Henrik Ibsen dissects the social malaise that arises from the double failure of democracy to sanction controversial scientific advances and to allocate freedom and sovereignty to the field of scientific research. In this way, Ibsen challenges the limits of democracy and its inability to establish justice, consensus and egalitarianism due to the pre-existence of a social hierarchy that governs the citizens of the city. Urban dwellers have long been heavily segregated along lines of class and income, and yet they are collectively united in their defiance and resistance to growth and progress. This demonstrates these people's steadfast refusal to learn from their past unintentional mistakes, such as the unsafe location of the baths. Even though Ibsen's play is anti-democratic in nature, Ibsen does not offer any other solution to the problems that arise in a country under democratic rule. It simply demonstrates the futility and uselessness of democracy in a world defined by polar opposites. Ibsen illustrates this idea through his portrait of Dr. Stockmann, a headstrong character who is not only a victim of his own idealism, but also of his intellect. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Dr. Stockmann considers himself a martyr and a fighter who makes sacrifices for the good of the people. He believes that his bold and revolutionary ideals are potentially liberating and redemptive, without realizing that he is imposing his own views on the people and forcing them to accept his own views. He believes that only thinkers and intellectuals have the right to control public opinion and condemns the compact majority for its deference and submission to authority. He thinks he is able to decide for them what they cannot decide for themselves. Stockmann is not on the side of the lower and middle classes, as shown by his adoption of Darwin's evolutionary theory and his belief in natural selection. It is therefore ironic that on the one hand he fights for the rights and emancipation of urban dwellers and on the other hand promulgates and advocates inequality. He sees social disarray as a corollary of the problematic genetic makeup that produces “little bastards” (98), as he calls these citizens with opposing viewpoints. He contrasts them with a well-groomed “poodle” whose “brain will have developed completely differently from that of the mongrel” (79), thus drawing a concrete and well-defined boundary between the judicious minority and the compact, largely irrational majority. Technology and democracy, Jacques Ellul states: “Democracy requires that the people be correctly informed. For the population to make judicious decisions, it must have accurate and relatively complete information…on the means employed and the dangers which could result from them” (44). Ibsen presents Dr. Stockmann as a figure worthy of his audience's respect and admiration, as he fights against all odds to prevent any leak of misinformation. He is determined to safeguard his ethical principles and moral responsibilities as a scientist in order to guarantee greater impartiality, transparency and accountability to the people. He disobeys his brother's call to "issue some sort of statement" (40) to challenge the truth revealed by heuristic proofs and "would rather destroy" the city "rather than see it thrive on a lie" (82). . Unlike his brother, who resorts to concealment and suppression of the truth out of self-preservation, Stockmann attempts to dissociate himself from the moral hypocrisy that revolves around the people at the top, who,according to him, do not hesitate to abuse their power to protect their own interests. However, his actions contradict his rhetoric throughout, which reveals his ambiguous political position as the only scientist in the play. It does not represent the people out of pure altruism and generosity, as a sign of altruism and benevolence, but undoubtedly, resorting to unorthodox and alternative means to brainwash the people. While he clearly opposes the superficially myopic, dogmatic, and illiberal norms established by the current political system, he instead persuades townspeople to conform to his own obscurantist doctrine. He is also more interested in defending the accuracy of his predictions and his own credibility than in actually helping the population. He is ultimately more concerned with maintaining his sense of pride and dignity. His self-righteousness and self-righteousness lead him to persist in fighting to reveal the truth in order to satisfy his own inflated ego and prove to his brother that he is not a "miserable coward" (42). Furthermore, Dr. Stockmann's singular belief in the power of scientific progress to circumvent the obstacle of fear that results from political maneuvering leads him to neglect the real economic concerns of ordinary people. The compact majority are overwhelmed by the fear of having to bear the full costs of the economic loss if the pipes had to be redone, but the collapse of the baths in the long term could have tragic consequences which are ephemeral overshadowed by the attention paid to concerns. on short-term economic goals and material profits. Such a crisis would seriously jeopardize the residents' source of income, because the baths provide their livelihood. Additionally, the value of the baths would be compromised and citizens' efforts to maintain the reputation of the baths would ultimately be in vain. The emergence of an epidemic would also undermine the regimented stability that characterizes their societal structure. However, Dr. Stockmann refuses to heed Hovstad's reminder in Act II that his scientific discovery is inevitably "related" to other, more intangible problems, and prefers to regard it "as something in its own right" (25 ). Everything he sees is a purely scientific problem, although it is clearly a "combination of technical and economic factors" (39), demonstrating his limited understanding of how society functions and functions within of a democracy. In an ideal democracy, it should be impossible to isolate and exclude external agents of change from affecting the human condition and from interfering in scientific discourse bringing about internal transformation within the social construct . Stockmann's belief that science has the influence to override all other considerations is completely naive, demonstrating his inability to see himself first as a citizen and second as a scientist. It also demonstrates his lack of experience lobbying for political support. Stockmann's problem lies in his unawareness that diagnosing the flaws of the democratic political system with his purely scientific ideological beliefs is inadequate. In fact, not only does pure science alone fail to solve the problems posed by political maneuvering, but an excessive belief in the dominating, all-encompassing power of science actually adds to Sotckmann's burden. He adheres to Leo Marx's definition of "the technocratic idea of ​​progress", which considers "the sufficiency of scientific and technological innovation as the basis of general progress" (37). He envisions a well-regulated society and, 1992.