Hey
this is an essay i wrote on A Doll's house
the question was: Discourses evident within a text help to identify the social, historical, and/or cultural conditions in which a literately work is produced. Discuss with reference to A Doll’s House
we were also supposed to refer to feminism and marxism...
A recurring theme amongst Ibsen’s plays includes the social issue discussing the oppression of women by conventions limiting them to a domesticated life. This theme recurs amongst a range of Ibsen’s plays; including A doll’s house. Throughout the drama, Ibsen presents a reflection of the world around him, allowing for a universal approach to the text, while exploring the lives of character’s, whom are trapped by social constraints. Ibsen explores key aspects of society including Feminism and Marxism and the effect the deprivation of these can have upon individuals. A Dolls House represented the contextual issues of Norwegian society in the era of the plays publication; 1880s. Through the characteristics of control and deception and the analysis of discourse, Ibsen in a way scrutinizes the effects of social, and cultural conditions in society, declaring through I famous quote, ‘I am in revolt of against the age- old lie that the majority is always right’
The play débuted at the Royal Theatre in Copenhagen, Denmark on the 21st of December 1879, two weeks after it’s first publication. At the time of publication the play elicited much debate centered around the abrupt deviation from cultural and social stereotypes of it’s characters; in particular of the play’s protagonist; Nora. This debate was not limited wholly within Norwegian society, but was a universal occurrence. Subsequently, Ibsen was forced to provide an alternate ending by management in Germany, such that even the actor refused to play a woman who would not ‘want to see her children ’ and ‘cant stay here with you (her husband) any longer’. This path of thinking was an abrupt and shocking deviation from societies attitudes and values at the time. Harley Granville-Barker commented upon the play when it finally reached the London stage, stating, ‘the most dramatic even of the decade’. As it seemed, Nora’s abrupt departure from her doll’s house affected the mind of both sexes. The idea of feminism explores the notion of equality amongst sexes, in all of intellectual, economic and political forms. At the time of publication, it would have been an idea that highlights the degrading view of women, and their portrayal as the ‘other, of less significance’, in real world and literature. Since the 19th century, this focus has been shifted more away from women to a movement towards covering the degradation of both sexes equally. Prior to late 1800s, Norwegian society reflected it’s patriarchal stance through the subjugation of women. These restrictions were reflected alongside the reception of Nora’s actions by Mrs. Linde, ‘a wife can’t borrow money without her husband’s consent’. Alongside laws banning women from taking loans, women were also unable to file for divorce or vote. Exceptions to these laws were only permissible if the woman was acting under her male caretaker’s permission. Women were considered careless and incapable and thus dissolved of any power. Due to this, they were expected to stay home, urged by the stigmatization often subjected upon those who chose to deviate from society’s imposed restrictions. Ibsen further explores this aspect through Nora’s dialogue ‘I passed out of Daddy’s hands into yours (her husbands)’, illuminating the extent of the extreme patriarchy amongst society at the time. Ibsen powerfully highlight’s this idea, through Helmer’s declaration that women, in that society, were given one role, to be, ‘first and foremost, you are a wife and a mother’. It was not until 1888 that a law was passed, ending the authority of the husband over the wife. Ibsen’s intent upon the portrayal of women through ‘A Doll’s house’ was clear through some notes he had made, where he clearly highlighted the anomalous position of women in the prevailing patriarchal society, ‘A women (he wrote) cannot be herself in contemporary society; it is an exclusively male society with laws drafted by men, and with counsel judges who judge feminine conduct from the male point of view’*. In closing the door on her husband and children, Nora paved the way for the women’s movement, through her opposition of the expected norms in society.
Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis, an idea that ‘actions and human institutions are economically determined, that the class struggle is the basic agency of historical change’*2 The play opens on a scene where Nora enters with a bare Christmas tree, carrying a number of parcels and the proceeding discourse becomes evidence of Nora’s submission to commercialism, ‘Hide the Christmas tree away carefully, Helene. The children mustn’t see it till this evening when it is decorated’. Although a minor action, through a Marxist lens the need to dress the tree can be associated symbolically with commercialism, presenting Nora as one who is being forced to submit to socioeconomic standards. This Nora further exemplifies through her quote, ‘There’s a crown. Keep the change’. Though it is openly discussed between Nora and her husband that ‘this is the first Christmas they haven’t had to go carefully’ and implied that the family has had money issues in the past, Nora gives the money to the Porter and doesn’t ask for change. This is perhaps the first hint in the play societal thinking, during that era. Through this quote, Nora’s deludes the Porter of the low financial position of her family and gives the illusion that they are in a better condition than they actually are. This ornamentation of one’s socioeconomic status and an exemplification of the importance of it, is an everlasting theme amongst literature and subsequently, a reflection of society. According to this notion of Marxism, Nora has become overwhelmed by her surroundings to the extent that she feels no option but to submit to the patriarchal society.
Through-out the majority of the play Nora is portrayed as the subservient wife, ready to propitiate her husband, believing him the ‘head of the household’ and her caretaker. Ibsen portrays this social norm through her dialogue, ‘I would never dream of doing anything you didn’t want me to’. Though through the surrounding conversation by Helmer, ‘All right then! It’s really just my little joke’, and ‘I know that’, it can be deduced that she is saying this out of love, this phrase is a striking representation of society at the time. Ibsen creates a presentation of women as being unable to dream, let alone act upon thoughts that would potentially be against the wishes of their male counterparts; highlighting upon the extent of subjugation evident amongst society towards women, such that even ‘her’ dreams are being controlled and fine-lined to fit inside the boundaries of a patriarchal society. However it is not only Nora’s dialogue that becomes a reminder of a woman’s ‘place’, but also the dialogue of her husband, Helmer. Helmer has opted to utilize morality and honesty in order to achieve his success, both of which have been to some extent fruitful to him and thus, he is portrayed as the ‘pillar of society’. However, included in this pillar is the acceptance of Helmer’s superiority over Nora, an idea Helmer exercises through the way in which he addresses his wife. In the very first page of the play, he addresses Nora, ‘my little sky-lark chirping’ and in the proceeding pages, ‘my little squirrel frisking’ and ‘my pretty little pet’. Upon analysis of these nicknames it is evident of their substandard connotation. In all, he refers to her as an animal, substantiating society’s view of women as the ‘lesser’. Ibsen artfully couples each animal name with a verb to allow Helmer to accentuate his superiority over Nora. The extent of this superiority is realized to audiences later when Nora herself begins calling herself ‘it’; ‘we call it a spendthrift’. This discourse perhaps takes another level of subjugation, through likening Nora, a woman, with an inanimate object that has no feelings or personal thoughts. Through the symbolism of referring Nora to an object, Ibsen’s society is articulately reflected, through the positioning of women to be ‘conscious-less’. More astounding than this is the ease at which Nora refers to herself as an ‘it’, highlighting that this discourse would have been a common occurrence. Thus, through this, Helmer surreptitiously reminds Nora of her place as the ‘working wife’ and the ‘sacrificer’, so that when the time comes Helmer is in the domineering position to give his wife everything, except that which society at the time restricted him from giving; ‘Helmer: I would gladly work night and day for you. Nora- bear sorrow and want for your sake. But no …………man would sacrifice his honor for the.one he loves.
Nora: It is a thing hundreds of thousands of women have done.”
Ibsen enhances the lack of feminism through careful use of discourse to portray certain character traits amongst his characters that, at the era of production would have been viewed as flaws and a retardation from societal norms. To cope with the behavioral boundaries imposed from society, certain character’s placed strategies in which to cope, one of these strategies being ‘control’. Examples of character’s attempting to control their environment are a frequent occurrence throughout the play, catalyzed primarily by their subjugation and victimization. Though Nora openly stated, ‘I would never dream of doing anything you didn’t want me to’, as the play progresses she disregards Helmer’s wishes on spending less money, eating sweets and paying for her husband’s treatment. Perhaps the primary example of Nora’s need to control her environment is the reason she takes her husband on holiday. Nora believed that Helmer was in dire need of a vacation, despite Helmer making it clear that he didn’t want to go, ‘(when Nora presented the idea), ‘being frivolous, that it was his duty as a husband not to give in to all the whims and fancies of mine’. Despite this reluctance on Helmer’s part, decides to hide the true extent of her husband’s illness from him and insists on taking him, ‘It was necessary he should have no idea what a dangerous condition he was in. It was to me that the doctors came and said that his life was in danger, and that the only thing to save him was to live in the south. Do you suppose I didn't try, first of all, to get what I wanted as if it were for myself?’ This excerpt portrays Nora’s nature, and the resultant effect of her suppression. Nora, in taking a loan out, was ready to ‘take the law into her own hands’ and becoming a ‘hypocrite, a liar, and worse than that, a criminal! Mr’s Linde is also shocked when she hears of Nora’s actions;
‘Mrs Linde: Listen, Nora, are you sure you haven’t done something rash?
Nora: Is it rash to save your husband’s life?
Mrs Linde: I think it’s rash if you do it without his knowledge’
It is evident through discourse, that Nora is still oblivious to the illegality of her actions and has little comprehension of the magnitude of misfortune she may be in. Conversely, the exchange becomes an illumination of Nora’s frame of thinking; for her, any method she may take to reach a particular end point is justified if the desired end point ensues. Her approach to this dilemma is to control the situation, through bypassing any consultation that may result in an idea contradictory to her’s. Her statement, ‘‘I would never dream of doing anything you didn’t want me to’ become seemingly more and more implausible as the play progresses. Despite Nora’s autarchic actions, she remains un-punished. This however, changes following Nora’s fraudulent actions and her subsequent treatment of Krogstad, which prompts him to write a letter to Helmer with the intention of disclosing his wife’s actions. It is at this stage another one of Nora’s controlled situation’s emerges and Nora, out of desperation searches for ways to prevent Hemler from opening the letterbox and learning of her secret. Ibsen portrays the ghastly effects of the subjugation upon women, through an exploration of the side-effect of deception. Nora, when practicing her dance turns the situation to her advantage, by deterring her husband from checking the letter-box were Krogstad had placed the letter;
‘Nora: What are you going to do there?
Helmer: Only see if any letters have come.
Nora: No, no! Don’t do that, Torvald!
Helmer: Why not?
Nora: Torvald, please don't. There aren’t any.
Helmer: Just let me see’
Subsequently, Nora successfully gains her husband’s attention and she begins to dance so wildly that he has to tell her, ‘Not so Fast! Not so Fast!’ and ‘Not so wild, Nora!’ Perhaps the most important discourse Ibsen utilises to present the desperation of Nora and her subsequent need to control, is portrayed through, ‘Nora you are dancing as if your life depended on it’, to which she replies, ‘it does’. This discourse accurately portrays the position of women amongst society at the time, and more importantly, the position of the wife. The negative consequences of the patriarchal society become evident as Nora finds that her ‘life depended’ upon keeping her actions a secret and ensuring her husband never discovers her mistake, and thus devises a stratagem to cover-up the action, reflecting the austere expectations for women to fit the role of the innocent and be the perfect wife, to the extent that Nora described it as a matter of life. Subjecting woman to these extreme conditions for large interludes can be described as the cause of Nora’s controlling tendencies. From a post-feministic view-point is can be concluded that Ibsen, through the use of discourse presented his society with a reflection of itself, with the intention of illustrating the resultant effects of this severe subjugation, and thus, in doing so, Ibsen not only provides a description of society at the time, but also explores the resultant future effects of the hierarchal society; in which women were enforced to conceive severe processes to cope.
Deception is a peculiarity often associated profoundly to control, and thus becomes another subterfuge through which Ibsen echoes societal values. Ibsen articulately incorporates deception within A Doll’s house, to create a replication of the deleterious features of society and the coping mechanism’s women in the 19th century adopted as a means of survival. This innate characteristic of deception is evident within the opening of the play and becomes the first test of Nora’s honesty; a test that she fails. Helmer repeatedly makes it clear that he doesn’t approve of Nora ‘popping into the confectioner’s’. Upon Nora’s return Helmer immediately questions her as to if she ‘forgot herself in town?’ and ‘Hasn’t miss sweet-tooth been breaking rules in town today?’ Nora immediately denies this, ‘no I assure you Trovold’ despite audiences later observing that she ‘takes the bag out of her hand’, and offers them to Dr. Rank, stating, ‘what about a little macaroon?’ To this, even the doctor questions her, ‘I thought they (referring to the mararoons) were forbidden here’. Through this discourse, Ibsen divulges that after eight years of marriage in a patriarchal society, Nora has developed strategies in which to be able to follow her likes and dislikes, while concurrently keeping her husband happy. This was a direct portrayal of 19th century Norwegian society, where women were expected to give up many of their personal preferences in order to please their husbands. Though it may be possible to overlook the ‘little white lies’, some of Nora’s deception, however, has larger consequences. Another example of Nora’s deception appears again in an interaction between Helmer;
‘Helmer; Do you remember last Christmas? Three whole weeks beforehand you shut yourself up every evening till after midnight making flowers for the Christmas tree and all the other splendid things you wanted to surprise us with. Ugh, I never felt so bored in all my life.
Nora: I wasn’t the least bit bored.
Helmer (smiling). But it turned a bit of an anticlimax, Nora.’
The audience then learns the truth about what Nora was actually doing when she ‘shut yourself up every evening’ a few passages later through her conversation with her friend Mrs. Linde, ‘Last winter I was lucky enough to get a lot of copying to do; so I locked myself up and sat writing every evening until quite late at night’ . Despite Nora’s justification for these lies to be of a good nature, her deceptive nature is still evident. One deceptive act translates into another, and Nora’s nature changes completely as she attempts to cope with the cultural and social values of society. The danger of Nora’s deception, however, is not fully recognized until another conversation with Mr’s. Linde when she asks, ‘Won’t you ever tell him?’, to which Nora replies, ‘perhaps one day’ and ‘Then it might be a good idea to have something up my sleeve’. It is evident through this dialogue that Nora feels no guilt or humiliation in the lengths she goes to, to achieve her way. Thus, through discourse, Ibsen once again proves Nora’s adaptability to her environment; she has learned to survive and control a situation, from the position of the beleaguered and subservient wife.
Throughout the progression of the play, Nora’s little lies continue and audiences are given the impression that she may be habitual liar, a trait even Helmer discovers;
Helmer: Has anyone been here?
Nora: Here? No.
Helmer: That’s funny. I saw Krogstad leaving the house.
Nora: Really? Yes, that’s right, Krogstad was here for a minute.
It becomes evident through this discourse, that Nora has made a routine of lying, to a magnitude that she doesn’t need to think twice on lying to serve her own purpose, even to those closest to her. This demeanor endures throughout the play, climaxing in Act 3, at what time Nora makes the final assertion of her departure. Though this scene brought on enthusiastic welcome from many feminists throughout time, a deeper look, indicates the real dark reason of the ‘doll’s’ abrupt departure from her house. The survival strategies Nora originally employed have evidently failed her, however, instead of changing her ways, Nora adapts to her new situation through careful modification of her strategies. She does this through the monopolisation of discourse and an obstinate repudiation to discuss the reasons for her departure. Nora then departs from her untenable situation, declaring; ‘I must stand on my own two feet if I'm to get to know myself and the world outside. That's why I can't stay here with you any longer.’ Thus, through an articulate utilization of discourse, Ibsen presents the 19th century woman as immature and deceitful, however also displays that as time passes she becomes more able to decide what it best for her. Ibsen reveals and discusses the social and cultural position of women in his context and the innate resultant instinct of survival some developed in order to achieve some happiness in the strictly patriarchal society. This progression of Nora, developing from the submissive wife who, on the surface, obeyed her husbands ‘commands’, to the emergence on a ‘new Nora’; a women who decided to place herself first, is a direct symbolism of Ibsen’s society through the exploration of the concept of feminism and it’s growth some decades proceeding A Doll’s House.
Ibsen corroborates, through the accentuation of discourse, that Norwegian society during the 19th century was manifested by a severe patriarchal stance. Ibsen highlight’s the effects of this frame of thinking through the deviation of ‘stereotypical’ behaviors in relation to gender, namely, Nora’s infatuation with control and deceit to escape the entrapment and subjugation placed heavily upon females. A Dolls House is a reflection of the social and cultural norms as it deals with prominent issues that occurred during 19th century; discussing not only society’s conditions but also the resultant effects upon the subjugated.
Home
Help
Search
Login
