Essay: Henrik Isben’s A Doll’s House

Henrik Isben’s A Doll’s House is set against the framework of an evolving Norwegian society during the late nineteenth century as it shifts the focus from the template that consisted of writing about forces that were larger than the ordinary man towards the problems of the middle class. Due to the rising middle class, he not only wanted to move away from the elevated literary language of literature, but also wanted to bridge the gap between those onstage and in the audience. Thus, the audience would not be watching a spectacle, but rather a reflection on what was happening in their lives. He was an iconoclast because he was breaking the icons that had been worshiped earlier in literature by writing in this naturalistic style. This style was deemed naturalistic because it reflected the common man, whose actions were a result of natural circumstances, through a presentation of the social and psychological problems of ordinary people. Additionally, Isben explored the social transformations that accompanied a revolution of the traditional gender roles in Norwegian society. Nora and Helmer’s relationship symbolizes that of the common man and woman, with human emotions arising from the groundwork of certain social conditions, finding themselves and the truth for themselves as individuals.
In A Doll’s House, Isben paints a bleak picture of the sacrificial role held by women of all economic classes in his society. In general, the play’s female characters exemplify Nora’s assertion that even though men refuse to sacrifice integrity, ‘hundreds of thousands of women have.’ For example, in order to support herfamily, Mrs. Linde determined it necessary to abandon Krogstad her true ‘ but penniless ‘ love, in search of a richer man who could support her. Another instance wherein a female sacrifice was made, was when Nora was forced to abandon her children, due to the fear of corrupting them that was instilled by Torvald : “Almost everyone who has gone to the bad early in life has had a deceitful mother. […] It seems most commonly to be the mother’s influence”. Lastly, when the nanny had to abandon her child in order to support herself by working as Nora’s caretaker. However, she still considers herself to be lucky to have found the job since she was, ‘a poor girl who’d been led astray.’ Additionally, although Nora is economically advantaged in comparison to the other female characters in the play, she nevertheless leads a difficult life due the fact that society dictates that Torvald be the dominant partner in the marriage. Torvald is constantly referring to stereotypes regarding women : “That is like a woman! […] you know what I think about that. No debt, no borrowing” and believes that Nora’s most sacred duty are her “duties to [her] husband and [her] children”. Due to Torvald’s rules and expectations, Nora knows that she must jeopardize her integrity and her freedom by taking the loan out and then keep it a secret from her husband. Nora’s belief that Torvald will refuse to accept that his wife played a role in saving his life along with the attitudes held by the society, were the key motivators that led to Nora’s deception; which, in turn, left Nora vulnerable to Krogstad’s blackmail. Through the exploration of these common dilemmas, among common middle-class people, Isben successfully portrays a reflection of the everyday society.
In contrast to Nora’s role, Torvald Helmer embraces society’s belief that a man’s role is to guide his wife and to shelter her from the realities of the world. He is instructs her in a patronizing and condescending tone, as if she were a child with terms such as, “my little squirrel”, “my little spendthrift”, “my little songbird”, and “the child”. Torvald also is constantly offering up advice regarding the way of life and moral code that he feels that she should live by, ‘A home that depends on loans and debt is not beautiful because it is not free.’ Furthermore, he is so warped by society’s imposition of what qualities they think a husband should embody, that he even envisions himself as her savior. ‘Do you know that I’ve often wished you were facing some terrible danger so that I could risk life and limb, risk everything, for your sake?’ These delusions of grandeur and twisted view of his role he thinks the he ought play only adds to the irony of the play as a whole. Additionally, Torvald’s characteristics weaker and more childlike than any aspects of Nora’s character. In conjunction, Torvald is very cognizant of his position in their respective society and is obsessed with maintaining that image when in the presence of other members of their society. Torvald’s deepest fear is that he will be, ‘a laughing stock before the entire staff’ and therefore lose his place on the social ladder. Appearances are so important to him, that he prioritizes his reputation above all else ‘ even if it jeopardizes their relationship and well-being in the process. An example of where this is the case, is when he forbids Nora from interacting with the children, “I shall not allow you to bring up the children: I dare not trust them to you.” He stops her of her most cherished role, motherhood, but insists that she continue to stay in the household in the hopes of maintaining, the appearance of a happy family. By representing these common marital issues onstage, in the context the average household at the time, Isben creatively imposes careful reflection from the part of the audience.
Furthermore, Ibsen derides both Torvald and Nora’s concerns by denouncing the unreliability of appearances in society. Over the course of the play, it becomes apparent that there is a stark contrast between appearance and reality; appearances and first-impressions are shown to be misleading. Torvald originally appears to be the backbone of the house, both financially and socially, but soon reveals his cowardly tendencies. When he finds out the truth about the loan, he describes the experience as, “a horrible awakening! All these eight years ‘ she who was my joy and pride ‘ a hypocrite, a liar ‘ worse, worse ‘ a criminal”. Torvald’s ego is so fragile, that he completely disregards the fact that Nora aided him since the mere thought of owing to his wife makes him feel inadequate. In contrast, Nora initially appears childish and naive, when in reality she is independent and intelligent. In fact, she dwells over how Torvald might feel emasculated according to the standards of the society that they live in. “How painful and humiliating it would be for Torvald, with his manly independence, to know that he owed me anything!” This instability of appearances among all of the characters results in them inhibiting themselves from achieving happiness and harmony in their family. Isben presents this dilemma of the common household, among the actual members of the middle class, in the hopes of not only allowing them to identify with the characters, but also to provoke consideration of how they act within their respective families.
In summation, Torvald is trapped by society’s dictated traditional gender roles just as considerably as Nora. Torvalds self-worth is intricately amalgamated with his ability to support his family and his public reputation. While Nora initially appears to be the submissive mother and wife, she escapes from Torvald’s ascendancy through a web of lies and deceit, the only tools that society has left her with. This imbalance of power, leads to the dissolution of their mariage, due to a complete lack of understanding of what it means to have equality in a mariage. Isben’s concept of mariage is a joining of equals; thus, Nora and Torvald were incapable of realizing who they were as individuals until they became separated. Isben also draws from his own his own personal experiences when seeking inspiration for his writing in order to make his stories as accurate as possible when depicting these problems; an aspect of the process that is vital for the audience’s correct perception of the play.