Ibsen's "An Enemy of the People"

It's kind of sad/funny that this exact play could be written today, only instead of the infiltration of the water supply by millions of unseen pollutants representing the pollution and manipulation of public opinion by peers and officials, it could be a straight up commentary on the value of commerce vs natural resources and biological health.

Actually, isn't this the story of Erin Brockovich? The difference being, of course, that Erin Brockovich won her battle, and has been held up as a hero in a modern David and Goliath scenario.  She is regarded as a hero in no small part because our North American (capitalist) culture places a high value on maintaining individuality and sanding up for the minority.

I understand the commentary regarding democracy and the manipulation of public opinion by the powerful, represented today by the government and the media.  That is a valid fear, one that makes me distrust pretty much everything that I read or see.  Everyone has an agenda.  But what I don't understand is Doctor Stockman's drive.  He says "That the common herd should dare to make this attack on me, as if they were my equals - that is what I cannot, for the life of me, swallow!"

He fights to do the "right thing", but he has no respect or love for either the upper or lower classes.  He recognises the worth of good people such as Mrs. Busk (the teacher) and his landlord, but also recognises that they must compromise their good intentions in the face of misguided public opinion, and Dr. Stockmann has no respect for the masses after people give up their individuality and become sheep in the herd.  So why is he fighting for the public's health?  His rigid principles cause harm to himself and his family. If it's not for the people, it makes me wonder if it's for his own pride and self image - he cannot see himself compromised by the system. So is this a truly virtuous act?

Hovstad says "It is much better to have several persons in a thing of that sort [evil behaviour]; because the responsibility of each individual is lessened, when there are others with him".  Ibsen, through Dr. Stockmann seems to believe that democracy and commercialism will lead directly to the majority trampling over the rights of individuals, as the majority rules over the minority - essentially saying that human nature is self-serving and without being commended for standing up for others, the majority will do the easier, selfish thing and look out solely for one's self - in fact, public pressure will enforce this practice.

Clearly, this is a valid fear, but one that I think that (in Canada) we try and balance by our electoral system.  Our representatives are (ideally) proven and educated and although we, as Canadians have diverse moral and political beliefs, there is a common Canadian understanding that the majority must work to protect the minority.  If we cannot do directly so as individuals, our values are hopefully served by those we elect. 

It's not a perfect solution, but there is no perfect solution.  Without elected representation which defended the rights of the minority, we would have no social-welfare system, no global health-care, no public education system, no public transit, no same-sex marriage, no rights for women or children.  I recognise that these laws were the result of public opinion, but our officials listened to public opinion and shaped our legislation to answer it.  Our version of democracy is not a tyranny, even as we may feel bulldozed at times.  And although protecting the environment is still a challenge, it's important to recognise that Canada is still are still engaged in the conversation.