? Don't you have a country ? Don't you live in the world ? What the hell are you ? You're not even an animal, no animal kills his own, what are you ? What must I do to you ? I ought to tear the tongue out of your mouth, what must I do?  (75–80)
  69. Through Chris's words Miller means to voice his condemnation of commercial outlook of big businessman, which makes them blind to the interests of the nation and of the men who are fighting for it.
  70. All My Sons also deals with the larger issue of the love and sympathy for one's near and dear ones vis–a–vis that for all human beings. Larry was Joe's son, and his death grieves him. But so were all the young pilots who were killed in crashes and he should feel grieved for their death too, especially because he himself is responsible for it. As Chris tells his mother, "You can know there's a universe of people outside you, and you're responsible to it". (89) The arousal of a sense of this wider sympathy for others besides one's own people, seems to be Miller's concern in the play.
  71.             All My Sons is certainly a tragedy in the literary sense of this word. A tragedy depicts the downfall and death of some important person, and thereby arouses in the readers or the spectators such feelings as pity, fear, awe, and terror. Of course, All My Sons is not exactly a powerful tragedy of the kind written by such authors as Marlowe, Shakespeare and Webster. But               All My Sons is certainly a moving and poignant play. The protagonist in this play is a manufacture or industrialist by the name of Joe Keller. It may here be pointed out that the protagonist in this play does not meet the requirements of a tragic hero as conceived by Aristotle. A protagonist in this play is not a king or an army general or an exalted personage in nay sense of the word. Now–a–days, we live in democratic times when there are no kings governing the people and when a king or a queen reigning in any country is merely a figure–head and only a relic of the past. In these times, therefore, we can expect only an average kind of person as the tragic hero. If Aristotle had lived in our times, he might have changed his mind about the tragic hero, and he might not have laid down the rule that the protagonist in a tragedy should be a man of a very equality are in favour, even though there is no actual social equality anywhere in the world. Joe Keller belongs to the affluent class of society; and therefore he differs from the ordinary kind of human beings who constitute the majority in every country.
  72.             Conflict is an essential ingredient of a tragedy. A god tragedy contains both outer conflict and inner conflict. In All My Sons we witness both these kinds of conflict. As for outer conflict, we have a confrontation between Chris and his father over Chris's desire to marry Annie who was engaged to marry Chris's brother, Larry. There is a confrontation between Christ and George when the latter accuses Chris's father of having brought about the ruin of the Deever family. There is a confrontation between Chris and his mother Kate who firmly opposes Chris's intention to marry Annie because Kate believes that Larry is still alive and would come back home one day. But the biggest confrontation takes place when Chris discovers his father's guilt and when his father confesses this guilt. Chris would now like his father to face the consequences of his criminal action; but Keller defends himself first on the ground that he had done everything for the sake of Chris and for the sake of his family, and later on the ground that everybody in the country has been using all kinds of fair or foul means to make money. Then there is the inner conflict. Both Joe Keller and Kate Keller suffer from a sense of guilt, but they have been able to subdue their sense of guilt so that the conflict in their minds is of a very mild kind. In Chris we witness an acute mental conflict. He suffers from a sense of guilt because he has survived the war while all the men under his command had been killed in the course of the fighting. Chris has a sense of guilt even about his desire to marry Annie. He faces this conflict in such an acute form that he has taken three and a half years to make up his mind to propose marriage to Annie; and even then he has not been able completely to overcome his sense of guilt. Chris faces another conflict when he finds himself unable to take any action against his father even after the latter has confessed his guilt. Finally, there is a kind of inner conflict in Keller when he wavers  between going to the police to confess his guilt and his disinclination to do so. Then comes the catastrophe. Joe Keller does finally decide to pay the price for the crime which he had committed; and so he shoots himself. This is certainly a very moving end to the play.
  73.             Pathos is always the prevailing atmosphere of a tragedy, even though there may be some lighter moments in it. Pathos is the key–note of All My Sons also, despite its many light moments. There is Kate's distress at the very outset of the play when the apple–tree has been brought down to the ground by the wind. Then there is her pathetic belief that Larry is still alive, and that he would come back home some day. George's description of the plight of his father first to Chris and Annie, and then to Joe Keller is also very moving because George's father is spending his days in prison in a miserable condition because Joe Keller had told a lie in the court. Chris's sense of guilt is another moving ingredient in the play, as is Dr. Jim's frustrated desire to pursue medical research. Larry's letter to Annie containing his decision to commit suicide because of his father's criminal action is also deeply moving. Chris's predicament on finding that his father is, after all, guilty of fraud and cheating is deeply moving too. Chris now decides to leave home and to look for a job elsewhere to earn his livelihood instead of continuing to participate in his father's business. Then, of course, Joe Keller's suicide at the end comes as a climax to all these moving situations. Joe Keller's suicide certainly satisfies Chris's conscience but at the same time it grieves him deeply just as it grieves Chris's mother also.
  74.             All My Sons is undoubtedly a deeply moving play. But we cannot affirm that it fulfils Aristotle's condition of what he called the catharsis of the feelings of pity and fear. Pity is certainly aroused in our hearts by the events of this play, as has already been pointed out. In fact, the feeling of pity aroused in us in the course of the play is very deep; but it is not of the same magnitude as in the case of the great Shakespearean tragedies. The feeling of fear is also aroused in us. But this feeling too is not of the same intensity. We experience the feeling of fear when we hear about the deaths of twenty–one air pilots; we share Kate's apprehension when George is about to arrive at the Keller home; and we share Joe Keller's apprehension too. At the end, of course, Joe Keller's suicide fills us with fear and awe. But catharsis is too big a word for the emotional effect of this play upon us. We do experience a certain emotional relief at the end along with our feelings of pity and fear. We do at the end feel that the ends of justice have been met. In that sense, the play is quite successful; and it is also successful in conveying to us the moral which Miller had in mind. The moral of the play is that a man's social responsibility is higher and nobler than his responsibility to himself or to his family. We admire Joe Keller at the end because he has risen to the occasion and inflicted upon himself the punishment which he deserved. And we admire Chris even more for his role in awakening Joe's conscience and making him realize the enormity of his guilt. Thus, the play has a sort of ennobling and uplifting effect upon us, and that is what we expect from a tragedy.

  75. Notes
  76. 1 Arthur Miller, All My Sons, ed. Nissim Ezekiel (Madras : Oxford University Press, 1972) 91.
  77. 2 Arthur Miller, Collected Plays, Indian edn. (New Delhi : Allied Publishers, 1973) 9.
  78. 3 Arthur Miller, All My Sons, ed. Nissim Ezekiel (Madras : Oxford University Press, 1972) 94.
  79. 4 Raymond Williams, The Realism of Arthur Miller, Critical Quarterly (Summer, 1949) 142–143.
  80. 5 Raymond Williams, Drama from Ibsen to Eliot, Chatto and Windus (London, 1954) 78.
  81. 6 A. Robert Martin, The Creative Experience of Arthur Miller : An Interview, Educational Theatre Journal, 21 Oct. 1969.
  82. 7 Garff B. Wilson, Three Hundred Years of American Drama and Theatre, (University of California at Berkeley, Chap. 19, Playwright between Two World Wars) 446.
  83. 8 C.W.E. Bigswy, The Fall and After Arthur Miller's "Confession", Modern Drama (Sep. 1964) 150.
  84. 9 Arthur Miller, All My Sons, ed. Nissim Ezekiel (Madras : Oxford University Press, 1972) 98.
  85. All the textual quotations have been taken from Arthur Miller,                All My Sons, ed. Nissim Ezekiel (Madras : Oxford University Press, 1972).