Feminism in a Dolls House by Henrik Ibsen - Assignment Example

English Drama 13 May Feminism in A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen Henrik Ibsen’s “A Doll’s House” is an intriguing tale of the domestic situation of the Helmers. The play is a perfect blending of suspense, blackmail, love, deception and women emancipation. Ibsen’s writings are famous for its socialist and humanitarian contexts on the basis of which his depiction of plays is also interpreted in terms of feminism. He is one of the pioneers in literature who gave voice to the women and used female protagonists as round characters providing them with freewill, courage and a sense of independence. Furthermore his mastery and insight of women’s nature is also apparent James Joyce’s comment when he says, Ibsen’s knowledge of humanity is nowhere more obvious than in his portrayal of women. He amazes one by his painful introspection; he seems to know them better than they know themselves. Indeed, if one may say so of an eminently virile man, there is a curious admixture of the woman in his nature (Jacobus 131). As the play commences Nora is projected as a typically naive, openhearted woman basking in her husband’s love and affection where she continuously gives in to her husband’s views and opinions and curbs the desire to voice her own. As it is apparent from their mild argument over spending and loans when Torvald says, “A home that depends on loans and debts is not beautiful because it is not free” Nora finally acquiesces and says, “Everything as you wish, Torvald” (Act 1). The docility with which Nora accepts her husband’s point of view initially projects her to be a victim of a woman living a voiceless life. From a structural point of view Nora’s character develops over the course of the play as it is apparent from her first conversation with Mrs. Linde that initially she is projected to be childlike in her understanding of the world. Over the course of the play her character will develop in terms of education, maturation, and the shedding of her supposed naiveté. While Nora clings to the romantic notions about love and marriage, Mrs. Linde has a more realistic understanding of marriage, gained from her experience of being left with “not even an ounce of grief” (Act 1) after her husband’s death. Nora’s incredulity at Mrs. Linde’s remark indicates that Nora has live a sheltered life first under the protection of her father and then her husband. Feminist strains of independence begin to emerge towards the end of Act 1 as Nora’s character begins to unravel for the readers. Her rebellion of eating macaroons against her husband’s wish is a minor example of her first action of exerting her freewill although without her husband’s knowing. Her second act of independence is the revelation of her secret i.e. the loan she took to take her husband to Italy. This does not only mark her independent nature but also highlights that the supposedly innocent and immature girl of the beginning of Act 1 is actually a woman with skill and intelligence, who can financially support herself and her family if need arises. Although the way she goes about it might be criticized as wrong since she deceives and lies yet these examples highlight the fact that Nora is an individual with a will of her own. Along with the freedom of freewill and financial independence it is observed that Ibsen also provides sexual freedom and confidence to Nora. She is not only confident about her feminine power but also tries her best to use it to gain Dr. Rank’s alliance. Then again she also uses her feminity to ward her husband from reading the letter from Krogstad. This further reinstates the fact that Nora relishes in the confidence of her beauty and is well aware of its impact on men, though in Dr. Rank’s case his reaction angers her. Act 3 is the climax of the play where evolution of Nora’s character as an independent individual completes. When Torvald says, “From now on, forget happiness. Now it’s just about saving the remains, the wreckage, the appearance” (Act 1). This point onwards a strange sense of calmness takes over Nora and she is found in a constant state of inner battle where realization about the bitter reality of her relationship with her husband dawns upon her. She realizes that she has spent her entire life being loved not for who she is but for the role she plays. To both her father and to Torvald, she has been nothing more than a doll. She realizes she has never been happy in Torvald’s dollhouse but has just been performing for her keep. She had been deluding herself into thinking that she was happy and content when in truth she was miserable and is now sick of her life as a caged bird living first to please her father and then her husband. As she also says, “I have been performing tricks for you, Torvald. That’s how I’ve survived. You wanted it like that. You and Papa have done me a great wrong. It’s because of you I’ve made nothing of my life” (Act 3). The presence of both the negative and positive characteristic traits is an assertion of the fact that Nora is a round character as well as she also fulfills the criteria of a protagonist since her character is an amalgamation of strengths and weaknesses.as it is also stated that, Nora’s character between act 1 and act 3 undergoes ‘an incomprehensible transformation’ (114). Templeton argues, ‘the power of “A Doll’s House” lies not beyond but within its feminism; it is a feminist Bildungspiel par excellence, dramatizing the protagonist’s realization that she might, perhaps, be someone other than her husband’s little woman (Hobby 10). In comparison to Nora’s character the depiction of Mrs. Linde’s character is less independent and more pragmatic in terms of experiences in life. Though interestingly it is observed that regardless of a marked difference between the life experiences of the two women both the women sacrifice themselves for money. Nora becomes her husband’s plaything and delights in the comforts he provides her while Mrs. Linde marries her husband for money so that she can support her sick mother and dependent younger brothers. Again and again in “A Doll’s House” women sacrifice their personal desires, their ambitions and their dignity. While Nora marries for her own welfare Mrs. Linde does so for the welfare of her family. It is commendable the manner in which Ibsen’s play educates the readers about the importance of the financial independence for a woman. Through both the characters of Nora and Mrs. Linde the subtext is clear i.e. financial independence is the key to freedom. If an individual can earn a living regardless of the means that are used, life becomes better as it further gives a person self-confidence. Ibsen clearly explains his need to support women in the notes made for “A Doll’s House” in 1878, “A woman cannot be herself in contemporary society; it is an exclusively male society with laws drafted by men, and with counsel and judges who judge feminine conduct from the male point of view” (Templeton 125). Hence as a writer he assumed the role of the teacher to bring about change in the stereotypical mentality of the male patriarchs of the society. Unlike many of the dramatists who came before him, Ibsen doesn’t portray rich, powerful, or socially significant people in his plays. Rather he populates his dramas with ordinary middle-class characters. Ibsen’s language too is commonplace. Though his dialogue is uncomplicated and without rhetorical flourish it subtly conveys more than it seems to be stating on the surface level. For instance, Nora’s insensitivity to Mrs. Linde’s plight manifests itself when she speaks of her three lovely children immediately after learning that Mrs. Linde has none. Ibsen’s dialogue is apparently simple yet subtext has a jolting impact on the reader that sets Ibsen’s drama apart from earlier and contemporary verse plays. The setting and the backdrop of a drama is of grave importance since that is initially the guideline for the reader to understand the action of a play. The whole play takes place in a house that is set with taste but is not extravagant. If the setting and the female character of “Long Day’s Journey into Night” is compared to Ibsen’s work it can be inferred that on surface level they appear to be the same. Both the houses are well maintained but not well lived in, the female characters have a docile existence which is true for Mary but Nora is supposedly acing docile and thirdly there are secrets and a distance between the occupants of the house i.e. between Mary and her family and Nora and Torvald. Both the writers place their plays in the setting of a house because an individual’s house is his/her sanctity where an individual belongs. For O Neil docility is a common and major characteristic for a woman. However Ibsen believes that a woman’s life is not just about her house and hearth, she is a wife who gives in to his husband’s will, manages her home and children well along with er responsibilities she also has the right to live as a free individual. Another important prop in the backdrop is the Christmas tree. It is a season of festivities and though the silent tree is just a decoration yet it is of grave symbolic importance when compared to Nora. As stated that tree is for decorative purposes it can also be compared to Nora’s initial existence in the house i.e. she was a ‘doll’, ‘squirrel’ and ‘skylark’ to Torvald highlighting that she is not an individual but a prized possession. Nora instructs the maid about the tree that the children, “cannot see it until it is decorated” (Act 1) similarly she tells her husband that no one can see her in her dress until the evening of the dance. As the play precedes Nora starts losing her glory as the facades begin to unravel and in parallel setting the tree begins to change as well. Towards the beginning of the second act when Nora’s illusion about her life and future begin to shatter and her character begins to evolve and her appearance begins to erode, in the stage directions the tree begins to look “disheveled” (Act 2) as well. The title of the play is also of grave importance since it foreshadows a tale about a house of dolls and the word doll brings the idea of a pampered, delicate, helpless and an innocent object. This is a similar sort of treatment that is given to Nora by Torvald. Moreover the fact that he mostly refers to her with a variety of pet names such as, ‘little singing bird’, ‘his squirrel’, ‘skylark’ etc. gives an insight of his mind, that for him Nora is nothing more than his most prized possession and her identity for him is the one that he thinks suits her the best. By placing her within such a system of names, Torvald not only asserts his power over Nora but also dehumanizes her to a degree. When he implies that Nora is comparable to the “little birds that like to fritter money” Torvald suggests that Nora lacks some fundamental male ability to deal properly with financial matters. So basically Nora is like a doll for Torvald whose purpose in his life is to decorate his house and it gives him the right to manipulate her emotions like a toy by sometimes spoiling her, scolding her or at times criticizing her. 3. Gender Bias and feminism The male characters of the play are depicted as typical male patriarchs of the society who look down upon women as lesser beings, lacking intelligence and as properties. Torvald is a major character who throughout the course of the play is very vocal about his opinion about women and the manner in which a woman should behave. For example in the beginning of Act 1 he says, “Nora, my Nora, that is just like a woman” (10). This line though said simply but is drenched in criticism and brings into light Torvald’s prejudiced opinion. Interestingly Torvald’s treatment of Nora can also be perceived as a quest of satisfying his male ego in terms of Torvald’s desire to get the same respect, place and affection in Nora’s life as her father’s. The element of subservience that governs the Helmers’ relationship is an indication that Nora after marrying Torvald got a second father instead of a husband. Furthermore Nora does not even realize the sort of life she’s been living until the very end of the play. Hence on a subconscious level she is preparing her daughter for the same subservient existence. This is apparent from the Christmas gifts that she has bought for her children i.e. a sword and a horse for her male children and a doll for her daughter. In other her daughter is another Nora in making who will bow in front of the stereotypes of the society living in Torvald’s doll house. Torvald’s biases against women are also apparent when Nora suggests that Torvald find Mrs. Linde a job by immediately assuming that Mrs. Linde is a widow. Torvald’s assumption shows that he believes that a proper married woman should not work outside the house. Also as Torvald departs with Mrs. Linde he says to her, “Only a mother could bear to be here (in the house)” (Act 1) implying that any woman who wants a job either must not have children or does not deserve them. These words contain a veiled expression of pride since Torvald is pleased that his house is perfect according to his definition and is running smoothly as he has a good house, wife and children. Torvald’s reaction of panic and anger over Nora’s deceit is a marker of his selfish existence and the illusionary version of Nora’s existence that he has loved all his life. Initially he panics and his only concern is the manner in which he should save his reputation from the shame his wife has brought upon his name. There I not an inch of gratitude for the risks his wife took to save him or even a little emotional support. His proclamation, “I’m saved” (Act 3) when the news of Krogstad’s decision to retract his letter arrives and the only response to Nora being safe is “You too naturally” (Act 3) is the final straw for Nora because at that point she realizes the triviality of her existence in her husband’s life. Krogstad’s manipulation of Nora’s weakness and Dr. Rank’s sexual interest/advances towards Nora further stresses the stereotypical perception of a woman in a male dominated society i.e. she is an object, a property to be owned, cherished and pampered. She can be manipulated and used to a man’s desire since the patriarchal society does not believe in the idea of an independent woman with a voice and identity. Although Henrik Ibsen once said at a Women’s Right Banquet in 1898, I am nor a member of the Women’s Rights League. Whatever I have written has been without any conscious thought of making propaganda…. I am not even quite clear as to just what this women’s rights movement really is. To me it has seemed a problem of humanity in general (Berman and Barnet, 1285). Regardless of the writer’s personal opinion of his writing it is observed that his projection of feminism/humanism in terms of creating strong female characters played a vital role in making his audience realize the importance of self. Providing the women with a chance to stand for themselves and giving them the right to decide the right and the wrong in their best interest. Works Cited Barnet, Sylvan and Morton Berman. An Introduction to: Fiction/poetry/Drama. New York: Harpercollins College Publishers, 1994. Print. Ibsen, Henrik. A Doll’s House. Rockville: Serenity Publishers, 2009. Print. Hobby, Blake. Human Sexuality. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2009. Print. Jacobus, Mary. Women Writing and Writing about Women, Volume 7. New York: Routledge, 2012. Print. Templeton, John. Ibsen’s Women. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Print. Read More