Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman, Essay Example

Introduction

Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman is typically considered a quintessential American drama.  Its realistic examination of how an average man pursues simple ambitions, and how these pursuits go to defining all the relationships in his family, is both stark and full of dimension, for Miller understands the primal connection between the working-class man and his job.   The play is very much about success, or the lack thereof, but the core of the work lies in the ways multiple and frustrated dreams reverberate within all the members of the family.   In Miller’s eyes, the play focuses on questions of who wields power, and who should wield power in such situations.  As will be discussed, there is no single answer.  However, in investigating the two viewpoints on this subject Miller believes to be at war within the play, a better knowledge of what power itself means in the context of the “American dream” may be had.  Ultimately, as will be noted, the twin viewpoints of Death of a Salesman  go beyond the importance of achieving commercial success and a contrasting disregard of it, because both are integral to living.  Then,  both views also, and more tellingly, reflect the inevitable power struggle in the hyper-masculine realm of father/son relationships.

The Views as Seen by Miller

Based upon Miller’s conjecture in regard to his own play, the two viewpoints central to Death of a Salesman may be identified with two of the principle characters, Willy Loman and his oldest son, Biff.   Willy, although never successful in his long career as a salesman, represents a potently working-class ethic of achievement as being paramount.  In Willy’s eyes, and apart from his own failures, there is nothing more affirming to a man, or more justifiably sought after, than doing well at work and being recognized for it.  This relates to the political component Miller also refers to, in that this success is, in Willy’s eyes, dependent upon being liked.   In this view, power comes to the man who works hard for it, and who consequently earns the right to wield it.   Plainly within the play is the character’s fundamental belief that this is the proper order of things, and he cannot conceive of ambitions outside of this ideology.

In contrast, Biff is clearly disenchanted with his father’s viewpoint, which serves to define his own.  He is uninterested in the kind of achievement his father values, for it is meaningless to him.  It is likely that this view is at least partially generated by the boy’s lifelong observance of how seeking power in this way has brought his father nothing but frustration and disillusionment.  Then, given Biff’s traumatic witnessing of his father’s adultery, it is also probable that he sees this ambition as inherently corrupt, or false.   If a viewpoint may be defined as belonging to Biff, it is that happiness and fulfillment must be found outside of traditional, American work ethic pursuits.  In a sense, Biff is an ancestor of the “hippie” movement that would emerge decades after Miller wrote his play.  Materialism is suspect and pointless, in his eyes.   Consequently, “power” as seen by his father is worthless.  This translates, then, to a viewpoint that dismisses the processes of power that Willy so esteems, such as being well-liked and commanding the respect of peers.

Miller questions what the world would be like, then, if either viewpoint were adopted as the prevailing one.  He refers to this debate as spiritual and psychological, as well as political, and he is certainly entitled to make the inquiry.  Nonetheless, as will be explored, it seems that Miller is too concerned with surface manifestations of struggles with far deeper meaning.  Power, as he indicates, is an elusive and variable thing, and one often defined only by the circumstances in which it is created.  More exactly, “power” in the context of his play is more symbolic than real, and it is what it symbolizes that has the real meaning.  To that end, it is necessary to look more closely at what generates these symbols of power within the two men, and why each clings to his own.

Discussion

In examining the twin viewpoints of the play, one factor immediately demands attention: they are completely dependent upon one another, in order to exist at all.  As noted, Biff’s views on the unimportance of worldly success are reactive.  He is continually subject to Willy’s ideology, and his instincts instinctively rise up against it the more he is exposed to it.  It is interesting to speculate, in fact, on what Biff’s views of life and power would be, were he not so a victim of his father’s.  Conversely, the more Biff resists his views, the more Willy feels the need to reassert them.  It is bad enough that Willy can barely hold onto his ideology in the face of the failures his own life has created, in terms of business; the dismissal of it by his own son, then, demands an aggressive response.  Beyond this, there is also a more simple agenda fueling his viewpoint.  As he believes happiness can only be had through it, he wants badly for his son to have this, despite his own inability to achieve it.

This factor of the viewpoints as actually generating one another is, ironically, reflective of the element Miller sees as central to both: power.   The bulk of Death of a Salesman is, in fact, a power struggle, and it is one fought over life philosophies.   Here, then, it is further seen that power is created by the people and circumstances requiring it.  Were there no dispute over viewpoints in the Loman household, there would be no need to challenge, and consequently assert individual power to make a claim.   As Willy and Biff collide, the duel for dominance of viewpoint actually promotes something of Willy’s own ideology, because such contests are only won through the values he most prizes: tenacity, and a will to succeed.  If Willy were to “win” this power struggle, however, it would be meaningless because Biff’s views inherently place no value on such victories.   Thus, the power conflict between the two men can only serve to reflect the contrasting point of view, no matter who most dominates the battle.

This goes to what may be the most primal element in Miller’s play, and one that very much explains the individual viewpoints of Willy and Biff: that they are father and son.   It is important to examine this, particularly as Miller questions which viewpoint may be best for the world at large.  The reality is that he tapped into a conflict so basic to humanity, and so based upon senior and junior views of what matters in life, that the question he asks  is submerged.   In other words, it is not about which point of view would be better for the world, but about whether or not these combative differences are not inherent in the nature of man.   It may be that the question Miller poses is pointless, because the tides of humanity rely on these alternating, and largely masculine, clashes of will.

Viewed in this light, Willy’s ideology is absolutely in accord with what would be expected of a man  in his circumstances and of his age.  He has experience of the world, and this experience has forged in him a conviction that nothing is as valued in that world as popularity and success.  It is probable that his own failures have reinforced this conviction, rather than weakened it; had Willy been truly successful in his work, he would have been so within the sphere of “rightness” he prizes as to be relatively unaware of it.  Unsuccessful, he stands outside, as it were, and bitterly sees more clearly the immense need to do well and be liked by all.

Two other factors greatly go to creating Willy’s viewpoint.  The first is that, however it happens, he is incapable of imagining success other than in terms of social and commercial gain.  This may be generational; Willy, based on the play’s timing, had to have been a product of the Great Depression, and the severity of those times would likely mark a man in this manner.  Simply, when it is crucial to provide in a material way for the family, there is little to no concern over emotional or spiritual needs, or achievements.   Life levels, in a sense, and Willy, for decades a pawn in the machinery of the business world, can only see through that lens.  Then, there is the potent matter of his being a father.   It is ordinary for fathers to want for their sons what they themselves have pursued, and what they have come to see as being the most valuable attainments in life.   Willy wants happiness for his son in the only way he can conceive of happiness, which is through conquest.   Not necessarily incidentally, there is probably a motive in Willy going to a masculine imperative.  Real men go after success and are liked by everyone, and it is important that his son be a real man, for both their sakes.  Consequently, Willy’s viewpoint, while skewed by bad experiences, is still that of the father, or the man who knows life, and who knows how hard and unforgiving it is.

Conversely, Biff is the boy, or son, who rejects, and he can do this by virtue of the son’s place in the relationship and in the world.  More precisely, Biff is not of the world, so he is not driven to meet its standards.  He has had some unfortunate dealings in business already, but these have been both new and likely entered into with no enthusiasm by him.  Here, again, the viewpoints of the men are strengthened by their own efforts to support them.   As Willy unceasingly throws himself into the world, he validates his view of it in the action.  Biff, unimpressed with commercial achievement, cannot effectively give himself to this arena, which then enhances his own views of its unimportance.   As noted earlier, Biff is the “hippie”, or the one who keeps his eye more on emotional and spiritual affairs, and he may do this, in a sense, because he is obligated to as a son.   That is to say, no matter the nature of a father’s viewpoint, it is ordinary for a son to automatically challenge it, in the power struggle between father and son as old as time.  That Biff rejects his father’s materialism is merely a reflection of the typical substance of these duels in the America of Miller’s setting.

Going back to Miller’s question, then, there is no answer because any must be too reflective of a deeper, human conflict to serve as an answer.   It is not a case of one viewpoint as being more beneficial for the world because, first of all, no single viewpoint may be.   A single-minded drive to be liked and successful is empty without a core of emotional well-being and a commitment to the deeper issues of living.  Similarly, a complete disregard for success and popularity is not a practical way to live in a structured society, and is by no means a guarantee of personal fulfillment, the necessities of securing survival aside.   Then, these are viewpoints that are validated only by working in concert, and in that process the real meaning of power becomes more clear.  If “power” is to be sought after to be wielded, it is worthwhile only when it is a power expressive of an expanded viewpoint.  There is the power of success and the power of an independent spirit, but neither has meaning if the other, concerned party does not recognize it.  This recognition, and subsequent appreciation, can only come when the power is based upon a full understanding of the potential value of both points of view.  Ironically, then, it is no longer power in an authoritative sense, but power as a representation of the greater understanding.

Conclusion

In discussing his Death of a Salesman, Arthur Miller ponders which of the two, principle ideologies is most beneficial to the world.  He wonders about Willy’s pragmatism and determination to do well, and Biff’s defiant unconcern with such an ambition.   What Miller ignores in his question is the primal foundation he himself presents, which is that of the eternal and hyper-masculine conflict in place between a father and son.   He also disregards the inescapable reality that no, single viewpoint serves the world well.  The two viewpoints in  Death of a Salesman  transcend simple evaluations of the importance of achieving commercial success, and a contrasting dismissal of it, because they are only valid when exercised as one.  Moreover, they resist ranking because they reflect the inevitable power struggle in the hyper-masculine realm of father/son relationships.