Feminism is recognized as advocacy of female rights in politics, economy, and education that requires equality with male rights in all fields. In the past, men were perceived as superior gender compared to women, and, therefore, females struggled in fighting for their rights. Ibsen wrote A Doll’s House at times of significant changes regarding women’s rights enabling them to control their funds and enter higher educational establishments. By and whole, Ibsen presented the female suffering in the battle for equality with men in the face of Nora who was portrayed as a true feminist role model.
Ibsen includes in his book the evident norms of the patriarchal society. To be more exact, the main female character, Nora, is given her roles, such as daughter, wife, and mother, by men that surround her daily. In addition, the name of the book, A Doll’s House, implies the place that she was trapped in while being married to her husband (Meyer 1257). Furthermore, Nora sees herself as a doll manipulated by Torvald, who does not let her leave this dollhouse.
However, Nora realizes her self-worth and starts fighting for her rights as her husband claims that her duties are only to him and his children, “I have other duties just as sacred … to myself” (Ibsen, 2020, p. 314). Consequently, she decides to leave the house and her family due to her being tired of such an attitude (Meyer 1259). By and whole, this part of the story is the beginning of Nora’s feminism journey and the battle for earning respect from men.
Furthermore, the norms of the patriarchal society are included in Torvald’s attitude to Nora. Nora’s husband does not consider her to be his equal and, therefore, dehumanizes her by calling his wife various pet names, “Is it my little squirrel bustling about?” (Ibsen, 2020, p. 9; Meyer 1262). In addition, Nora is surrounded by females who sacrificed their selves to follow society’s norms. For instance, her nanny abandoned her husband and children to care for her to earn money for providing for her loved ones.
Similarly, Nora unconsciously replicates the stories of her female examples as she also does not protect her own desires and wishes and puts all her effort into marriage and motherhood. Nevertheless, Torvald does not recognize Nora as a fit person to teach his children, “I shall not allow you to bring up the children; I dare not trust them to you” (Ibsen, 2020, p. 242). To conclude, by presenting Nora in this way, Ibsen portrays feminism through her while her husband, Torvald, is recognized as a follower of patriarchic social norms.
Moreover, Nora’s primary wish is freedom: from titles, obligations, and stereotypes. Therefore, she seeks her true self away from her home and family. Still, she has a strong character since she decides to save her husband without judging him for his attitude. Nora aims to express her opinion regarding the same rights and abilities that women have when caring for family and children. She rejects the social norm of females being only mothers and wives, which obviously requires bravery and confidence. As a result, it seems that Nora is a true example of a strong feminist woman who is not afraid to protect herself against men and thrives to become the person she truly is (Meyer 1266). By and whole, the main female character represents the traits that women need to acquire in order to be equal with men.
To sum up, A Doll’s House presents the harsh life of the mother and wife, Nora, who is trapped with her husband with no choices and goals. Her community and society blindly follow the social norms of men being superior, smarter, and more robust. However, Nora finds her strength to battle such stereotypes and be her true self away from home and family. Overall, Nora is portrayed with the vital traits that help her overcome this inequality and shows people nowadays the real struggles of females and how they should behave to earn their freedom.
Works Cited
Ibsen, Henrik. A Doll’s House. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2020.
Meyer, Michael. “A Critical Case Study: Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House.” The Compact Bedford Introduction to Literature, 7th ed., Boston, Saint Martin’s Press, 2006, pp. 1257–1267.
The main theme in a Doll’s House play is feminist of the time. Nora and Helmer is a model husband and wife, living in peace and harmony in their family until Mrs. Linde, an older friend to Nora made a visit in their home in search of a job. Nora manages to secure a job for Mrs. Linde, but unfortunately pushes Mr. Krogstad an accused forger out of his job. Generally, in this play Henrik Ibsen pointedly captures the inferior role of women in Victorian society through his doll motif.
The play ‘A Doll’s House’ is one of the controversial plays, where Nora’s decision actions to dump her kids is contradictory to her thoughts as she thinks that her kids need her more than she needs her own freedom. The author of the play believed that women were made to be mothers and wives.
Moreover, he brings some idea of having an eye for the injustice on the female characters. Although, feminists would later hold him, Ibsen was not an activist of women’s rights; he only handled the problem of women’s right as an aspect of realism within the play.
The key theme of this play is Nora’s insurgence against society and everything that was really expected of her (Ibsen 140). During her era, women were not expected to be self-reliant but were to remain supportive to their husbands, take care of the kids, cook, clean, and make everything perfect around the house.
When Nora took a loan to pay for her husband’s medical bill, this raised a lot of questions and problems in the minds of many individuals from the community, as it was taken as act against the community norms for women to take up a loan without their husbands’ knowledge.
She proved that she was not submissive and helpless as her husband Torvalds thought she was. Thus the author referred her as “poor helpless little creature.” A good example of Torvald thought control and Nora’s submissiveness was when she got him to remind her tarantella, she knew the dance style but she acted as if she needed him to re-teach her everything.
When he said to her “watching you swing and dance the tarantella makes my blood rush” (Ibsen 125), this clearly shows that he is more interested in her physically than emotionally. Then when asked him to stop he said to her, “am I not your husband?” once more this is another example of Torvald’s control over Nora, and how he thinks that Nora is there to fulfill his every desire on command.
Marriage
Marriage is another aspect that the play addresses; the main message seems to be that, a true working marriage is a joining of equals. In the beginning, Helmers looks happy but as the play progress, the imbalance between them becomes apparent. At the end, their marriage breaks because of lack of misunderstanding among them. They fail to realize themselves and to act as equals. (Johnston 671)
Women and Feminist
Throughout the play, Nora breaks away from the control of her arrogant husband, Torvald. The playwright, Ibsen denies that he wrote a feminist play. Still, throughout the play there is steady talk of women, their traditional roles, and price for them of defying with the traditions. (Johnston 570)
Men and masculinity
Men in this play are trapped by general traditional gender responsibilities. They are seen as the chief providers of the family and they should be in charge of supporting the entire household. Men must be the perfect kings of their respective palace. We see these traditional ideas put across at the end of the play.
Respect and Reputation
The men in this play are occupied with their reputation. Some men have the integrity in their society and do anything to protect it. Even if the play setup is in a living room, the public eye is portrayed through the curtains.
Money
In within the play, ‘A Doll’s House’, the characters spend a lot of time discussing their wealth. Some characters are financially stable and promise for a free flowing money in the future while others struggle to make the end meet. (Ibsen 132)
Love
Love has been given a priority in the play where good time has been used on the topic but in the end, Helmers realize that there was their no true love between them. Romantic love is seen for two of the other characters, but for the main character, true love is pathetic (Ibsen 200).
Dramatic irony
There are some examples in the play where this aspect is used, in Act 1 where Torvald condemns Krogstad for forgery and not coming forward. He also mentions that this action corrupts children’s mind. As a reader, you should know that this is very important to Nora because we know that she had committed forgery in the play and kept it a secret from Torvald. (Johnston 603)
It’s ironic when Torvald says that he pretends Nora is in some kind of trouble, and he waits the time he can rescue her. When the truth is known and Torvald has been given a chance to save Nora, he is all concerned with his reputation (Ibsen 128).
He abused her by calling her names such as featherbrain; he is not interested with rescuing Nora is interested on how he escapes out of this mess without affecting his reputation negatively. Then, when krogstad brings back the IOU document, Torvald shouts that he is rescued and he has forgiven Nora. Ironically, he did not even consider that she had borrowed the money earlier to save him.
Christmas and New Year
The play is set during the holiday period. Its Christmas period for the Helmers and New Year celebration is approaching. Both Christmas and New Year are associated with rebirth and renewal (Johnston 589).
Several characters in the play go through a rebirth process both Nora and Torvald go through a spiritual awakening, which can be taken as a rebirth. When things fail to happen, she realizes that it will not be possible for her to be a fully realized person until she divorces her husband. Finally, at the end of the play Helmer and Nora have been reborn.
Works Cited
Ibsen, Henrik. A Doll’s House. London: Methuen Drama, 2000. Print.
Ibsen, Henrik. A Doll’s House. London: Faber and Faber, 1997. Print.
Johnston, Brian. Ibsen has Selected Plays: A Norton Critical Edition. New York: W.W. Norton, 2004. Print.
A Doll’s House is an outstanding drama created by famous Norwegian writer Henrik Ibsen in 1879. A master of realistic narration, Ibsen touches on the issue of living within illusions and their disclosure. An illusion cannot last forever. One day something happens that makes a sincere, sweet-tempered young woman say, “I don’t believe any longer in wonderful things happening” (A Doll’s House 114). It is interesting to analyze Ibsen’s drama in the historic context, considering its value for the further development of literature and the evolution of society.
The end of the XIXth century brought a flowering of the drama genre. Dramatic literature of this period was called by the contemporaries the “new drama”, which highlighted substantial changes in the genre. It arose in the atmosphere of cult of science, caused by rapid development of natural science, philosophy and psychology. It became an alternative to the classic dramas, which were mainly well-written, but far from reality, and touched the most burning issues for contemporary society. Henrik Ibsen, Maurice Maeterlinck, Emile Zola, Johan Strindberg, Bernard Shaw became the fathers of the new stage in dramatic literature. When Henrik Ibsen made his first steps in literature, Norwegian art was embraced with a flavor of national romanticism. His first works of literature were also created in romantic style. In 1849 he wrote his first romantic drama Catiline (Ibsen 2008), and his following oeuvre was also created in a romantic manner. The philosophic drama “Peer Gynt” (Ibsen 2003) became the highest point of his romantic literature work. However, the 1870s brought dramatic changes into Ibsen’s style: the author turned to the realistic manner of writing and focused on the burning issues of contemporary society. This period became his conversion from a fairy tail to a daily routine, from illusion to reality. Ibsen became a desperate fighter against the numerous unhealthy tendencies and illusions dominating in society. He chose his literature work as a weapon in this struggle, and reformed his style in terms of both manner and matter.
The protagonist of A Doll’s House Nora Helmer seemed to have everything she could only dream about: a wealthy husband, charming children, and a house, where she feels as safe as behind a stone wall. However, a slight breath of trouble and misunderstanding was enough to destroy the fragile doll’s house of illusive happiness. At first a Helmers’ couple seems to be perfect and exemplary: an attentive, housewifely woman, who spares no effort to make pleasure to a family, and her husband, who has a decent position and showers a woman with words of tenderness. Nevertheless, a reader quickly recognizes the inflection of Helmer’s endearment: we see that his attitude to his wife is nothing more than neglect and disdain. However, he has built a cage for his “skylark”, and this order is convenient to him:
And I would not wish you to be anything but just what you are, my sweet little skylark (A Doll’s House 12).
During the years of their life together, Nora also adopted the established order: she repents “breaking the rules’ ‘ of buying macaroons and asks her husband’s permission in every action. At the same time, Helmer could hardly call himself despotic: in his eyes, these restrictions were nothing more than display of his care for a light-minded, untroubled woman. Not accidentally, a word “little” sounds so often in his speech. This leads us to a thought that both characters lived in illusion about each other and their roles in the family. Nora got used to her doll’s house and admits, “I can’t hit upon anything that will do; everything I think of seems so silly and insignificant” (A Doll’s House 44). She became nothing but a little squirrel in the hands of her husband. Expectedly, to change the settled order meant to crash the illusion. “No, a wife cannot borrow without her husband’s consent”, says Nora (A Dolls House 22), and this dropped phrase sounds like a short summary of their family order, which defines their roles and attitude. And this statement turned out to be a challenge, which opened Nora’s eyes upon the illusion which she lived in.
In his critical review to A Doll’s House, George Bernard Shaw, Ibsen’s “colleague” in setting new standards in contemporary drama, summarized the ruin of both characters’ illusion:
Her doll’s dress is thrown off and her husband left staring at her, helpless, bound thenceforth either to do with her … or else treat her as a human being like himself, fully recognizing that he is not a creature of one superior species, Man, living with a creature of another and inferior species, Woman, but that Mankind is male and female, like other kinds (Egan 376).
However, the question of illusion debunk is considered in Ibsen’s drama not only on a level of family relations. He watches and describes the atmosphere of all-absorbing illusion in the society, drawing attention to the rights and destiny of a woman in it. This illusion had been existing in society for centuries and was invisible until eminent public figures and art workers drew attention to it. The core of this illusion is a woman’s position in society, with her rights and responsibilities. In many societies, including Norwegian, a woman was considered to be a housekeeper, serving the needs of her family. Instead, she was considered to receive a “stone wall” of comfort and prosperity from her husband. Through his A Doll’s House, Ibsen contributed much to the issue of women’s rights. He analyzed what a woman had in effect, when she became a hostage of a strict family order. Expectedly, what she had in fact was much less than a human being has a right to obtain. Can a wall built for a woman in order to fence her off the reality be considered a real protection to her? As wee see from the drama’s plot, it can hardly do it. Nora did not avoid facing to severe reality in order to save her family, having committed a crime. In her review for the drama, Henrietta Frances Lord marks:
When Helmer said he would work night and day for his wife, his were no empty words… He would deprive her but of one thing – reality. How could he claim to be a “real man”, he would say, if he gave it to her? And he so far succeeds in unfitting her for action, that when she takes upon herself to meddle in realities, she immediately commits a crime. He gives her everything but his confidence… (Egan 59).
Being protected from reality, having no responsibility but housekeeping, a woman could not build any foundation for her future. She had no education, no experience in work and in everyday life. She could not even have friends or good connections, “Torvald is so absurdly fond of me that he wants me absolutely to himself, as he says. At first he used to seem almost jealous if I mentioned any of the dear folk at home, so naturally I gave up doing so” (A Doll’s House 53). In the drama, we see an example of Christine Linde, a widow, whose husband left her no capital, no children, and no sense of living. After decades of suppressed, obedient existence, she has to start her life from the very beginning. It is not difficult to guess that Nora Helmer will face the same destiny when leaving her doll’s house. “I am going to see if I can make out who is right, the world or I”, says “a little skylark” in the touching final stage of the play (A Doll’s House 109). In fact, the end of the drama is the beginning of the story for the protagonist; however, the author does not give a hint to a reader, leaving a space for his imagination.
It is interesting to analyze, how the components of dramatic structure are used by Ibsen as the tools of fulfilling his idea. Having brought dramatic changes into the content, Ibsen does not change the traditions of drama’s composition, keeping the classical unities of time, place and action in A Doll’s House. The characters in the drama are to some extent sketchy. A reader can hardly find some details about the characters’ past, interests. In fact, they are not the personalities, but the character types. This is a deliberate device used by the author in order to show the prevalence of the order described in the play. We cannot see any details of setting in the drama, which also contributes to the impression of the story’s sketchiness. The only prop which figures often in the dialogues is a Christmas Tree, which finally turned into a symbol of Nora’s bitter disappointment. As for language and phrasing in drama, Ibsen also adapted the way of narration in his drama to his aim of creating vivid, recognizable picture. The characters do not talk in verse, like they did in Peer Gynt (Ibsen 2003); we can notice absence of monologues, remarks to the audience and inflated style of speech, like in the most “old” dramas. Ibsen’s unmasking drama should create the atmosphere of reality. Ibsen renounces traditional plots based on a love conflict; instead, he tells about unhealthy tendencies in the society. Despite the figure of protagonist is obvious, it is impossible to define an antagonist as a single person. Indeed, who can be called a villain in this story? Helmer is plunged deep into his own illusion, and his intent is well-wishing. Krogstad’s intrigue has a mission of a trigger for the whole situation. As, according to the theory of drama, an antagonist can be presented as a person, a group, a thing, or a force (supernatural or natural) (McMahan 736), it is naturally to assume, that Ibsen presented the social problems as a non-material antagonist, which penetrates invisibly into one’s life and destroys it from inside; however, it cannot be recognized until it is raised by a certain prerequisite.
Ibsen and other fathers of contemporary drama enriched World literature with the tradition of talking about illusions and their disclosure. In the XXth century, with its social reforms, economic depressions and two World Wars, this issue became extremely topical. Arthur Miller in Death of a Salesman (1998) and Tennessee Williams in The Glass Menagerie (1999) talk about confrontation between an individual living in illusion and society; Yevgeny Zamiatin in We (1952) and George Orwell in Nineteen Eighty-Four (2004) describe all-absorbing illusions suppressing the whole mankind. Destroying illusions and showing core reality raised literature to a level above simple entertainment. By his works, Ibsen encourages a reader not to be afraid to search his face and vocation in his life, and to see, “who is right, the world or I”.
—–. Early Plays: Catiline, The Warrior’s Barrow, Olaf Liljekrans. CA: Mcmaster Press, 2008. Print.
——. Peer Gynt. Mineola, NY : Dover Publications, 2003. Print.
Mahan Mc, Elizabeth, Suzan X Day, and Robert Funk Literature and the Writing Process. 8th edition. Print.
Miller, Arthur, and Christopher Bigsby. Death of a salesman: Certain Private Conversations in Two Acts and a Requiem. New York, NY: Penguin, 1998. Print.
As the world continues to usher in new generations, social, economic, and other demographic changes emerge. The current literature and empirical studies have focused on the significant socio-economic issues such as youth and development, women empowerment, gender parity, and empowerment of physically and mentally challenged.
According to Bempechat (43), family and youth studies, have continuously revolved around youth, children, or even teenagers with drug menace and parental responsibilities being at the centre stage.
Some researchers have argued that parental or family setting heavily influences the behavioral characteristics of individuals, while others believe acquaintances and peer group influence behaviors in children. Children behaviors and family responsiveness to the life of children has now dominated public debates, research studies, and the media as religious organizations and human rights organizations seem more worried about the issue.
Unfortunately, some parents have become failed role models in the society, which puts the future generation at risk because poorly mentored children translates to a poor and weak future generation. This essay seeks to investigate if parents have really become failed role models as shown in A Doll’s House and Fight Club.
A Doll’s House and Fight Club
A close look at the story of A Doll’s House reveals pertinent issues surrounding family matters pertaining to immorality and extravagancy as demonstrated by Nora (Ibsen 10). Two important women characters stand out in this play. Nora, the wife to Torvald Helmer and Christine Linde, a childless widow, are both seen desperately squandering money from other men outside the wedlock, and thus they commit adultery through secret affairs.
Surviving through controversial loans and secretly hiding money from her husband, Nora portrays childish behaviors to a point where her husband disregards her as the mother to his children. On the other hand, Fight Club, a 1996 masterpiece novel, brings an important theme about men’s lifestyles including drinking and drug taking. The characters in the novel become careless alcohol takers and engage in fights that form fight clubs spreading their dirty behaviors across the city.
Parents and children’s behavior
Human studies have significantly concluded that the environment in which human beings live is quite influential on their behavioral characteristics. This assertion explains the reasons behind changes experienced in different stages of human growth and development. In specific attention to children’s growth, family set up is a significant environment that influences children’s growth behavior.
Drawing lessons learnt from the two novels mentioned-above, the mannerism found in the parent’s dishonest and immoral affair practiced by the two women, and the behaviors found in Norton, Marla, and Tyler, children are likely to emulate their parent’s attributes (Palahniuk 10).
Since the attributes found in them form negative images in children, this consequently affects their growth behavior as well as their academic performance, which has remained paramount for the success of the children. Based on the novels, this study investigates the extent to which parents have failed at being good role models in the aspect of drug taking and sexual habits.
Parents and drug taking in children
Considerable research evidence has cited parents’ social interaction with their children as the most influential factor in children’s cognitive and behavioral development (Bempechat 31). Focusing on drug taking and drug trafficking, which have become major issues in the public domain, parents play a crucial role as immediate role models that compose children’s nearest environment.
Parents are always quite aware of the dangers of consuming drugs and alcohol. However, due to their personal issues, especially socioeconomic issues that compel them into indulging into drug and substance abuse, they finally expose their children into drugs.
Westernized parents, viz. describing parents with modern culture, seems to be rapidly consuming important traditional virtues and has led to serious defection of acceptable social norms. The western culture tends to divert parents into adopting poor living habits that make them to forget their parental responsibilities, thus fostering their children according to the changes living styles.
Empirical evidences obtained from several research studies reveal that parents have become failed role models, as they form an immediate environment for growth and development of children. A study conducted by Buchanan and Corby shows a growing trend in drug abuse in the United Kingdom according to estimates drawn from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), which unveiled that between 250,000 and 350,000 children have at most one parent seriously doing drug (5).
Amongst the children in such households, over forty percent of them have already tested drugs, mainly due to imitating parent’s behavior. Subsequently, children continuously become accustomed to drug taking as they find personal solutions to accessing drugs.
Parents addicted to drug taking, when questioned, they tend to be antagonistic and resentful, and normally consider intervention by activists as unfair judgment towards drug taking. This aspect empowers children into continuing with drug taking and finally to older stages, most probably drug trafficking itself.
Compared to other parental social influences on children’s cognitive and social development, drug abuse is more likely to result from influence from parents. Parents in the story of the Fight Club demonstrate how they often expose their children into drug and alcohol taking, as they turn irresponsible, moving around from one club to another thus increasing their alcohol consumption (Palahniuk 7).
Research conducted by Buchanan and Corby concluded that in the western society, pleasures and leisure attribute greatly to the exposure of children towards the use of alcohol and tobacco, something which parents have continuously become used thus consequently exposing their children to drugs (1).
The drinking culture of parents revealed in the story of the Fight Club underscores the elements that increase children’s exposure to alcohol and drug taking. Either through the aggressiveness found in children or the deliberate introduction of children to alcohol is always a failure in parents as role models.
Apart from constant drinking behavior in parents found in the story of Fight Club, adults in the novel engage in serious club fighting, behavior that finds it way into the house. Writing from personal experience, the author of the Fight Club extracted his ideas primarily from his parent’s behaviors, which culminated into a divorce when he was fourteen years old.
Ardelt and Day argue that the influence of parents does not disappear completely as one enters adolescence, but successful adjustment during adolescence can depend on the degree of the available social and emotional support provided by parents or family members.
Parents’ engagement in drug doing thus remains significant to the rest of the children life by playing a substantial role in the future of children. Taking example from parental traits found in the Fight Club novel, parents have demonstrated failure in their role modeling to children.
Parents and sexual/immorality behaviors
Parents have also played a significant role in determining the morality of children. As parents provide a composer to their immediate environment, moral attributes found in them consequently influence children’s behavior. Therefore, parents’ immorality and sexual behaviors lead to children engaging in early sex, thus resulting to early pregnancies eminent in the modern world. Ideally, several empirical researches have proven that problems of sexual immorality in children mostly result from single parenthood under stiff economic ties.
According to research by Withers, examining the position of single mothers in fostering children reveal that single mothers “face accusation of maternal neglect, providing inadequate discipline and poor role modeling of their children” (47). In most cases, children are subject to maltreatment resulting to poor growth as parents broadly engage in sexual activities in the presence of their children. Of the reported pregnant cases involving adolescents and children, majority of them happen in single parents households.
In the light of sexual immorality,the story of A Doll’s House is a complete copy of what people can describe as parents portraying a character of failed role models.
The character portrayed by Nora and the old widow reveals that parents play an important role in the morality of their children (Ibsen 11). In their conversation with the old widow, the character of Nora stands out as extravagant and contemptuously immoral. She struggles all the way through to ensure that she obtains money from other admirers at the expense of her husband’s health as a scapegoat.
The careless attitude in Nora is likely to influence children, as a mother and the only person close to them. According to empirical studies conducted by Withers, women desperately engage in dirty behaviors including immorality at the expense of helping their families (51), something that soon manifests in children as they try to emulate their behaviors.
Ethnographic studies across social and cultural behaviors conducted on women indicate that women, being the parents with closest relationship with their children, greatly influence their social structure. “Women who engage in illegal or deviant behaviors such as prostitution or forgery” (Ardelt and Day 315), consequently influence the behaviors of either their children or fellow siblings.
Following pressure from social and economic factors, parents tend to find means of survival for their children especially those born outside the wedlock. Due to poor background and lack of proper parental nurturing, children grow up with moral behaviors taped from their parents or even from peer group pressure because of parent’s failure.
According to a study conducted by Thompson and Kelly-Vance, over 52 per cent out of students performing dismally in academics come from poor backgrounds of single parents (231). However, the rest of the students also perform dismally despite having both parents, probably with poor behaviors.
Extravagancy is probably a conduct that children tend to adopt from their parents. As demonstrated in the play, A Doll’s House, Nora finds herself in complete danger due to her extravagancy, something she has failed to teach her children. The ethos of motherhood that she should possess erodes away due to her immorality, something that she feels no shame about.
The childish behavior found in Nora completely reveals how some parents have become failed role models. According to Ardelt and Day, “in most families, parents are role models for their children and the primary agents of socialization for social attitudes and behaviors” (319).
Submissive to their parents, children find it difficult to behave differently from their parents despite the fact that they interact with different people. Behaviors found in the parents of both stories underscore parents’ irresponsibility and unanticipated role models and any imitation by the children consequently to indiscipline in children.
Conclusion
Parents and their parental nurturing behaviors tend to influence their children’s characters. The two stories, viz. A Doll’s House and Fight Club are perfect examples of parents that form bad icons and inspirations, which is an eminent aspect in the current world. The extravagancy found in Nora and her immoral behaviors possibly create a bad image for their children, something that children are most likely to emulate and become accustomed to as they grow.
Sexual immorality and drug abuse are common problems that the public is facing as the number of early pregnancies, death from drug fights, and infection from sexually transmitted diseases is on the rise. Based on empirical evidence, parents form an integral part of their children’s cognitive and social development, which clearly provides evidence that poor social behaviors found in parents are likely to affect their children.
As parents consume and predispose their children to using illicit drugs as a leisurely thing, it is increasingly becoming a dangerous trend in changing and shaping the important cultural aspects in the children. Parents will only instill proper discipline in children by proving that they have good behaviors.
Therefore, if parents will not reconsider their behaviors especially while interacting with their children, drug taking and immorality in the society may further become uncontrollable in the future, as today’s children form the next society.
Works Cited
Ardelt, Monika, and Laurie Day. “Parents, Siblings, and Peers: Close Social Relationships and Adolescent Deviance.” Journal of Early Adolescence 22.3 (2002): 310-349. Print.
Bempechat, Janine. “The role of parent involvement in children’s academic achievement.” The School Community Journal 2.2 (1992): 31-41. Print.
Buchanan, Julian, and Brian Corby. Problem drug use and safeguarding children: a multi agency approach, 2005. Web.
Ibsen, Henrik. A Doll’s House. New York: Arc Manor LLC, 2009.
Thompson, Lynn, and Lisa Kelly-Vance. “The Impact of Mentoring on Academic Achievement of At-Risk Youth.” Children and Youth Services Review 23.3 (2001): 227-242. Print.
Withers, Stewart. “Re-positioning the experiences and situation of single mothers: Accounts from Samoa.” Women’s Studies Journal 25.1 (2011): 47-62. Print.
What are human desires and how do they differ from person to person? Aiming to answer this question, the playwright Henrik Ibsen depicts in ‘A Doll’s House’ what can be seen as a typical Norwegian family life at the end of the nineteenth century. During a busy Christmas time, the characters exchange their first wishes concerning their presents and preferences for the festive night. As the story progresses, the true reasons behind certain preferences are disclosed, the old wishes are reassessed, and the new desires are revealed. Both male and female characters struggle to find their authentic values in the world, where society dictates the appropriate behavior for each gender. In the end, many of the characters’ desires are shaped by social norms that are imposed on them, and while some characters choose to go along with society’s expectations of them, others revolt and seek their path. Some desires, however, remain universal despite all differences between the characters.
Desires connected to the material wealth
The play begins in media res, and material wealth is the first desire that is mentioned by Nora Helmer, who timidly asks her husband Torvald for some money as a Christmas gift. The heroine proceeds to discuss the matters of money and her husband’s career success with her friend Mrs. Linde, creating the false impression that wealth is her primary desire. It is later revealed that the only reason Nora is concerned with money is that she needs to repay the bond she once used to obtain money for the trip that “saved Torvald’s life” (Ibsen 31). Similarly, Christine Linde appears to be motivated by money, as once she has sacrificed her love for one man to marry another rich man. Nevertheless, Mrs. Linde admits that she only did it to provide for her ill mother and two younger brothers. Furthermore, after her husband’s death, Christine came to the town, where the action is set, to rekindle her relationship with her old love. These two examples show how Ibsen plays with the notion of women in need of financial security, leading readers to believe that due to their lack of power, female characters value wealth above all and then debunking this initial impression.
Relational desires
Material desires in the play are closely connected with family values. All characters crave some sort of relationship, be it the full of illusions marriage between Nora and Torvald, the budding second-chance relationship of Mrs. Linde and Nils Krogstad, or the unrequited love of Dr. Rank. The Helmers’ marriage is the most prominent example of mismatched desires in the play. While Torvald patronizes his wife and tells her what and how to do, Nora succumbs to his wishes, because she believes that her husband loves her and would sacrifice everything for her. In contrast, the only time Torvald explicitly acknowledges Nora’s wish by agreeing to correct her dancing is when he remains in the control position. Conditioned by society to believe that a woman should obey her husband, the characters are satisfied with their marriage, until a crisis leads Torvald to admit that “no man can be expected to sacrifice his honour, even for the person he loves” (Ibsen 102). Disillusioned, Nora reassesses her values and chooses her freedom over her marriage. The heroine sets out to find her path in life, smashing the door and leaving her confused husband behind.
Desires connected to maintaining high morals
The male characters of the play are repeatedly concerned with morality issues. Torvald judges others based on their moral qualities and feels obliged to set an example of honorable behavior, Krogstad attempts to clear his reputation after committing misdeeds, and Dr. Rank’s illness is believed to be a punishment for his father’s sins. Notably, the heroes often fail to act in accordance with their noble desires. Helmer, for instance, emphasizes his masculinity by saying: “Do you know, Nora, often I wish some terrible danger might threaten you so that I could offer my life and my blood, everything, for your sake” (Ibsen 92). However, when the occasion arises, the character is less than willing to protect his wife and instead reproaches her. Moreover, it becomes clear that Helmer is more concerned with his reputation than true morality. In a similar vein, Krogstad tries to retain his job at the bank to enhance his reputation, yet, once he is unable to do so, the hero resorts to blackmailing and immoral behavior to achieve his goals. In leading the characters to a failure, Ibsen demonstrates that society’s role expectations are not aligned with the heroes’ true desires.
The case of Dr. Rank
The main desires of the dying Dr. Rank are to live and to love, but at the beginning of the play, he has already given up on his life, understanding that none of his wishes are realizable. Nevertheless, after the darkening of the scene encourages him to confess his feeling to Nora, the doctor returns to life again and tries to seize all the remaining opportunities to enjoy his last days, as seen in the third act of the play. His cheerful attitude eventually confuses other characters, who are not aware that Dr. Rank is dying. The ambiguity of the situation climaxes in the exchange of goodnight wishes between Nora and the doctor, where the phrase “sleep well” (Ibsen 90) can refer to both the nocturnal and the internal sleep. The possible double meaning is underlined by Dr. Rank’s surprised reaction to Nora’s request for the same wish from him: “You? Very well – since you ask” (Ibsen 90). Overall, the doctor is the only male character in the play who comes close to bringing his desires to life, which indicates that his wishes are genuine and unaffected by society.
Conclusion
In “A Doll’s House”, Ibsen describes a complex system of human desires that evolve with time and gain experience. The author stresses the influence of social context on the things that people want and need: The characters’ desires are affected by social expectations, and they do not always realize that. At some point, the female characters of the play begin to question their previously held beliefs and desires, which leads them to challenge social norms by means of following their inner wishes. At the same time, the male characters of the play are more reluctant to free themselves from the prescribed roles, and therefore, sometimes miss the opportunity to pursue their true desires. Still, Ibsen reminds his readers that some values are universal to all people. Despite the traditional differences in gender roles, all characters in “A Doll’s House” have the same desire for human relationships, even if it is not immediately clear to them.
Work Cited
Ibsen, Henrik. “A Doll’s House.” Ibsen Plays: Two, translated and introduced by Michael Meyer, Bloomsbury, 2014.
Literature has always been an integral part of human society. There is no use denying the fact that it has always helped people to reflect their thoughts and emotions connected with different events in their life. With this in mind, it is possible to say that authors use their works as some platform for the dialogue with readers and further generations. Obviously, different epochs can be characterized by different problems and points of view on some important issues. Analyzing some works, it is possible to understand what ideas were peculiar to society of the epoch in which a certain book or novel was written. Moreover, the literature does not just describe some processes.
However, it makes a reader think about them and understand the necessity of some changes. With this in mind, it is possible to call literature a very powerful remedy which influences the minds of people and their points of view. Resting on these facts, it is possible to analyze some works which belong to the same period of time in order to understand the main ideas of the epoch and the authors message to readers. The work The Father by August Strindberg and A Dolls House by Henrik Ibsen were written at the end of the 19th century. This epoch can be characterized by the increase in the level of peoples conscious and blistering development of ideas of humanism, tolerance, and feminism.
Resting on these facts, it is possible to say that in these works, the authors tend to show great social pressure on the individuals and the necessity to perform some traditional roles. Moreover, it is also possible to say that the issue of feminism is also touched in these works. Being bright representatives of their epoch, Ibsen, and Strindberg reflected topical problems of society in their works.
First of all, it should be said that both these authors are representatives of Scandinavian Literature. Being citizens of Sweden and Norway, they obviously described similar problems as these countries always were close to each other. Henrik Ibsen very often is taken as one of the greatest dramatists of the modern age (Marker and Marker 7). The thing is that he devoted great attention to details, describing peculiarities of the epoch, peoples life, and topical problems.
Moreover, his style influenced a great number of other authors who tried to create their works according to traditions established by Henrik Ibsen. Moreover, the majority of his works were set in Norway, that is why it is possible to say that Strindberg also had the opportunity to admire Ibsens style and be influenced by it. In his works, Ibsen devoted great attention to societys moral values and psychological conflicts that appeared between people in everyday life. Being very talented playwright, Ibsen managed to show the tiniest details of human relations and their thoughts. Moreover, the ideas of humanism can be seen in his works as he understood the mood of society and tried to reflect it.
At the same time, Strindberg also devoted much attention to the issue of human relations. He is known for some unusual approach to drama as he created some new forms of expression of the main ideas. Trying to show all peculiarities of human relations, Strindberg wanted to create real characters, thinking through the tiniest details of every hero. Moreover, as he lived at the same time with Ibsen, there is a great number of common motifs in their works. Strindberg was also interested in such issues as tolerance, feminism, and social expectations. A great number of his works center around the life of people who have to answer expectations of society.
Additionally, some inner reflections of his characters are shown for readers to be able to understand peculiarities of the way of thinking of people of that age. Resting on these facts, it is possible to say that both Ibsen and Strindberg devoted great attention to the description of existing traditions and points of view on the life of a family and traditional roles of wife and husband. To support this statement with clear evidence, it is possible to analyze two works of these authors to see the main peculiarities of their composition and the authors points of view on some questions.
The play A Dolls House is devoted to the life of one family. Nora and Helmer are usual representatives of society at the end of the 19th century. He works at the bank while Nora is a housewife. At the first gaze, the family seems quite happy, though Helmer blames Nora for great spending. However, she is not disappointed by his words. Moreover, she looks happy and completely satisfied with her life. She is planning their further actions cogitating about the salary which her husband will get.
At this moment, she is satisfied with her doll-like existence and does not think much about her position in the family. However, her husband and double standards connected with his attitude towards her awaken Nora. She had to borrow money to save her husbands life. Besides, when this fact reveals and she is not able to return the money, Helmer wants to leave her as he is against debts “No debt, no borrowing” (Ibsen act 1, para. 21). This episode and the change in the attitude promote Noras understanding of her position in the family and society. Though she does not have to pay any more as Krogstad forgives a debt and her husband again wants to be with her, Nora does not want to live her life this way anymore.
A similar family dispute can be seen in the work The Father by Strindberg. The story also centers around the life of a common family of this period of time. Captain Adolph and his wife, Laura, do not understand each other. Moreover, having different points of view on their daughters future, they always argue about it and cannot make a compromise. The author obviously touches such important issues as social pressure on people and their attempts to live with it. Captain and Laura try to live like the common family where the husband is the householder. This distribution of roles in the family becomes one of the main reasons for the conflict between the main characters.
Adolph is sure that it is for him to determine the future of his daughter as a father has more power. Being not satisfied with the current state of affairs, Laura decides to act and use methods that are available for her. She tries to persuade society that her husband is mad and is not able to give clear orders. Moreover, she tells her husband that he cannot be sure that Bertha is his daughter. Being not able to overcome all these difficulties, Adolph dies, and Laura seems to be satisfied with it as now Bertha is only her daughter. Her final words, “My child, my own child!” (Strindberg, act 3, para. 65) prove it.
Having outlined the main ideas of these two works, it is possible to analyze the main characters and the main ideas peculiar to them. It is obvious that Laura and Nora can be taken as the image of women who struggle for their rights, though they do it in different ways. Being rather a facile woman, Nora just decides to avoid all problems leaving her husband with the desire to start a new life. At the same time, Laura acts aggressively. She tries to protect her right to influence the life of her child. She does not sympathize with her husband, being sure that she is right. Moreover, she does not understand him and his interest in investigations.
The only thing she wants is to obtain freedom. It is obvious that it is so different. These two female characters are created by the authors to show the position of women in society and their attempts to improve it. Feminist ideas can be seen in these works. Both Ibsen and Strindberg show that there is a necessity to change the traditional role of women in society as they already are not satisfied with it. They should be given the right to participate in social life and take part in the determination of their childrens future life. With the help of these two characters, the authors want to show that the whole life of a woman is determined by some social expectations and outdated stereotypes.
Being representatives of their age, Ibsen and Strindberg reflect new tendencies in society in their works (Naess 98). They underline womens desire to change their roles and be able to manage their lives on their own. However, feminism is not the only problem touched in these works. The social pressure on the individual is brightly shown in the plays as the main characters suffer from it, being not able to overcome the interference of different people in their life.
It will probably be safe to suggest that there are moments, in just about any person’s life, when he or she consciously prefers to believe in a certain perceptional illusion, as opposed facing the uncomfortable truth about something that this illusion is there to conceal. This especially appears to be the case in the situations when what happened to be the actual truth, simply does much of a logical sense in the concerned person’s eyes. In my opinion, this is exactly what the character of Blanche du Bois had in mind, while coming up with the statement, “I don’t tell truth, I tell what ought to be truth. And if that is sinful, then let me be damned for it!” (Williams, 1947, p. 128).
There is even more to it – the above-quoted suggestion appears to reflect people’s unconscious tendency to focus on ‘what ought to be truth’, as such that fills their lives with the actual meaning. In its turn, this explains why the motif of a ‘liberating deception/’magic’’ being better than a ‘damning truth’ is quite common in the works of literature/dramaturgy. In this paper, I will explore the validity of the earlier suggestion at length, while illustrating how the mentioned motif is being presented in the plays Pygmalion by Bernard Shaw, A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen and Trifles by Susan Glaspell.
Main Body
One of the most philosophically deep aspects of the message, conveyed by Shaw’s play Pygmalion, is that the foremost indication of a particular person being an ‘aristocrat’ de facto, is his or existential nobleness. This particular trait of one’s psyche, however, rarely correlates with what happened to be the concerned individual’s socio-economic status within the society. Hence, the sheer plausibility of the play’s plot, which revolves around the story of Eliza’s rapid transformation from a vulgarly speaking/behaving ‘flower girl’, into nothing short of a sophisticate ‘lady of substance’. Apparently, even when she was a ‘flower girl’, Eliza never ceased being an idealistically minded person, who used to aspire to attain the state of self-actualization, as a socially prominent citizen.
Allegorically speaking, the character of Eliza can well compare to a gemstone, completely covered with filth, which one day ended up discovered and cleansed of it. Therefore, there is nothing odd about the earlier mentioned transformation, on the part of Eliza – this process was not really concerned with the character’s qualitative ‘metamorphosis’ into someone else. Rather, it had to do with the fact that, after having learnt how to speak proper English and to act ‘mannerish’, Eliza was able to realize what constituted her true calling in life. This is the reason why, after having helped Professor Higgins to win his bet with Colonel Pickering (by the mean of proving herself capable of learning the manners of a ‘lady’); Eliza began to experience the sensation of an acute emotional distress. After all, the end of the ‘deal’ between the two meant that she would have to return back to the ‘rock bottom’, from where she was picked initially.
Yet, this was something Eliza could not possibly do – after having been washed of the ‘filth’ of her past as a vulgar commoner; she would never be able to let it become the integral part of her personality again. This explains the significance of the play’s scene, in which Eliza continues with the act as a ‘lady’ – well after the ‘deal’ between Higgins and Pickering was over, “Eliza: How do you do, Professor Higgins? Are you quite well? Higgins: [choking] Am I – [he can say no more]. Eliza: But of course you are: you are never ill. So glad to see you again, Colonel Pickering. Quite chilly this morning, isn’t it?” (Shaw, 1912, p. 72). Apparently, for Eliza the illusion of being a ‘lady of substance’ was much more truthful than the actual truth about her humble origins as a ‘flower girl’. This is the reason why she could not help but to continue ‘acting up’ – quite contrary to her conscious awareness of the act’s misleading essence.
The motif of illusion underlines the discursive significance of Ibsen’s play, as well. The validity of this statement can be well illustrated, in regards to the fact that the play’s plot is essentially concerned with a forgery, committed by Nora, in order to borrow a large sum of the bank, so that her husband Torvald could restore his health, while vacationing in Italy. In its turn, this allowed Torvald to be able to advance his professional career of a bank-clerk. Despite the fact that the moral inappropriateness of such her deed was causing Nora to experience a great deal of an emotional unease, she nevertheless continued to keep Torvald thoroughly unaware of what had happened – hence, making it possible for him to enjoy the illusion of being a ‘self-made’ man. This, of course, exposes Nora’s motivation behind her decision to commit a fraud, as having been highly humanistic and consequently – morally justified.
Nevertheless, even after having realized that it was just the matter of time, before Torvald discovers the infidelity in question (due to Krogstad’s blackmailing letter), Nora continues to act rather arrogantly – during the party (featured at the end of the final Act 3), she passionately dances and loudly laughs, as if there was indeed nothing for her to fear. As it was pointed out by the author, “Nora dances more and more wildly… She does not seem to hear him (Torvald); her hair comes down and falls over her shoulders; she pays no attention to it, but goes on dancing” (Ibsen, 1879, p. 55).
Rationally speaking, such Nora’s behavior does not make much of a logical sense – having been fully aware that her forgery was about to be revealed, she should have refrained from enjoying herself. Yet, it was clearly not the case. The reason for this is quite simple – Nora strived to make the best out of the remaining hours of her ‘matrimonial happiness’. The only way for the character to succeed in this was applying a mental effort into not-acknowledging the sensation’s sheer short-lastingness. In words, there was indeed a good reason for Nora to live up to the provisions of du Bois’ suggestion, mentioned in the Introduction.
The motif of a ‘magical’ deception, as such that is being much more preferable to truth, can also be found in the play Trifles by Susan Glaspell. Generally speaking, this play exposes the fact that the patriarchal assumption of women’s cognitive/perceptual inferiority does not stand any ground. Quite on the contrary, as the play effectively illustrates, when it comes to paying attention to ‘trifles’ (seemingly insignificant details), women often prove themselves unsurpassable, which in turn qualifies them for a number jobs that are being traditionally considered ‘manly’, such as the job of a criminal investigator. After all, it were namely the characters of presumably ‘dumb’ housewives Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters, who uncovered the truth that Minnie Wright did in fact kill her husband – hence, proving themselves intellectually superior to their own husbands, prescribed with the responsibility to investigate the murder of Mr. Wright.
This provides us with the partial insight into why both of these women decided to not to expose Minnie as a murderer – they simply loved their husbands little too much, in order to consider making the concerned men aware of their own male-chauvinistic arrogance. After all, as a saying goes – arrogance (illusion) is bliss.
There is, however, even more to it – Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters were perfectly mindful of the fact that it would be highly unethical to go about confirming Minnie’s guilt, on their part. The reason for this is that, while in the marital relationship with Minnie, Mr. Wright never ceased mistreating her as a soulless commodity. Apparently, Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters felt sorry for a poor woman and decided to keep a secret of what really did happen in the Mr. Wright’s household, “Mrs. Hale:
His neck, choked the life out of him… Mrs. Peters (with a rising voice): We don’t know who killed him. We don’t know” (Glaspell, 1916, p. 9). By acting in such a manner, both women were able to prove themselves highly virtuous individuals.
Conclusion
I believe that the earlier deployed line of argumentation, in defense of the idea that under certain circumstances, illusion is indeed better than truth, is fully consistent with the paper’s initial thesis.
The authors of the three stories are influenced by strong feministic perceptions to challenge existing social systems that make it difficult for women to advance. The three stories highlight various issues faced by women in different eras before the clamor for women’s rights gained momentum. As a result, women have more inferior social roles compared to men and this makes it difficult for them to attain personal satisfaction. The three authors make readers understand their intent through metaphors and other symbolic representations.
Henrik Ibsen’s “A Doll’s House” takes a look at the position of a woman in the domestic setting and how the protagonist makes a lot of sacrifices without her efforts being appreciated. Kate Chopin’s “The Storm” explores how a woman endures an unexciting marriage as she reflects on her past maiden days. Sharon Olds’ “The Victims” discusses divorce and domestic abuse and how these two issues affect the way children in a home grow up.
The three authors reveal their inner feelings towards various issues that affect people in societies they are living in. In the “Doll’s House”, Ibsen shows the constant sacrifices Nora has to make to make all family members happy.
She reduces the amount of money she spends on herself to make her husband and children live in comfort. She says, “For myself? Oh, I am sure I don’t want anything” (Ibsen 1447) In “The Storm”, Calixta yearns for a more passionate relationship and she feels that her husband is not a perfect match for her. She misses the moments she spent with her lover, Alce who is now married to Clarissa.
She is miserable because she is in love with someone else yet social norms forbid a woman from loving another man who is not her husband. In “The Victims”, Olds begins to focus on her dysfunctional American society where divorce is becoming rampant. Through the innocent eyes of a child, she probes the impacts of domestic abuse and parental neglect on family disintegration.
How women look for independence
The three authors discuss in detail how women look for independence to make their lives more fulfilling. They show their dissatisfaction with unreasonable societal expectations they are required to observe in their homes and communities. In “The Victims” the narrator describes difficulties they endured with their mother when her father was still working and living with them.
The narration reveals that the father has failed in his responsibilities and cannot safeguard his family’s wellbeing. She says “She took it and took it in silence, all those years and then kicked you out, suddenly, and her kids loved it” (Olds 1057). The story discusses the dilemma of a child who has to learn various things by herself after her parents part ways acrimoniously.
The metaphorical use of the title in “The Storm” shows the inner spirit of energy and vitality in Calixta which is largely repressed by societal expectations. Calixta yearns for sexual satisfaction though societal expectations make it difficult for her to attain her aspirations. Her pent up emotions are described as a brewing storm likely to erupt any time, “Calixta put her hands to her eyes, and with a cry, staggered backward” (Chopin).
In the story, the storm is used to represent the outpour of her emotional feelings which have been largely repressed by her role as a wife and mother. The presence of Alce in her home liberates her from the yoke of marital gloom she has experienced for a long time. She shows that she is ready to be in control of her own desires regardless of what other people think.
Nora is zealous and ready to protect her marriage at any cost in “A Doll’s House.” She takes part in various activities to protect her husband from any harm that is likely to befall him. She cuts on domestic spending to ensure she has enough money for other important necessities in her home. As a result, the author uses her to show the input of a financially conscious woman in making her home stable.
This is a demonstration of her independence because she does everything she can to make her family live comfortably (Ibsen 1451). She later uses her father’s signature fraudulently to acquire a loan to help her husband travel to Italy. Her husband’s frugal ways do not seem to diminish her desire to take all the necessary steps to make her family live in comfort.
The three authors explain their own attitudes about female empowerment in an era when patriarchal ideals were taken more seriously. The three stories bring to light feminine ideas that enable protagonists to take charge of their own lives by overcoming various challenges they are facing. Even though Nora is loyal to her husband in the “Doll’s House”, she is brave enough to look forward to a future on her own due to her husband’s unwillingness to become more considerate.
In the “Victims” the narrator supports her mother’s decision to look for a better life away from their father who is consumed by arrogance. He has failed to perform his marital as well as parental duties. Olds’ poem is an inspiration to women who are willing to work hard without the support of their spouses to help their children live more comfortably. The “Storm” is a compelling story about an adventurous woman who is willing to take any risk to fulfill her physical and emotional desires.
How societal roles are given to women
The issue of how societal roles given to women determine their destiny is highlighted in all the three stories. In a “Doll’s House”, women are expected to turn a blind eye to their husbands’ transgressions even when they affect their personal wellbeing.
Nora’s husband is a difficult person to deal with who is not willing to spend money to make his family live in comfort. He treats his wife like a little pet as shown through, “It’s a sweet little spendthrift, but she uses up a deal of money. One would hardly believe how expensive such little persons are!” (Ibsen 1450).
In the 19th century, women were expected to do all they can to make their husbands and their families live comfortably. As a result, any sign of feminine independence or rebellion was discouraged. Nora even forges her father’s signature to get a loan from Krogstad, an act that was rarely done by women during that time. She shows her ability to think on her own by taking serious risks that will in future erode her husband’s trust in her.
The “Victims” poem takes place at a time when women are being forced to take on extra roles that have traditionally been performed by men. The narrator describes how her father is unable to perform roles expected of most men and how this affects her family’s happiness. Her father’s mistreatment and abuse make her bitter and she feels that her mother did the right thing to kick him out.
Feelings of despair the child has are resolved when her mother decides to make sacrifices to make them have a better and more comfortable childhood. The poem exemplifies an era when men had begun to suffer from an identity crisis. The father in the poem is portrayed as emotionally distant from his children (Olds 1057). The recklessness portrayed by the father is symptomatic of the whole society where communal values that unite families are being disregarded.
The Storm” is a testimony of a woman’s struggle to overcome prejudices that block her from achieving personal pleasure and satisfaction in her life. The story shows that marital union serves as a bondage that makes it difficult for Calixta to express herself emotionally without being judged by other people.
She feels that her husband does not meet all her needs and the oppressive marital life makes it difficult for her to be in control of her own desires. Since Calixta and her husband, Bobinot are Acadians, they are treated as people of a low social class. This is shown through “She sat at a side window sewing furiously on a sewing machine” (Chopin). As a result, marriage and intimacy is influenced by social status and this explains the reason Calixta and Bobinot stay married even though they are emotionally incompatible.
The three authors manage to portray social roles observed by in contemporary societies where the three stories were written in. Ibsen manages to show how Nora shoulders the burden of her husband’s shortcomings despite doing all she can to please him. In the society, Torvald is typecast as the ideal man other women would want to marry and as a result, a fact Nora is aware of. She challenges the societal view that women need to be docile and should not go against their husbands’ wishes.
Calixta lives with Bobinot because she was not able to get married to Alce, her soul mate who belongs to a higher social class. Therefore, she has to live with the fact that Bobinot will never excite her in the same way Alce does. Societal female roles treat women’s emotional needs as secondary to those of men and they are not given the attention they deserve. Olds uses the narrator to show her anger towards irresponsible men who mistreat their families.
Risks associated with women’s actions
Risks associated with various actions women take to become more independent are highlighted by the authors. All protagonists are struggling to have their own identities by getting more satisfaction in their personal lives. In the “Doll’s House” Nora takes several risks that put her on a collision course with her husband. When she tries to plead to her husband to resolve the differences he has with Krogstad, she is driven by a guilty conscience that makes her look for ways to cover up her mistakes.
She says to Mrs Linde, “Papa didn’t give us a shilling. It was I who procured the money” (Ibsen 1462). Later, this becomes the source of all her marital problems with her husband. Torvald uses a self righteous tone as he reprimands Nora for her fraudulent actions and he considers her a bad influence to their children.
In “The Victims” the narrator realizes towards the end that maybe they were too hard on their father. Even though the author advocates for feminine independence, she also realizes that children need to be brought up by both parents to make them more responsible when they become adults. The narrator says, “Father. Now I pass the bums in doorways, the white slugs of their bodies gleaming through slits in their suits of compressed silt” (Olds 1057).
The narrator realizes that even though her father was abusive and irresponsible, she still needs his guidance and love. The author seems to suggest that even though men are irresponsible, they need to be guided to make them perform their societal roles more effectively. Olds uses a sinking ship metaphorically to show the emotional and psychological burden the narrator endures because she did not find a chance to know her father better.
Calixta knows that she cannot let the passion she has for Alce get the better of her because they come from different social backgrounds. She understands that the norms practiced where she lives do not allow a married woman to be unfaithful to her husband.
Calixta just like other women living in her society knows that any act of infidelity against her husband is likely to strain her marriage and this will make her an object of shame in the society. However, as the storm rages on she yields to her uncontrollable desires as shown through, “And when he possessed her, they seemed to swoon together at the very borderland of life’s mystery” (Chopin).
She takes a big risk in her own husband’s home to experience a moment of passion in Alce’s arms without considering what will happen if Bobint finds them together. The encounter she has with Alce in her home brings joy into her life as shown by, “the sun was turning the glistening green world into a palace of gems” (Chopin).
Conclusion
The three protagonists have varying experiences through which they are able to demonstrate their feminine instincts and independence. Nora after getting chastised by her husband decides to separate from her husband to face life on her own. She says, “I have heard that when a wife deserts her husband’s house, as I am doing now, he is legally freed from all obligations towards her” (Ibsen 1497).
She has realized that she sacrificed her own happiness for too long to please the self righteous Torvald. The narrator in Olds’ poem is still bitter with the manner in which her father treated them and in hindsight, she feels that there are so many questions she still wants to ask her father. She says, “I wonder who took it and took it from them in silence until they had given it all away” (Olds1057).
Calixta’s passionate exchange with Alce helps her overcome her restlessness, which makes her feel relaxed. However, deep inside, she is aware that she rebelled against the norms observed in her society and if her secret leaks out, she will be in a lot of trouble.
Works Cited
Chopin, Kate. “The Storm.” American Literature. American Literature Anthology, 6 June 2013. Web.
Ibsen, Henrik. “A Doll’s House.” The Victims.” Norton Introduction to Literature. Eds. Alison Booth and Kelly J. Mays. New York: WW Norton & Company Incorporated, 2010. Print
Olds, Sharon. “The Victims.” Norton Introduction to Literature. Eds. Alison Booth and Kelly J. Mays. New York: WW Norton & Company Incorporated, 2010. Print.
A Doll’s House is a thought-provoking and insightful play because it boldly endorses modernist philosophies even at a time when romanticism was still rife in theatre. Henrik Ibsen set a precedent for other dramatists because he was realist, supported Marxism, and used melodrama to write this play.
Analysis of A Doll’s House Modernism Theories
Modernism was a way of thinking that started in the last half of the nineteenth century and continued into the twentieth century. It was considered as a term that embraced the nonconventional. In other words, this is a break from the traditional way of interpreting and creating; it is not limited to one discipline.
At the time when modernism was at its peak, concerned advocates felt that there had been too much emphasis on order or chronology, so theirs was to break away from these traditions. On another level, modernism was seen as an alternative to the use of bureaucracies / the elite as a source of inspiration for works of art, literature, and the like.
Modernists questioned this focus and therefore chose to alter this progressively (McFarlane, 8). Their primary aim was to defy norms. Goings-on also motivated this phenomenon in the western world. At the time, the world had just gone through the First World War and was subsequently facing its repercussions through the depression.
Europeans, therefore, questioned the relevance of the romantic era. They now felt that the focus on virtues and evil/ good could not apply to their prevailing circumstances. Consequently, one can say that the political and social environment was an essential determinant of this movement. It injected a new wave of creativity in the arts and paved the way for many original pieces.
In A Doll’s House, one of the outstanding depictions of this way of thinking was seen at the end of the play; in other words, the overall plot of the story has been used to propagate the modernist agenda.
A Doll’s House Moral Lesson as a Result Of Modernism Impact
Through this ending, Ibsen is fundamentally questioning societal rules or the status quo. The main character was willing to take her own life so that she could save her husband’s reputation but soon finds out that he was nothing more than a selfish and narcissistic individual.
He underplayed her great sacrifices and even told her that she was like a child in his eyes. Nora Helmer, therefore, gains insight into his real persona and decides that it is worthless to continue living with him. Nora was bold enough to question her community’s norms and even took it to the point of leaving her spouse (Ibsen, 58).
This unexpected twist at the end of the play makes it very modern because it looked at the institution of marriage, gender roles, and family duties in a whole new light. It should be noted that in the previous era of romanticism, such a play would have ended in reconciliation between Nora and Torvald, but Ibsen was a realist and a modernist. An in the play A Doll’s House, modernism themes are evident.
He wanted to have an unpredictable plot and relevant setting that would leave audiences uncertain but hopeful about the future of the main character. No heroes were brought in to save the day, and this broke from usual theatre endings. The aspect of modernism that comes out, in this case, is melodrama.
Another way in which Ibsen utilizes plot to propagate modernist thought is through the structure of the play. In his time, most versions of well-made plays started with an account of the characters in the play.
This would usually be seen in the first and maybe the second act. In the second part, the authors would often present a dilemma faced by the main character. After that, the play would end with a reaction to the difficulty, and hence teach audiences a moral lesson or two.
However, through A Doll’s House, Ibsen created a different structure. In his play, he has a description of a dilemma but lacks a resolution. He ends the play with a discussion on what will go on and therefore leaves audiences curious about what will happen to the main characters even as time proceeds.
The author also uses the theme to advance the modernist agenda from feminist prospective as well. At his time, women had no voice; this was seen by the fact that most of them had to get the signature of a male family member or acquaintance to carry out any financial transactions. However, Ibsen makes these women the centerpiece of his play.
He shows how they make up for men’s inadequacies (such as pride, impulsiveness, and selfishness) through their tenderness, self-sacrifice, and their loyalty. Nora is everything that Torvald is not, and this represented a new element in modern drama. Not only was Ibsen bold enough to portray women very responsibly, but he did this in a courteous manner that makes Nora appear real.
At first, she seems like a dependent and weak individual, but as one learns about her life and her decisions, one soon realizes that she is a strong and selfless woman. Given that this was such a new stance, it is no wonder theatre enthusiasts called Ibsen a revolutionary author (Fisher and Silber, 40).
Self-Duty Concept as a Result of Modernism in the Play
Another way in which the theme advances modernism in A Doll’s House is through the concept of self duty. During Ibsen’s time, individuals were expected to stay loyal to their leaders and their society in general. Many held others’ opinions about themselves more important than their perspectives.
However, Ibsen was a realist and wanted to show how this approach was unfair. Nora, the main character, had been putting the needs and opinions of others before herself. The overall result of this was that she led an unfulfilled life. Furthermore, men kept using that selflessness to their advantage, and this only led to her unhappiness.
By exonerating her needs over and above everyone else’s, Nora was able to discover a new path for herself through this decision. Ibsen was, therefore, able to portray realist and hence, modernist thought through this theme of self-enhancement.
Character is an important stylistic device used to illustrate modernist thought. At the time when A Doll’s House was written, many other plays would portray the central character as this dominant male figure that appeared to have all the solutions to the problems in the play.
However, Ibsen breaks from this tradition and portrays what should have been an older and socially responsible man, Dr. Rank, as someone who lacks a moral sense. He openly lets the wife of a close friend know that he has feelings for her. Furthermore, he is ailing from a disease that is often associated with promiscuity, although he got it from his father (Tornqvist, 193).
This author does not portray his characters in a typical manner. In fact, one would be mistaken to dismiss Nora off as nothing more than a dependent and shallow person, but as one continues reading through, one soon realizes that she is a very deep person.
Torvald was also another complex character in the play. At some point, he seems caring because he chooses to stay at home and teach Nora how to dance, but as the story progresses, it becomes clear that he was self-centered as well. There is a vast range of emotions portrayed through the characters, thus illustrating that they were indeed real.
Ibsen’s Attitude to Romanticism in A Dolls’ House
No human being lacks faults, and the problem with romantic writings was that a vast number of them tried to pretend that humans are faultless. Trying to do this was unrealistic and unfair. Ibsen did not want to glorify any one of them, an aspect that was typical of the realist school of thought.
Marxism, as a form of modernism, can also be seen in the play through the main character of the play. Prior to this production, aristocrats often carried the day.
They controlled wealth and were entitled to several privileges. This usually meant that the middle and lower classes would pay the price for these privileges. In other words, capitalism favored the rich and oppressed the poor. The latter’s stories were rarely heard, especially in literature. Thus, A Doll’s House as a modern play had critical impact on dramaturgy of that time.
However, Ibsen can throw in a new perspective here when he decides not to tell the story of yet another elite. He reveals the struggles of a middle-class woman, Nora, and also talks about the struggles of another female, Mrs. Linde. Linde came from a low-income family that lacked the basics of life. She chose to marry someone she did not love just so that she could overcome the problems of her class.
Ibsen succeeded in initiating a discussion concerning the evils of capitalism. This peculiar hero, Nora, goes through several problems that stem from her economic background. As such, one can assert that the play questions how society is run and what role money plays in it (Krutch, 21). It exposes the evils of capitalism and therefore propagates classic Marxist thought or modernism in its real colors.
Conclusion
The research paper on A Doll’s House play analyzes the main modernism themes of the writing that created a precedent for other drama plays. Ibsen supported realism theories and used his realistic views in his works. Ibsen’s use of the theme is quite outstanding in exposing class struggles and the problems of romanticism. To this end, he is initiating a discussion on Marxism. He uses the plot to advance realist thought through the ambiguous and dramatic ending of the story.
The character also plays an essential role because she defies the traditional depictions of males and females in his story. His choice of a female as a central character testifies to this modernist aspect. Also, his representation of complex individuals makes his work realistic. In the end, Ibsen set the stage for a new and revolutionary way of writing plays and looking at life in society.
Works Cited
Ibsen, Henrik. A Doll’s house. Translated by William Archer. London: Fisher Unwin, 1889.
Krutch, Joseph. Modernism in drama. Ithaca: Cornell university, 1953.
Fisher, Jerilyn & Silber, Ellen. Women in literature. Westport: Greenwood, 2002.
McFarlane, James. Cambridge companion to Ibsen. Cambridge: CUP, 1994.
Tornqvist, Egil. Ibsen, a doll’s house. Cambridge: CUP, 1995.
Benhabib, Seyla. “Feminism and the Question of Postmodernism.” The New Social Theory Reader. Routledge, 2020. 156-162.
Benhabib’s chapter, “Feminism and the Question of Postmodernism,” highlights the connection between feminism and postmodernism in contemporary society. According to Benhabib, the two concepts have become the “leading currents of time” (157). Western civilization and modernity can therefore be evaluated in line with feminism and postmodernism in society. In essence, the authors feel that the norms that constitute a culture should be criticized for a better future.
Charan, Dr. Swati. “Shift In the Role of Women In The Society: Through The Lens Of A Doll’s House By Henrik Ibsen.” International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, vol 5, no. 4, 2020, pp. 191-193. AI Publications.
In this article, the author examines the role of women in society through the issues presented in A Dolls House by Henrik Ibsen. Charan mentions that women’s role in society is changing as they no longer subscribe to the old manipulative habits. The main point presented in the article is that changes in social roles and cultural values are changing. Through Ibsen’s play, women are shown to be radical and committed to implementing changes in society.
Nasrin, Sohana. “New Ways of Activism: Design Justice and Data Feminism.” Social Movement Studies (2021): 1-5.
Nasrin examines the role of feminism in enforcing justice and human rights activism. This work is founded on activists’ role in fighting for perceived human rights. However, most have not considered that justice and feminism are interrelated. Nasrin’s main point is that social movements should consider activism through women’s rights and feminism.
Siagian, Farida Hannum, I. Wy Dirgeyasa, and Indra Hartoyo. “Feminism in Patriarchal Society Reflected in the Main Character of Perempuan Berkalung Sorbian Movie.” LINGUISTICA 7.3.
In this article, the author handles one of the core concepts in feminism; its varieties and forms. Siagian notes that there are three primary types of feminism: liberal, radical and socialist Marxist. These forms of feminism are evident in a patriarchal society, as shown through the author’s analysis of the Perempuan Berkalung Sorbian movie character. Essentially, the author’s idea is that women demonstrate feminism in various forms based on their motivating factors.