Infantilization in A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen - Essay Example

? Infantilization in Henrik Ibsen's A Doll's House A Doll's House is often considered to be the first feminist play. Written in 1879 by Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen, it features a woman who risks her reputation and her family for the sake of her husband, and closes with her reaction to the discovery that her husband would not do the same for her. The play ends with the female protagonist, Nora, walking out of her husband's life, slamming the door behind her in an echo which reverberated throughout modern literature (Cunningham and Reich, 492). To its contemporary audience, A Doll's House promoted divorce and was therefore scandalous – and so much so that in Germany, Ibsen eventually bowed to pressure to rewrite his ending, although he much regretted it later. The conventions of nineteenth-century marriage are examined and eventually overturned, through exaggerated use of pet-names, infantilizing dialogue, and many more displays of masculine superiority over women. This essay will look at Nora's interactions with other characters in the play, both male and female, to analyse the validity of Ibsen's representation of women as human beings worthy of roles beyond those of wife and mother. Nora's relationship with her husband Torvald is seen in the first few moments of the play, in an interaction which surely inspired very different emotions in its contemporary and twenty-first century audiences. Torvald's references to her as “my little lark”, “my little squirrel” and “my little spendthrift” infantilize the grown woman in a way which was probably common (although hopefully exaggerated by Ibsen) in the nineteenth century, but which rankles with a spectator now as patronizing and unnecessary. The conflict is given object in Nora's consumption of macaroons. In the first moments of the play, she eats a macaroon and then “wipes her mouth” (I, stage direction) before speaking to her husband; shortly thereafter, he teasingly asks her if she has “even taken a bite at a macaroon or two”, to which Nora lies in response: “No, Torvald, I assure you really” (I). The macaroons are a motif which highlights Torvald's inexplicable control over Nora, and foreshadows her eventual refusal to submit to his norms. The spectre of debt also looms over this first conversation between Nora and Torvald, as it does the entire play, with Nora bringing up the possibility of borrowing money in order to finance a more lavish Christmas: “this year we can really let ourselves go a little” (I). Torvald strikes down this idea, much as he will strike down Nora herself in the final act as a “Miserable creature” (III), showing that her opinion and desires are worth nothing compared to his. The relentless barrage of Torvald's references to Nora as lesser, juxtaposed against and around the major issue of the play, come together to reinforce Torvald's worldview, forcing the audience to think critically about the very role of literature. If we relax and enjoy the play, we silently side with Torvald; if we engage with it, we must not entirely enjoy it. These two parts of Torvald's and Nora's conversation come together in the following excerpt: Torvald: What are little people called that are always wasting money? Nora: Spendthrifts – I know. (I) Nora's response sounds coached, echoing Torvald's own criticisms of herself in a manner which is both worrying and simply spooky. At this early stage of the play, Nora's dialogue shows that she accepts her inferiority to her husband, probably because a nineteenth-century woman in her situation would not have considered that there was another option. However, she is not only secondary to her husband but also to her father: one of Torvald's first thoughts when he discovers his wife's deception is that “all [her] father's want of principle has come out in [her]” (III). He cannot see her supposed 'evil' as purposeful, but done through her ignorance combined with her father's unprincipled genetics. Even when Torvald is angry with Nora, he cannot credit her for her mistake, feeling that she “had not sufficient knowledge” (III) to understand her crime. Torvald's insistence on treating Nora without respect, and his expectation that she will unquestioningly agree with his fickle judgments of her, come to a climax in this final scene; her slow realization of the unfairness of their relationship is dramatic but expected in this context. The audience's response to Torvald, and therefore to his worldview, worsens after Mrs Linde leaves during the third act; at this point Torvald acts possessively of Nora, almost threatening her with rape. Although this is not explicitly stated, Ibsen's characterization of Torvald and manipulation of events and metaphor guides the audience's imagination this way. Having left the dance early, much against Nora's will, Torvald tells his wife that watching her dance aroused him: “I could endure it no longer, and that was why I brought you down so early” (III). When Nora responds angrily, telling him to “Go away” and that she “won't” (III), Torvald believes that she is joking, and invokes their marriage, as if their relationship precluded any need for desire or consent. Luckily, Ibsen cuts the scene away at this point, with an intrusion from a third character (Doctor Rank), and this moment is not mentioned again. It does, though, remain in the audience's mind, adding an extra piquancy to Torvald's behaviour once he finds out about Nora's secret. The kind of man who believes of any ignorance that “That is like a woman!” (I) is the kind of man who ignores his wife's refusal to have sex. The infantilization of Nora is not a game in which only men engage: Christiane Linde, in Act II, says that Nora is “still very much like a child” (II), and is upset that Nora knows about Doctor Rank's syphilis, as if this subverts her conviction that her friend is not an adult. This is in spite of Nora asking Mrs Linde, in an earlier scene, to not call her childish: “You are just like all the others”, Nora says. “They all think I am incapable of anything really serious … that I have gone through nothing in this world of cares” (I). Whereas Torvald's infantilization of Nora is destructive, Linde's can be interpreted as somewhat constructive – that is not, of course, to condone it, but it is inescapable that Linde's judgment of Nora as a child encourages Nora to explain why she is not one. It is in these moments with Mrs Linde that Nora first expresses her independence, and even demonstrates how Torvald's insistent masculinity curtails not only her behaviour but his as well. Ibsen's portrayal of Nora as worthy of more than her proscribed gender role is clear and well-meant – that is to say, there is no internal suggestion that this play is a satire, or that the playwright disagreed with its message. Although Nora's superficiality could convince a critic that Ibsen was mocking the idea of divorce – who, after all, would grant a divorce to a woman who is oblivious and a liar? – it seems more likely that he was supporting women entirely through this characterization. Even Nora, who is flighty and silly at times, deserves self-realization, and to be more than a “doll-wife” (III). She refers to her leaving as taking Torvald's “doll … away from [him]” (III), recognizing that the patriarchal values of nineteenth-century marriage have let him down as well as herself. It is scarcely surprising that A Doll's House was so shocking at the time of its writing, particularly because some of Nora's sentiments remain so today: the idea that women are humans, beyond the role of wife and mother, is still difficult for many people to comprehend. It is sad that Ibsen's play could not effect that drastic change in society, but with its solid message, it certainly contributed to a smaller one. References Cunningham, Lawrence S. and John J. Reich. (2010). Culture & Values, Volume II: A Survey of the Humanities with Readings. California: Wadsworth Cengage Publishing, 2009. Ibsen, Henrik. (1879). A Doll's House. Available from http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2542. Read More