Moreover, Miller’s contextual nod to Oedipus Rex highlights the play using the psychological quality in the Oedipus complex to emphasise the conflict of the generation gap. Indeed, it is in All My Sons when Miller used the father son conflict for the first time directly, which became a consistent theme as evidenced by Death of a Salesman. Therefore to this end Oikawa posits that “without the father son relationship there would be no way to fathom Miller’s drama” (2002, p.100). As such, it is submitted that this observation reinforces the argument that the source of tragedy in the play is rooted in the interrelationship between generational conflicts.
This argument is further reinforced through the play’s depiction of Miller’s belief that the individual and self in terms of the psychological self is closely interrelated to society. For example, in Miller’s “The Shadow of Gods”, Miller expressly refers to the father son conflict:
“I think now it was because of the father son conflict, but something more. It is always probing beyond its particular scenes and characters for the hidden laws, for the place where the gods ruminate and decide, for the rock upon which one may stand without illusion, a free man. Yet the characters appear liberated from any systematic causation” (1965, p.138).
This is reflected in the fact that All My Sons follows Miller’s archetypal format of depicting the relationship between father and sons at the point of adolescence, which is in turn utilised to exploit the dichotomy between realism and idealism at the core of classic Miller drama (Griffin, 1996, p.166). Moreover, it is precisely the conflict between father and son that results in the creation of tension and climax in the play.
This is reinforced by the standoff between Joe and Chris, which symbolises two underlying paradoxes. On the one hand, Joe signifies the older realist generation in contrast to the idealism of youth, which is personified by the characterisation of Chris (Griffin, 1996). Additionally, the depiction of Joe points to an idealistic fatherhood figure, putting family first and pressing the importance of the family at home (Otten, 2002). On the other hand, as a war veteran in the Second World War, Chris’ realism leans towards unification with the world at large beyond the family unit as the correct way of living. This challenge to conventional socio-familial constructs highlights the generation gap, which Miller utilises to demonstrate the intrinsic complexities perpetuating the generation gap.
For example, Joe Keller is described as a “self made man” and to a degree personifies the mythical American dream in his rags to riches journey of working hard to become a factor owner. Whilst the specific hardships of Joe’s life are not demonstrated in depth, nevertheless, the generational gap is highlighted when Joe says to his wife about Chris that “I should put him out when he was ten like I was put out and make him earn his keep. Then he’d know how a buck is a made in this world” (Miller, 120).
This generational gap in attitudes to life is further demonstrated when Joe explains to Chris why he will not give up the factory: “You lay forty years into a business and they knock you out in five minutes, what could I do, let them take forty years, let them take my life away?”(Miller 115). To this end, Joe’s opinion on success mirrors the Horatio Alger “success dream hero” and Mitchelich posits that post the Second World War, the success dream paradigm would only succeed with regards to those who followed it and those who didn’t (1969).
As such, Joe’s character as a “success dream” example, contrasts with Willy Loman in Miller’s “Death of a Salesman” (1949) where Willy’s obsession with the past and success dream in the past contributed to his failure in the present (1949). Nevertheless, both Joe and Willy are effectively trapped in the success dream paradigm where:
“Their attachment to success is closely linked to their perceptions of fatherhood or the father image…. In an attempt to authorise themselves as a breadwinner in the family, they desperately need something to support it. What supports this fatherhood is nothing but the label called success. If they could become a president of their own company or an owner of a factory and have their son inherit it, it would strengthen their position as head of the family” (Oikawa 2002 p.104).
However, this perception of both Joe and Willy is arguably at the crux of the generation gap that perpetuates Joe’s conflict with his sons. For example, Joe comments that:
“Who worked for nothin’ in that war? When they work for noting’, I’ll work for nothin’. Did they ship a gun or a truck outa Detroit before they got their price? Is that clean? It’s dollars and cents, nickels and dimes; war and peace, it’s nickels and dimes, what’s clean?”(Miller 125).
Then repetition of questions underlines Joe’s traditional beliefs regarding his role as a father under the classic American model of fatherhood, which contrasts with the decline of father’s authority in post modernism. Indeed, it is submitted that Miller’s depiction of the relationship between Joe and Chris provides an important insight in considering the evolution of modernism and its concomitant impact on traditional socio-cultural models. In particular, the generation gap between Chris and Joe demonstrates the intimate concept of self identity and far reaching changes in traditional social constructs regulating familial relationships.
For example, Mitchelich posits that the combination of industrialisation, urbanisation and an increasingly diverse workforce culminated in a larger division of home and work life, which in turn contributed to the continuing downfall of the authoritarian father at home (Mitchelich 1969). Additionally, as regards the United States in particular, Gorer suggests that the socio-cultural development of America post Second World War propagated the decline of the role of the father, particularly as a country of immigrants:
“The making of an American demanded that the father should be rejected both as a model and as a source of authority. Father never knew best…. No matter how many generations separate an American from his American ancestors, he rejects his father as authority and exemplar, and expects his sons to reject him” (1958, p.9).
Accordingly, if we apply this contextually to Joe and Willy, the decline of their role as a father clearly correlates to the American backdrop of discrepancies between the immigrant father, first generation, second generation and continued generations perpetuating the father/son generational conflicts. For example, Joe sees his role as “provider, breadwinner, husband and father” (Gross, 1975, p.16) and that family is paramount: “I’m his father and he’s my son, and if there’s something bigger than that I’ll put a bullet in my head!”(Miller 120). Additionally, Joe’s dream of his son inheriting the factory he has built up over forty years further reinforces the generational conflict and to this end, Joe becomes a symbolic tragic character.
Additionally, Miller utilises the generational conflict between Joe’s dreams and Chris and Larry to highlight how Joe’s vision of success and happiness is rooted in the traditional American family model, which ignores the changes in society at large beyond the nuclear family. As such, this would again point in favour of the generation gap operating as the source of tragedy in the book, which is supported by Nelson’s observation that:
“In Joe Keller’s eyes there is nothing dishonest in a plea to the two values upon which he has based his life: the worth of an individual effort and the sanctity of family loyalty born of love. His second appeal extends beyond the individual and the family, but still is defined by the inner circle” (1970, p.85).
In contrast, Chris is the military idealist partly rooted in his youthful inexperience. However, his experience in the war culminates in his challenging parental authority where he asks “I’ve been a good son too long, a good sucker” (Miller 69). This again correlates to Mitschelich’s arguments regarding societal change in the son’s perception of a father, which develops from idolisation to loving and understanding the father’s fallibility (1969). This is evidenced from the fact that whilst Chris previously may have idolised Joe, when Chris questions Joe over the crime, Joe’s reaction demonstrates how he has never been challenged in this way: “What’s the matter with you? What the hell is the matter with you?”(Miller 114).
This conflict not only relates to the generation gap, it also highlights the fact that Chris’ independence during the war meant that he was released from the influence of his father during this period. For example, during the war, Chris learns that:
“Everything was being destroyed, see, but it seemed to me that one new thing was made. A kind of responsibility. Man for man. You understand me? – to show that, to bring that on to the earth again like some kind of a monument and everyone would feel it standing there, behind him, and it would make a difference to him” (Miller 85).
In describing his experience, Chris finds his own solidarity and responsibility in the definition of “man”, which reinforces Miller’s use of the generation gap to highlight the relationship between self identity and society as a whole. However, in turn Chris is unable to see his father develop in the Mitschelich sense, which fuels conflict in their relationship.
In turn, Chris has developed independent thought, which clashes with his parents: “Honest to God, it breaks my heart to see what happened to all the children. How we worked and planned for you and you end up no better than us”(Miller p.105). Chris’ relationship with his parents highlights the dichotomy between their generational expectations of society and social norms and Chris’s perceptions as a result of his war time experience:
“And then I came home and it was incredible, I – there was no meaning in it here; the whole thing to them was a kind of a – bus accident. I went to work with Dad, and that rat race again. I felt – what you said – ashamed somehow. Because nobody was changed at all. It seemed to make suckers out of a lot of guys. I felt wrong to be alive, to open the bank book, to drive the new car, to see the new refrigerator. I mean you can take those things out of a war, but when you drive that car you’ve got to know that it came out of the love a man have for a man, you’ve got to be a little better because of that. otherwise what you have is really loot, and there’s blood on it. I didn’t want to take any of it. And I guess that included you”(Miller, 85).
Therefore, to this end, Chris’ experiences during the war have made him realise responsibility but outside of his parental expectations in asserting an independent identity. Prior to the war, Chris presumably followed Joe’s instructions however Miller’s uses the aftermath of the war to exemplify the generation gap as Chris becomes aware of his identity and self.
This in turn fuels Chris’ idealism due to his experience of military co-operation, which sets up the narrative of the play for continuous conflict. A prime example of the clash between realism and idealism is the argument between Joe and Chris:
“I was dying every day and you were killing boys and you did it for me? What the hell do you think I was thinking of, the goddam business? Is that as far as your mind can see, the business? What is that, the world- the business? What the hell do you mean, you did it for me? Don’t you have a country? Don’t you live in this world? What the hell are you?” (Miller, 116).
This conflict crystallises in Chris’ statement to Joe that “I never saw you as a man. I saw you as my father”(Miller, 125). To this end, Gross draws parallels between Chris and Biff in Death of a Salesman on grounds that Biff weeps when he realises his father is not the deity he idolised as a child. This is a natural progression of the crossover from adolescence to adulthood as Biff is seventeen when he realises this. In contrast, Chris makes the discovery at the age of thirty two, which Gross suggests is related to “some private drama unwinding inside him rather than to the relation of his revelation of his father’s guilt” (p18).
Accordingly, the above analysis demonstrates that All My Sons, Miller utilises the interrelationship between the generation gap and father/son conflict to integrate the central themes in the play. This is further supported by Oikawa’s observation that “the conflict between Joe and Chris is based on the basic pattern of the rebellion of a son against his father, who has become aware of his own ego” (2002, p.110).
As such, Chris’ rebellion is rooted in the generation gap between the concepts of family and self, which reiterates the argument that the generation gap becomes the source of tragedy in the play. This is highlighted by Weales’ interpretation of the play regarding the mythical symbolism of Joe’s death thus:
“his death is more than a single man’s punishment, for Joe Keller is a product of his society. He not only accepts the American myth of the privacy of the family, but….. Joe Keller is a self made man, an image of American success, who is destroyed when he is forced to see that image in another context – through the eyes of his idealist son” (1967, p.97).
Moreover, on the one hand Joe’s achievement of the American Dream becomes the essence of his obsession with traditional concepts of fatherhood and success, which is difficult to maintain in the post war socio-cultural environment. The moral and ethical conflict faced by Joe contrasts with the idealist rebellion of Chris when he accuses his father of being “an animal. No animal kills his own, what are you?”(Miller, p.116). To this end, Oikawa suggests that Miller’s real intention is to use the generation gap to present the “fall of fatherhood and the demise of the Alger type “success dream” noticeable in modern American society” (2002, p.110). As a result, it is submitted that the father/son conflict culminates in the termination of the nineteenth century societal constructs pertaining to family and in particular, the relationship between family and success. This in turn becomes the crux of the ultimate tragedy in the play.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bloom, H. (1988). Introduction: Arthur Miller’s All My Sons, edited by Harold Bloom. Chelsea House Publishers
Eysteinsson, A., & Liska, V.(2007). Modernism. Benjamins Publishing Company.
Gorer, G. (1958). The Americans: A Study in National Characters. Gresset Press
Griffin, A. (1996). Understanding Arthur Miller. The University of South Carolina Press.
Gross, B. (1975). All My Sons and the Larger Context. Modern Drama, Volume XVIII, No.1 March 1975, 16.
Levy, E. (2003). All about Oscar: the history and politics of the Academy Awards. Continuum International Publishing
Mitchelich, A. (1969). Society Without a Father: A Contribution to Social Psychology, translated by Eric Mosbacher. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World Incorporated.
Miller, A. (1947). All My Sons. Penguin Classics
Miller, A. (1949). Death of a Salesman. Penguin Classics
Nelson, B. (1970). Arthur Miller: A Portrait of a Playwright. London: Peter Owen
Oikawa, M. (2002). All My Sons as Precursor in Arthur Miller’s Dramatic World. Ritsumeikan Annual Review of International Studies, Volume 1 pp.99-120.
Otten, T. (2002). The Temptation of Innocence in the Dramas of Arthur Miller. University of Missouri Press
Rainey, L. S. (2005). Modernism: An anthology. Wiley Blackwell.
Weales, G. (1967). Arthur Miller, ed., Alan S. Downer, The American Theater. Voice of America Forum Lectures
