Individualism vs. Authority Theme Analysis

In An Enemy of the People, Dr. Stockmann has to decide whether to obey the town authorities who want him to suppress findings of water contamination, or follow his own instincts regardless of their desires. Through the character of Peter Stockmann, who invokes reverence for the government as a way to stifle progress and increase his own power, the play argues against blindly respecting authority without questioning its aims. But while Dr. Stockmann is clearly right in making his findings public, his increasing preoccupation with freedom of expression seems to stem not from his moral convictions but from a desire to vindicate himself. Ultimately, while the novel champions individual rights, it warns that individualism can easily transform into egoism.

By showing how Dr. Stockmann’s brother, Peter, uses respect for authority to impede change and promote his own interests, the play voices support for individual rights. One of Peter’s few comic attributes is his insistence on conventionality. For him, the words “independent” and “freethinking” are serious insults, which he uses to criticize his brother’s decision to present his findings to the public without consulting his bosses at the baths. More seriously, he argues that because Dr. Stockmann is an employee of the baths, he has no right to personal opinions but must defer to his superiors “for the good of the community.” For him, as for other town leaders like Mr. Aslaksen, living in a society means forfeiting individual rights like freedom of expression.

While Peter makes a virtue out of obeying the authorities, it’s clear that as an authority himself he has his own good in mind. Suppressing Dr. Stockmann’s discovery helps him and the other stakeholders in the baths, while allowing townspeople and visitors to be poisoned by contaminated water. By demonstrating that Dr. Stockmann’s individualism is aligned with truth and progress while Peter Stockmann’s obsession with authority is a cover for his own shady dealings, the play argues that respect for individualism is necessary on a personal and social level.

Dr. Stockmann is well-intentioned in bringing forth his findings, and his desire to speak his mind is sympathetic, but over the course of the play it becomes clear that his emphasis on individuality is more about being right than about standing by moral convictions. Peter’s attempt to suppress the news is morally odious, but he is right when he points out that expensive repairs to the baths could bankrupt the town. Dr. Stockmann doesn’t have any plan to address this problem, and the looming catastrophe doesn’t bother him. He’s much more interested in achieving an intellectual victory and personal acclaim, anticipating that the townspeople will venerate him as a savior and daydreaming about an increase in his salary.

Dr. Stockmann is similarly unrealistic and unpractical when it comes to the consequences of his actions on his family. His wife, Katherine, faithfully stands by him, but she points out that he won’t be able to provide for their children if he becomes a social pariah. He responds by saying that he wants “to have the right to look my sons in the face when they are grown men,” voicing concern for his own pride as a father rather than the actual needs of his children. In both of these moments, Dr. Stockmann’s insistence on sticking to the unpopular ideas he knows to be right is admirable, but his disregard for the rights and concerns of others means that his individualism borders on egoism.

Although Morten Kiil, Dr. Stockmann’s father-in-law, eventually emerges as his greatest betrayer, their brands of individualism actually make them similar. Morten Kiil owns one of the tanneries that Dr. Stockmann accuses of contaminating the town’s water. In order to avoid responsibility, he uses the money he’s promised leave his daughter and grandchildren to buy shares in the baths, hoping to blackmail Dr. Stockmann into retracting his discovery and making the baths profitable again.

Explaining what he’s done to his appalled son-in-law, Morten says that he plans to “live and die clean,” language that is remarkably similar to Stockmann’s professed refusal to “defile himself with filth” by being party to a lie. Moreover, Morten’s determination to save his reputation makes him disregard the people for whom he’s supposed to provide—Katherine and her children—just as Dr. Stockmann’s individualism makes him blind to his family’s situation. Dr. Stockman’s similarity to Morten points out that for him, individualism doesn’t just mean sticking to his ideals but protecting the purity of his name and reputation at all costs—a goal that sometimes makes him self-centered and blind to the needs of others.

An Enemy of the People champions the importance of individual rights, especially the freedom to express an unpopular opinion. However, it also warns that individualism and egoism can easily blend together.