Henrik Ibsen analyzes the social malaise that arises from democracy's dual failure to sanction controversial scientific discoveries and to allocate freedom and sovereignty in the field of scientific research. In this way Ibsen challenges the boundaries of democracy and its inability to achieve justice, consensus and egalitarianism due to the pre-existence of a social hierarchy that governs the citizens of the city. City dwellers have long been highly segregated along class and income lines, yet they are united in their defiance and resistance to growth and progress. This demonstrates these people's steadfast refusal to learn from unintentional mistakes made in the past, such as the dangerous location of hot spring baths. Even though Ibsen's work is anti-democratic in nature, Ibsen does not propose any other solution to the problems that arise in a country under a democratic government. It simply demonstrates the futility and uselessness of democracy in a world defined by opposing poles. Ibsen illustrates this idea through his portrayal of Dr. Stockmann, a willful 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 Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Dr. Stockmann considers himself a martyr and a fighter who makes sacrifices for the good of the people. He believes his bold, revolutionary ideals are potentially liberating and redemptive, not realizing that he is imposing his own opinions on people and forcing them to accept his own views. He argues 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 middle classes, as demonstrated by his adoption of Darwin's evolutionary theory and his belief in natural selection. Thus, it is ironic that he is fighting for the rights and empowerment of citizens on the one hand, and promulgating and supporting inequality on the other. For him, social disorder is a corollary of the problematic genetic composition that produces the “little bastards” (98), as he calls citizens with opposing points of view. He contrasts them with a well-groomed “poodle” whose “brain will have developed very differently from that of the mutt” (79), thus delineating a concrete and well-defined boundary between the judicious minority and the largely irrational compact majority. Technology and democracy, argues Jacques Ellul: “Democracy requires that people are correctly informed. If the population wants to make good decisions, it must have accurate and relatively complete information… regarding the means used and the dangers that could arise from them” (44). Ibsen considers Dr. Stockmann a figure worthy of his audience's respect and admiration, as he fights against all odds to prevent the escape of misinformation. He is determined to safeguard his ethical principles and moral responsibilities as a scientist in order to ensure greater impartiality, transparency and responsibility for people. He disobeys his brother's call to "make some sort of statement" (40) to dispute the truth discovered by heuristic evidence and would "rather destroy" the city "than see it prosper with a lie" (82). Unlike his brother, who resorts to hiding and suppressing the truth for self-preservation, Stockmann attempts to dissociate himself from the moral hypocrisy surrounding the people at the top, who he believes have no qualms about abusing their power to protect their own interests . However, theHis actions completely contradict his rhetoric, which reveals his ambiguous political position as the only scientist in the work. It does not represent the people out of pure altruism and generosity, as a token of altruism and benevolence, but undoubtedly, the use of unorthodox and alternative means to brainwash people. While he clearly opposes the superficially short-sighted, dogmatic, and illiberal standards established by the current political system, he is instead persuading citizens to conform to his obscurantist doctrine. He is also more interested in defending the accuracy of his prognosis and his own credibility than in actually helping people. Ultimately he is more concerned with maintaining his sense of pride and dignity. His conceit and hypocrisy drive him to persist in the struggle 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 arises from political maneuvering leads him to overlook the real economic concerns of ordinary people. The compact majority is overwhelmed by concerns about whether they will be able to bear the full cost of economic loss if the pipes were to be relocated, but long-term toilet collapse could bring tragic consequences that are fleetingly dwarfed by the focus on short-term economic goals and material profits. Such a crisis would seriously jeopardize citizens' source of income because spas have supported their livelihood. Furthermore, the value of the spa would be compromised and increased citizen efforts to maintain the spa's reputation would ultimately be fruitless. The outbreak of an epidemic would also undermine the regimented stability that characterizes their social structure. However, Dr. Stockmann refuses to heed Hovstad's reminder in Act II that his scientific discovery is inevitably "tied" to other, more intangible problems, and prefers to see it "as something completely autonomous" (25). Everything he can see is a purely scientific problem even though it is clearly “a combination of technical and economic factors” (39), demonstrating his limited understanding of how society operates and functions within a democracy. In an ideal democracy, it should be impossible to isolate and exclude external agents of change from influencing the human condition and from intruding into scientific discourse in the process of bringing about internal transformation within the social edifice. Stockmann's belief that science possesses the influence to override all other considerations is entirely naïve, demonstrating his inability to see himself as a citizen first and as a scientist second. It also demonstrates his lack of experience lobbying for political support. Stockmann's problem lies in his unawareness that diagnosing the defects of the democratic political system with his purely scientific ideological beliefs is inadequate. Indeed, not only does pure science alone fail to solve the problems posed by political maneuvering, but excessive confidence in the dominant, all-encompassing power of science actually adds to Sotckmann's burden. It follows Leo Marx's definition of the “technocratic idea of ​​progress,” which considers “the sufficiency of scientific and technological innovation as the basis for general progress” (37). Imagine a well-regulated, organically shaped society that is intolerant of imperfection and favors itself as a civic symbol of authority, but is unable to connect with the citizens it is trying to influence without holding, 1992.