Henrik Ibsen's Description of Women’s Rights as Depicted in His Play, A Doll's House

Most functions of literature are heavily influenced by the time in which they had been written. They usually become topic to several interpretations primarily based on historical significance. In A Doll Residence, written in 1879 by Henrik Ibsen, significantly of the emphasis is placed on the gender roles present in that period of time. Gender roles have only lately evolved from what they had been for several centuries. In the initial years in which this play was performed, viewers have been very offended by some of the selections that Ibsen produced. In fact, some directors opted to change the ending so that Nora returned to her husband. This alternate ending fit far better inside the expectations of society at the time (Brunnemer 9). Though Ibsen claims he did not intentionally write this play as a catalyst for women’s rights, it has considering that turn into a major theme in discussions about this text. The main character, Nora Helmer, is central in developing theories about gender roles in this play. Commentators usually classify Nora as “(1) a feminist heroine (2) a courageous, possibly tragic, human getting (3) [or] a spoiled brat whose selection to leave her home and loved ones is just playacting” (Lingard). Ibsen uses every single of his characters to portray the zeitgeist of his time period 1 where females were subject to their husbands and the laws of society.

The theme of feminism seems abundantly clear and intentional throughout the play. Ibsen begins the story with Nora being a stereotypical housewife in the 1800s. In Helmer’s 1st line, he refers to his wife as a “lark”. He goes on to get in touch with her other pet names like “squirrel” and “spendthrift” (Ibsen, “A Doll House” 1598-1599). He seems to be talking down to her in order to exert his authority over her. By establishing their relationship in the starting, Ibsen paints the picture of a standard household during this time period and enables the ending to be that much more dramatic.

It is crucial to establish Nora as a common wife early on in order to accomplish the full effect that Ibsen intended with the ending. In the final scene, she realizes that she does not have to remain as her husband’s “doll,” she can be independent. The courage that it would take for a lady to leave her husband in a time exactly where females were so oppressed is what convinces me that feminism is a central and intentional theme in A Doll Residence.

According to Professor Joan Templeton of Lengthy Island University, Ibsen’s life serves as a testament to his true motive in writing A Doll Residence. The story is primarily based off of Ibsen’s great friend Laura Petersen Kieler. Laura was married to a man with an extreme fear of debt. She borrowed funds in secret to finance a trip to Italy, hoping the trip would assist her husband recover from tuberculosis. Although she worked tough to repay the loan, it was not adequate. She forged a verify, and her husband quickly discovered her crime. Her husband left her, claiming she was “an unfit mother” and she was placed in an insane asylum (Templeton, “The ‘Doll House’ Backlash” 35).

Realizing that Ibsen wrote this story about an event so close to to his heart, it is challenging to think that he did not have some anger about how unfairly his friend was treated due to the fact of her gender. He blamed her husband for allowing her to do “unworthy work” and for not caring about her physical effectively-getting. She did everything in really like, however she was treated like a monster (Templeton, “The ‘Doll House’ Backlash” 35).

Critics of the feminist theme in A Doll Residence often cite Ibsen’s personal words at a Norwegian Women’s Rights Festival in 1898. He says, “I thank you for the toast but must disclaim the honor of obtaining consciously for the women’s rights movement.” As an alternative, Ibsen goes on to say,

“To me it has seemed a difficulty of humanity in common. And if you study my books meticulously you will recognize this. True sufficient it is desirable to solve the issue of women’s rights along with all the other people but that has not been the whole objective. My activity has been the description of humanity” (Ibsen, Speeches and new letters 65).

This statement brings up the theory that A Doll Property is not really a play about feminism, but rather a greater message about humanity in common. In this theory, Nora represents Everyman. Supporters of this viewpoint, such as Eric Bentley, claim that “the play would be just as valid had been Torvald the wife and Nora the husband” (qtd. in Brunnemer ten).

Templeton tends to make a single of the ideal instances for the feminist theme. She has spent considerably of her life studying the text and researching Ibsen’s life to develop her argument. One statement that I was especially impressed with was her idea to remove gender altogether. What, then, would remain of the story? She says,

“Now let us eliminate the ‘woman question’ from A Doll Home let us give Nora Helmer the same rights as Torvald Helmer, and let him consider her his equal. What is left of the play? The only truthful response is practically nothing, for if we emancipate Nora, cost-free her from her dollhouse, there is no play or, rather, there is the resolution of the play, the confrontation in between husband and wife and the exit that follows, the only crisis and denouncement that could appropriately conclude the action” (Templeton, “The ‘Doll House’ Backlash” 32).

If A Doll Home is about the everyman, than why is it so essential that the major character is a female? If she had been offered no gender identity, there would be no story. Her departure is only considerable simply because it was so uncommon for a woman to leave her husband in these days. Had a man left his wife in this play, critics would nonetheless be speaking about the wife and what a tragedy it is to be a single mother in a time exactly where women had so few rights. Either way, there is a concentrate on the truth that Nora is a lady that is the backbone of this story.

Other critics uncover their proof inside the play. In comparing the 1st two acts with the final act, there appears to be a disconnect in between the “two Noras.” The first viewers of the play responded that “A Doll House did not have to be taken as a serious statement about women’s rights since the heroine of act three is an incomprehensible transformation of the heroine of acts 1 and 2” (qtd. in Templeton, “The ‘Doll House’ Backlash” 29). By this reasoning, Nora can be dismissed altogether and her exit in the last scene becomes merely “silly theatrics.” There are surely some qualities about Nora that can be utilized to discredit her as a feminist heroine. For example, in the first act she is consuming macaroons, but when her husband asks if she has been eating sweets, she lies. Even when asked several instances, she continually denies having had any sweets (Ibsen, “A Doll House” 1601). On one particular hand, one may well say that her consuming what she desires regardless of her husband’s orders alludes to her feminist acts to come. Nonetheless, other individuals say,

“Even Nora’s sweet tooth is evidence of her unworthiness, as we see her ‘surreptitiously devouring the forbidden macaroons,’ even ‘brazenly provide[ing] macaroons to Doctor Rank, and finally lying in her denial that the macaroons are hers’ eating macaroons in secret suggests that ‘Nora is deceitful and manipulative from the start’ and her exit as a result ‘reflects only a petulant woman’s irresponsibility” (qtd. in Templeton “The ‘Doll House’ Backlash” 30).

Another argument against Nora’s function as a “heroine feminist” is her flirtatious exchange with Medical professional Rank. Making use of sexuality to one’s advantage is the precise opposite of feminism. This is 1 point on which I am willing to concede. I do not fully recognize how this fact supports the proposed themes of feminism or humanity this appears to support the claim that Nora is merely a selfish individual. Nevertheless, Ibsen is definitely entitled to add specifics for the sole purpose of creating drama, even if it somewhat contradicts the underlying theme.

The final argument against Nora is that, upon leaving, she abandoned her youngsters, leaving them with the very man who treated her as a doll. In response to Templeton’s report, “The ‘Doll Property Backlash: Criticism, Feminism, and Ibsen’s Life, Betsy Bowden of Rutger University wrote”

“…Nora slams that door and runs away, leaving her beloved children in the hands of a monster, to be distorted as she says she has been. If one imagines the young children, awakened by that slamming door, coming in to face their father across the space, a single sees that the male-oppressive cycle must begin all over again if there is no heroic lady in the home to resist it. Deserted Tiny Ivar and Bob will be clones of Torvald, small Emmy doomed to repeat her mother’s sad story” (qtd. in Templeton, “Ibsen’s Nora”).

It is surely hard to think about how a mother could leave her young children. It may possibly not have been the most honorable factor to do, but do not forget that Ibsen was modeling Nora soon after his dear buddy. In actual life, Laura lost her kids because she had no choice. Ibsen basically wanted to give Nora the energy in this situation while nonetheless attaining the exact same impact of losing every little thing. It appears unfair that people often criticize a man that leaves his young children less than a lady that does the exact same. Just due to the fact Nora is a woman does not imply she must have to keep in an emotionally abusive marriage for the sake of her kids, and taking the young children away from their father at this time would have been almost impossible.

There surely are valid situations for each and every side of this argument. It seems evident that Ibsen was generating a greater statement when he wrote this play either about ladies or about humanity in common. It is feasible that Ibsen was apprehensive about overtly supporting such a controversial issue in his time. Or, possibly he knew that focusing the play on such a prominent problem would help draw interest to his underlying theme. Either way, it seems that A Doll Residence will always be a widely disputed historical play. Despite how far the globe has come in establishing equal rights, gender will constantly be a controversial subject in literature.