Category: A Doll’s House

Henrik Ibsen mainly expresses the theme of Power in his novel: A Doll’s House. This novel was written in the 19th century, and the story was set in Norway. The purpose of choosing this setting is a women’s place in society. Men were the ones who have the power and not the wives. Henrik Ibsen portrayed this problem by concocting a metaphoric story about it. However, the female characters, in A Doll’s House, were the ones who actually have the power. As an example, we have Nora, the protagonist of this story and Mrs. Linde, her friend.

At the beginning of the story, one would say Nora is a childish and obedient wife. She achieves what her husband, Torvald Helmer, requests her to do. Henrik Ibsen, in A Doll’s House, gives women an indirect power and to men, an imaginative power. Torvald thought that he was the boss of the house and the one who governs his family. It was clearly amiss! Nora, by her childish actions, manipulates her husband for him to give her money. The reader may undoubtedly have thoughts that Helmer has the power because he is the man. No! All this time, Nora was controlling Torvald and to be able to handle him easily, she acts like she was submissive. These gestures show that women gain power honestly instead of men who use all sorts of dangerous ways to achieve their goals.

Moreover, one can take, for example, Mrs. Linde. She is Nora’s dearest friend. After the death of her husband, she wanted to go back to her ex-lover, Krogstad. However, it was not for love but for an advantage. She wanted to support her friend Nora who encountered an acute problem with Krogstad. During the conversation, Krogstad thought he was the one who has power because Mrs. Linde returned back to him. Woefully, it was not what it seemed. Mrs. Linde was the one who has the power. As one can notice, Ibsen uses the same characterization for both women: Nora and Mrs. Linde. Kristine Linde let him think he was the one who has power but she was indirectly controlling him. Again, those actions show that women are already bold and powerful.

During the nineteenth century, women’s place in Norwegian society was still considered inconsequential. Due to the apparent lack of potent exemptions, the female did not endeavour to talk nor argue about anything which she and a male differed upon. Henrik Ibsen, who incontestably acted as one of the founders of modernism, and is considered as the father of realism, limns the reality of this society throughout his masterpiece of theatrical craft named A Doll’s House. After his brilliant play was published in 1879, numerous readers remained perplexed yet astonished by Ibsen’s pragmatic painting of Norway’s society. In this play, Henrik Ibsen substantiates how women, during this time, were intellectually undervalued. Many people may think this remarkable play is male-dominated; however, the playwright typically manifests legitimate concerns about human rights in general, but particularly women’s rights. Throughout the plot of A Doll’s House, Henrik Ibsen realistically portrays the hidden intellect of women in Norwegian society with the help of literary devices such as symbols and indirect characterization to prove men’s inanity.

A reader can subconsciously analyze the title of a drama to discern which themes will be introduced in the play. Henrik Ibsen already captures the reader’s attention with the name of his play: A Doll’s House. A doll typically represents a small-scale figure of a human being used predominantly as a child’s toy. With that information, one can already deduce that a character shall be cynically manipulated. Therefore, to accentuate even more the social context of the play, Henrik Ibsen properly includes the term: “house.” All along the play, one of the main characters named Mr Helmer expresses the significance of the house’s material by mentioning: “An atmosphere of lies infects and poisons the whole life of a home” (Ibsen 28). Withal, one may eagerly expect the “doll’s house” to represent Nora Helmer’s home but must not omit the fact that a doll’s house is made out of plastic which, most of the time, scarcely conveys counterfeit. This ambiguous statement brings back the reader to the first argument concerning the doll. One would assume the doll merely represents the protagonist of the play named Nora Helmer. However, ‘the house’ backs up all the theories and indirectly expresses the convincing illusion of men’s sovereignty in Norway’s society.

During the whole play, Nora Helmer, the female protagonist, is seen as a naïve woman and a spendthrift. The audience can observe her husband’s dominance in the house. Consequently, the audience directly thinks the title represents the ultimate stage for Torvald Helmer’s play with his wife. Farther on, Nora also agrees with Mr Helmer’s preeminence by stating: “Certainly Torvald does understand how to make a house dainty and attractive” (Ibsen 31). This phrasing implies that she recognizes being her husband’s doll according to Norway’s societal norms. Nonetheless, Nora Helmer finally expresses her thoughts of the house’s atmosphere in Act Three: “Our home has been nothing but a playroom. I have been your doll-wife” (67). This sentence promptly stimulates the audience’s reflection, which transports them back to their initial assumption about the title’s meaning. The odd fact that Nora Helmer was aware of her husband playing with her suggests she was not ignorant.

Nora benefits tremendously from this situation and demonstrates her malignancy, but she is nonetheless considered as the doll mentioned in the title. Consequently, Nora’s living space is not veritably a house but simply an illusion. The message conveyed from the title of the play would instantaneously instigate the critical mind of the lecturer. Somehow, those two key symbols, the “doll” and the “house”, automatically paint women’s perception of a male-dominated society. The playwright, through this literary technique, aimedto reveal the innocence coupled with the maleficence of women’s brilliant intellect to provide the reader with a synopsis of how most Norwegian males, in the nineteenth century, were genuinely deceived. This naturally leads to the true verdict of the title A Doll’s House: it represents Nora Helmer’s playground. The playwright equally uses indirect characterization to adequately illustrate women’s power in his play.

Norway’s society was monopolized by persuasive people, particularly men, while women were mainly secluded in their houses. They were systematically considered as mother-women: women whose sole duty was to take care of their children. The audience thus remarks the difficult condition women were in during the nineteenth century; a circumstance which would not allow them to sufficiently emancipate themselves. Nonetheless, to confirm the male’s irrationality, the dramaturge employs masculine characters to define the feminine characters’ power. For example, one can cite the protagonist Nora Helmer. The audience would certainly express doubts about the reliability of Nora Helmer’s trickery. Nonetheless, the audience would accurately recall the first deceit this female protagonist made in Act 1:

HELMER: ‘Hasn’t Miss Sweet Tooth been breaking rules in town today? […] taken a bite at a macaroon or two?’

NORA: ‘No, Torvald.’ (5)

As previously stated, Torvald does not view his wife Nora as his equal and minimizes her by solemnly giving her pet names. In Act One, Torvald calls for his wife: ‘Is it my little squirrel bustling about?” (2). This phrasing expresses Torvald Helmer’s minor consideration of his wife: he does not perceive her as a human being. For the sake of duping someone, one may risk playing along. Nora Helmer benefited from the situation to validate his ignorance. That is why the audience can comprehend Nora acting childishly to delight her spouse: ‘Your squirrel would run about and do all her tricks if you would be nice and do what she wants.’ (Ibsen 34). With this act, Nora appears vulnerable to make Torvald believe he is the one who seized the control. The plot of the play is Nora’s secret: giving back money to a doctor so that her husband gets better. Nonetheless, women were unauthorized to financially aid their husband no matter what. This represents the tremendous pride Norwegian men contained during the nineteenth century. However, the position women were in did not provide them with the right to gain money themselves; that is why Nora borrowed money from Krogstad, another masculine character. Anew, the audience would consider Nora as a frivolous spendthrift who does not try to emancipate herself. Nonetheless, one would note her way of acting as a play to delude her husband. In Act 1, Torvald Helmer concludes his viewpoint of his wife by saying: ‘That is like a woman! […] you know what I think about that. No debt, no borrowing.’ (21).

Nora Helmer, to carefully make her duplicity perfectly executed, she also tricks her lender, Krogstad by providing him with the power he longed for. When Nora was gently persuading her bestower to not render him back his appropriate money, Krogstad replied proudly: ‘How will you be able to prevent it? Am I to understand that you can pay the balance that is owing?’ (Act 2, Pg 44). By displaying correctly her apparent resignation, Nora was capable to indirectly command Krogstad. Intending to completely manifest her influence, this female protagonist requests some considerable help to her childhood friend: Mrs Linde. This shows how women were united and weren’t counting on men. Krogstad was in genuine love with Mrs Linde who prudently withdraws herself from him because of her money deficiency. Justly considering that situation, Nora seeks help from Mrs Linde so that she could delight Krogstad; who will then forget his money he had to get back from Nora. That is why towards the end of Act Three, Mrs Linde tells to Krogstad: “We two need each other.” (Pg 54). Ultimately, the audience can witness how Nora managed to not reimburse Krogstad and at the same time, prove to her husband how vigorous she can be. Her husband humbly beseeches her to not depart from the house after the discovering of Nora’s secret; which emphasize more her wife’s dominance. Torvald Helmer briefed her in Act 3: “But to part! – To part from you! No, Nora, I can’t understand that idea.”(Pg 71).

With the effective use of two male protagonists, Torvald and Krogstad, Henrik Ibsen was able to indirectly characterize Nora’s elusive status to promptly introduce the audience the role of each male figure throughout the play. This gallantly leads to the satisfactory conclusion that Women’s extraordinary power needed to be transparent by the frequent use of male’s foolishness.

Women, in the nineteenth century-Norwegian society, were not allowed to occupy another role except being a mother-woman. Triggered by that mentality, Henrik Ibsen adequately portrays the remarkable female’s power deceiving men’s foolishness throughout his successful play: A Doll’s house. After sufficiently instructing, to the audience, the importance of introducing female dominance with the use of symbols in the title, the playwright employs also the male’s figure to create an indirect characterization. With the valuable help of literary techniques, Henrik Ibsen was able to efficiently transport women’s intended message during that time which correctly was: emancipation and freedom.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. “A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen.” Meyer, Goodreads, 1 Jan. 1970, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/37793.A_Doll_s_House.
2. McCorgray, Daisy. “Ibsen: The Dramatist Who Gave Women the Leading Role.” The New European, The New European, 12 Feb. 2017, https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/culture/ibsen-the-dramatist-who-gave-women-the-leading-role- 1-4887303.
3. “Doll.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doll.
4. Ibsen, Henrik. A Doll’s House. HALDEMAN-JULIUS COMPANY, 12AD.
5. Drawing by the student
6. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/37793.A_Doll_s_House
7. https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/culture/ibsen-the-dramatist-who-gave-women-the-leading-role-1-4887303
8. https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/culture/ibsen-the-dramatist-who-gave-women-the-leading-role-1-4887303
9. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doll

Historically speaking men and women had separate spheres, which defined the natural characteristics of the two sexes. These characteristics that women are expected to be obedient, powerlessness, submissive, dependent and domesticated created a natural hierarchy that grew increasingly through marriage. In the Victorian Era, a proper woman is perfectly described by the term ‘Angel in the House’ – the title of a popular poem which reflected the mindset of a popular Victorian image of the ideal wife or woman. Seventeenth century Europe also had the same mindset and expected the same thing. Women were expected to aspire to marriage because it allowed them to become mothers rather than to pursue sexual or emotional satisfaction. Both Nora and Nella adhere to society’s ideology and keenly purse these ideas of how their futures should look like. The objective is to examine the depiction of gender in both texts and how the writers use these female protagonists to take control of their gender expectations and gain an identity that doesn’t depend on their husbands. In addition, what was the significance of the critical response and interpretations following the release of both texts?

It is evident that the underlying message of both ‘A Doll’s House’ and ‘The Miniaturist’, is that it is a man’s world. Similarities are drawn in the way that Ibsen and Burton slowly challenge the unfairness and hypocrisy of society. As written in A Feminist concern in English Literature the texts contrast well together because Ibsen presents women negotiating, resisting and subverting the female roles constructed by the societies in which they live. Irish playwright George B. Shaw found it thrilling that Ibsen was willing to examine society with such bigotry.

Nora and Nella are continuously defined by the people around them. Nora is well defined by her husband, Helmer. She is Helmer’s “skylark” – a pet, a sexual partner, a mother and housekeeper. Helmer rarely, throughout the play calls Nora by her name. Ibsen uses animalistic imagery to develop her character throughout the play. By placing the first use of this imagery in the first few lines at the beginning of the play, the audience understands that in Helmar’s eyes, Nora is a pet and not his equal. The effect of Helmer calling Nora his “skylark”, “little lark”, “little squirrel” and other animal names is followed by an action – her hiding the macaroons (“Is that my squirrel frisking about?”) and being carefree (“Is that my little lark chirping around?”). Interestingly when Helmer refers to Nora by using these words, it reflects how he feels about her. The possessive pronoun “my” suggests that she is his; a possession. Nora is locked and caged by him in their home. He questions her behaviour during those situations, which is followed by his condescending behaviour towards her. Ibsen intentionally does this to show how Nora is supposed to act and how she is portrayed. It allows the audience to see the control he has over Nora and to realise that Helmer has built a prison of language for Nora. It also signifies how little Helmer sees Nora compared to him and sees her as insignificant in the family as he is the breadwinner hence why he hands Nora notes in the first act. Traditionally, women were defined physically and intellectually as the ‘weaker’ sex, in all ways subordinate to male authority. In private life women were subject to fathers, husbands, brothers even adult sons., while publicly, men dominated all decision-making in political, legal and economic affairs. A link that Nella, shares as Johannes Brandt is the hard-working breadwinner in their family.

Throughout the novel, Nella is often referred to as ‘childlike’. In what way would you say this is so? How do we see her mature? In Nella’s case, she is repeatedly treated like a child. When the only gift that Johannes can give her is a doll’s house replica of their home, she displeased at the childish gift that she will practice her housekeeping skills on.

Moreover, both texts show how Nella and Nora are subjected to being treated as inferior by dominant male characters that constrict their freedom to have their own identity.

In A Doll’s House, Nora’s lack of interest in society – “I think it’s a bore” (p 40) reflects for many nineteenth century belief that responsibility (the debate between Mrs Linde and Dr Rank) was not a woman’s problem. This is why Nora’s impulsively but morally responsible decision to forge her father signature to save Helmer’s life, is kept a secret. Nora does not believe that it can make a difference to who she is unless it is revealed. Hence why Toril Moi, stated that defining yourself was a male task – ‘a struggle with the external world and himself’ (Henrik Ibsen and the Birth of Modernism; Art, Theatre, Philosophy, 2006). Toril Moi goes further to say “as long as marriage and motherhood are incompatible with women’s existence as individuals and citizens, Nora will have none of them.” This shows that Nora is a woman who society had defined as a daughter, a wife and a mother. Being a wife and a mother expressed what a woman was born to be, rather than the choices she might or might not make to define herself. When Nora makes the decision not to accept Helmer as the spokesperson for the powerful forces in society, she no longer allows him to define the roles of wife and mother for her but plans to learn for herself. She is already beginning to shape herself as an individual beyond these labels. Norweigan journalist’s review on the ending of A Doll’s House, illustrates the shock of the audience at the time. “I am thinking about the fact that it is Nora, that is, the woman, who acts as a spokesman both when it comes to the dissolution of the marriage and to entrusting the children she herself has borne to the care of a nanny. There is something indescribably unnatural in this, and therefore, in the final instance, artificial.” Many feared that this choice would negatively impact the audience. In the Miniaturist, Nella dedicates herself into becoming the ideal woman for Johannes. She defines the criteria of being a proper woman which is repeatedly mentioned in the text – “a proper woman marries – she has children” (p 161). She is an idealistic young woman, who has concrete ideas of what she wants her future to look like: a romantic marriage full of love and children and a traditional role as a wife. It soon becomes ironic because her marriage does not end up like the “ideas of true love, of marriage beds, laughter and children” (p 110). This allows her to to believe that “for some of us, it’s a waste to be married” (p 399) which demonstrates that women lose their self dominion as they cannot decide what kind of life they have by themselves. This is something both Nora and Nella go through.

Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (1990) suggest that there is no such thing as innate masculinity or femininity. Rather our gender is performative – gender is not something we are but what we do. The social construction of gender is learned through many aspects of society. of Both Nella and Nora were destined to break the archetype– Nora through abandoning her role of wife and mother – leaving Helmer and her children and Nella accepting that being a proper woman for her husband will never happen. Nella and Nora are linked by ideologies placed on them by their parents. As Nora becomes increasingly aware of the true nature of her relationship with Helmar she sees the resemblance with her father. She realises that she ‘was simply transferred from Papa’s hands to [Helmar’s] … You and Papa have committed a great sin against me”. Stephanie Forward interprets this moment from a feminist perspective, as Nora finally ‘comes to see herself as an object moulded by her father and then by her husband’ Nora realises that though her life with her father and Torvald conforms to societal expectations about how husbands and wives should live, it is far from ideal as “it is [their] fault I have made nothing of my life”. Wilson states “men hold power in all the important institutions of society”. Conversely, Nella’s existence of women is based on her mother’s perception of what a woman should be. It becomes her goal to become a proper woman because according to her mother, “life is hard if you’re not a wife” (p 22).

The connotation of this statement is important as it signifies that being a wife is the only option for Nella.”Life is hard” because during that period women were financially dependent on men, which created a sense of powerless from their reliance on their husbands. Gamble argues that the idea of a proper woman is the “internalised norms of femininity” which is present in the Dutch society. Contextually this view was shared in seventeenth century as when women got married according to the Dutch law, many of them would choose manus, which granted her husband complete martial power over her, rather than usus which made them equal. There are similarities when comparing this to the nineteenth century, Victorian Era, as men also had complete control in marital affairs.

A Doll’s House, written by Henrik Ibsen, demonstrates the repressed life of women in the 19th century. Nora faced many challenges throughout the play that made her come to terms with the awful life she had been living ever since she was a child. In order to fix the problem, Nora decided to leave her family to start a new life instead of commiting suicide. The is a big step and possibly a huge mistake. She has to take into consideration the social impact her abandonment will have on her and her family. Death is one form of escape, abandonment is another.

Several things must be taken into account when dealing with the issue of abandonment. No matter who she was living with or married to, she had already gave birth to three children. “I realized that for 8 years I had been living here with a complete stranger, and had borne him 3 children.” (Ibsen 1388) A mother should never walk out on her children. She didn’t want to take them with her or ever see them again. Nora says, “I don’t want to see the children. I know they are in better hands than mine.” (Ibsen 1388) If a mother does not provide for her children, she has completely denied the role of motherhood. She and her children have grown up as play things, and it will continue for them if she is not there.

Nora was treated exactly like a doll by many people such as Torvald, Dr. Rank, Krogstad, and her children. Torvald liked to treat her as inferior and call her names like doll, spendthrift, skylark, squirrel, and featherhead. These are all derogatory names. Torvald always seemed to like to say “my little” before giving Nora a nickname. This just goes to show that he believed Nora belonged to him. He did not treat her as an equal at all and tried to make her feel useless. Nora was capable of living alone. She was not the best person to raise her kids because she also treated them like dolls. Nora has to leave her children so that they can also become real human beings just like her. The responsible thing to do would be to raise them herself, but at that point, Nora’s mind was in no shape to raise more than one person, herself. The nanny can help raise them, but she also helped raise Nora. There is a very good chance that the children might still be turned into dolls since the children would grow up like Nora did, without a mother. If she hadn’t left her family, she would not be contributing to their home at all. Even though everything she did was to help her family, mainly her husband’s health, her efforts would never be noticed or appreciated. She would never become her own person. By leaving, Nora is destroying the reputation of her husband and the family she once risked everything for. She would jeopardize Torvald’s new job. Nora just doesn’t care anymore. That society is the same one that treated her so terribly all those years. They were unkind to her, and they will be unkind to her family.

Although she was Torvald’s wife, she was treated as a child in her own house by her husband. She was forced to follow rules that were set by her husband such as not being able to eat macaroons. Torvald also expected Nora to agree with him on all significant issues. Her views must match his views. Torvald blamed her for ruining his life and his happiness. He said she was not fit to raise their children. Nora felt like an unworthy mother and a terrible wife although everything she did was for her family’s well being. Nora wanted to go out and be her own person. She has never been able to have her own experiences, to think her own thoughts, or to try to make something of her life. She knows nothing but what her and her father let her or what Torvald has given to her.

There are a few times that Nora seems to be standing up for herself in her own way. Because Nora hides the macaroons, it can be inferred that she has gotten in trouble for having them before. Although she knows Torvald wouldn’t like it, she decides to buy some anyway. This appears to be the first hint of Nora making a stand for herself and doing something because she wants to. Later, Torvald says to Nora, “When Rank comes, just tell him where he can find me.” (Ibsen 1365) Instead, Nora disregards Torvald and tells Dr. Rank that he cannot go in yet. This is the second time Nora is seen as defying her husbands’ commands. For her whole life, Nora has been living up to the expectations of her father and her husband. She has been doing everything their way, but not anymore. She is becoming her own person whether it is the right thing to do or not.

To Nora, the right choice seemed to be to leave her family. She felt trapped in her own home. She was like a doll taken from the shelf to play with whenever Torvald felt like he wanted to pay attention to her. She lived only for him. He not only didn’t treat her as a wife, but he cannot even begin to understand everything she did for him. He leaves her with no interference or support. Her decision to leave was enforced by the realization that they have never truly loved each other. ‘Home has been nothing but a playroom. I have been your doll-wife, just as at home I was papa’s doll-child.’ (Ibsen 1386) Her choice to leave is a new start and the chance for her to grow up and learn how to be a woman. This is something Nora absolutely needs before she could even think about being a part of an actual family again.

One can understand why Nora would want to leave her family even if her reasoning was not justified. She says, “You have only thought it pleasant to be in love with me.” (Ibsen 1385) She says this because she knows that Torvald was never really in love with her. She was his little doll; his play thing. He only wanted her when it was convenient for him. Being with someone that only loves occasionally can make anyone go insane. However, Nora left no room in the marriage for growth. She didn’t give Torvald the chance to prove himself. She left her children with Torvald, a man she called a stranger. Although one can see Nora’s pain in living with a man who didn’t love her, her leaving was still premature.

At the end of Ibsen’s play, A Doll’s House, Nora decides to leave Torvald because she doesn’t know who he is anymore. She believes she is married to a stranger. This brings up the issue of whether Nora’s reason to leave her husband was justified or not. Nora had her reasons, but she also had responsibilities as a mother and a wife. Abandonment is the only way to leave the life of a doll and face life as an actual person.

A woman’s place in society has always been mapped out for her before birth. Women born in a patriarchal society of the late 1800s must endure the discrimination brought against them in a male-dominated time. In those times a wife and mother were regarded as women’s most important occupations. During the period women normally had less legal rights and career opportunities than men. Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, though written by a male using his own life experiences gave feminist the inspiration and acknowledgment they needed. A Doll’s House focuses on the issues present in that time in society such as sexism, individuality, self-awareness, honesty vs deception and the sacrificial role of women.

Henrik Ibsen was a Norwegian play write who devoted his life to inspiring individualism in society. His plays reverse traditional societal roles. Ibsen source of his ideas and characters come from experiences he lived through. However, he constructed fictional characters with similar situations of his own to explore these emotions. Ibsen’s real-life father like Nora’s papa in A Doll’s House, squandered all their wealth he had obtained through marrying his wife. Ibsen was reverted to poverty and his family’s suffering public humiliation. Later in his life his experiences established in his focus of individuality which is characterized in A Doll’s House through the character of Nora.

In the play, Nora and Torvald’s relationship is based on societal sexism. The role of each in the marriage is defined by what the men. The women have lesser status and value than the men this is shown where Torvald says “Nora! The same little featherhead.” Torvald is implying that he thinks Nora is not smart, and her thoughts are just bare without value.

Nora is expected to be his ideal wife, a woman who depends on a man to make important decisions. Torvald constantly makes degrading remarks like ‘that is like a woman!” he believes that Nora should be submissive and act the way he wants her to. In an article on Conner Prairie titled Lives of Women this behavior of sexism towards women as The Cult of Domesticity which states ‘Women’s God-given role was to be a wife, mother and be obedient to your husband.’ This is explaining why men regard women as the lesser sex because they were told that was a woman’s purpose ordained by God.

Torvald reveals just what low regard he has for women, calling Nora ‘a thoughtless woman’. In his mind, women have no life outside of their men. Torvald is unable to see Nora as her own person with her own thoughts, wants, and needs and Nora realizes this. She is now faced with the choice of leaving this sexist marriage and find herself. The Women’s International Center article titled Women’s History in America explains Torvald and Nora’s interaction as women have been viewed as a resourceful source of life. However, ‘they have been considered not only intellectually inferior to men’ for example, but it was also a woman, Pandora, who opened the forbidden box and brought plagues and unhappiness to mankind. So since then, women were described as children, and inferior to men.

The play possesses the struggles that come into place when trying to find individuality in a society that doesn’t uphold that for women. When Krogstad says ‘there is not the least pleasure in working for oneself.’ She is pushing Nora to leave her motherly and wifely duties and reject social norms. Nora must step out of her role in order to her unique personality. Conner Prairie’s Lives of Women article describes the late 1800s where women were pulling against these traditions “Women’s roles were meant to be steady all this uncertainty, but women could not help but see opportunities for themselves in this growth.” Women were starting to feel the urge of being their own individual and were starting to rebel against social norms.

Krogstad and Christine are no longer bounded to their patriarchal bonds of society. Christine and Krogstad represent individuality in the play. Where Krogstad did the same crime as Nora and gained her independence that Nora longs for. By using these characters who have lived outside of society’s expectations, Ibsen is representing Nora’s rebellion towards society. In an article on Conner Prairie where is states “Educating females would destroy the delicacy of the female’s character”. Which means that giving women their own identity and knowledge would destroy the foundation of their gender roles.

The theme of self-awareness is revealed throughout Nora’s journey. At the beginning of the play, Nora lacks self-awareness. Throughout the play, she gains a sense of who she is, and is now able to identify her own morals and emotional point of view from those that her husband and father had imposed on her before. When Torvald says ‘poisonous..in the presence of those near and dear to him.’ about Krogstad as, these words now trigger Nora down the path of self-discovery. At that moment she decides, ‘I shall not be able to be so much with them now as I was before.” It was the thought of herself as being unworthy or harmful to her children forces Nora to see the consequences of her actions. The Women’s History in America’s article titled Women’s History in America states “women are the stronger sex that buries their own emotions and needs in order to survive” women acknowledge their self-awareness as them retaliating to men’s oppression and realizing their worth.

Torvald has now cause Nora to doubt herself about being a good person, it is Dr. Rank acknowledgment his of self-awareness and speaking this truth and facing his death that leads Nora to see herself for who she is. When Torvald exposes himself as a hypocrite that cares about what people will think of his character and question his manhood, is when Nora chooses not to let him decide things for her anymore and gain her own sense of self.

Through the characters actions, Ibsen emphasizes the importance of honesty and deception. From the start, Nora lies and hides from the truth, the more confused she becomes about herself through a small deception. The lies told to Torvald and the deeper lies of Nora’s self-deception Nora finds herself hiding more of the truth away from those around her.

When Christine tells Krogstad to leave the letter for Torvald to read it, now Nora has come face to face with the truth. The truth that would turn her husband to question her character as a woman The Women’s History in America’s article titled Women’s History in America states that ‘The Bible has painted to men what a woman should be like now women are being disregarded for who they are.” Men who believe in the bible have drafted their own thoughts of what their wives should be and when they act differently, they are going against the biblical truth that paints them as honest and righteous.

Ibsen depicts the sacrificial role of women of all economic status in society. Nora’s claim that though men refuse to sacrifice their integrity, “hundreds of thousands of women have.” Even though Nora has a better financial advantage over the other female characters, she lives a hard life filled with deception because society has dictated that Torvald is the dominant one in the marriage. Torvalds rules and patronizes Nora, but Nora must hide her emotions for her own survival. Sacrificing her own happiness for her husband and children sake. Women could not do business or have to control their own money, they needed the permission of the men. In Conner Prairie’s article “Women were born natural caregivers…. with survival skills….. that neglect their own needs even their health.” Women for generations have been doing whatever is necessary for their existence and their families, even if it means putting themselves last. Women were given a central role

In concluding A Doll’s House Ibsen Through his life experiences, he writes a play reflecting his life using fictional characters. His writing is a form of feminism activism for women in the late 1800s. He uses Nora and Torvald relationship to expose the sexism that is in the story as Torvald deems himself as the superior sex. He brings light to women finding self-awareness in and now trying to separate themselves from their wifely and motherly duties and finding something of their own, through this their sense of individuality is form in a society that tells them to act a certain way despite who they really are. The women in this play also must give up their own needs in order to maintain a stable life for themselves and their families. While also contradicting their persona to fight back against their male oppressors.

Work cited

1. “Women’s History in America.” WIC, www.wic.org/misc/history.htm.
2. “Lives of Women.” Conner Prairie. www.connerprairie.org/education-research/indiana-history-1860-1900/lives-of-women
3. “Henrik Ibsen.” Biography.com, A&E Networks Television, 15 Apr. 2018, nwww.biography.com/writer/henrik-ibsen.
4. “A Doll’s House.” by Henrik Ibsen, www.gutenberg.org/files/2542/2542-h/2542-h.htm.

Intersectionality was introduced by black feminist scholar Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw in 1989.Intersectionality has been a big part of society, it has affected different part of society causing for different critical lenses. Intersectionality is the interconnected idea of social arrangements, for example, race, class, and sexual orientation as they apply to a given individual or gathering, viewed as making covering and reliant frameworks of separation or inconvenience. Throughout history, different people have been discriminated for different reason for having different skin color, gender, class or sexual orientation. Even in different books we can see how intersectionality also in books that authors wrote. One book such as this is, “ A Doll’s House” by Ibsen. The different characters and how we can view different perspective through the characters by being able to use different lenses, explain the social social structure, and how intersectionality affected the story.

Henrik Ibsen, considered by numerous individuals to be the father of modern drama, was given birth in Skien, Norway, on March 20, 1828. He was the second of six siblings. Ibsen’s dad was a conspicuous vendor, yet he went bankrupt when Ibsen was eight years of age, so Ibsen spent quite a bit of his initial life living in destitution. From 1851 to 1864, he worked in theaters in Bergen and in what is currently Oslo. At age twenty-one, Ibsen composed his first play, a five-demonstration disaster called Catiline. Like a lot of his initial work, Catiline was written in verse.In 1858, Ibsen married Suzannah Thoreson, and inevitably had one child with her. Ibsen felt that, as opposed to only live respectively, a couple should live as equivalents, allowed to turn into their own individuals. (This conviction can be seen plainly in A Doll’s House.) Thus, Ibsen’s faultfinders assaulted him for neglecting to regard the organization of marriage. Like his private life, Ibsen’s reviewing would in general mix delicate social issues, and a few corners of Norwegian culture disliked his work. Detecting analysis in Oslo about his work as well as his private life, Ibsen moved to Italy in 1864 with the help of a voyaging gift and a stipend from the Norwegian government. He spent the following twenty-seven years living abroad, for the most part in Italy and Germany.

The story “ A Doll’s House” by Ibsen, is about a play in three acts by Henrik Ibsen, distributed in Norwegian in 1879 and played out that year. The play focuses on a common family, Torvald Helmer, a bank legal advisor, his better half Nora, and their three little kids. Torvald assumes himself the moral individual of the family, while his significant other accept the job of the pretty and adorable little lady so as to impressed him. Into the story, her secret was exposed , strangers that came out of nowhere , one of whom threatens to expose the wrong doing that Nora had once committed without her significant other’s learning so as to borrow money to save his life when he was really sick. At the point when Nora’s demonstration is uncovered, Torvald responds with shock and disapproval of her, out of worry for his very own social standing. Completely baffled about her significant other and ending up going off on her, whom she currently observes as an empty misrepresentation, Nora pronounces her freedom of him and their kids and abandons them, leaving the entryway of the house behind her.

From reading the play “ A Doll’s House” and learning from the context, we learned the reason why Hendrik Ibsen wrote about intersectionality in the society. Being born in 1828, where the men works while the females were to stay home and take care of the children and the house. Ibsen felt that it was unfair for a marriage and the husband and wife should be equal. The play “A Doll’s House” was written back in the 1900s but it was criticized and controversial because back then, people felt that European theater should be heavily relied upon to display severe ethics of family life and respectability. Even tho this was the case, he still wrote the “A Doll’s House”, standing up for all the woman out there, telling them to fight for there freedom just like Nora Helmer.

The women’s lens focal point enables us to take a gander at content through the eyes of a women’s activist to intently dissect how ladies are depicted and exhibited in contrast with men.Feminism implies the development for social, political, monetary, and social balance among people; battles against sexual orientation disparities. We can clearly see the feminist lens in the story “ A Doll’s House”, we see how Torvald and Nora relationship was like in the story.

Viewing this from feminist lens, a feminist might say the major subject or issue on which the play “A Doll’s House” is composed of is the issue of woman. All the more explicitly, its subject is of the status of woman in the general public and their treatment by men, the absence of genuine affection and regard for a wife by a husband, and the absence of equality and justice in the treatment of woman in the general public itself. Nora of A Doll’s House has regularly been painted as one of present day play’s first feminist activist . Throughout the play, she leaves from her dominant husband, Torvald. In any case, however, all through this show there is consistent discuss ladies, their customary jobs, and the value they pay when they break with convention. Her husband Torvald couldn’t be blamed for everything.

In A Doll’s House, Ibsen illustrates the conciliatory job held by ladies of every single financial class in his general public. All in all, the play’s female characters epitomize Nora’s declaration (addressed Torvald in Act Three) that despite the fact that men will not forfeit their honesty, ‘a huge number of ladies have.’ In request to help her mom and two siblings, Mrs. Linde thought that it was important to relinquish Krogstad, her actual—however poverty stricken—love, and wed a more extravagant man. The babysitter needed to desert her very own tyke to help herself by functioning as Nora’s (and after that as Nora’s children’s) guardian. As she tells Nora, the babysitter views herself as fortunate to have secured the position, since she was ‘a poor young lady who’d been driven adrift.’

Despite the fact that Nora is monetarily advantaged in contrast with the play’s other female characters, she in any case has a troublesome existence since society manages that Torvald be the marriage’s prevailing accomplice. Torvald issues declarations and stoops to Nora, and Nora must conceal her advance from him since she knows Torvald would never acknowledge the possibility that his better half (or some other lady) had helped spare his life. Besides, she should work covertly to satisfy her credit since it is unlawful for a lady to acquire an advance without her better half’s consent. By propelling Nora’s trickery, the demeanors of Torvald—and society—leave Nora helpless against Krogstad’s coercion.

Nora’s relinquishment of her kids can likewise be deciphered as a demonstration of benevolence. Regardless of Nora’s extraordinary love for her kids, showed by her association with them and her incredible dread of ruining them, she abandons them. Nora genuinely trusts that the caretaker will be a superior mother and that abandoning her kids is to their greatest advantage.

The masculinist lens is the biased used against,stereotypes,condition men face on the daily. In the play “A Doll’s House” we cant really blame Torvald for the way he acted against Nora. The society made Torvald the way he was, in society, it was expected for Torvald to be the man of the house, while Nora was expected to be a great housewife for Torvald. I believe this is still wrong but we can’t blame Torvald for the society and that was expected of him because of society.

Prominent for their absence of activity, Ibsen’s shows are traditional in their statism. Before the drape rises, all the critical occasions have just happened in the lives of Ibsen’s characters, and it is the matter of the play to harvest the outcomes of these past conditions. The tight consistent development of every dramatization is the most significant factor for the play’s believability. In view of this, Ibsen demonstrates how every activity of each character is the consequence of deliberately point by point encounters in the prior existence of the individual, regardless of whether in youth, instruction, or hereditary condition. The creator appears, for example, that Nora’s rashness and imprudence with cash are characteristics acquired from her dad. Krogstad abruptly turns decent in light of the fact that he needs to pass on a decent name for his developing children. Christine comes back to town so as to restore her association with Krogstad. At last, to represent Nora’s mystery with respect to the acquired cash, Ibsen demonstrates how Torvald’s lifestyle is committed to keeping up appearances to the detriment of inward truth.

Circumstances also are misconstrued both by us and by the characters. The appearing contempt between Mrs. Linde and Krogstad ends up being love. Nora’s lender ends up being Krogstad and not, as we and Mrs. Linde assume, Dr. Rank. Dr. Rank, to Nora’s and our shock, admits that he is enamored with her. The apparently awful Krogstad apologizes and restores Nora’s agreement to her, while the apparently generous Mrs. Linde stops to help Nora and powers Torvald’s revelation of Nora’s secret.The shakiness of appearances inside the Helmer family at the play’s final products from Torvald’s dedication to a picture to the detriment of the making of genuine bliss. Since Torvald aches for regard from his workers, companions, and spouse, status and picture are imperative to him. Any lack of regard—when Nora calls him insignificant and when Krogstad calls him by his first name, for instance—infuriates Torvald significantly. Before the finish of the play, we see that Torvald’s fixation on controlling his home’s appearance and his rehashed concealment and disavowal of reality have hurt his family and his satisfaction hopelessly.

The intersectionality and different lenses we have founded in the play “ A Doll’s House” played a big role to understanding the play better and seeing different perspective of the story. The feminism side, the masculinist side, the social structure of the story and able to understand the relationship of the different characters with each other.

A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen highlights on the ‘moral laws’ of the two individuals in the overall population during this time. Strikingly, Ibsen made the play in the nineteenth century, a period overpowered by sexual direction irregularity whereby women were dynamically presented to moment employments in the overall population (Ghafourinia, Fatemeh and Jamili, Leila). The maker moderate partner agrees that women in the system had occupations to fulfill yet did not disregard to highlight that they should be proportionate to men. Calm, the social conflict that aggrieved the benefits of women was reliably neglected whereby the logical thinker saw the prerequisite for the overall population to stop concealing questionable issues from plain view. Basically, Ibsen underlines the need to recognize the reasonable issues (Henrik, Ibsen). Additionally, inside conflicts are evident in the play as most characters outline a shallow character that varies from their internal character that structures a huge truth of their lives. In a general sense, outside conflict is evident in Ibsen’s

Different parts incorporate this story, the first is the play’s setting. To begin with, the peruser is familiar with how it is dreadfully cold outside the house. The crisp atmosphere fills in as a depiction of the life outside the social standard. Through this, Ibsen portrays the cubicle class that of most characters, as unforgiving and heartless. In such way, it will in general be perceived that the social class has little to offer to the people who can’t achieve the required measures (Hooti, Noorbakhsh, and Pouria Torkamaneh). The social solicitation describes the standard. The untouchables of the social class endure troubles as such can’t get criticalness by coordinating with others from the overall population. The people who are looked descending on can’t get social substance. It is through this that Ibsen includes the present social conflict in the play as the common laborers characters endure through much encountering diverged from various individuals particular social classes.

Maltreatment of women’s rights highlighted the social conflict in the overall population. Fundamentally, ‘A Doll’s House’ by Ibsen was written in the nineteenth century, a period that was depicted by sex unevenness (Ghafourinia, Fatemeh and Jamili, Leila). Appeared differently in relation to men, the women, for instance, Nora were average as they experienced an unfeeling kind of treatment (Henrik, Ibsen). This suggests the nearness of social conflict whereby women were being fragile, individuals who should be reliably controlled inside the sexual direction commitments. For example, Nora is treated with absence of respect by her significant other, Torvald anyway she does little to stop it as this was the cultural standard (Hooti, Noorbakhsh, and Pouria Torkamaneh). Thusly, the depiction of sexual direction based isolation includes the nearness of social conflict in the overall population.

Internal conflict is included toward the start of the play as the group finds the saint, Nora, at a strange condition of weight. Strikingly, she is lying luxuriously to her significant other to that point that she is required to hide the Macaroon (Wiseman, Michael C). Broadly, this is horrendous for Nora as she isn’t steady with herself. As a visionary, Nora fails to change in accordance with her character, a perspective that is clear as she goes facing her life partner at the completion of the play. Helmer: ‘Before all else, you’re a companion and a mother.’ Nora: ‘[..] I acknowledge that, before all else, I am an individual [..] (Ibsen, 1759).’ As indicated by the announcement, Nora isn’t reliable with herself, a point that summons internal conflict between her shallow enunciation and her character (Wiseman, Michael C). Out and out, her supplication to Torvald ‘I needn’t bother with anything using any and all means’ underlines how it is her relentlessness love for her loved one that has made her stray into the red without the learning of Torvald as she tries to save his life (Henrik, Ibsen). With this, Nora isn’t stressed over the materialistic having a place acknowledged with money whereby she is enthusiastic about the additional money that her significant other will after a short time get thusly enabling her to discard Krogstad sooner than foreseen. The secret of the commitment draws in weight earlier the play as we are familiar with a woman covering reality from his significant other to save him from the evil burden that found a way to butcher him (Wiseman, Michael C). It is through this that Nora continues with a twofold life. According to Torvald, she is a silly woman who is simply excited about getting Christmas presents for the children and responsibility for the social affair. In any case, Nora’s character is the one that she is overseeing inside, fighting with the repercussions of imprint fake whole stealthily paying the commitment to avoid confrontations with her loved one.

Strikingly, a greater bit of the create weight is highlighted close to the beginning of the play when Torvald is checking the money whereby he implies Nora as a reckless. These authentications make Nora feel sorry of her purchases (Ibsen 1714). On a very basic level, Torvald controls her expenses whereby he states, ‘Wasters are sweet, yet they experience a horrible proportion of money’ (Ibsen 1716). He goes the degree that covering the route exactly drop purposefully to shield anyone from getting the chance to mail that highlights on nuclear family reserves. Stunningly, Nora’s basic convictions are continuously undermined by her better half’s guard character. His people person nature infers that Nora is in unfaltering chase of character whereby she is enthused about sparing the riddles. When searching for the development, Nora was prompt with Krogstad as he instructed him on her hankering to save his significant other from the affliction, a perspective that couldn’t be practiced with their ebb and flow financial status (Hooti, Noorbakhsh, and Pouria Torkamaneh). A short time later, Krogstad bargains Nora that he will inform Torvald concerning her impersonation. At this model, Nora is shocked whereby she states, ‘how despicable of you’ (Ibsen 1728). She asks the legitimate counselor not to reveal her riddle as she considers this secret ‘as her lone ecstasy and pride’ (Ibsen 1728). In perspective on the perspective of her central characteristics, it might be perceived that this exhibit incorporates self-character, one that movements from that of the lawful guide. Through this, Ibsen familiarizes the gathering of onlookers with the present conflict among Nora and the lawyer whereby the keep going is excited about keeping up essential convictions by enlightening Torvald of Nora’s exercises. On a very basic level, Nora’s exercises at this exhibit can be perceived as being command whereby she searches for the lawful guide submit to her sales.

Additionally, Torvald clashes with his core value in the wake of understanding Nora’s exercises. Conspicuously, Nora misleadingly took a development from Krogstad without teaching her life partner as she expected to forger her father marks. Nora kept this a secret understanding that Torvald can’t fit in with such exercises. Later in the play, Krogstad will be ended with Nora’s significant other whereby she ought to influence Torvalds not to (Henrik, Ibsen). At this case, Torvald fights a break conflict with his fundamental convictions whereby he is clashed between choosing not to fire Krogstad reliant on her significant other’s wants or to fire him to improve the proficiency of the position that he was conceded. Broadly, he sees his significant other simply like an essential tyke who can’t perceive the estimation of money or business. Also, Torvald is taught with respect to the commitment and is logically stressed over Nora’s exercises of creation that he regards unreasonable. Despite the fact that Nora did this to save his life, he can’t manage such a great amount of exercises as this undermines his pride. It is through this that Nora fathoms that Torvald esteems his characteristics and balance more than her (Henrik, Ibsen). This further highlights the present conflict of their characteristics as Nora underpins her reverence for Torvald and is set up to find a way to save his life. It is through this that she picked her better half does not justify the worship and leaves.

Ibsen highlights of different kinds of conflict all through the play. The setting of the play reveals the social conflict of the average workers characters who must drive forward through the challenges of the social solicitation. Basically, women are presented to irrelevant employments, a point of view that element sexual direction dissimilarity and social conflict (Ghafourinia, Fatemeh and Jamili, Leila). Altogether, Nora continues with a twofold life, a certified character that she stays away from her significant other. It is this riddle gives her happiness anyway includes the dispute of character she has. Additionally, Nora’s characteristics vacillate from that of Krogstad and Torvald. In the wake of understanding that they offer fluctuating observations with the last referenced, she stops their marriage.

The play A Doll’s House written by Henrik Ibsen in 1879 is one of the first plays featuring feminism, which contributed to the spread of feminism. Using a visual form of text made it accessible, where feminist ideas could be spread thoroughly in the society. The play is an important work in terms of understanding concepts which of feminism; hence it still plays a significant role for feminists today. The interpretation of the play would differ for a woman being part of the early-period feminism as juxtaposed to a woman in the 21st century of third wave feminism. In order to understand why interpretation could vary between two feminist readers, one must first examine which parts of the text that could be interpreted differently and why.

A Doll’s House features the white middle class woman Nora as its protagonist, which connects her to a first wave feminist considering that the first wave feminism mainly involved white women of the middle class. The reader is presented to a woman who is oppressed by her husband Torvald. Several elements demonstrate Torvalds expressions of superiority as exemplified when he calls Nora “my obstinate little woman” (Ibsen, 26) and refers to her as his “little squirrel” (Ibsen, 2) or “skylark” (Ibsen, 2). This both asserts her inferiority and is dehumanizing, where Nora is described as a possession of Torvald’s. He further calls Nora a “spendthrift” (Ibsen, 4) and objectifies her by acknowledging “One would hardly believe how expensive such little persons are!” (Ibsen, 4) These remarks proclaim her inferior ability of dealing with financial matters. Furthermore Nora’s inferiority is evidenced by verbal communications between Nora and Torvald mainly consisting of Torvald talking, where Nora is given little space to respond.

The oppression could for a first wave feminist appear exasperating as first wave feminists primarily discussed and promoted the ideas of women participating in politics and voting where the voice of the female was advocated (Rampton, 2008). Nevertheless, a third wave feminist as characterized by promoting redistributions of power between men and women and honing the ideas of the first and second wave feminism such as dismissing norms and terms of the feminine could react likewise. (Krolokke, 2006)

Distinguishing the play from the average situation of women in the 1800s is the ending where Nora perceives her relationship with Torvald as based on his superiority as evidenced for instance when Nora comments “… I have been your doll wife …” (Ibsen, 67). She then decides to leave him as a struggle to become independent. For a woman reading this at the time the play was written, the scenario could be interpreted as risky and rather unrealistic, whereas a contemporary feminist would be inspired by the ideas of a woman refusing to accept her being treated as inferior and not equally. The play mirrors women’s situation in the 1870s where a first wave feminist would acknowledge Nora’s situation and choice of leaving Torvald as fraught with risk of losing financial, social and familiar security.

The journalist Susanna Rustin discusses the emergence of feminism in the play and argues that Nora is “a symbol throughout the world, for women fighting for liberation and equality” (Rustin, 2013). In addition to Nora being a feminist symbol, Rustin claims that she shows how much there is left to be improved in the society. A woman living in the age of third wave feminism could in contrast to a first wave feminist put less emphasis on elements that have changed; for instance woman’s role in the household. A third wave feminist could instead focus on inequalities that still exist such as the financial situation of men and women and men talking condescending to women. An essential aspect of the play is Nora feeling ashamed of having borrowed money from another man, and if Torvald were to find out she claims it would “upset our mutual relations altogether…” (Ibsen, 12) This demonstrates the relationship between men and women in the 1800s were a woman lending money from a man was unacceptable as evidenced from Torvald in response calling Nora “…a criminal!”.(Ibsen, 62) In perspective of a third wave feminist the scenario could help understanding the history of female oppression.

In context of third wave feminists advocating woman’s rights to work and earn an equal income as a man, the third wave feminist would feasibly interpret Torvald providing the family with money and Nora being a housewife as aggravating. Furthermore the dance between Nora and Torvald in act three could be seen as provocative and understood as Torvald showing off his wife to others, where she would merely be an object to him. The play could be used as a source of understanding the situation of women in the 19th century in comparison to women today, where crucial parts of the feminist ideas have been implemented including suffrage, women’s right to work and the disposal of sexism in a family. A first wave feminist would likely ignore the financial situation and perhaps also the metaphor of the dance due to those aspects being norms in 1800s society.

To conclude, feminist ideas would evidently be interpreted differently by a woman of the first wave feminism in comparison to a woman of the third wave feminism. The focus and ability to identify with Nora would differ as of the play depicting society in the 19th century where a feminist reading it today could evaluate how the situation of women has changed. A first wave feminist would arguably not consider many of the elements as inequalities or injustices such as the financial situation. Instead a first wave feminist would presumably see the ending where Nora breaks free from the power relationship between her and Torvald as inspiring. A first wave feminist would experience the play as mirroring 1800s society whereas a third wave feminist could use it as a source of understanding how the situation for women was in 1879 as compared to 2013, where some aspects may still require development in context of feminism.

References

1. Ibsen, H. (1879). A Doll’s House. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.
2. Rampton, M. (2008). The three waves of feminism. Pacific,41(2), Retrieved from http://www.pacificu.edu/magazine_archives/2008/fall/echoes/feminism.cfm
3. Krolokke, C., & Sorensen, A. S. (2006). Gender communication theories and analyses. (pp. 1-22). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/6236_Chapter_1_Krolokke_2nd_Rev_Final_Pdf.pdf
4. Rustin, S. (2013, Augusti 10). Why a doll’s house by henrik ibsen is more relevant than ever. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/stage/2013/aug/10/dolls-house-henrik-ibsen-relevant

In the book doll’s house, written by Henrik Ibsen. A Norwegian dramatist who portrays the feminist society to the world. The society back in 19th century was focusing on serious social conflicts. Which focused more on the male domination and feminism.

From my point of view, Ibsen discusses the major concerns of naturalism and realism. And also highlights the importance given to the cultural conflicts. The way Ibsen portrays Nora in the play talks vastly of how women were treated back in those times, which again makes me think about the male-dominant society.

I feel that the title of the book also refers to how Nora is handled like a little baby girl for example how Nora is called, “squirelkin” by Torvald. Though Nora is a member of a household that possesses a higher income compared to the other households of that time, and this fact exhibits her with a female with higher power but the truth leads us to a path where its the society which is male dominant towards the end. The point that Nora couldn’t tell Torvald about her loan because being the male dominant character, torvald had a difficult time accepting that someone, particularly a women helped him save his life. Moreover, Nora hides from Torvald and paying off the loan secretly, as a women is not allowed to take loan without her husband’s order.

From my point of view, the way Ibsen has written about the gender- inequality in the 19th century, has changed drastically in the 21st century. The way women are encouraged to work and be on their own feet to save their living and being independent is highly acknowledged. Even though in some religions it is not by far appreciated but personally, by reading the story and relating it to my own way of up-bringing.

Topic: The importance and role of money in A doll’s house.

In the epigraph of A doll’s house, Nora greets Torvald at the entrance and it is revealed that she is a “spendthrift”[footnoteRef:1]. This particular word leaves a great impact on the reader. The first thought about their conversation highlights that, at some point in life, as years passed by, the Helmers’ have had to be more concerned about their financial status. But it is also shown how Torvald recently obtained a new bank position and that they would live a more lavish lifestyle henceforth. [1: Ibsen, Henrik, and Mary Rafferty. A Doll’s House. Cambridge University Press, 2002.]

The conversation between Nora and the porter forces the reader to pay attention to money, which is one of the conflicting themes in the play. Ibsen has put his limitations between, classes, moral standards as well as gender. Torvald’s confidence that Nora lacks knowledge about money is because of her gender. “Nora, my Nora, that is just like a woman”[footnoteRef:2], expresses his viewpoint on gender roles. Throughout the play Torvald’s dialogues portray Nora’s inability to deal properly with financial matters, “ little birds that like to fritter money”[footnoteRef:3]. Despite of this, Torvald fills Nora’s hands with money just to see Nora’s bright smile. The reader feels that, Torvald plays a role of Nora’s second father as he treats her like a child by calling her names like, “my squirrel”[footnoteRef:4], doling out money to her and always guiding her about the world as he thought she wasn’t an extrovert. [2: Ibsen, Henrik, and Mary Rafferty. A Doll’s House. Cambridge University Press, 2002.] [3: Ibsen, Henrik, and Mary Rafferty. A Doll’s House. Cambridge University Press, 2002.] [4: Ibsen, Henrik, and Mary Rafferty. A Doll’s House. Cambridge University Press, 2002.]

NORA: ‘Tell me, is it really true that you did not love your husband? Why did you marry him?” MRS. LINDE: ‘My mother was alive then and was bedridden and helpless, and I had to provide for my two younger brothers; so I did not think I was justified in refusing his offer.” [footnoteRef:5], this highlights how being married is the only thing women could have done to support her family, and Mrs. Linde thought she had to provide and fulfil her younger brothers needs, leaves an impression of how the oldest has to always take care of their young ones especially for financial states. Nora notices that Mrs. Linde is poor, and still she carries on with the fact that soon Torvald and her will have “pots and pots”[footnoteRef:6] of money. Mrs. Linde and Nora had both somehow how sacrificed themselves in exchange of money. Nora becomes Torvald’s doll whereas, on the other hand, Mrs.Linde was in need of money to support her mother who was sick and her younger brothers who were dependent on her. From the readers eye, Ibsen showed his characters as very ordinary middle class people instead on portraying rich, powerful, or socially significant people. [5: https://www.shmoop.com/dolls-house/themes.html] [6: Ibsen, Henrik, and Mary Rafferty. A Doll’s House. Cambridge University Press, 2002.]

Nora and Torvald have usual arguments on their financial status. Krogstad, after Mrs. Linde’s dearest husband’s death she becomes in desperate need of money. In fact, the bank here signifies the presence of money in all characters’ lives. It is also shown that in the play, money symbolises the power of each character and their status and dominance over one and other. In the first scene, the way Torvald dictates how much money Nora spends for Christmas shows the dominance over Nora whilst, Nora owes Krogstad debt which allows him to have power over her and Torvald. The way Ibsen has shown the importance of money and has been highlighted from the first scene of play till the end.

Money is considered to be the backbone of problems, a solution to every cause it is a very valuable commodity. It is something which is to be saved and used safely. Even though the family is in a good state but yet in need to save money and use it with wise care. Page 2 of the book, Helmer says that when there is no debt there is no borrowing trying to state that there is no happiness or relief in the house which has a debt to pay and no freedom felt. Torvald has a dominant role in the household and Nora being a low-ranking woman encourages his ego. Ibsen has portrayed some of the major issues that women faced in the olden days. Taking different kinds of culture, for instance, some women are still expected to be a housewife and are forbidden to work. The nicknames given to Nora by Torvald shows how Torvald was by society standards, the dominating one.

Nora hides her loan from Torvald because she knew Torvald could never accept the fact that his wife, moreover any women helped him save his life financially[footnoteRef:7]. This talks about how the society is man-headed and in general the men in the society hold a huge amount of ego. The reader also notices how the importance of money changes from Act 1 to Act 3, in act 1 the role and importance of money was highly discussed whereas the lowest in act 3. A few pupil say that money is the root of all evil but yet it is noticed that one cannot live without money. One thing everybody agrees is that having money makes our lives much easier and carefree. Due to Helmer’s background history he knows how tough it is without a good financial state and therefore works so hard and looks for as many jobs as he can do. Which is why Helmer fell sick leading Nora to pay for his sickness. Nora tries to persuade torvald to go south but torvald being the tight person about money disagrees to go as he wouldn’t borrow money for that purpose. Nora then lies, saying the money was given by her father whereas the truth being, she had raised it herself. Before torvald could find out that the money did not come from her father, he had been long gone. Therefore, Nora keeps the secret to herself as she wouldn’t want torvald’s “man-pride[footnoteRef:8]” to fade away. This play in origination seemed to be a very happy play and the couple, Torvald and Nora, very honest. But as the play proceed we see that the house of Torvald is full of secrets and deception, the smallest example of this would be when Nora lies about the macaroons. And the most serious example would be the loan Nora illicitly acquired to save Torvald’s life. In act 2, the reader realises that Torvald is the only character who from the start believes in the charade, this might be possible because he is the only character in the play who has not kept any secrets. Each of the other characters, Nora, Mrs. Linde, Krogstad, Dr. Rank, have all had kept secrets at some point of time, hidden a true love or overlapped one reason for another. [7: SparkNotes, SparkNotes, www.sparknotes.com/lit/dollhouse/themes/.] [8: Ibsen, Henrik, and Mary Rafferty. A Doll’s House. Cambridge University Press, 2002.]

In act 2, Nora cries that Krogstad has left the letter about the loan in Torvald’s letterbox and therefore, Mrs. Linde realises that it was Krogstad who lent money to Nora. Mrs. Linde confesses about Krogstad’s and her relationship. In the beginning of act 3, Mrs. Linde realises that Torvald and Nora soon return from the party. Meanwhile, Mrs. Linde calms Krogstad. Mrs. linde feels, even though she asked Krogstad for taking back the letter, she finds it more important for the truth to reveal for the betterment of their household. In the following time, Torvald reader’s the letter and Nora confesses that everything krogstad has said is true as she continues to talk, Torvald stops her from talking and bemoans the ugliness of the forgery as he says this, with anger and disappoint he also calls her a hypocrite and a liar. Torvald feels that she has ruined his life and happiness by putting him to Krogstad’s mercy. When Nora decides to leave, Krogstad disagrees and says that they should show that nothing has happened and continue showing happiness in their household. Meanwhile, the door bell rings and Nora receives another letter from Krogstad, which includes Nora’s promissory note. Right after reading this letter, Torvald demands that now they can forget about whatever happened because now this “bad dream[footnoteRef:9]” is over. [9: Ibsen, Henrik, and Mary Rafferty. A Doll’s House. Cambridge University Press, 2002.]

When Torvald says, “From now on, forget happiness. Now it’s just about Saving the remains, the wreckage, the appearance.[footnoteRef:10]”, this quote from a readers point of view indicates how torvald was with Nora and a pride husband only for her looks. After reading Krogstad’s letter, the first thought on Torvald’s mind is about his reputation, status and appearance this manifests how Torvald was a very shallow person who was concerned only about himself. He also states, for him appearance in happiness is more essential than literally being happy himself. [10: Ibsen, Henrik, and Mary Rafferty. A Doll’s House. Cambridge University Press, 2002.]

Conclusion

In conclusion, the reader believes, A Doll’s house written by Henrik Ibsen portrays the societal values of the world today. Through his simple diction and language he has portrayed the importance and role of money in every act as the reader thinks, money plays a key role in every relationship. It is very clearly evident in the play how money is not equal to love. Nora married torvald because of her financial concerns but there was never true love between them and hence the marriage was a fail.

‘A Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen was published in the 19th century. The play caused great controversy for the unheard of and modern behavior of a married woman called Nora in Norway, challenging 19th-century gender roles in a male-dominated world. At first, Nora goes along with her role as an ideal innocent housewife, but as she uncovers Torvald’s true beliefs she finds the courage to become an individual and leave her household. Nora’s character development from fragile and immature to independent and courageous exposes the idealized doll-like role of women and the social constraints at the time, criticizing gender power dynamics and the importance of image to society.

At the beginning of the play, Ibsen represents Nora as dependent, innocent and child-like, portraying the image of the ideal housewife at the time. Nora enjoys attention from her husband and his patronizing treatment. Their constant playful bantering shows his superiority and his paternalism. Numerous times she is referred to by Torvald as a “skylark”, “squirrel” or “songbird” all of which are fragile animals that struggle to survive in the outside world. This tells us more about his typical opinion of Nora as fragile and hopeless without him. At times he adds the adjectives “sweet” and “little” to emphasize Nora’s delicacy and the word “my” which shows the possessive nature that was common at the time since society considered women as the property of their husbands. Nora not only accepts these patronizing nicknames but also goes along with them. This shows us that although she might have the power to manipulate Torvald she decides to subject herself to his authority as that is what women were expected to do by society.

Additionally, Nora is portrayed as being irresponsible, especially with her money. An example of this can be seen at the very beginning of the play when she is paying the porter. Although he is only asking fifty öre for his service, she gives him a crown. The additional fifty öre is not a large amount of money; however, the casual way in which she gives it to him shows her financial irresponsibility. Since Nora had a tendency to spend all the money Torvald gave her right away, he doesn’t trust her with any money anymore. At the time men were always in charge of the family’s financials and anything to do with money, therefore the majority of women, like Nora, didn’t understand its worth. They hadn’t earned it themselves, nor do they appreciate how concepts such as savings and loans worked.

In the third act of the play, Nora shifts from a fragile and immature mother and wife to an independent and courageous woman who challenges society’s gender roles in the 19th century and redefines womanhood as individualistic. As Torvald becomes aware of Nora’s forgery, she becomes more aware of her feelings. When she changes out of her Tarantella dress and says “Yes, Torvald, I’ve changed”, she has also metaphorically changed in terms of her beliefs and attitude towards her situation and her husband. As Nora announces her change and reemerges from her bedroom ready to leave, she begins to develop an awareness of herself as an individual. Now, the importance of her life is that she needs to become a fully developed human being on her own as she no longer believes in the putting duties of being a wife and mother first.

Nora acknowledges that both her father and her husband have mistreated her by not considering her as an individual with her own thoughts and feelings and treating her like a possession for their own amusement, just like a doll. Nora needs a chance to learn more about herself and life outside the doll’s house since she felt that their “house was never anything other than a play-room”. She has spent her whole life in a “dream world” where everything has always been taken care of for her and she has not had to suffer the consequences of her actions, becoming like an object. This is all until she makes the big mistake of forging her father’s signature and is left trying to fix the consequences on her own, rather than Torvald doing it for her. Nora believes that Torvald would sacrifice his own reputation for her, but it turns out he would not make that sacrifice, completely shattering her dream world and putting an end to her doll-like behavior. She is then forced to see what life is really like outside the doll’s house and how much she still has to learn. This can be seen when Nora says: ‘Play-time is over; now comes time for lessons” . When she mentions “play-time” she refers to the control the men in her life have over her as the doll, and how this is over as she has now taken control over her life and can make decisions on her own. It is time for her to learn life lessons independently and make something of her life rather than constantly following the likes and beliefs of her father and husband. Nora’s revelation leads her to question the accepted social truths and think for herself about her situation. She bitterly attacks her father and Torvald for treating her like a toy, but through them, she criticizes society for keeping women in a state of immaturity.

Using the characters of Nora and Torvald Helmer, Henrik Ibsen criticizes the gender power dynamics imposed by society at the time. During the third act of the play, it becomes clear the married couple’s love for each other isn’t for the right reasons. Torvald is so fond of Nora and attracted by her as she relieved his insecurities, influenced by society’s obsession with the way they are perceived, of being the dominant man of the house that everyone obeys. An example of this can be seen during act three when Torvald says: “Can’t I look at my most treasured possession? At all this loveliness that’s mine and mine alone, completely and utterly mine”. He keeps repeating the words “my” and “mine” which demonstrates a masculine sense of possessiveness which he continuously has to prove and mention to reassure himself that that is the case. Nora has always been obedient to and dependent on him, which made him feel in charge as the man of the house. As soon as Nora realizes that their love isn’t genuine, she suddenly has the courage to be in charge of herself, shattering the gender power dynamic them, making him feel threatened and worried about how society will perceive him. Ibsen continues to criticize 19th-century gender roles as Helmer says: “But nobody sacrifices his honor for one he loves.” and Nora responds with: “Hundreds and thousands of women have”. This shows Nora finally having the strength to stand up to her husband and let him know how unfair gender dynamics were at the time. This concept was very controversial for the 19th-century audience and unspoken until Ibsen decided to finally discuss it, appealing to women who felt the same way and making men feel uncomfortable.

Until Nora’s awakening, she is constrained by the 19th-century cultural norms and attitude towards women, which diminish her significance and worth, making her childlike and dependent. Her realization can be interpreted as a feminist awakening as she breaks free from the constraints placed upon her by society in the 19th century and the men in her life, and becomes her own person for the first time in charge of herself. However, her epiphany is not only relatable to the women in the audience who have suffered in the same way, but also to all the other people who aren’t living the life they want to live due to constraints or have had a single moment make them realize something that then changed the course of their entire life path. Nora’s character development was an important element of “A Doll’s House” in order to get across Ibsen’s controversial criticism of 19th-century gender roles in a world dominated by men.

Exploring of the players involved in Henrik Ibsen’s ‘A Doll’s House,’ discloses the core trial confronting Nora and other women of today who are victims of men’s judgments. Most assumptions that men make regarding women conclude that women are blameless and fragile, just because of the term female. Form Ibsen’s play, Nora Helmer is viewed as being childish, and this serves as an example to signify women who live in symbolic ‘doll houses.’ However, as the play nears the end, Nora demonstrates her drive and the need to be a real and independent woman; part of which today’s women also demonstrate. Nora’s transition represents the struggles endured by the modern-day woman in fighting for their rights and freedom.

To disseminate Nora’s character successfully, we must first consider the challenges women faced during her time. Elaine Fortin argues that in the 19th century, a wife’s main role was to complement her husband to reflect credit on both of them. (Fortin). The writer delivers this idea through the creation of a character such as Nora. Nora’s personality, the introduction, struggles, motivation, and eventual moral learned will be carefully examined. Henrik Ibsen introduces Nora Helmer as the play’s protagonist who is a doll living a luxurious life. While still young, Nora’s father treats her with expensive gifts, and she later experiences the same from her husband. Torvald Helmer, Nora’s husband, uses terms such as ‘my little twittering lark’ (424), and ‘poor little girl’ (427). The image initially created by the author for the audience depicts Nora as Torvald Helmer’s wife. The play begins with Nora returning from an apparent excessive Christmas shopping trip. Her young character is displayed when she starts eating some desserts which she secretly bought.

On the other hand, Nora’s character of being a liar is seen when she wholeheartedly denies her husband claims of sneaking macaroons. Nonetheless, Nora is seen having concerns about where to hide the Christmas tree, away from her children as expressed during her dialogue with Helene: “Hide the Christmas tree carefully, Helene. Make sure the children don’t see it till it’s decorated this evening” (Ibsen). Ibsen also uses the play to indicate Nora’s financial status when she tells Porter, ‘Here’s a krone. No, keep the change’ (Ibsen). Nora exhibits typical connections of a financially stable woman in the 19th century. However, Nora’s interactions with Torvald regarding financial their expenditure demonstrates her vulnerability: “Pooh, we can borrow until then” (Ibsen). Emma Goldman uses the description ‘Light-hearted and gay, apparently without depth. Who, indeed, would expect the depth of a doll, a squirrel, a song-bird’ (Goldman). Observing Goldman’s remarks makes it evident that Nora’s perceived image contrasts with her real character. Maybe the author adopts this technique to make her an authentic character.

From the initial stages of the play, the author gives the audience several clues about Nora. In the beginning, Nora is seen laughing to herself, while she takes off her coat and hat. She goes forth to dip her hand inside her pocket and grabs a packet of macaroons and starts eating them one after the other; then cautiously treads towards the doorway leading to her husband’s room and listens (Ibsen 424). Nora’s behaviors imply that she is able and prepared to do unpleasant things without her husband’s knowledge to fulfill her enjoyment. In the beginning, Nora’s character is considered naive or juvenile. Wade Bradford labels Nora as behaving playfully, yet obedient in his company, continuously asking him for favors instead of interacting as colleagues’ (Bradford). There is a likelihood that Nora is using the favors as a means of survival, and overlooking her previous lapses.

Furthermore, the audience gets the chance to witness Nora’s bright side. Despite the audience thinking that Nora was using her money inconsiderately, she would rather scrimp and save to pay off a debt. When Torvald becomes sick, Nora forges her father’s signature to acquire a ‘two hundred and fifty pounds’ loan to make payments for ‘a wonderfully beautiful journey to Italy” that will help “save her husband’s life” (Ibsen 429). The fact that she never shares any information with Torvald regarding the loan shows how clever, secretive, and caring she is. When Mrs. Linde inquiries from Nora if she informed Torvald regarding the requested loan, her reply is “Good heavens, no! How could you think so? A man who has such strong opinions about these things! And besides, how painful and humiliating it would be for Torvald, with his manly independence, to know that he owed me anything! It would upset our mutual relations altogether; our beautiful happy home would no longer be what it is now” (432).

The audience now sees Nora as a risk taker who knows how to endure struggles, as well as an independent woman. Before the end of act one, the audience can see Nora’s sly and manipulative character. At a later stage, Mrs. Linde inquires whether Nora will inform Torvald about the loan, and she replies “Yes—someday perhaps, after many years, when I am no longer as nice-looking as I am now. Don’t laugh at me! I mean, of course, when Torvald is no longer as devoted to me as he is now; when my dancing and dressing-up and reciting have palled on him; then it may be a good thing to have something in reserve” (432). Nora makes all these sacrifices believing that her husband would reciprocate the same, but that is not the case because Torvald’s devotion belongs somewhere else. The statement Nora makes shows that she is conscious that Torvald views her just like a simple toy, a trophy, and a doll that serves no other devotions than his enjoyment. Nora fully understands that her husband does not think of her as his wife.

Furthermore, Nora portrays a playful character and her children, instead of taking her as their mother, they see her as much of a playfellow. During her dialogue with her kids, Nora tells them, ‘Come, let us have a game! What shall we play? Hide and seek? Yes, we’ll play hide and seek. Bob shall hide first. Must I hide? Very well, I’ll hide first’ (Ibsen, 437). In such an act, Nora’s children do not see her as a mother, but rather a shared toy.

Nora realizes the significant consequences once the reality is lastly exposed. Torvald uses this opportunity to release his hatred against Nora, in addition to her criminal act of forgery. She comprehends the fact about Torvald being a completely different individual than she the one she had faith in. Torvalds’s intentions are not to bear the responsibility for Nora’s crime. When Nora learns about this, she acknowledges the fact that her marriage was just an illusion. She learns that Torvald only took her as his ‘child-wife’ and his ‘doll” (Ibsen, 432). The play ends with hopeful words from Nora after Torvald decides to end their marriage. The tells Torvald that maybe there is a chance for them to rekindle back the spontaneous fire that their love ignited.

Work cited

1. Ibsen, Henrik. A Doll’s House. Dover Thrift Edition. New York, NY: Dover Publications, 1992.