Article Citation: Mustapha Bala Ruma & Ibrahim Sani (2018). Existential Nihilism and Filial Relationships in Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman (1949). DEGEL: The Journal of the Faculty of Arts and Islamic Studies, Vol. 16. ISSN 0794-9316

EXISTENTIAL NIHILISM AND FILIAL RELATIONSHIPS IN ARTHUR MILLER’S DEATH OF A SALESMAN (1949)

By

Mustapha Bala Ruma, PhD & Ibrahim Sani, PhD

Department of English & French

Umaru Musa Yar’adua University Katsina

Abstract

This paper examines the manifestation of existential nihilism in Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman. The paper focuses on the travails of the Loman family as they navigate the difficult and often hostile terrain of the American Capitalist System. The paper does this by highlighting the mythomanic tendencies of Willy Loman that eventually result in the fragmentation and disintegration of his family. The paper argues that this propensity to fantasize is fostered on Loman by the virtue of his precarious position as a salesman within the American Capitalist economy. The paper also argues that the Loman family seems to have lost density and solidity as a result of investing their time in wrong dreams of success based on physical appearance or personality rather than hard work and pragmatic approach to existential realities. The paper further observes that the tragedy of the entire Loman family is in equal measure the result of false idealization especially in terms of individual as well as collective goals and aspirations.  This fact is traced more deeply to the irremediably poisoned relationship between Loman and his family which culminated into his eventual self-annihilation. The paper concludes that Loman’s estrangement is largely engendered by the dissolution of traditional values and beliefs occasioned by intense competition in the economic arena. Existential nihilism is a philosophical theory that sees human existence as insignificant without purpose. Filial relationship and self annihilation on the other hand imply a generation following the parental lineage and self destruction in mystic contemplation of or union with God respectively.

Introduction   

The concern for the individual feelings of anguish and despair is central to the dramaturgy of Arthur Miller. In this sense, Miller’s drama is quintessentially personal in that it is an attempt to mirror the struggles of ordinary people in an ordinary environment. Indeed Miller attempts through his drama to invent imaginary forms for expressing anxieties, doubts, and fears that are unconsciously buried deep inside the psyche of individuals. More significantly, he stylizes human conflict and despair in an idiom that transcends any particular epoch or period. His choice of characters is also a compelling demonstration of his valorization of the ordinary and the commonplace. Hence the characters that dominate his plays are by no means extraordinary. If anything, they are ordinary people whose horizon of significance is located in their trenchant attempts to cope with the exigencies of modern mode of living. A people that are courageous in their own ways and who despite all the uncertainties, heedlessness, and the disorder of their society, conduct their lives with sturdy resilience and patience.

It is at least arguable that Miller’s characters are by no means a shining example of the American Dream. If anything, they symbolize the failure of that dream. They are a people that are simply overwhelmed with anger and melancholy brought about by a society that cherishes and encourages stiff competition in every sphere of human endeavor. At yet another level, their souls and minds become permeated with an apocalyptic vision of hopelessness brought about by an ambiguous false consciousness (Marx). Beginning from his first major theoretical success All My Sons (1947) in which the central character Joe Keller becomes alienated from his society by selling defective military parts to the Air force of his country (USA) during the Second World War, right through to John Procter in The Crucible (1953), his choice of characters further reinforced the anger and despair that suffused most part of the 20^th Century. Specifically what these characters share in common is a psyche bruised by irremediable guilt of failure and betrayal. This feeling of individual guilt is also seen in After the Fall (1967), a play according to Stambusky (1968, p.113) about one man’s adventure “in self-discovery”. Similarly, Eddie Carbone the hero in A View from the Bridge (1956) has strenuously tried to justify his incestuous love for his niece, in a society that considers such things taboo. The Crucible on the other hand is a satirical attack on the witch-hunt of the Communists among the American intellectuals in the late 1940s and the early ‘50s. It has as its setting the puritan town of Salem. Its action revolves around the false accusation, trial, and subsequent hanging of five persons accused of witchcraft.

Though the Salamites were hanged for a crime they did not commit, they nonetheless chose to die for something that is close to them personally as it has been to people of all ages. In this regard they die in order to uphold the existential immediacy of safeguarding individual integrity. It is my contention, however, that the most famous play written by Miller is Death of a Salesman (1949) written two years after All my Sons. In fact, Death of a Salesman signified the crystallization of Miller’s success as a playwright and a dramatist. This could be deduced from the fact that he was awarded the Pulitzer Prize on its account in 1949.

Existentialism and Nihilism as a Theoretical Framework 

The Webster`s New International Dictionary (Cited in Glicksberg 12) defines nihilism as “a viewpoint that all traditional beliefs are unfounded and that all existence is consequently senseless and useless: a denial of intrinsic meaning and value in life.” As a philosophical doctrine nihilism is often traced to the works of Ivan Turgenev (Fathers and Sons 1861) and the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche alongside other   philosophers like Jean Paul Sartre and Albert to mention a few examples, which popularize the concept in the twentieth century. Nietzsche himself defines nihilism as the situation, which obtains when “everything is permitted” (Quoted in Glicksberg 23). Similarly, William Singer (1984) has noted the moral character of nihilism. In this regard, he suggested that nihilism essentially claims that “there is no meaningful way to decide how to live a good life” (4). In fact, in nihilism, he further suggests, “Any action may be described as right or wrong, good or bad” (ibid). Martin Heidegger on the other hand, has taken this insight and reformulated it in the context of individual choice by asserting that nihilism inevitably manifests in our lives whenever we think “about our deepest concerns as values” (cited in Dreyfus 4).  In the words of Stanley Rosen (40), nihilism is most often characterized by boredom and hopelessness often resulting in despair. Life in this circumstance becomes baseless and rootless without any solid anchor. According to Rosen (140) “(this) mood of boredom or hopelessness…is the most negative manifestation of nihilism….” In fact, both Nietzsche and Søren Kierkegaard have noted that nihilism is one of the ways for achieving total freedom because when its cycle is complete, “Nothing would have authority for us, would make a claim on us, would demand a commitment from us” (cited in Dreyfus 4). Thus, it could be rightly extrapolated that since nihilism is closely tied to the Nietzschean idea of the `death of God` it follows that where it happens there will be a spiritual void in the life of people seized by its often irresistible pull. Consequently, there will be neither spiritual nor any material support to latch on to by these people in their period of anguish and despair. In fact, this description manifestly resonates with David Michael Levin’s (1988) observation that “‘nihilism’ means the destruction of Being…including that way of being we call ‘human’…” (5). By and large, the causes of these nihilistic feelings are varied and diverse. However, the most important ones in the twentieth century are the two world wars.

Existentialism on the other hand, is a philosophical doctrine that could be traced to the writings of the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855). The main thrust of existentialism is humanity’s confrontation “with the ever-present terror of existential dread” symbolized in death and mortality (Paul Wolff 190). However, existentialism also emphasizes the role of human agency in modifying as well as transcending cosmic and metaphysical limitations. Indeed, existentialism is anthropocentric because of the preeminence it accords to the human person. Consequently, in existentialism everything is seen and judged according to human perceptions, values, and experiences. To be sure, existentialism begins with individual apprehension of the world. It also emphasizes indeterminacy and individual freedom to choose from available existential options. Most important, existential freedom presupposes that the individual is at liberty in the sense that he can accept, modify, or transcend a situation, which has been given. Moreover, existentialism stresses the element of conflict in human relationships as well as humanity’s metaphysical quest for certainty. Certainly, this metaphysical quest for certainty involves agential existential choice(s) that are riddled with risks and consequences. This is the import of Grimsley’s assertion that choice “is inseparable from risk” because “it is an adventure into the unknown” (70).

 

Existential Nihilism and Filial Relationships in Death of a Salesman

There is no doubt that the two world wars in general, and the second world war in particular have impacted on the (intellectual) lives of people in general and that of writers in particular (in part due to their sensitivity). The war and its attendant consequences of human loss, carnage, violence, and displacement have helped in creating a feeling of alienation and despair among the postwar generation of writers in both Europe and America. As a result of this, their vision and image of man as the epitome of progress and civilization was shaken. The war left a deep scar on their conscience and at the same time propelled them to develop a hermeneutics of suspicion that questions and re-evaluates the humanity of man. Needless to say, they seized the initiative to educate the populace about the existential circumstances of humanity in this period of despair and hopelessness. As a natural corollary the characters that featured in their novels and plays become the embodiments of these sentiments. One of the postwar plays that mirror these feelings is Arthur Miller`s Death of a Salesman (1949).

Many scholars have studied the play from different perspectives depending on their interest. Some Marxist scholars like Raymond Williams for instance, have regarded the play as a critique of American capitalism, a system, “which”, according to Christopher Bigsby (77), “brutalizes the unsuccessful.” In the view of many Feminist critics like Catherine Belsey on the other hand, the play, “presents a grammar of space that marginalizes Linda Loman and all women, who seemed Othered, banished to the periphery of a patriarchal world “(Roudane cited in Bigsby 61). Yet, others see it as a tragedy in the sense in which Miller himself described it in his 1949 essay, “Tragedy and the Common Man.” To put the matter boldly, Miller’s play attempt to take apart and deconstruct the rhetoric of the noble origin of the tragic heroes valorized by Classical tragedians such as Aristotle and Shakespeare. Benjamin Tindall and David E. Shi (America 113) on their part praised Miller for, “his understanding and compassion for human beings in their most personal relationships –with the members of their families or with themselves.”

The play is in many ways similar to many postwar works of fiction coming out of America at that particular period. A brief survey of central characters of works such as James Jones` From Here to Eternity(1951), Ralph Ellison`s Invisible Man(1952), Saul Bellow`s Dangling Man(1944), and Seize the Day(1956), William Styron`s Lie Down in Darkness (1951), and John Updike`s Rabbit, Run (1960), reveals a pattern of character portrayal that demonstrates the plight of a “restless tormented, impotent individuals who are unable to fasten on (sic) a satisfying self image”(Tindal and Shi 829).

Death of a Salesman is a play that was written four years after the end of the Second World War. The play attempts to mirror the social fragmentation and disintegration of the modern American family brought about by the two World Wars, the Depression, and the Holocaust.  At the time it was written the American society was still struggling to overcome the disquieting and debilitating effects of the war. The American economy in particular suffered a setback as a result of the war and the emergent depression. Ordinarily, American citizens were made to work harder in order to meet their filial and financial obligations. Inevitably, the period becomes characterized by intense competition in all spheres of life. The competition was however, more severe in the commercial area of salesmanship. It is noteworthy that the salesman is a very important person in the American capitalist system. He is indeed the vital link between the producers and the consumers. As might be expected, he performs the dual functions of bringing vital goods and services to the consumers on one hand, and at once also bringing benefit to the corporation in terms of profit and sales statistics. In the light of this, it is my contention that Miller chooses a salesman in order to highlight the full implication of aggressive human oppression especially at the micro level. 

 Miller`s Death of a Salesman (Henceforth referred as D.O.S)  is a play that chronicles the  travails of Willy Loman, a failed salesman whose sons, Biff and Happy, are also failures largely due to their father`s bad influence. The play is a fiery demonstration of the consequences of wrong existential choice on individuals as well as families. It is important to note that Willy Loman is a sixty three year old man who having spent thirty six of it as a salesman with the Wagners,  is removed  from salary and placed on a commission, a sign that he is no longer valuable to the company as he used to be. In the play we are given a picture of a Willy Loman that is despondent and confused. This confusion could be seen right from the beginning of the play. We are vicariously made to be aware that Willy Loman becomes a salesman by chance rather than by choice. This fact could be gleaned from a confessional statement he makes thus: “When I was a boy eighteen, nineteen—there was a question in my mind as to whether selling had a future for me.”(D.O.S 58). It could be seen that even at this early stage Willy Loman did not have his priorities right. His alienation has prevented him from taking the right decision about a vital part of his existence (choice of profession). Instead of rationalizing his decision based on pragmatism, he rather chooses to trust his instincts; and by so doing launches himself on a dangerous and irreversible course of action that will eventually lead to his destruction. In this light we come to see Willy Loman as a quintessential nihilist. In fact, I cannot but agree with Rosen (98) that, “nihilism arises not from the absence of truth, but its tedious presence.” This is indeed quite true as shown in the world of Death of a Salesman, where in spite of expressed misgivings about salesmanship, Willy Loman still clings to it against all hope because of his existential blindness occasioned by his myopic vision of success and achievement. Indeed, Alan A. Stambusky (98) has aptly noted that in Death of a Salesman, Arthur Miller “illustrates how a good man can be destroyed by the `wrong dream` of a shallow, materialistic way of life based on false ideas.” These false ideas were to affect even personal relationships in the world of the text. It is my contention, however, that these false ideas are to a certain degree fostered on Willy Loman by the circumstances of his existence in a society that measures human progress in terms of Dollars and Sales Statistics. This could be seen from the way Willy Loman is stripped of his salary and placed on a commission, when it becomes obvious to the Wagner Corporation that he can no longer turn in high sales. As a matter of fact, even this seeming humanitarian gesture is only given in principle because the corporation knows that he is too exhausted to aggressively make any appreciable sale at the age of sixty-three.

The demands of the American society on people like Willy Loman have created in the words of Social Psychologist David Riesman, “a `lonely crowd` of individuals, hollow at core, groping for a sense of belonging and affection” (cited in Tindal 828). It follows then, that this lonely crowd tends to become fragmented, disillusioned and unfocused, often times without any achievable goal or purpose. To say that the life of Willy Loman is fully characterized by lies and falsehoods is an understatement. Throughout the text one gets the feelings of the distance that exists between Willy Loman and the people he comes in contact with, caused significantly by his faulty idealism. For example, in the text he made several attempts to imbue his son Biff with a false aura of greatness. However, these efforts draw nothing from Biff but scorn. In this respect, Willy Loman is a good example of the failed “authoritative paterfamilias” (Arrell 19). This is significantly noticeable in the way he is treated by members of his family particularly his sons, Biff and Happy. To them, Willy Loman is not the father they crave and yearn for. Consequently, they despise him to the extent that Linda could say to Biff that there is no difference between them and Wagner. By and large, it is easy to see that Willy Loman’s family is plagued by the palpable dissolution of traditional moral values and beliefs, such as honesty, transparency, hard work, and mutual respect. These values are instead jettisoned for the dystopian fantasy of being “well liked”. In fact, the phrase “well liked”, despite its apparent falsity, becomes the cumulative moral principle of Willy Loman throughout the play. He and his entire family are blinded by it.  It is indeed the bane and basis of their picayune existence. As a matter of fact, Willy Loman finds it increasingly difficult to cultivate and maintain personal relationships because he is too sensitive to his failures. He also seems to have lost density and stability because of his bafflement and confusion brought about by his failure to accept the reality of his existence. Consequently, his existential condition depersonalizes him and his family. Our argument is that Willy Loman is suffering from what Kierkegaard elegantly describes as “subjectivism” i.e. the willful and foolish refusal for the self to face the reality of its situation (cited in Grimsley 74). A direct consequence of this is his failure to symbolize the much needed father-figure for his children. As a matter of fact, Willy Loman did not succeed in his attempts to be an oriflamme to both Biff and Happy. For example, he is nervous in the presence of Biff because of the realization that this elder son can see through his fakeness. Thus, in spite of his spirited attempts to get closer to Biff, a wide gap practically exists between them; and this gap continues to widen throughout the play. In fact, the difference between Biff and Loman is made very obvious in the text. For example, unlike Willy Loman, Biff is pragmatic and honest to himself about his desires. He is also contra Willy Loman eager to know and understand himself. Similarly, despite the domineering influence of Willy Loman, he made several attempts to escape from the fantasy that is their life. He also severely despises his father`s false hopes and beliefs. He considers the illusion of greatness built around him by his father as a profane vanity. Moreover among the Loman family, he is the first to shatter the false dream of Willy Loman by acknowledging their false way of living. For instance, in the heat of an argument with Loman, he admits that the whole family has never told the truth for ten minutes (D.O.S 100). It is pertinent to note that Biff`s liberation from this fantasy comes as an epiphanic inspiration. After several attempts to find a steady employment for himself fails, Willy Loman has in a moment of desperation encourages Biff to go to Bill Oliver (Biff`s former employer) and solicit for a loan to start a cattle business. In spite of his reservations about the suggestion, Biff nevertheless obeys the instruction of his father. He was however, unsuccessful because Bill Oliver couldn`t even remember knowing him. It is after this encounter that he comes to the realization that his life has been shackled by a maniacal desire to please his father at all cost. He therefore resolves from then on to free himself from the restraints placed on him by his father. Of course this decision is replete with danger because it aggravates the conflict between him and Willy Loman. Certainly, by choosing to contradict his father, Biff is demonstrating his desire to be a “true being…a being who does not live simply in the immediate moment but needs to choose himself in his ‘eternal validity’”( Grimsley 36). Thus in the text (104) he rhetorically ask, “Why am I trying to become what I don`t want to be? What am I doing in an office, making a contemptuous, begging fool of myself, when all I want is out there, waiting the moment I say I know who I am.” Also elsewhere in the text, he tells Willy Loman to stop waiting for him to “bring home any prizes” because he won`t. He is also the first to admit that Willy Loman is a “phony little fake.” In these attempts to extricate himself from the influence of Willy Loman, Biff is practically different from his younger brother Happy.

There is no gain saying that Happy is a metaphor of failure like Willy Loman. In the world of the text, Happy is completely submerged into what Raymond Williams (271) described as, “the conditioned attitudes in which Loman trains his sons.” These attitudes could be surmised to be the lies about success and achievement that are the normal diet of the Loman family. As a matter of fact, Happy is totally blinded by the empty talks of his father. Like Willy Loman, he also believes that all it takes to succeed in life is to have the right personality rather than hard work. He thus becomes lethargic, lazy, and hedonistic. For example, his index of success in the world of the text is measured by the number of women he ‘knocked down’. In the light of this, I would like to suggest that Happy is suffering from what Doug Arrell (9) has called the “Don Juan complex”, a situation of total sexual freedom characterized by extreme libertinism and skittish hedonism. He is also suffering from the slavery of selfishness. For example, he takes delight in spoiling the girls that are engaged to his superiors out of spite. It is precisely because of this that Judah Bierman et al. (cited in Campbell 70-71) describes Happy as “a philanderer (that)…wastes himself in a succession of casual fruitless union (with women).” It is also lamentable that Happy, “has the smell of women on him, in a play in which men (like Bernard) cry out to assert their masculinity (Bierman 70-71). Elsewhere in the text, Linda has in a fit of anger and dejection also calls him “a philandering bum” (46). To be sure, Happy and Willy Loman share the same sentiments about life. For example, they both believe in the power of magnetic personality. They are also easily animated by an optimism built on false hopes and beliefs. They both invest their energy in the blunted, assimilated, and dissipated power of the being “well liked” formula. In this regard they are both trapped in the inescapable mythomanic loop of dystopian fantasies. Interestingly, despite the trenchant idolization of his father, Happy fails to significantly draw the attention of Willy Loman to himself. In this light we come to see him as the ignored son. This could be seen in the way he is repeatedly ignored by Willy Loman when he tries to tell him that he is cultivating a good figure because he is losing weight. Consequently, this affected the dynamics of their personal relationship. Thus Happy becomes estranged towards Willy Loman. Hence, it becomes easy enough for him therefore to deny that Willy Loman is his father. In this respect when Letta refers to Willy Loman as his father at the restaurant, he quickly denounces him saying that he (Willy Loman) is just a guy. It is evidently clear that both Biff and Happy are good examples of what Leslie Fiedler (cited in Arrell 17) calls “The new mutants.” These are “male-college students…who are prepared to advocate prolonging adolescence to the grave.” Indeed, Biff describes this condition correctly when he fitfully admits that “I am like a boy. I’m not married, I’m not in business, I just--- I’m like a boy” (14).Needless to say, “this perennial adolescence” (Brater xxiv) is fueled by the highly determinative force of parental illusion. 

The deep rooted anguish of Willy Loman`s life also made it nearly impossible for him to establish a cordial relationship with his close-door neighbor and friend Charley. In contrast to Willy Loman, Charley is practically a successful business man. In dialectical terms he is everything that Willy Loman is not. In this regard he is successful, easy going, confident, contented, and a good friend. In the world of the text, he severally offers to help Willy Loman, but always met with resistance. There is no doubt that Willy Loman is jealous of Charley because both he and his son Bernard (a lawyer) are successful. He is also very hostile towards him. For instance, in an uncontrolled display of unwarranted anger he calls Charley “ignorant and stupid” (74). In fact, we see this pattern of diatribe repeatedly in the text. Even so, Charley continues to be a friend to Willy Loman, often times cautioning him in his over-enthusiasm about life. For example, when Willy Loman shows apprehension about Biff leaving home to try his luck, Charley advises him to, “forget about him.” He assures him that Biff will not starve in a world that is full of opportunities. In yet another example, when Willy Loman boasts that his sons, whom he practically encourages to steal, are courageous, Charley quickly warns him that “the jails are full of fearless characters” (D.O.S 34). Charley also lends money to Willy Loman to help him out of his never-ending financial predicament.

The relationship between Willy Loman and his wife Linda on the other hand, appears to be smooth and cordial. This is so because she is cast in the mould of the traditional house wife. She is docile, submissive, supportive and sometimes ridiculously aggressive (especially against Biff). She sublimates her feelings and desires in order to accommodate those of her husband. From the beginning to the end of the play she never for once wavers in her commitment and support for Willy Loman’s dreams and aspirations. She is also very protective of him. For example, when Biff tries to confront him after the incident at Boston, she vehemently opposes the idea saying, “you are not going near him.” Throughout the play, she acts as a buffer between the two, often forcing Biff to de-escalate his aggressive posture against his father. Her mediating influences in their quarrels always help in stabilizing the situation. In her enthusiasm to please her husband she becomes blinded to the reality of their life. In fact Willy Loman himself admits that she is his “foundation and support” (9). She exudes confidence in her husband and takes his words at face value. Enoch Brater has made a canny observation when he says that Linda “has been the enabler of Willy’s self-delusions” (xviii). She vigorously partakes in his dreams and illusions. She only comes to grasp the grim reality of their life after his death. For example, her faith in the worth of him is betrayed during his funeral. Taking his words that he is well loved all over the territory at face value, she expects people to turn out in their multitudes to honor him. Paradoxically, only four of them (herself, Biff, Happy and Charley) attend the funeral. She is there fore perturbed by this turn of events, and complacently ask, “Why didn`t anybody come?” She fails to realize that their life has been built on a shaky foundation that could not stand the test of time. It is important to note that in the tapestry of the text, Linda has what Anjali Prabhu (247) calls “the woman`s propensity for tolerance,” especially in her relationship with her husband. In the text we were made to understand that Linda has to mend her stockings simply because she could not afford new ones. At precisely this moment however, Willy Loman is generous enough to grant two packets of new stockings to his prostitute in order to assert his masculinity. However, despite her participational generosity towards the myth of greatness created by Willy Loman, it is fairly easy to observe that he most of the time ignores her presence. Even more tellingly is his aggressive posture towards her. This is manifestly clear in his attempts to deny her participation in the family conversations. We see this in several places in the text where whenever she attempts to join the conversation going on between Willy Loman and Biff, she is vehemently rebuffed by him. In fact both Biff and Happy have severally cautioned him not to shout at her without any success. In addition to this, Willy Loman is not faithful to their marriage as Biff accidently discovers when he went to see him in Boston. It would not be farfetched to say that there is no genuine reciprocal trust and confidence between Willy Loman and Linda. As a matter of fact, the respect and trust is unidirectional. In other words the traffic is one-way. Indeed Willy Loman has a dour sense of life throughout the play. Consequently, he fights everyone he comes in contact with as a result of his dread and melancholy.

 In general, Linda in Death of a Salesman could be compared to Elizabeth in Miller`s other play   The Crucible (1952). Both women suffered indignities and want in order to support their drowning husbands. Linda for instance, made the last payment on their mortgage the very day Willy Loman commits suicide. The tragedy of Linda`s life lies in the fact that at the very moment when they are free of debt her husband takes his life. This adds to her anguish and despair   and in this respect her plight is similar to that of Elizabeth in The Crucible.

Conclusion

Death of a Salesman concludes with the death of Willy Loman through suicide. With his death in this manner the nihilistic cycle of the play is complete. According to Glicksberg (23) when “nihilism takes over” Ɗthe life of a person], “the victim of suffering comes to realize there is no justification for his suffering.” The victim will consequently seek to end his suffering through suicide. Glicksberg also goes on to say that, “The logical outcome of nihilism is suicide” (23). Similarly, Grimsley has noted that “With the experience of dread…man abandons the state of innocence in order to face the challenge of a personal decision, which affects the whole meaning of his life” (63). This is demonstrably clear in the text where Willy Loman chooses self-annihilation in order to enable his eldest son to claim his Life Insurance. It is pertinently clear from the life of Willy Loman that he fails to maintain familial and neighborly relation with people close to him because of the blind idealism infused in him by his personal suffering. His idea about himself and his family is faulty and false. He constructs a false identity for both himself and his sons. Throughout the text, Willy Loman is presented as a pathetic figure with the wrong dream of greatness and success. He fails to adjust himself to the realities of his world and his existence. He rather chose to exist inside the relative safety of an imagined life. His condition prevents him from establishing a good relationship with most people he comes in contact with. That is his greatest undoing and in it lays the seeds of his destruction; and in the course of it he nearly succeeded in destroying the life of his entire family. The nihilistic feelings that seize him made it practically impossible for him to establish good relationship with people close to him. The feelings also help in facilitating his eventual demisethrough suicide. In the final analysis, nihilism ultimately leads Willy Loman to dread and melancholy, which accentuates his fast slide from reality.                                                                 

References

Arrell, D. “‘Let id prevail over ego!’ The Specter of Gay Nihilism in American Drama Criticism of the 1960s.” Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism 24.1 (2009) pp.5-22.

Bigsby, C. Ed. The Cambridge Companion to Arthur Miller. Cambridge: The University Press, 1997.

Brater, E. Ed. Death of a Salesman. London: Bloomsbury, 2010.

Campbell, J. M.: Death of a Salesman. New Delhi: Rama Brothers Educational Publishers, 2001.

Dreyfus, H. “Heidegger on the Connection between Nihilism, Art, Technology and Politics.” In C. Guignon (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Glicksberg, C. The Literature of Nihilism. London: Associated University Press, 1975.

Grimsley, R. Søren Kierkegaard: A Biographical Introduction. London: Studio Vista, 1973.

Levin, D. M. The Opening of Vision: Nihilism and the Postmodern Situation. New York & London: Routledge, 1988.

Miller, A. Death of a Salesman. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1949(Reprinted 1985).

Prabhu, A., “Mariama Ba`s So Long a Letter: Women, Culture and Development from a Francophone/Postcolonial Perspective.” In Bhavnani K., Foran J., and Kurian, P. (eds.), Feminist Futures: Re-imagining Women, Culture and Development. London: Zed Books, 2003.

Rosen, S. NIHILISM: A Philosophical Essay. New Haven: Yale Press, 1969.

Roudane Matthew “Death of a Salesman and the Poetics of Arthur Miller.” In Bigsby Christopher (ed.).The Cambridge Companion to Arthur Miller. Cambridge: The University Press, 1997.

Singer, J. W. “The Player and the Cards: Nihilism and Legal Theory.” The Yale Law Review Journal 94.1(Nov. 1984) pp.1-70.

Stambusky, A. “Arthur Miller: Aristotelian Canons in Twentieth Century Drama.” In Taylor, W.E. (ed.), Modern American Drama: Essays in Criticism.  De Lande: Florida 32720, 1968.

Tindall, B.  America. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. 1989.

Williams, R. Drama from Ibsen to Brecht. New York: Chatto and Windus, 1952.

Wolff, R. P. About Philosophy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1976.

The official website of the DEGEL Jounal is https://www.degeljournal.com