Intellect or Heart?

What I found interesting in reading the beginning of this play and some of the criticism is the conflict that emerged between the subjective individual and the society. When I first read The Crucible in high school I remember being so caught up in the drama of the Salem witch trials that I didn’t think to relate the play to a bigger historical picture. I also remember being more fascinated by the subject matter than the specifics of the characters themselves, which is why it interested me that so much of the criticism mentioned how the play was not as emotionally charged or subjective as Miller’s previous plays. Walter Kerr wrote that “It is intellect which goes out, not the heart,” and many of the other critics echoed this idea. However, I wonder if Miller was aware of where he was putting his focus in this play. His own article references an American dormancy in the theatre and among students, and an absence “of any ferment, either religious, political literary, or whatever” (159) – was Miller more concerned with raising issues than individual characters? Also, Miller mentions that he observed “that conscience was no longer a private matter but one of state administration.” (163) Does this in someway account for what his critics were talking about?
When I read this play, I did not think that the characters stood out as lesser developed, overly intellectual rather than emotional, or existing just to serve the thematic functions of the playwright. True, I am not that familiar with Death of a Salesman or Miller’s other works, so perhaps I don’t have the same perspective as some of the critics. However, I found certain exchanges between characters, for example that between Abigail and John Proctor, to be very emotionally charged. So far I do not see this disconnect that some of the criticisms mentioned, but it is something I want to be aware of as I continue to read.
One other thought I had regarding this point was the public’s opinion or view on the blacklist and current events at the time of publication. Obviously it had a strong effect on Miller and those who were directly involved, but Bernstein’s memoirs and “The Front” hinted that a lot was hushed up. Miller writes that the emotions emerging from this political climate were “so interior and subjective” and therefore emotional for him – is it possible that those not directly involved did not feel as strongly, and that is why some sense a disconnect in the play? Was it Miller’s intention that the thematic material and underlying ideas eclipse the individual characters, or do the two aspects of the play share the emotional weight?