Wood 1
Sarah
Wood

Professor Mattawa
English 124
19 September 2014

The Question of Morality: A Close Reading of “An Enemy of the People”
Humans have adopted the notion of morality and the inclination to be good, to make the
“moral” decision. Morality serves as the driving force behind decision-making, but often times there is a gray area, especially when the definition of what really is moral and good comes into question. The problem with morality is demonstrated in Henrik Ibsen’s famous play “An Enemy of the People”, as the two Stockmann brothers try to decide what to do with their town’s Baths that are contaminated by bacteria. Set up as foils, Dr. Thomas Stockmann and Peter Stockmann are opposites. Echoing the contrast between good and bad and what is certain and what is uncertain, the Stockmanns exemplify the struggles that humans encounter when making decisions. Dr. Stockmann and Peter Stockmann, at first glance, seem to be very similar. Sharing the same parents, one would assume they have some characteristics in common being that they grew up in the same household. Both middle-aged men, very successful in their spheres of influence, have great authority and power in their community. As mayor and town physician, one would conclude that the brothers would have to have a healthy working relationship. However, shortly after Peter Stockmann is introduced, the readers realize there is tension in the seemingly perfect brotherhood. Possibly resulting from Peter’s responsibility for Dr. Stockmann’s
“appointment…as medical officer to the Baths”, or some other point of contention, there seems to be an unequal balance of power between the brothers (Act I, 37). This sentiment is confirmed

Wood 2 when Peter says to Dr. Stockmann that he hoped that by helping “to improve your financial position, I should be able to keep some check on you” (Act I, 36). In his first appearance in the play, Dr. Stockmann snubs his nose at the hospitality offered by Mrs. Stockmann and lays cutting remarks about the Stockmann family’s way of life. This serves as foreshadowing for the conflict that will ultimately arise between the brothers, a tension that seems to be accredited to
Dr. Stockmann’s inability to “put up with any authority” over him and his old habit of wanting
“to pick a quarrel with [his] superiors” (Act I, 37). The unequal balance of power in the brothers’ relationship sets Peter up as a superior and in Peter’s words, Dr. Stockmann “regard(s) him as a personal enemy” (Act I, 37). In their first vocal altercation, Peter finally confesses that it has been “painful for a man in an official position to have his nearest relative compromising himself from time to time” (Act I, 36).
By using Peter Stockman and Dr. Stockmann as foils, an atmosphere of contrast is created. This echoes the question of morality that the readers are confronted with as they struggle to decide who is right and who is wrong. Dr. Stockmann truly believes that he is doing “so much that is good and useful” for his “native town”, but Peter also believes that he is acting “in the interests of the town” and the “best for the common good” (Act I, 35). Yet, Dr. Stockmann believes that Peter’s way of thinking is “a trick-a fraud, a lie, a downright crime towards the public, towards the whole community!” and Peter accuses Dr. Stockmann that telling about the contamination will have “cost us so much money” that “you would have ruined your native town” (Act I, 34, 35). Obviously, the definition of morality varies person by person. Peter, the mayor and political figure, is concerned with the economic and reputational repercussions that cleaning the Baths would cause. Dr. Stockmann, the town physician and family man, is concerned with the health repercussions of the Bath water, “water that is poisonous, whether you

Wood 3 drink in or bathe in it!” (Act I, 33) Both men have valid points and reasons for