Embedded throughout Death and the Maiden written by Ariel Dorfman, many themes circulate through the hands of the entirety of the play. One of the main themes is gender and gender roles. Paulina is put in a position where she is in her own home with her husband and the man that supposedly raped and tortured her. In order for Paulina to cope with who she believes to be her rapist in her home, she acts out and ties Roberto to a chair. This falls out of the classic gender role that women are supposed to obtain. Women, both victims and non-victims, are told to suppress their feelings and not let their emotions get the best of them; however, Paulina closes this gap between the gender roles by allowing her emotions to run free. Paulina’s husband also seems to be shocked by the unexpected makeshift trial that occurs in his house. He repeatedly asks and begs Paulina to rethink what she is doing and to take the rational route of thinking, that killing Roberto will do nothing because she is not even positive that he is the right man. Paulina rejects these reasonings with a sense of exhaustion and anger. She will no longer listen to the man who thinks it is his duty to interject his opinions on what a woman ought to do, “When are you going to stop telling me what I can and can’t do. ‘You can’t do this, you can do that, you can’t do this.’ I did it” (24). Paulina’s unpredictable actions take gender roles and completely flips them on their head. She takes an abused woman who was taught to suppress her feelings and emotions and unties her tightly bound leash. Paulina’s actions show what a woman who has been violated mentally and physically looks like when they finally release the image of what should be. Paulina set fire to the gender roles and acted in the face of trauma the only way she knew how: with wild aggression.
Is There A Way To Break The Cycle of Injustice?
When further inspecting the major themes of Ariel Dorfman’s Death And the Maiden, the most prominent one was the notion that this cycle of violence and injustice is inescapable. This cycle is simply a closed circle, constantly continuing around and around until someone makes the active choice to break the norm and begin the cycle of forgiveness. Yet, Dorfman raises the question that seemingly no one tends to think about: why is it the victims responsibility to be the one ending this cycle. At the culmination of Act II Scene I, Paulina wrestles with putting her own needs above the decision to break the cycle: “And why does it always have to be the people like me who have to sacrifice, why are we always the ones who have to make concessions when something has to be conceded, why always me who has to bite her tongue, why? Well, not this time. This time I am going to think about myself, about what I need.” I included this whole quote to further stress just how this cycle is able to continue, by everyone having their own idea of what justice is. In this case, Paulina equates justice to the death of her rapist/doctor, while her husband Gerardo equates justice to having the accused go through the proper channels of a trial. Yet, even if Paulina chooses to perform her definition of “justice”, who’s to say that it is her responsibility to allow this doctor to have a proper channel. For in certain societies a “proper” trial is nothing more than a sham, and in this one (which had recently just emerged from underneath totalitarian rule), the people’s faith in the justice system seems low. When one loses faith in the only system known to solely be meant to bring justice and balance to society, this is all but solidifying the overall cycle of injustice perpetrating throughout the land.
A New Way to View Yourself – Death and the Maiden
Act III Scene 1 of Death and the Maiden by Ariel Dorfman contains a very interesting symbol towards the end of the scene which involves a set of stage directions involving a large mirror which is facing the audience as a whole. A giant mirror drops down on to the stage and makes the audience look at themselves and the crowd of people around them as well. This prop is a very momentous staple to the story, and a unique way to have the audience reflect on the acts they have just seen. It is extremely unexpected that the audience would be forced to look at themselves in this way, because usually the audience just reacts to themselves and don’t truly notice or think much into their own reactions. this surprise which engages thought, and changes audience perceptions. When the audience stares into the mirror, this is a way to not only see their own reactions regarding what they have just witnessed, but also the reactions of others around them. In class it was mentioned that we can all have a different “side” we take in this play, and it is very much possible to become uncertain if that is the right side to take at certain points in the piece. When the mirror drops down, it is easy to see all the different opinions and “sides” going on within the audience and within the individual themselves. This shows that everyone in the audience plays a part in how the play is perceived, which further connects to the big picture of how the population as a whole all have a say in how the “norms” of society and the world around us is perceived.
What is truth?
Ariel Dorfman’s “Death and the Maiden” explores the story of a traumatized woman in a former totalitarian regime. The irony of this play is that Paulina’s husband, Gerardo, is in charge of the government’s Truth Commission, which investigates the crimes and horrors of the former dictatorship in an effort to bring forth the atrocities and guilty to the public eye for purposes of justice, yet he doesn’t believe his wife when she exposes the man who raped and tortured her. At his defense, Gerardo’s view of justice and the law stands as a barrier from allowing him to completely and undeniably believe his wife, as his job in the newly democratic government is to search for the truth through witnesses and testimony in a professional courtroom setting. However, his definition of justice, which is a pretty universal view of practiced law, inhibits him from listening to his wife and poses the question of whether or not trial courts expose the whole truth of these kinds of situations. It also poses the question on whether or not Paulina’s truth would even be valid within the official court system even though she is clearly certain that her truth is the only truth. Who is protected from the law in theory versus in practice?
Questions of Legality – Eichmann in Jerusalem
While reading Hannah Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem, I had many questions racing through my mind. The Holocaust is arguably one of the most, if not the most, atrocious mass murder in human history, and it disgusts me to think that something of its scale actually occurred – and was able to occur for as long as it did. Nazis, like Eichmann, along with other individuals who played a role in orchestrating and carrying out such an awful event deserved to be held accountable for their crimes. However, as I was reading Arendt’s novel, I had many questions of legality come to mind.
One question being how a person can even be punished for committing a crime of this magnitude. The Holocaust resulted in the death of millions and affected millions more. Innocent men, women, and children were either put to death or worked to death in concentration camps; families and communities were torn apart. Frankly, I don’t believe there is any punishment that can be deemed as “fit” or “just” for the individuals who played a role in the execution of millions of people. In one section in the text, it is brought up that Eichmann should have “spent the rest of his life at hard labor” (pg 250), because of the torturous and forceful labor so many of those in the concentration camps had to endure. This makes me wonder if the justice system can even work in a situation like this, if there is any punishment that can be imposed matching the crime. The only punishment that comes close enough is, as Arendt discusses in the text, the death penalty; “he must hang” (pg 279).
As I continued reading I also thought about another aspect of legality in regards to Eichmann and other Nazi trials, and it is a question of jurisdiction. The Holocaust posed enormous legal issues for the international community. It was a crime against humanity, an entire population of people. So, who is actually responsible for holding the Nazis responsible? Eichmann’s trial takes place in an Israeli court and was orchestrated by the Israeli Prime Minister. Whereas the famous Nuremberg Trials were located in Germany. This made me wonder what gave certain regions the authority to put individuals on trial. (It could totally be an obvious answer but I’m just unsure).
Overall, Arendt does a great job commenting on Eichmann’s trial throughout her novel. She also brings up the phrase “banality of evil” in the text which I found very interesting to consider. It is another area of legality that is brought into question, which is individual intent/accountability. Eichmann claimed he may have committed these acts, but doesn’t have the terrible, anti-semitic mindset that was expected from someone like him. In fact, Arendt states that Eichmann was terrifyingly normal at his trial. Although Eichmann ends up being found guilty, it is interesting to consider this because intent is a crucial element to prove in the court of law.
Eichmann in Jerusalem
Eichmann in Jerusalem by Hannah Arendt is a report on the trial of Eichmann, a man involved in the torturous acts of the Holocaust. There are many different opinions and responses to the writing by Arendt. Her tone of voice in this piece can be understood differently by different audiences. But, Aredt’s tone of voice is not as intriguing as what she focuses her writing on. Arendt does not put much focus on the audience in the courtroom that day, but more so on Eichmann himself. It is interesting to ponder why she has such an intense focus on Eichmann, and in taking a deeper look, it can be assumed that Arendt speaks mainly about Eichmann because he can not speak for himself. The audience/jury had their own voices and opinions, but Eichmann seemed to not feel guilty about his actions, or spiteful towards the people in the courtroom, he seemed to feel nothing at all towards the subject. Arendt’s focus on Eichmann is important because he does not himself give much for people to work with when forming their opinion , so this piece is helpful in getting information and in coming up with an opinion of their own about Eichmann and what he has done.
Eichmann Was You But Normal-er
Eichmann in Jerusalem seemed most notable to me for it’s subtitle, A Report on the Banality of Evil. We discussed this in class but I noticed a few passages in the book went undiscussed and so I would like to bring them up here. What was brought up in class was the idea that Banality, as a word, is referring to unoriginality. Some comments being made referenced the fact that while what the Nazi’s did was clearly atrocious and horrible, it is regrettably far from unique in its goals, though it is unprecedented in scope. Certainly this is true and ought to be talked about and dealt with, but something else that was brought up and I think deserves a little more of our time is that this book doesn’t really deal much with the crimes of the Nazi’s as a whole, or as in idea, and deals much more with one man, Eichmann. He is the one who is so unremarkable, so unoriginal.
Eichmann wasn’t crazy. That’s the problem. He likely wasn’t even unusually malicious. Chapter 2 of the book spends a great deal of time painting a picture of the life of this dull-witted unremarkable desk jockey. He was a mostly unsuccessful man his whole life, who only fell into position because of his family connections, and fell into the National Socialist Party (Nazi’s) more or less the same way. He doesn’t seem to have sought it out, it just sort of happened to him and he went with it.
Pages 25 and 26 were, for me, the most interesting part of the entire reading. Arendt says
As for base motives, (Eichmann) was quite sure that he was not what he called a…dirty bastard in the depths of his heart.
Eichmann believes, and in fact believes correctly in some sense, that he committed no criminal act, and did the things he did out of no base motives. And what’s more, he isn’t crazy. Arendt goes on on the same pages to say that,
Half a dozen psychiatrists had certified him as “normal”…his whole psychological outlook, his attitude towards his wife and children, mother and father, brothers, sisters, and friends, was “not only normal, but most desirable.”
Arendt touches on the significance of this in her epilogue. She states that it is an almost axiomatic principle of modern legal systems that, for a crime to be committed (and therefore punished), there must be on some level the intent to commit a crime. She says on page 277
Where this intent is absent, where, for whatever reasons, even reasons of moral insanity, the ability to distinguish between right and wrong is impaired, we feel no crime has been committed.
Eichmann had no such intent. No such conceptualization that he was doing anything either criminal or morally reprehensible. And as established, he was quite sane.
The significance of this cannot be overstated. The worst crimes in history were committed by men and women who truly did not believe they were doing anything wrong. Who did so with no malice. How can we hold guilty before the law someone who did not have the desire to commit a crime or the knowledge that they were doing so because in fact, under their laws, they were not?
And yet we must.
So a completely normal man, an unoriginal, banal man, not at all unlike you or I, perpetrated in, supported, and carried out the Holocaust. And he did so without any base feelings of rage or hate or malice, and technically committed no crime to do so. That’s hard to deal with.
Eichmann : A Man of Order?
Hannah Arendt makes it a point to explain how different Eichmann’s history of causing chaos compares to that of other high ranking Nazi Party members. To begin with, Eichmann made a great effort to prove during his defense that he had no ill will towards the Jewish population. He feels this way because he states he had a “Jewish mistress” from back in his time in Vienna. This marks a difference from other Nazi members whose history of anti-semitism was a key part in their role during the Final Solution. Eichmann put a lot of emphasis on the fact that he harbored no hatred towards the Jewish people but was only following orders. He also points out that he asked to be transferred to the front lines in order to get out of his murderous duty. Eichmann even goes as far as to say that he would have murdered his own father had he been given the orders.
Now as we all know, Eichmann was prosecuted and found guilty on all charges presented and executed in Israel on June 1st, 1962. Eichmann always felt he was being prosecuted for the wrong charges. He stated he acted within the Nazi laws at the time and did not feel guilty before the law but did feel “guilty before God”. Arendt later stresses how bragging was one of Eichmann’s vices. During the last days of the war, Eichmann was reported to have said how accomplished he felt if he was headed to the grave. “I will jump into my grave laughing, because the of the fact that I have the death of five million Jews on my conscience.” That quote alone negates all of Eichmann’s defenses. Arendt also brings up the issue with the charges brought against Eichmann. Eichmann’s attitude during the case was that he alone never committed any murders. This follows his feelings that he was only following orders, as he claimed he never hands on killed a single person. The prosecution did point out that Eichmann at least once killed “a Jewish boy in Hungary.” Eichmann always felt that he should have been charged with aiding “the annihilation of the Jews” and not genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. Even after listening to Eichmann’s defenses, “the banality of evil”, will continue to be a heavy quote related to the colonels history.
Where are Women in the Law?
The question that I pose in the title is one that has been left for us in almost all of the readings. We read about what justice does for men (The Furies) and what the law provides for men (Declaration of Independence). What we don’t see is where the law has left room for women. This question is asked in Death and the Maiden and answered in an interesting way. Paulina has been unable to see justice for the horrible crimes committed against her. She shows serious disillusionment with the justice system which leads her to kidnap her abuser to put on her own trial. She sums up her thoughts at the end of the play by asking, “And why does it always have to be people like me who have to sacrifice, why are we always the ones who have to make concessions when something has to be conceded, why always me who has to bite her tongue, why?” (Dorfman 66). Because she knows that the actual commission won’t help her, Paulina tries to invent her own system of justice that still lets her down. I think here she is giving her own answer to the presented question. She says that it’s not as easy as women just being left out of the justice process, but they are the ones to lose the most. Not only is Paulina brutally tortured and raped, but then she has to be labelled as “sick” and irrational. She is lied to by her husband and her rapist who conspire against her. The system of justice that she invents, still finds a way to re-victimize her. I think an interesting and bold claim that Dorfman could be trying to make is that justice is sexist. The plotline features two men conspiring against a survivor of sexual assault who is just trying to heal. Rather than listening and believing her, Gerardo automatically believes the other man in the situation. There is a moment that he believes her, but it still seems that he turns on her. The law, and justice in the law, does not leave room for women so women have to make room for themselves. Still, however, the system is stacked against survivors hiding behind the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” which Gerardo brings up in the play. I think I am ending with even more questions than I began with about the law being sexist. Why do women have to find justice for themselves/why aren’t they believed? Why haven’t we fixed this? Where do we draw the line at innocent until proven guilty?
The Power to Orchestrate Justice
When reading “Eichmann in Jerusalem” and “Death and the Maiden,” the trials that are conducted to bring about truth and justice are carried out by those in power; Ben-Gurion and Israel in “Eichmann in Jerusalem” and Paulina in “Death and the Maiden.” Ben-Gurion ordered the capture of Eichmann only have to him put on trial in a land he had never inhabited and Paulina held Roberto hostage by possessing a gun and keeping him tied up. The obvious imbalance of power in both ‘trials’ allows the distortion of truth and undermines the validity of whatever ‘justice’ is administered. This leads me to the question, “Who has the ability to define and administer justice?” And the most pertinent response to that would be those who are in power, but that leads me to then ask, “Is that really justice?”
While there are plenty of disparities between the two trials; the settings, audiences, and circumstances regarding the truth on whether or not the accused actually committed the alleged crimes being the primary ones, the biased presuppositions of those conducting the trials, the ones in power, predetermined the ruling of guilty for both Eichmann and Roberto. Even though Eichmann did in fact have a role in the Third Reich and there in uncertainty regarding Roberto’s role in Paulina’s torture, both of their prosecutors had the ability to impose any ruling they chose on the defendant. The one’s in power had the ability to create whatever version of the truth necessary to reach a guilty verdict and is what happened in both instances. The Israeli court accused Eichmann of anything they could to find him guilty, such as the minuscule (when compared to the entirety of the Holocaust) and almost certainty false allegation that he killed a man with his own hands, even though his role in the atrocities of the Nazi Regime were already confirmed. Eichmann’s role in the Holocaust was not going to be dismissed even if the degree to which he served in it was limited and inconsequential. The Israeli government was so hell-bent on his guilt and the outcome of the trial, they were willing to fabricate any evidence they could to see it through. Paulina admitted that the only way in which she would not kill Roberto was if he confessed, and when asked about the possibility of his innocence, she responded, “If he’s innocent? Then he’s really screwed.” Paulina, like the Israeli government, had the capability to determine the verdict in favor of her biases because of the power granted to her through the gun and ability to threaten life.
The way power undermines justice is evident in both “Eichmann in Jerusalem” and “Death and the Maiden.” Another instance of it is alluded to in “Death and the Maiden” in the Investigating Commission’s inability to prosecute the crimes of the past government because of the amnesty granted to them through the lasting support of the Army. This is what causes Paulina to search for her own justice, but in doing so, she becomes the very one who, like her government and the Israeli government in “Eichmann in Jerusalem,” is able to twist truth through power and determine what is justice.
Literature and Law Spring 2020 