Ibsens A Dolls House, Marriage and Society - Essay Example

of the of the Concerned English 1302 5 July Ibsen’s A Doll’s House: Marriage and Society Introduction A Doll’s House is a problem play or a thesis play. It does not, of course, offer any ready-made solution to the problem with which it deal, but a dramatist is not bound to offer solutions. Ibsen presents the problem and leaves the solution to the readers. The problem is: What is the position or status of a woman vis-a-vis her husband in her home? The play does not deal with the rights of women in general; nor does it advocate the emancipation of women in the sense in which one understands the word ‘emancipation’. It merely shows us the sad consequences of the subordination of a married woman to the control of her husband. The play focuses the reader’s attention on the conjugal life of a middle class couple and delineates the relationship existing between the husband and the wife and the possible consequences of that particular kind of relationship. The play deals with the predicament in which a married women finds herself on account of the excessive control which her husband exercises upon her; and it shows the method which the woman employs in order to get out of that predicament. Marriage is thus very much the theme of the play, and Ibsen therefore appears here as a dramatist of social realities (Westlund 568). The particular social reality which engages Ibsen’s attention in this play is marriage and the position which a married woman occupied in her home at the time when this play was written (Westlund 568). Ibsen is definitely on the side of Nora in this play; and she wins the sympathies of the readers also. Thus it would not be wrong to say that A Doll’s House is a feminist play, even though Ibsen himself refused to accept this description of the play (Whitson 182). Marriage and Women There was a definite background against which Ibsen wrote A Doll’s House. When the play was staged, it had the effect of a bombshell (Beyer 210). Today, of course, it is difficult for the readers to appreciate the sensation that the play caused. To the 19th century Europe, the idea of a woman violating her marriage vows and exhibiting a mind of her own by refusing to render unquestioning obedience to her husband was something entirely alien (Beyer 210). Of course, it is only at the end of the play that the refusal comes. Nora in the play not only defies her husband at the end but makes him look small. The very subject of the play was one which was bound to give rise to endless discussion. The play had a message for society; it sought to awaken a sense of individual responsibility among women. Whether Nora acted rightly or wrongly, naturally or unnaturally, in leaving her husband, her home and her children, in order to develop her own individuality, this was hotly debated by people after witnessing the play on the stage. It may seem to some that Ibsen in this play thinks too much of a woman’s rights and too little of her duties, but the thing to be kept in mind is that Ibsen was not dealing with the status of women in all its implications and in every context. His purpose in the play was limited. He wanted to show that if a woman was not allowed to establish her own identity and develop her own individuality, she could not be really happy (Rascoe 478). If Nora had continued to live with for ever under the conditions in which we find her living at the beginning of the play, she would have felt wretched and miserable, and even the normal duties of her life would have seemed irksome to her under those inhibiting conditions. The method which Nora adopts at the end to get out of her intolerable situation may appear to be destructive and may seem to be a threat to the stability of all homes and marriages; but Ibsen’s was to point out a particular weakness and flaw in the social fabric, and to leave constructive philosophies to others. He diagnosed the malady and left the cure to others. Nora, Treated like a Pet When the play opens the readers find that Nora has been, and still is, leading the life of a pet in her husband’s home. There is no doubt that her husband is very fond of her, but the endearing expressions that he employs when addressing her clearly show that he regards her as a kind of pet. There is left no doubt that he loves her, but it is the love of a superior for somebody lower in rank. This superior attitude which Helmer adopts towards Nora is also seen in his laying down of rules for running the house. He insists that she should exercise economy in spending money on household needs. It is very true that he gives this advice to her in a very gentle and loving manner, but he is very firm about it. He also advises her not to eat sweets because they would spoil her teeth. He reminds her that her father was a spendthrift and expresses the view that she had inherited her habit of extravagance from her father. Helmer no doubt has a possessive attitude towards Nora. He believes that Nora belongs to him wholly and solely, and he behaves accordingly. His treating her as a pet is only one manifestation of his attitude of possessiveness. When he gets into an amorous mood and wants to make love to her, he gazes at her longingly, saying that all her beauty and loveliness belong to him, and that she is entirely his possession. Perhaps Nora could have continued in her position of subordination if her expectations with regard to Helmer had not proved to be absolutely false. To her dismay Nora finds out that both Helmer’s love for her and his moral values had collapsed like a house of cards in the face of a crisis in their married life. Nora’s Quest for her Own Identity As a consequence of her discovery of Helmer’s true character, Nora decides to leave Helmer. When he tries to dissuade her from leaving him she gives him her reasons for leaving him. She tells him that first her father and then he had wronged her. Under the paternal roof, she had to adopt the opinions and views of her father; and under her husband’s roof she had to adopt the ideas and tastes of her husband: “It is perfectly true, Torvald. When I was at home with papa, he told me his opinion about everything, and so I had the same opinions; and if I differed from him I concealed the fact, because he would not have liked it. He called me his doll-child, and he played with me just as I used to play with my dolls And when I came to live with you- (Ibsen 74)” Finally she realizes that she had a mind of her own and she intends to establish her own identity, and in order to do so, she must educate herself. As for her duties to her husband and her children, there is one other duty which is more sacred, and that is her duty to herself. She is certainly a wife and a mother, but first and foremost she is an “individual”. When Helmer speaks to her of religion and morality, Nora replies that she does not really know what religion is and that when she has left her home and her husband, she would go into that matter also and would find out whether the teachings of religion are sound or not. As for morality and conscience, these things also seem to be confusing to her at that moment. Nora arrives at the conclusion that the laws of the society allowed a woman to spare her old father’s feelings on his death bed, and that these very laws allowed a woman to save the life of her husband who lat critically ill, but subsequently a woman is told that she is not allowed to do these things. But, Nora seemed to have understood her husband and her marriage too well and thus she refuses to carry on with them. Conclusion There is no doubt left in the minds of the readers that A Doll’s House is a feminist play. It advocates the rights of the women, and especially of wives in relation to their husbands. Though the play A Doll’s House is not directly intended to be about female emancipation, they play leads to the unavoidable conclusion that it is the sacred duty of every person, whether it is a man or a woman to find out the kind of person one really is, and to strive to actually become that person. Though Ibsen declared in his lifetime that A Doll’s House was never intended to be a feminist play, yet Ibsen’s such contentions do not alter the emotional and psychological impact of the play on the audience and readers. It is a woman’s predicament with which the play deals; it is the disillusionment of a wife that is the subject of the play; it is the drastic step taken by a wife with whom the play ends; and eventually it is a woman in the play who wins the audiences’ and readers’ maximum sympathy. Whatever may have been Ibsen’s professed intentions; the eventual and ultimate effect of the play is to arouse in the readers and the audience a great deal of sympathy for the cause of the women. A Doll’s House is a problem play woven around the theme of marriage, because it gives rise to a problem in the minds of the readers and the audience and it even suggests a possible solution to it, though it never emphasizes that solution and does not claim to be the only solution. Works Cited Beyer, Harald. A History of Norwegian Literature. New York: New York University Press, 1956. Ibsen Henrik. A Dolls’ House. New York: Dover Publications, 1992. Rascoe, Burton. The Titans of Literature: From Homer to Present. New York: GP Putnam’s Sons, 1932. Westland, Andrea C. “The Reunion of Marriage”. The Monist 91. 3-4 (2008): 558-568. Witson, Kathy J. The Encyclopedia of Feminist Literature. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2004. Read More