Far From Feminism: A Doll’s House Essay

First performed in Denmark of 1879, A madams House by Henrik Ibsen shocked Europe with its contr everywheresially courageous ideas. Although the bit undeniably paints a sympathetic salutation to the plight of women during the 18th and 19th century, Ibsen repudiated the piece as be of solely feministic construct, declaring it a humanistic piece.In f guess, when he was being honored by the Norwegian Society for Womens Rights, Ibsen him egotism stressed that his normal intent as a writer was not to solely dally light to the plight of women when he asserted that, True enough, it is desirable to sort out the woman problem, along with all the others but that has not been the whole purpose.My line of work has been the description of humanity (Ibsen Letters 337). Upon further examination, it bring to passs evident that the feminist ideals that ar present in A raspberrys House cease as merely a symptom of an all-encompassing epidemic. Through the reputation references of Torval d, Nora, Krogstad, and Christine, Ibsen underlines the lethality of a pairing diseased by social pressure, and the hope of a coalescence that is free from fallacy, yet by no content fault.Torvald is a imitation of the chauvinistic male products of the patriarchal prison that perpetuated throughout society in the 18th century. A result of embracing the role that society has depute him, is the projection of those societal ideals onto his receive environment. Unfortunately, society has miscons reald Torvalds interpretation of love, and what it nub to be a good man/ keep up he weighs he loves his married woman, but what he loves is the idea of her. He loves the idea of her as a dazzling doll that he can dress and disregard, or a child whom he can control and (pretend to) protect. Torvald reflects his assumptions of his married womans inferiority in m each waysHe refers to her as Little Squirrel/ gambol/Songbird (Ibsen 1352), he indicts her of thinking and talking like a heedle ss child (Ibsen 1401), and he accuses her of not understanding the conditions of the world in which she lives (Ibsen 1400). These assumptions culminate in an insurmountable inwardness of irony. While Torvald accuses his wife of being ignorant to the world around her, it is he that is in fact unaware of theharsh realities of his smell.During a time when Torvald became ill, Nora attached forgery of her contracts name to yield the necessary pecuniary resource that permitted they travel to receive the medical attention required to save her conserves life, an act that Nora fruitlessly fights to ensure remains unbeknownst to her husband. Additionally, Torvald is kept unaware of Dr. Ranks impending death by both(prenominal) the doctor, and by his wife, Nora. Rank tells Nora, Helmers refined nature gives him an unconquerable repel at every intimacy that is ugly (Ibsen 1377), directly alluding to Torvalds superficial nature and his un passness to face the unpleasant realities of life .Thus, it is Torvald that does not understand the conditions of the world in which he lives (Ibsen 1400) however, his ignorance is not of his own doing. Further irony is offered to Torvalds patronizing pet names for his wife. Torvalds use of naturally elusive animals in reference to his Y2K compliant wife invokes images of unnaturally caged creatures, a reflection of Nora (and all women) as caged in approachs societys assigned role to women as, and capable of, lesser than what Ibsen revolutionarily sweard to be their actual worth and ability. The superficial standards of society fetch condition Torvald to believe that Nora depends on him (and thus, the more important he is), and that she, as a woman, is emotionally and mentally childlike (and thus, the stronger and wiser he is).Furthermore, Torvald casts himself a heroic role in his own fictional theatrical production when he tells Nora, I have often wished that you tycoon be threatened by some colossal danger, so that I mig ht risk my lifes blood, and everything, for your interestingness (Ibsen 1394). Torvald, enthralled by Noras dazzling demeanor, fantasizes about how he might rescue her from some great danger.However, shortly after his chivalrous charade, Torvald, having larn the details of Noras debt, has the opportunity to do just that, and fails miserably. Noras husband shows no appreciation for her intelligence or intention in performing an act that could have been avoided had Nora been capable of exceeding the superficial barriers imposed by society (such as attaining a credible career, or the ability to choose a loan). Additionally, Torvald lacks even slight consideration of his wifes feelings in light of the details of her loan, despite the fact that her actions saved his life. He rejects her as both a wife to him, and a scram for their children.Furthermore, he asserts that he wants her to remain in his house and pretendthat all is well with their jointure asserting that From this moment contentment is not the question all that concerns us is to save the remains, the fragments, the appearance (Ibsen 1396). Thus, Torvalds harsh and selfish response to the acumen of Noras crime is far from heroic, and prompts Noras revelation of her husband and marriage You dont understand me, and I have never mum you eitherbefore to-night (Ibsen 1397). Ironically, Nora has also been at fault for deceiving her husband of her true nature prior to this proclamation.Nora, who has never lived aloneshe went directly from the care of her father to that of her husbandhas been conditioned to believe that a womans happiness is dependent on the happiness of the head men in her life (Northam 251). This belief results in a faade that Nora fabricates and flaunts as an embodiment of a woman/wife consistent with the ideals of her father, husband, and society at large.As Torvald light chides Nora throughout the play, Nora good-naturedly responds to, and even plays into, his criticisms. She has learnt to coax her husband into submission of what she asks by appealing to what she knows he finds desirable in her. Noras character shifts from ab initio struggling to define self-fulfillment, to the astoundingly audacious pursuance of it on conclusion. Ibsen carefully constructed the character of Nora so that her independence and precaution are consistently shown as persistently trying to outshine her adolescent-like dependence and unpredictability. Although her father, husband, and societal standards have perforated any practical understanding concerning gender roles, she has retained enough intrinsic intelligence to confront an emergency, perhaps an implication of Ibsens faith in the worthy innate characteristics of women at large.The fact that she confronts her and her husbands inability to comprise for treatment of her husbands pressing illness by way of a forgery provides credence to her independence of thought the carelessness of the act however, reflects her lack of s ophistication.The collision of wisdom and childishness within Noras character enables her to test by experience the social hypothesis which declares that duties to the family are the close to sacred. To her diswhitethorn, Nora realizes that despite her diligence towards her dues as both mother and wife, her marriage is not one of true love. Nora concludes the play with the world famous slam of the door as she releases herself from the infectious incubator in which she has so long beenentrapped by fault of her husband, society, and her own self-deception.She declares her right to tend to other duties just as sacredDuties to herself (Ibsen 1399) in her flight to freedom. Subsequently, her conclusive and dramatic exodus offers Torvald a chance for liberation (and perhaps even redemption). When Torvald claims he has it in him to become a different man Nora responds, Perhapsif your doll is satisfyn outside(a) from you (Ibsen 1401). This is a direct implication of Noras realization not besides of her own imprisonment, but also her insight regarding the contribution her role as Torvalds doll has had towards her husbands conditioning. This, in addition to her own self-realization, adds subtle yet substantial reinforcement to the humanistic nature of the play.Nils Krogstad, from whom Nora acquired the lurid loan and has been blackmailed her since, is a character that can be reasonably stigmatized as a grade-A villain (A is for antagonist). However, although Krogstad undoubtedly uses some villainous tactics over the course of the play, there are in fact indications throughout that, underneath Krogstads villainous exterior, there is, at least to some degree, a respectable man who can then be recognized as another victim caught in the stranglehold of society.Krogstads former fiance, Mrs. Christine Linde had savagely severed her relationship with him when she was go away fatherless, her brothers and ailing mother to care for, and without means for monetary support. S ince a woman of the 18th century could not take out a loan, nor acquire a high-paying job, Christines circumstances necessitated that she follow a man with money. Eventually, Krogstad married and had children but when his wife passed away, he was left to raise and support his children alone. Under the pressure of his circumstances, Krogstad commits forgery, and is consequently viewed by the company as having a diseased moral character (Ibsen 1360).Thus, Christines rejection of Krogstad for a man whom could provide monetary support, combined with societys reaction to his petty crime performed to support his family out of reasonable desperation (Hardwick 294), has programmed Krogstad to believe that to be a man worthy of a womans love or societal acceptance, he must be a man of flourishing financial standing, thus tragically fating him to a decennary of self-suffering through petty crime and blackmail (Hardwick 294).When Christines brothers are grown, and her mother and husband have passed away, the newly independent, and, while of byno at large(p) means, self-sufficient Christine perpetually make up life profoundly depressing and floating(a) without the anchor of a husband and children (Northam 252). Christine does not find happiness over again until she get togethers with Krogstad, telling him I want to be a mother to someone, and your children fill a mother. We two need each other (Ibsen 1388). For a play that is often painted as a feminist paean, Christines proclamation is an awfully traditional assertion. Her tenacity to jump back into the role of wife and mother could be defined as tragic society has conditioned her to believe that the only way she will feel satisfied in her role as a woman is to play the part of wife and mother. On the other hand, Christine makes her statement not out of ignorance, but as a woman well aware of life without men.Thus, Christines dissatisfaction may not be a nod to the tragic conditioning of women to fit the role of wife and mother, but an acknowledgement of the intrinsic inclination that we as humble humans feel regarding a need and desire for love. Christine and Krogstad, who reunite towards the end of the play, contrast the relationship of the Helmers in that the foundation of the new found relationship is one of mutual understanding and equality. Christine says to Krogstad, Nils, how would it be if we two shipwrecked pot could join forces? Two on the same piece of wreckage would stand a better chance than each on their own (Ibsen 1388). Perhaps the agitate Ibsen is trying to perpetuate in the reunion of Christine and Krogstad is that the most tremendous thing of all (Ibsen 1403) is, in fact, a marriage, a marriage that is a wonderful thing despite the imperfections of the individual, or within the relationship, a marriage that depicts what Nora defines as a real wedlock (Ibsen 1402).Although it cant be only when denied that Ibsen is making a statement on the rights of women in this era , a greater feat is his illustration of the institution of marriage as flawed by fallacious fronts. Ibsens greatest achievement in A Dolls House, however, is not the judgment it passes on the institution of marital union, but the warning it perpetuates It is of no use lying to ones self (Ibsen 1376). Ibsen incorporates implication of hope in the union of Christine and Krogstad, a union that may be full of imperfection, but is free of fallacious fronts. Ibsen illuminates the issue of societal pressure through the intricacies of each, Torvald, Nora, Krogstad, and Christine, to underline an issue that goes far beyond feministideals, and perhaps even more impressively, an idea that transcends time.Works CitedHardwick, Elizabeth. Ibsens Women. seduction and Betrayal Women and Literature. New York Random House, 1974. 31-84. Rpt. in Drama Criticism. Ed. Lawrence J Trudeau. Vol 2. Detroit Gale question Inc, 1992. 292-296. Print. Ibsen, Henrik, and Evert Sprinchorn. Letters and speeches. 1 st ed. New York Hill and Wang, 1964. Print. Ibsen, Henrik. A Dolls House. Literature and Its Writers An Introduction to Fiction, Poetry, and Drama. By Ann Charters and Samuel Barclay. Charters. 6th ed. Boston Bedford/St Martins, 2012. 1349-1402. Print. Northam, John. Ibsens Search for the Hero. Ibsen A Collection of Critical Essays. New Jersey apprentice Hall, 1965. 91-108. Rpt. in Twentieth Century Literary Criticism. Ed. Paula Kepos. Vol 37. Detroit Gale Research Inc, 1991. 249-253. Print.