A Doll’s House by Hendrik Ibsen and The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath, first published in 1879 and 1963 respectively, can be read together to track the fluctuating development of independence and identity among men and women in society. Ibsen’s enlightening play, based on the life and events of his friend Laura Kieler, had a resounding impact on its audience – Ibsen’s exposition of the hypocrisy within the patriarchal middle class life was praised by men and women alike for uncovering the bigotry of suppressing the identity of women, and arguably the inability to disengage from socially constructed identity within men. Plath’s semi-autobiographical novel also presents a critical view on societal expectations, but almost a century after Ibsen’s drama – set in Cold War America in the 50s. The ways in which identity is depicted in both texts can be compared by looking at common themes of masking identity, entrapment and mental instability. These factors that Ibsen and Plath utilise to ultimately show that identity in society can be dangerous, and that it is the construction of other people’s attitudes.
Ibsen’s drama is lined with various symbols, one of the most striking perhaps being the multiple doors on stage – the door to Helmer’s study, the door to the hall outside, and the door to the nursery and bedroom. Ibsen utilises these symbols to present Nora’s enforced identity. The door by the hallway that leads to the outside world can be read as an opportunity of liberation for Nora – a chance to stop being a ‘doll’ wife and to be her own individual. This can be seen at Torvald’s discovery of Krogstand’s letter stating that Nora has forged a cheque to save Torvald from his crippling illness, without his knowledge, where after an angry outburst Torvald states, “you’re going to stay here and explain yourself” as he “(locks the front door)”. Ibsen’s use of stage direction here signifies Torvald’s authority as a man over Nora – him locking Nora’s door of liberation shows that he has the power to suppress her identity and individuality as an enlightened woman. This means that the direction “(the street door is slammed shut downstairs)” signifying Nora’s exit at the end of the play is extremely significant – it signifies Nora sacrificing her “most sacred of duties” as a “wife and mother” that has been inscribed by Torvald from conventional expectations. Ibsen here seems to be presenting that Nora’s individuality is a positive influence, as it means she escapes her life of a “song-bird” – an identity that has been constructed for her by Torvald. Whilst a 21st Century feminist audience would see this act as a moment of defiance against patriarchy, with Nora prioritising her own identity over everything else, many would argue this is a dangerous decision. Women of the 19th Century generally had very limited rights, due to marriage property acts only passing late that century, with their roles in society, like Nora, belonging inside the home. The fact that Nora, in a state of newfound individuality, leaves her husband would have not only caused a scandal at the time, but also would have left her in a very vulnerable place considering high paying jobs generally went to husbands. It can thus be argued through Ibsen’s ending of slamming the door and Nora’s consequential liberty and individuality, is dangerous.
Plath’s presentation of individuality can be argued to be similarly complex – however in regard to relationships between men and women Plath ultimately presents individuality as dangerous. Throughout the novel Esther finds herself feeling as if her individuality would be constrained by the prospect of marriage, most notably when she remembers her boyfriend, Buddy Willard, saying “in a sinister, knowing way that after I had children I would feel differently, I wouldn’t want to write poems any more”. This notion is in line with mainstream 1950s American social expectations that women would set aside their education and aspirations for promise of marriage subsequent children – studies show that two out of three girls who entered college dropped out before they even finished due to the average age to marry standing at 18 years old. Plath presents Esther to not subscribe to this regressive move back toward the role of the housewife, as she concludes that “when you were married and you had children it was like being brainwashed, and afterwards you went about numb as a slave in some private, totalitarian state”. Plath parallels entrapment with domesticity to present a bleak image of marriage – the description of feeling “numb”, being a “slave” and feeling “private” all connote isolation, in this case isolation within marriage, which means sacrificing both individuality and happiness for marriage. Plath here is possibly presenting that it is the suppression of individuality that is dangerous, as it limits aspirations and could be detrimental to mental health, in the same way it seems to do to Esther. However, in the same line as Ibsen, Plath also presents the dangerous side to individuality. After hearing Mrs. Willard’s advice on marriage – “what a man is an arrow into the future and what a woman is the place the arrow shoots off from” – Plath presents Esther to again parallel this notion with her own, stating “the last thing I want” is to be “the place an arrow shoots from”, and instead wants to “shoot off in all directions of myself, like the coloured arrows from a Fourth of July rocket”. This can be read to be an image of volatility rather than positivity in Esther’s attempt to gain identity. The imagery of shooting off in all directions implies a more destructive side to Esther’s neuroticism in rejecting marriage, as she does not have the ability to decide her own identity, whereas in contrast the image of standing in “the place the arrow shoots from” implicates standing away from danger. It could be argued that it is this neuroticism shown through Plath’s imagery that contributes greatly to Esther’s psychosis, as it is seems that Plath, similarly to Ibsen, is presenting that the rejection of socially constructed identities of femininity to achieve individuality is dangerous, and that accepting societal expectations and suppression of individuality allows stability and security.
Alternatively, Ibsen questions this stability and security that comes with a socially constructed identity through the character of Torvald. Furthering the idea that Ibsen uses his set symbolically, it could be argued that the doors discussed previously are symbolic of every aspect of the Helmer’s life that defines both Nora and Torvald. For instance, the door to Torvald’s study could be symbolic of authority and patriarchal power. This is evident in Ibsen’s direction – the room itself is ‘backstage left’, far away from the coziness and domesticity of the stove and the table, indicating Torvald’s inflated position in the family and association with business. This in itself presents to the audience that Torvald is confined in his role as the husband – the audience can see that he is pushed far away from the warmth of the house, and in the opening moments of the play is inside the study working. Ibsen here suggests that the framework society has laid out for Torvald to be the provider and protector for the family has trapped him in his study – this study acting in a literal and symbolic sense, as it is where he spends most of time focused on business. This leads him to avoid visitors and even his children, at one point stating the presence of the children “is for mothers only”. It could thus be argued that Ibsen is showing through the character of Torvald that husbands of the Victorian era are so consumed by their socially enforced identity that it makes them neglect their duties to other people – in this case resulting in Torvald disassociating himself from his family. Ibsen extends this to Torvald being so consumed by this identity, that it makes him blind to realisation and individuality, unlike Nora who goes about a revelation by the end. Torvald is left still unaware of his own hypocrisy, stating “to be parted from you! No, no Nora, I can’t conceive it from happening!” It is clear through the exclamatory language that Ibsen is showing Torvald to be left in a place of despair without any sense of Nora’s newfound individuality, thus showing that it is Nora’s individuality that is dangerous to Torvald.
Plath also explores male patriarchy through the character of Buddy Willard, Esther’s boyfriend in the novel, to a similar extent that Buddy’s identity is entirely constructed from the male chauvinism and hypocrisy of 50s conventions of gender roles. It can be argued that Plath presents Buddy to be confined in his worldly attitudes due to his socially constructed identity. Buddy is described as “the most wonderful boy I’d ever seen” and “was a couple years older than I was and very scientific” by Esther, who initially had “adored him from a distance”. However when Esther gets to know Buddy he reveals that he had spent his summer sleeping with a waitress in amongst dating Esther, to which Esther sees that “he had only been pretending all this time to be so innocent”. Despite this, Plath presents Buddy to not see his wrongdoing and does not apologise for his actions – “he even seemed relieved to have somebody to tell about how he was seduced”. Plath’s presentation of Buddy here shows the hypocrisy of the 1950s male – Buddy’s absurd reaction of relief shows that he is blind to the deceitful and immoral nature of his actions. However Buddy’s inability to come to realisation is not damaging to him, like it is to Torvald, as Plath presents that he “must’ve felt like laughing in my (Esther’s) face”, a contrast to Torvald’s final moments of exclamatory pain. Rather, Plath is commenting that the moral blindness of men in the 50s due to their socially constructed individuality is dangerous to women, as Plath shows this to this to knocks Esther’s self-esteem, as she states “what I couldn’t stand was Buddy’s pretending I was so sexy”. This pain could be seen as the trigger that set off Esther’s spiral into self despair, as up until now, Plath shows that Esther took “everything Buddy told me as the honest-to-god truth”, and now betrayed feels “dull and flat and full of shattered visions” – the imagery here connoting great despair and being broken beyond repair. It can thus be argued that Plath shows through the character of Buddy, that the identities of young men in the 50s are constructed by society, and that these identities are dangerous to young women.
Plath also presents individuality as dangerous through one of Plath’s most notable pieces of imagery in The Bell Jar – the metaphor of the fig tree. In reference to a biblical story in the Garden of Eden, she describes her life to be “branching out before me like the green fig tree in the story” where she sees all of the potential prospects of her future that would shape her identity. All of these futures are constructed from all of the people in Esther’s life that she is influenced by. The “husband and a happy home and children” is a clear nod to the pressure of marriage with Buddy Willard and subscription to the 50s woman archetype, and the fig named “Ee Gee” is referring to Esther’s editor Jay Cee, a successful working woman who challenges the societal norm of abandoning education and success for marriage. After listing these lives, Esther sees herself sitting at the tree “starving to death, just because I couldn’t make up my mind which of the figs I would choose”, until all “the figs began to wrinkle and go black” and fall to the ground at her feet, leaving her “starving”. Plath’s use of metaphor here exemplifies Esther’s existential crisis due to the plurality of individuality. It is clear that Esther, due to the parallels of the figs to people in her life, wants to be someone else rather than her own individual – the use of the word “starving” implies a craving for these figs that represent the roles of others, but also connotes physical pain, showing that the want to be other people rather than one’s self is damaging. Plath’s choice of the fruit fig exemplifies this pain and damage, as in scripture a fig represents prosperity and the product of hard work, meaning Esther is watching the prospects of a prosperous life fail before her, emphasising that the plurality of identity as dangerous. It could be extended that Plath here is also presenting that the plurality of individuality is natural – the use of pastoral and natural imagery could suggest that it is destined for people to adopt the identity of others to craft their own. Whilst readers of the 50s may view this metaphor for society as a positive, as it holds countless opportunities for intelligent women like Esther, a feminist reader from the 21st Century may object this thinking. Despite Plath illustrating numerous futures for Esther, a feminist would argue she is fundamentally limited by the roles that are perpetuated by the gender stereotypes of the time. This thus shows that, due to Plath’s natural imagery within this metaphor, these restrictions in roles for women are embedded in nature. In this case, Plath could be presenting that individuality is only an extension of society’s image of man or woman. It is with this that I ultimately believe Plath here is illustrating the search for individuality as dangerous and futile, as the identity Esther craves is not even her own, and damages Esther’s wellbeing.
Ibsen also employs stagecraft that draws upon nature to present a similar idea about preventing the individuality and independence of women – through the use of Torvald’s nicknames for Nora. When A Doll’s House opens we see Torvald address Nora as “my skylark” and “my little squander bird”, as well as many others. Ibsen’s use of language here is extremely reflective of Torvald and Nora’s relationship of rigid power asymmetry – each one of his terms of endearment are generally prefaced with “my” and or “little”, showing Torvald’s love to be extremely possessive. The names “skylark’, “squirrel”, and “squander bird” also serve as diminutive names that reinforces Nora’s dependence on Torvald, as all connote frail animals, reinforcing the possession of Nora as a pet to Torvald. It could thus be claimed that Ibsen is presenting that even through language, men in 19th Century societies could physically possess women, stunting their individuality due to their severe lack of liberty. This is exemplified far more when Nora’s characterisation in the opening is considered. In the very opening moments of the play, Ibsen makes great use of stage directions, directing Nora to be skittish and playful. This is seen in her frequent movement – “goes over to the stove”, “she tiptoes across” – and her childish mannerisms – “plays with his coat buttons; not looking at him”. Ibsen’s use of direction here seems to show Nora embodying Torvald’s demeaning names, meaning through Torvald’s language he is controlling and stunting Nora’s individuality greatly. At this point in the play it is unclear whether Nora is entirely accepting of this or simply playing a role for Torvald, however in the closing moments of the play, Nora comes to realise she has not been living as an individual her whole life. Nora states that when she lived with her father, he enforced upon her “what he thought about everything, so that I never had an opinion of my own”, and that it was the same with Torvald – “I simply took over your taste in everything. With this realisation Torvald asks Nora if she was been happy to which she replies “no, never”. Ibsen here is presenting that the diminutive nature of her role in her relationship with Torvald has been dangerous to her – the fact that she has never been able to be herself in her life has made her deeply unhappy, and her search to find individuality is what liberates her. Thus, Ibsen here is presenting that authentic individuality is a certain positive, over having individuality confined in marriage.
In conclusion, I believe Plath and Ibsen both present individuals in society to be the construction of other people’s identities – both Nora and Torvald play the role of husband and wife throughout most of the play, whilst Esther contemplates who out of her peers does she want to live as. However, both writers differ slightly in their presentation of whether authentic identity is dangerous. Plath presents the search for identity as futile and harmful, which makes her fall in to deep depression. Ibsen presents that Nora’s authentic individuality could be dangerous – she leaves to live in a society that mostly sees women as inferior, however is also presented to be an enlightened woman, free from her suffocating relationship. These opposing presentations, I believe, shows that the byproduct of societies judgement and the struggles of rejecting a socially constructed individuality is worth the freedom of achieving authentic identity.