The Depiction of the Theme of Social Criticism - Literature review Example

March 21, The Outward, Empty Life in Borges’ “El Zahir” and Ibsen’s A Doll’s House Some people think about the meaning of life in general and the meaning of their personal lives in specific. Two stories in different literary forms also explore the meaning of life and individual existence, Jorge Luis Borges’ “The Zahir” and Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House. “The Zahir” narrates a love story between a mad man and the deceased Teodelina Villar, while A Doll’s House is a dramatic work on social realism, particularly, the reality of women’s lives during the nineteenth century. Fiction and drama impact the depiction of the theme of social criticism against patriarchy and society’s superficiality and transience by showing how the stories’ settings, plots, and characters support the theme; in addition, the analysis of these works is important today because of lasting gender and social norms and expectations that produce outward, empty lives. “The Zahir” and A Doll’s House explore patriarchal conventions through settings that indicate gender norms and behaviors. The main setting of “The Zahir” is Buenos Aires, but the place is connected to many other places, places where men are central characters. Borges mentions the meanings of zahir, such a “blind man” and “a small sailors compass” (242). These meanings show settings in different places and times where men dominate, and where women are hardly seen at all. They are settings where women are hardly important enough to be as visible as the Zahir and its meanings. A Doll’s House happens inside the Helmer’s house. The setting itself is a sign of the domesticated life of women, wherein, society expects them to operate within the private space of society, never in public, and most especially, never performing male roles (Langås 157). In addition, the drama shows how the house is figuratively a doll house, where society sees women as objects, not as subjects with free will and independence. In Act III, Nora reveals her innermost emotions about her doll life to her husband. She describes her doll-like existence from the time that she has been her father’s “doll-child,” and then her husband’s “doll-wife” (Ibsen Act III). The setting stands for the patriarchal society which teaches women about femininity- traditional female roles and behaviors that are meant to keep them as objects that are inferior to men. Langås explains the play structure that supports the symbolic meaning of the setting: “Ibsen’s drama has an interesting double structure, where family life in early modern society is actually staged as theatre” (162). He is right because family life is staged between the actor, the man, and the controlled “Other,” the woman. The play shows plays inside society, the play of performed gender norms and roles. Hence, “The Zahir” and A Doll’s House have settings that normalize patriarchal conventions. Besides the setting, A Doll’s House uses more numerous patriarchal examples through several characters. Torvald is the typical domineering husband who controls his wife’s life. First, he diminishes her humanity through treating her as a pet that cannot control her whims. He calls her a “little lark” or a “little squirrel” (Ibsen Act 1), where “little” creates redundancy in underlining Nora’s inferiority as a person. Second, Torvald sets rules that dominate Nora’s every aspect of life. Joanne Kashdan notes that Torvald creates “rules” for Nora, such as banning her from eating macaroons, because he believes in “the rightness, empirical as well as ethical, of his view in all matters” (3). Kashdan presents a convincing argument because Torvald does think that he is the empirical basis that is superior to Nora’s emotional desires. Torvald also does not allow Nora to fully access his income because he sees her as a “little featherbrain” and “little spendthrift” (Ibsen Act 1), which Kashdan underscores as an embodiment of “the prevailing view that many men had of women: that they are owned property, playthings, dolls to be housed in toy mansions and be indulged, but only sparingly” (3). Torvald ensures Nora’s inferiority through financial limitations and psychological control. Third, Krogstad is no different from Torvald who wants to control Nora for his own interests. He uses the threat of revealing what she did about faking her father’s signature, in order to preserve his position in the bank (Ibsen Act 1). Like Torvald, Krogstad exploits Nora’s weakness because he wants to gain something entirely for himself, even if it means subjugating Nora’s autonomy in the process. A Doll’s House portrays many patriarchal models that subjugate women that are not present in “The Zahir”. Aside from depicting these unfair gender structures, these works have plots that underscore the superficiality of modern life. The world is superficial because of its pervasive materialism. The plot of “The Zahir” includes obsession with money. Literally, the narrator becomes obsessed with the Zahir coin: “Money is abstract, I said over and over, money is future time [italics in original text]” (Borges 244). Money becomes more than something that can buy things, because it becomes something that exists, such as time. María Fernández-Lamarque explains the role of money as a driver of society, after stating how the narrator of “The Zahir” mentions its different meanings: “El Zahir has had multiple forms throughout history along with the power to direct the lives of whoever had encountered it” (4). Echevarría agrees that the Zahir becomes a powerful driving force for the narrator, a powerful center for the axis of life (184). Fernández-Lamarque and Echevarría present a convincing analysis of money as a motivator for the narrator’s society. The Zahir stands for money that corrupts people and makes them obsessed over materialistic desires. A Doll’s House also underscores the centrality of money in modern life. Mrs. Linde and Krogstad, for instance, do everything they can to improve their economic means, where Mrs. Linde marries for money, while Krogstad uses blackmail. These examples demonstrate the centrality of material things in influencing human personality and actions. Apart from plots, several characters in both works demonstrate shallow adorations, which made their lives empty of deeper meaning. Teodelina Villar is a superficial woman who is consumed with her love for outward appearances. Borges describes Teodelina’s physical changes: “She passed through endless metamorphoses, as though fleeing from herself; her coiffure and the color of her hair were famously unstable, as were her smile, her skin, and the slant of her eyes…” (243). She manifests the instability of a woman who does not seem to know herself because she bases herself on what is popular and acceptable. Nora begins as an outward-centered person too. She is excited over her husband’s promotion because it means he is “going to have a big salary and earn lots and lots of money” (Ibsen Act 1). Nora’s life is centered in her shopping and other materialistic endeavors. Soon enough, she recognizes the hollowness of superficial existence. Before she leaves Torvald, she acknowledges that she does not know what will become of her (Ibsen Act III). She has been a doll with material desires for so long that living an independent life comes as a shocking change she has not prepared for. The emptiness of these women’s lives shows the meaninglessness of living for things rather than for the self. The next point presents more differences between these works, where “El Zahir” is different from A Doll’s House because it explores symbols about the transience of life. Borges describes the narrator’s insane vision of the dead: “At wakes, the progress of corruption allows the dead persons body to recover its former faces” (243). The statement indicates that life is short, no matter how many times a person changes throughout his/her lifetime. Humberto Núñez-Faraco argues that “El Zahir” has a plot about a dead woman because it shows how transient life is (118). Another interpretation of life’s temporariness is that it is too temporary, making it senseless to begin with. Núñez-Faraco asserts that love, one of life’s numerous obsessions, is as fleeting as life itself: “love is an enslaving ob-session against which the poet feels totally defenceless” (122). If people are defenseless when in love, then they are powerless in shaping their identities and destinies. “El Zahir” considers the implications of a short life to finding meaning in it. Another difference between the two is that “The Zahir” is satirical of the moral values of the literary and real worlds, while A Doll’s House criticizes the patriarchal culture that creates binary gender distinctions. A Doll’s House emphasizes binary distinctions that separate men from women. Torvald is ready to sacrifice Nora in case a court case occurs (Ibsen Act 3), which shows how, as a man, he values social status and respect more than his own wife. Women have to employ deceptive means, however, because of lack of social and economic resources. Ibsen uses hide-and-seek in the play as a symbolism for keeping secrets (Drake 32). Deception is essential, however, to the individuality of Nora, as she undercuts female roles and responsibilities, when she earns money to save her husband. She tells Mrs. Linde that Torvald knows nothing about her secret activities: “... how painful and humiliating it would be for Torvald, with his manly independence, to know that he owed me anything! It would upset our mutual relations altogether…” (Ibsen Act 1). As a woman, she cannot perform masculine roles and responsibilities, so she has to hide it, thereby hiding her important functions in society. “The Zahir” extends social criticism as it serves as a satire of the moral values of the literary and real worlds. The coin shows how the narrator reacts to its power over him, which is a part of a “long literary tradition, both serious and comic…[called] amor heroicus” (Núñez-Faraco 126). It pertains to lovesickness that turned the narrator sad, restless, and obsessed, until he forgets the existence of the outside world (Núñez-Faraco 127). The literary framework of the short story has been used to reveal the inner workings of a potential love story that has gone literally mad. “The Zahir” and A Doll’s House demonstrate that loss of control over love and life results to empty lives. The society is to be blamed mostly, but individuals have their will. They can fight the system, but to rebel against it entails ostracism. Nora and the narrator both leave the real world for a different world they can call their own. Their paths and goals are different, but, in different degrees, they have become free from the shackles of social norms. In addition, these stories remind readers to reflect their own lives. The analysis is relevant up to now because, despite advancements in social justice and gender equality, modern Western society continues to have social and gender values that are not empowering people to be autonomous individuals. Modern values and standards that promote physical beauty and material success, for instance, create a materialistic view of the American Dream. Readers should analyze if present social and gender norms and practices are unfairly curtailing their ability to find meaning in their lives. Without self-examination, they can either end up like Nora or the obsessed narrator of “The Zahir”- directionless in a world with illusions of happiness and meaning. Works Cited Borges, Jorge Luis. “The Zahir.” Collected Fictions. Trans. Andrew Hurley. New York: Viking, 1998. 242-249. Print. Drake, David B. “Ibsens A Doll House.” Explicator 53.1 (1994): 32-35. Literary Reference Center. Web. 19 Mar. 2014. Echevarría, Roberto González. “The Aleph.” The Cambridge Companion to Jorge Luis Borges. Ed. Edwin Williamson. New York: Cambridge U P, 2013. 123-136. Print. Fernández-Lamarque, María. “Women in Borges: Teodelina Villar in ‘El Zahir’” The Woman in Latin American and Spanish Literature. Eds. Eva Bueno and María Claudia André. North Carolina: McFarland, 2012. 178-194. Web. 19 Mar. 2014. . Ibsen, Henrik. “A Doll’s House.” The Norton Introduction to Literature. 11th ed. Eds. Alison Booth, J. Paul Hunter, and Kelly J. Mays. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2013. 784-843. Print. Kashdan, Joanne G. “A Doll’s House.” Masterplots (2010): 1-3. Literary Reference Center. Web. 19 Mar. 2014. Langås, Unni. “What Did Nora Do? Thinking Gender with A Dolls House.” Ibsen Studies 5.2 (2005): 148-171. Literary Reference Center. Web. 19 Mar. 2014. Núñez-Faraco, Humberto. “The Theme of Lovesickness in “El Zahir.” Variaciones Borges 14 (2002): 115-155. Web. 19 Mar. 2014. . Read More

Besides the setting, A Doll’s House uses more numerous patriarchal examples through several characters. Torvald is the typical domineering husband who controls his wife’s life. First, he diminishes her humanity through treating her as a pet that cannot control her whims. He calls her a “little lark” or a “little squirrel” (Ibsen Act 1), where “little” creates redundancy in underlining Nora’s inferiority as a person. Second, Torvald sets rules that dominate Nora’s every aspect of life.

Joanne Kashdan notes that Torvald creates “rules” for Nora, such as banning her from eating macaroons, because he believes in “the rightness, empirical as well as ethical, of his view in all matters” (3). Kashdan presents a convincing argument because Torvald does think that he is the empirical basis that is superior to Nora’s emotional desires. Torvald also does not allow Nora to fully access his income because he sees her as a “little featherbrain” and “little spendthrift” (Ibsen Act 1), which Kashdan underscores as an embodiment of “the prevailing view that many men had of women: that they are owned property, playthings, dolls to be housed in toy mansions and be indulged, but only sparingly” (3).

Torvald ensures Nora’s inferiority through financial limitations and psychological control. Third, Krogstad is no different from Torvald who wants to control Nora for his own interests. He uses the threat of revealing what she did about faking her father’s signature, in order to preserve his position in the bank (Ibsen Act 1). Like Torvald, Krogstad exploits Nora’s weakness because he wants to gain something entirely for himself, even if it means subjugating Nora’s autonomy in the process.

A Doll’s House portrays many patriarchal models that subjugate women that are not present in “The Zahir”. Aside from depicting these unfair gender structures, these works have plots that underscore the superficiality of modern life. The world is superficial because of its pervasive materialism. The plot of “The Zahir” includes obsession with money. Literally, the narrator becomes obsessed with the Zahir coin: “Money is abstract, I said over and over, money is future time [italics in original text]” (Borges 244).

Money becomes more than something that can buy things, because it becomes something that exists, such as time. María Fernández-Lamarque explains the role of money as a driver of society, after stating how the narrator of “The Zahir” mentions its different meanings: “El Zahir has had multiple forms throughout history along with the power to direct the lives of whoever had encountered it” (4). Echevarría agrees that the Zahir becomes a powerful driving force for the narrator, a powerful center for the axis of life (184).

Fernández-Lamarque and Echevarría present a convincing analysis of money as a motivator for the narrator’s society. The Zahir stands for money that corrupts people and makes them obsessed over materialistic desires. A Doll’s House also underscores the centrality of money in modern life. Mrs. Linde and Krogstad, for instance, do everything they can to improve their economic means, where Mrs. Linde marries for money, while Krogstad uses blackmail. These examples demonstrate the centrality of material things in influencing human personality and actions.

Apart from plots, several characters in both works demonstrate shallow adorations, which made their lives empty of deeper meaning. Teodelina Villar is a superficial woman who is consumed with her love for outward appearances. Borges describes Teodelina’s physical changes: “She passed through endless metamorphoses, as though fleeing from herself; her coiffure and the color of her hair were famously unstable, as were her smile, her skin, and the slant of her eyes…” (243). She manifests the instability of a woman who does not seem to know herself because she bases herself on what is popular and acceptable.

Nora begins as an outward-centered person too.

Read More