Being v. Seeming

[jillianb02]

I was intrigued by the conversation that we began briefly in class today. Being v. Seeming.
Parris' house is simplistic, which we can see from the description of his daughters room on the first page. However it is clear that the Puritan values of not being to attached to the material world, are not very strong in him. He asks for gold candlesticks, a larger pay, and the deed to his house. These indicate that he is indeed materialistic. His presentation to society is that he is living a devoted life to God, and does not need elaborate things.
This raises the issue of being v. seeming and how it relates not only to the crucible and the red scare but our society today. In the Puritan rhetoric, one must seem to live a plain life, even if that is not who you truly are. During the 1950's when people were in fear of being persecuted by the government they had to watch what they said and ensure that they were always speaking the rhetoric. Even today their is a connotation of "you are either with us or against us." If someone says something that does not fit with the consensus they are frowned upon.
Is it better to appear to fit in the rhetoric, as Parris does, in order to ensure that you remain in the consensus, or is it better to act and present yourself as you truly are, as Abigail does before the play begins. (I say that because her outburst, dancing and giggling may have been inappropriate for the church, yet they were representative of her true personality.)

[ezram02]

While it is better for an individual to speak the rhetoric of consensus and pretend to fit in, it is better for the society if people have different opinions, without conforming to the consensus. In the Crucible, all the people who mask their true beliefs are rewarded (Parris, Tituba, Abigail), while all the people who express their opinion that conflicts with the consensus are punished (Abigail before the play as Jillian said, Proctor, Giles, etc.). On the other hand, these people were only punished as a result of the consensus having gotten out of control. The tyranny of consensus is the reason people are forced to seem different from what they are, but the same tyranny is originally caused by too many people hiding their differences in opinion and conforming to the general consensus.

[jillianb02]

I like the idea that differences in people's opinions leads to a diverse soceity. However if everyone is different then is their a rhetoric?
For example, the theocracy dictates that all people follow the rhetoric, yet if everyone was like Proctor then their would be no theocracy. As Mr. Chedder said, Proctor is both physically and mentally removed from the society. Though I understand his actions I have to wonder that if everyone spoke against Parris and didn't attend Church regularly, what control would the church have? The rhetoric would be non existant, or perhaps over time it would evolve into something alltogether different.

[davep02]

I agree that if everyone acted as Proctor did, their would be no theocracy, but overall America is based on people expressing their own beliefs. Although enough of these ideas are similar to form a general consesus (such as freedom), everyone has their own beliefs that allow America to progress. America is based on individuals challenging society to make it better.

[alysonm7]

Also, Proctor is representing a change from the sacred to the secular. In a puritan society, he has removed himself from the church, showing that the change to the secular was already in progress.

[sophied02]

My opinion is that it is seeming overrules being in this situation because if one seemed like they were religious they could change their ideology or rhetoric at any given time to fit in with the consensus. However, if one was actually religious, they would remain steadfast to their morals and could ultimately end up being punished because they would be outside of the consensus

[nina]

To elaborate on what was said by ezram02:"The tyranny of consensus is the reason people are forced to seem different from what they are, but the same tyranny is originally caused by too many people hiding their differences in opinion and conforming to the general consensus."
It is indeed a vicious cycle that corresponds to the tyranny of consensus. There's no real way to say where it begins and ends.