A DOLL'S HOUSE (Essay)

A DOLL’S HOUSE

 

              Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll House is undeniably a controversial play since for over a century it has raised a vast number of questions on its true purpose. One of the indisputable ideas found in the play is the idea of liberation from social restraints for a chance to discover oneself. However, the main dilemma revolves on the question of whether or not this play appeals to human beings as a whole or only to women. Therefore, many women’s rights movements have used this play as a tool to achieve equal rights. Despite Ibsen’s claims of being involved with women’s rights, more precisely“ the problem of women”, feminism is a predominant element in A Doll’s House. Many critics have supported each side of the argument and there is a continuous controversy about the main purpose of the play. One side shows that Ibsen truly based the play on the idea of the pursuit of individual freedom. On the other hand, the argument is that the play deals with the pursuit of women’s freedom from a male domineering society.

The presence of feminism is controversial in this play mainly because the author claimed that the main theme revolved on the idea of individual freedom, not particularly women’s. Ibsen claims that his initial intention was to portray the pursuit of freedom as a human being:

“I thank you for your toast, but must disclaim the honour of having consciously worked for women’s rights. I am not even quite sure what women’s rights really are. To me it has been a question of human rights. And if you have read my books carefully you will realize that. Of course it is incidentally desirable to solve the problem of women: but that has not been my whole object”. (Durbach, 91)

In addition to this, he portrays Nora’s decision based on personal choice due to marital disillusion, her dependency on her husband and her incompetence to do anything on her own. “Nora’s liberal impulse belongs not only to the history of women’s liberation, but also to the problematic context of an age in which the free spirit must define itself in a world reshaped by a series of revolutions in social and political life” Durbach says (3) Another fact is that some women’s rights had already been achieved before A Doll’s House was written. For instance, during the 1800’s Norwegian middle class women obtained the right to find employment and protection in the workplace. Moreover women achieved other rights such as legal status of minor males in 1845 and education in 1882. A Doll’s House was written in 1879, ten years before women achieved total control over their own funds (Durbach, 92). However, Ibsen told the Norwegian Women’s Rights League that whatever he wrote “has been without conscious thought of making propaganda,’ and that he was ‘more poet and less social philosopher” (Salome, 24).

Even though Ibsen’s initial intentions were not concerned with women’s rights, Nora’s liberation from her dominant husband is the central idea in his play. Therefore, many women’s rights movements have interpreted this play as a tool to achieve equality. The reason why this idea of feminism is very controversial is due to the fact that one can find many references to support feminist beliefs despite the author’s opposition on this matter.

Moreover, the time-period when it was written encourages feminists to believe that it was a call to fight against oppression. Joan Templeton argues “The power of A Doll House lies not ‘beyond’ but within its feminism; it is feminist Bildungspiel par excellence, dramatizing the protagonist’s realization that she might, perhaps, be someone other than her husband’s little woman” (138). A Doll House has been used as propaganda in the Women’s liberation movement in the late 1960’s. For example Kate Millett’s Sex Politics (1970) who believes that A Doll House “is a blow against the patriarchy, and Nora is ‘the true insurrectionary of the sexual revolution…battling the sexual politic openly and rationally…[with her] band of revolutionaries.”

.. Consequently, this idea of liberty helped shape a political issue “The problem of women”. Nonetheless, Ibsen sees Nora as humanity, trapped “…between the seductive and soul-destroying security of her doll’s house and the frightening emptiness of the freedom that awaits her beyond the door.” (Durbach, 94)

Some critics’ rebuttal is that Mrs. Linde (another female character in the play) chose to reenter the domestic lifestyle, which contradicts the interpretation that Ibsen was indeed portraying feminist beliefs. However, Mrs. Linde represents an older woman who is accustomed to the conventional rules of society, in which she believes that a woman’s goal in life is to serve a man and a family. Nora, on the other hand, is demonstrating a new generation of empowered women capable of freeing themselves from the restraints of a husband whose hubris is to believe he is superior to women:

Helmer. I’d gladly work for you day and night, Nora - and take on pain and deprivation. But there’s no one who gives up honor for love.

Nora. Millions of women have done just that.

Helmer. Oh, you think and talk like a silly child. (449)

From Ibsen’s “Notes for Modern Tragedy”, he concluded the following ideas regarding modern women:

“…woman is judged by masculine law…A woman cannot be herself in modern society. It is an exclusively male society, with laws made by men and…judges who assess feminine conduct from a masculine standpoint….A mother in modern society, like certain insects, retires and dies once she has done her duty by propagating the race…”(Salome, 23)

Lou Salome says that Ibsen was outlining Nora’s life if she would have remained in the doll’s house. Furthermore she explains that Ibsen never proposed liberation as a solution, on the contrary, she believes the interpretation of her emancipation relies on the reaction of a male-domineering society. (23) I strongly disagree with Salome’s interpretations of Ibsen’s plays and public statements. Ibsen made it clear when he said “It is an exclusively male society” and Nora’s life in the doll house symbolizes the domestic role of women in society.

At the beginning of the play, one can see Helmer and Nora’s relationship portraying a domestic mentality in which women are inferior to men. In fact, in Act I, from the moment Helmer enters the house, he uses nicknames as “lark” , “squirrel” and “bird” (all delicate defenseless animals) to call his wife (Bedford, ). As the play moves along, Nora acts like a doll, she is Helmer’s little toy and she does as he pleases: “Ibsen’s man-and-wife is a parodic bourgeois version of the pan-cultural ideal of marriage as a relation of natural superior and inferior, in which the wife is a creature of little intellectual and moral capacity whose right and proper station is subordination to her husband”, Templeton states (138).

This house is a make-believe world fit for dolls:

“The pillar of society who owns the doll is a model husband, father, and citizen. In his little household with the three darling children and the affectionate little wife, all on the most loving terms with one another, we have the sweet home, the womanly woman, the happy family life of the idealist’s dream. (Shaw, 40)

This statement shows that despite all the comforts and years of marriage, Nora feels compelled to leave because Helmer’s lack of sacrifice makes her reexamine their marriage. In addition to this, she discovers that there isn’t any true love, and feels that Helmer is a stranger to her and that all her sacrifices have been in vain. Her only accomplishment was saving his life, yet she is aware that this act of love is a threat to her husband’s masculinity. However, the moment when “the miracle” was supposed to occur, she finds out that for Helmer “honor” is far more important than love. What Helmer calls honor is simply a euphemism for destroying his reputation. Nora reevaluates her life, herself and realizes she is not fit to raise her children, since she has always been a doll; it is now her task to find the person within.

The fact that Nora left her husband is not sufficient evidence to support the presence of feminism. However, one mustn’t forget that Nora was a mother of three children. Just as for men’s self-realization “children shall not be an impediment” (Templeton, 143). It is chauvinistic to believe that Nora’s act is insane and outrageous as Torvald exclaims:

Helmer: Oh, it’s outrageous. So you’ll run out like this on your most sacred vows.

Nora: What do you think are my most sacred vows?

Helmer: And I have to tell you that! Aren’t they your duties to your husband and children? (Bedford, 448)

Moreover, “Ibsen doesn’t separate Nora as mother from Nora as wife because he is identifying the whole source of her oppression, the belief in a “female nature”, an immutable thing in itself whose proper sphere is domestic wifehood and whose essence is maternity.” (Templeton, 143) This statement implies the domestic responsibility assigned to women in a male domineering society. Despite these imposed obligations, Nora decides firmly to leave the comfortable household, the loving children and the over protective and possessive husband to confront an unknown world:

Helmer: You talk like a child. You don’t know anything of the world you live in.

Nora: “No, I don’t. But now I’ll begin to learn for myself. I’ll try to discover who’s right, the world or I” (Bedford, 449).

 

WORK REFERENCES

·         Jacobs, Lee. The Compact BedfordIntroduction to Drama 5^th Edition. New York: Boston, 2005.

·         Shaw , George Bernard. The Quintessence of Ibsenism. New York: Brentano’s, 1904.

·         Templeton, Joan. Ibsen’s Women. United Kingdom: Cambridge UniversityPress,1997.

·         Durbach, Errol. A Doll’s House: Ibsen’s Myth of Transformation. Boston: Massachusetts, 1991

·         Salomé, Lou. Ibsen’s Heroins. Trans. Siegfried Mandel. New York: W.W. Norton,1962