thingswriting

[thingswriting]

The Pursuit of Justice in Death and the Maiden

It is often said that human nature is fundamentally selfish, a claim that undermines the authenticity of the justice system. Ariel Dorfman, a Chilean playwright, developed his progressive play, Death and the Maiden, as a confrontational drama, emerging as a topical piece reflective of the political shifts present in "a country that is probably Chile but could be any country that has given itself a democratic government just after a long period of dictatorship." Dorfman himself was subjected to the consequences of dictatorship and therefore uncovers the prevailing ramifications it had on the psychological state of the victims and the incapability to seek justice for what took place. Translated in 1990 by Ariel Dorfman himself, the play takes place over the period of a weekend consisting of 3 different characters, each symbolic of the main contributors to the judicial struggle; Paulina Salas, a victim of abuse, Gerardo Escobar, her husband and human rights lawyer, and Roberto Miranda, the accused perpetrator. Dorfman implements a motif of manipulation throughout the play to construct the selfish nature of characters symbolic of both good and evil, establishing the corrupt pursuit of justice. Although each of Dorfman’s characters are representative of contrasting concepts, they share a universal egocentric attitude. Dorfman constructs Gerado as a mediator of justice, however simultaneously discloses his manipulative tendencies in order to achieve his personally desired outcome. Through the use of emotional manipulation and leveraging, Roberto’s character is seen to place his personal needs over the betterment of the situation.  Finally, Paulina as a victim is depicted to constantly move from acceptance and revenge, in order to fulfil her personal quest for closure.

By placing Gerado in a role as a mediator of justice between both Paulina and Roberto, Dorfman discloses his genuine intentions; to provide false hopes and ideas in an attempt to reach a fictitious form of closure. Gerardo’s association and trust with Roberto in contrast to Paulina creates a powerful message surrounding the perception of victims as invalid and inferior. Interactions between Gerardo and Roberto show their patronising attitude towards Paulina, using condescending verbs like “placate,” (31) “indulge” (30) and “humour.” (31) This reveals that Gerardo had no actual intention of reaching an authentic form of justice but rather relies on manipulation to provide Paulina with an illusion of closure. When plotting about Paulina, Gerardo states that Paulina has to feel, “that we- that you are willing to cooperate.” (31) Dorfman signals Gerardo’s association with Roberto through the use of punctuation as he naturally refers to himself and Roberto as “we” (31) yet the dash is symbolic of his guilty realisation. It is natural to assume that as the husband of the victim, there is an immense amount of trust between Gerardo and Paulina however, Gerardo only sees the easiest possible route for himself without considering the collateral damage for his wife. Through the invalidating manipulation of Paulina paired with the dismissal of her perspective, the concept of restorative justice is explored. Instead of healing the relationship between victim and perpetrator, a conclusion is reached with absence of all parties. Furthermore, the audience is exposed to the immense amount of guilt Gerardo feels towards the situation via his physical “desperate, shaking” (36) when confronted with Paulina’s abuse. Initially Gerardo “doesn’t like to talk” (5) about his wife’s abuse due to his personal guilt toward the situation, yet his position abruptly changes when he needs to use the confession, reflected through the high modality statement that he “has to know.” (35) The structure of the progression of Gerardo’s sympathy coincides directly with his intentions as they change according to what benefits him. Primarily the mention of rape is abruptly shut down and almost covered up, however when an opportunity arises to use the information in his favour he turns to emotional manipulation telling Paulina it is “not fair” (35) if she doesn’t share. This provides a reflection on how the information surrounding the trauma was pushed away until it could be manipulated to satisfy Gerado’s personal perspective of justice. This individual view of justice prohibits justice itself as it isn’t based on the actual events, but rather it is based upon personal guilt.

Dorfman develops multiple deceptive techniques that Roberto uses to inflict manipulation on characters in a desperate attempt to conceal the truth. Dorfman repeatedly shows Roberto attempting to establish his academic authority as a doctor in an attempt to seize control of the situation, ultimately undermining the validity of Paulina’s claims. Immediately after the removal of the gag following the abduction of Roberto, he shares a conversation with Paulina, diagnosing her as “extremely ill” (21) and “prototypically schizoid.” (21)  When conversing with Gerardo in an attempt to secure his trust, the audience encounters Roberto using the same technique to undermine Paulina, saying that she should be “receiving some kind of psychiatric treatment” (29) and that her claims were “fantasies of the diseased mind.” (30) Through the use of this extensive lexical chain that appeals to the fragile notion of sanity, the audience sees Roberto attempting to invalidate Paulina’s accusations instead of taking responsibility for the trauma he inflicted. Furthermore, Dorfman uses ambiguous claims to inflict confusion surrounding Roberto’s innocence, fluctuating between the act of a genuine confession and the notion that he supposedly “made it up.” (41) However, it was revealed that "small lies" (44) were imbedded in the “false” (41) confession that Roberto continuously corrected. Through evidence alluding to the fact that Roberto was more than likely responsible for Paulina's torture, the characters individualistic attitude is revealed. In an attempt to save his own stature Roberto never confesses to the act and it is left ambiguous to the audience. Thus, Dorfman constructs a larger comment surrounding the quest for justice. In an attempt to save one’s self, humans don’t take responsibility for their actions but rather rely on emotional manipulation of others, consequently preventing the exposition of the truth.

Paulina’s incapability of letting go of past resentment results in a fluctuating state between acceptance and revenge, providing misleading ideas to other characters. Paulina’s oscillating forgiveness towards her husband acts as a reflection of her disposition towards the larger situation. In reference to Gerardo’s affair, Dorfman creates a tense atmosphere as Paulina refers to his mistress as, “that bitch” and asks if the person that helped him fix his car was “pretty” (3) or “sexy.” (3) When asked why she assumes this she replies with, “Why, I just can’t imagine why” (3).  Dorfman employs passive aggressive and derogatory diction that connotes the idea that although Paulina claims she has moved on from the situation, in actual fact the event tainted her trust of her husband. This occurs whilst Gerardo is under the impression that she “already forgave” (35) him. Through bringing up past betrayal as a mechanism of defence, Dorfman reveals Paulina’s use of past betrayal to manipulate the present in her favour. Through this inability to forgive, the concept of closure is constructed as unattainable because in order to find closure a victim must be willing to let go of the past. Furthermore, Paulina’s need to, “satisfy her personal passion” (26) whilst there is potential that others will, “get screwed” (26) reveals her narrow and selfish perspective on the situation. Whilst coming to a compromise regarding Roberto, she agrees that if “he confesses” (28) she will “let him go.” (28) However, this is almost an occurrence of her deceiving herself into thinking that his confession will fulfil her need for closure. Due to the unrealistic understanding surrounding what Paulina needs to be satisfied, it simultaneously misleads the other characters. Directly after Roberto’s confession Paulina states her need “to kill” (42) him although Paulina received “more than all the victims in this country will ever get.” (44) This revelation that nothing will ever provide Paulina with closure exhibits how even the selfish need to feel revenge fuels the corruptness of the quest for justice.  The character of Paulina is one that is constructed with an internal conflict between revenge and acceptance and therefore she unknowingly attempts to manipulate the situation to fall in favour of her needs, misleading other characters.

The play, Death and the Maiden, was constructed on a bed of lies and ambiguity, leaving the audience with uncertainty surrounding what actually occurred. The motif of manipulation is present throughout the entirety of the play, identified as a central concept that is universal for all characters. By implementing the presence of manipulation and lies within all characters, Dorfman brings to light the contaminated quest for justice as it is merely based on a personal perception, inhibiting authentic closure. Although written originally in 1991, many victims are subjected to the same unresolved dilemmas, still suffer from the trauma and will do so for years to come. Through this exploration of how society deals with past trauma, Dorfman’s play can prompt questions surrounding how the selfish nature of the human race can hinder the entire concept of justice.