A Struggle in Spirit -- A Critical Analysis of Isben's Play "A Doll's House"

In 1879, when Henrik Ibsen’s play A Doll’s House played for the first time at the Royal Theater in Copenhagen, Denmark, its content shocked several people, and critics found themselves polarized on their evaluation of Ibsen’s literary genius.  Because women during that period in history were socially regarded as less intelligent beings and incapable of any deep understanding, Ibsen’s portrayal of an unconventional wife generated several points of contention.  Some critics failed to see the play for what lay underneath, and not what it showed.  The play, by using the characters as representatives of society and class, says women have both an outward struggle against a patriarchal society and, in their fight for equality and independence, an inward struggle with themselves against the denigrating meme of male gender superiority expressed in society. 

The prevailing perception males held of their own superiority led a literary critic of that time to say Nora, the main character, “does a thing that one of the lower animals would not do,” (Scott) which was the unmentionable act of leaving her children.  Not only does this critic fail to hear the underlying message, he reveals exactly how low women were held in men’s regard.  The play anticipates this critical sentiment when the husband in the play, Torvald, tells his wife that she does not “understand how to act on [her] own responsibility,” (III. 137) clearly expressing a perceived lack of intelligence. In this fashion, the play reveals middle class society mores could not accept a thinking wife.

In addition, Ibsen tells us that women sat at the root of superstitious fears.  Torvald and Nora talk about Krogstad’s past fraudulent indiscretions near the end of the first act.  Torvald sums up the common belief in women’s evil nature when he says: “[a]lmost everyone who has gone to the bad early in life has had a deceitful mother.” (I. 59)   Perhaps, in an age where superstition explained many things, women may have accepted such beliefs without question.  These sentiments, however, clash with the ideals of feminism.  A Doll’s House reveals the social mores of that time and shows the depth to which women’s status had fallen.

The play reinforces this broad theme by providing several allegories to the world at large.  Nora, who first appears flighty and senseless, strikes the pose of the acquiescing female plaything—the ideal woman in the Victorian era’s eye.  Torvald, who refers to Nora as a “songbird” (I. 55) or “squirrel” (I. 4), demeans his wife and thus stands for the male populace who perform this same act bolstering feelings of superiority.  Nora’s friend Christine enters as a messenger of promise, revealing the treasure of freedom and release women all over the world seek.  Torvald’s reaction to Nora’s decision to leave the marriage marches in lockstep with men’s reactions to women’s demands for equality: “Can you not understand your place in your own home?  Have you not a reliable guide in such matters?” (III.145)  His words in the last act mirror the Victorian expectations of the roles played in a marriage, in society, and everywhere.

The men in the play, via Isben’s uncanny symbolism, itemize several facets of the male-dominated society.  Torvald conducts himself as a proper gentleman keeping his wife in check and managing his business in the study.  The expectations of the family in the Victorian era follow suit to this description.  Not only does the majority of art and literature at that time project well-balanced mannerisms, but the populace in the main expected this sort of display in everyday life.  No wonder Nora expends a great deal of effort to keep her illegal act secret.  Torvald displays in a dramatic change in character after discovering Nora’s fraud because his perception of reality finally relents to a message of truth.  When he nearly exhausts himself, Torvald claims: “it must appear as if everything between us were just as before—but naturally only in the eyes of the world.” (III. 135)  The gentleman shows us he both knows what society expects and what the culture of propriety hides from itself, yet appearances and deception also need support.

Rank, the doctor, symbolizes the rationalization used during those years to support society’s attitudes.  Philosophical and scientific circles built reasons in support of male dominance.  There existed at that time strong philosophical arguments for the separation of the genders. A great deal of thought pointed toward the belief in men acting as the active and more intelligent agents, as opposed to the passive and therefore subservient women. (Lee)  Rank supports this belief by the simple fact that he exists both as a male and a doctor.  Yet, this character suffers from indiscretions in a prior generation, succumbing to consumption and expecting certain death in the near future.  Here, Isben says, so will the old thought patterns of imagined superiority and dominance perish as new truths consume old myths.

Krogstad represents society’s will in its demand for women to fulfill their implicitly-understood contract of their subservience to men.  The bond Nora secures begins with fraud and exists as the means to expose the consequence of the greater fraud of the imagined bondage to men: Nora’s lack of true happiness in the marriage.  The bond itself, however, morphs into a non-existent threat when Krogstad transforms into someone more forgiving and less frigid.  In opposition to Torvald, who fervently attempts to maintain a false appearance, Krogstad changes into the more realistic man after Chrisitne convinces him to accept her back into his house.  Krogstad as the reformed man shows us how a better understanding of society’s inequalities, especially with the enlightened mature woman, holds the key to a gentle reconciliation and a hopeful future.  The threat of punishment in breaking a contract to society fades with men’s willingness to engage in a new beginning.

The fresh start ultimately requires a better perception of women, and Isben informs his audience how they must come to this understanding.  Via a complex metaphor, the women in the play embody both the emotive opposite to men and a spiritual connection to the world.  While Nora portrays current circumstances, Christine represents the future; Nora moves from subservience to autonomy, but Christine maneuvers back toward reconciliation.  Since Nora has yet to discover herself and Christine had earlier done so, Nora represents the very young woman and Christine the older and wiser one.  In support, Isben makes a note of Nora’s stasis and Christine’s decade-long growth saying: “You are a child, Nora.” (I. 22)  The duality of the female spirit lives as two opposite forces, a veritable yin and yang of the soul.

One reviewer appropriately remarks that “[C]hristine reflects the opposite of Nora,” (Metzger), but the allegory proceeds one step further with the inclusion of Anne the maid.  Anne fills the role of mother, revealed when Nora asks Anne to take care for the children and when Christine tells us that Anne was “a good mother to [her] when [she] was little.” (II. 64)  The aspects of the ancient, revered goddess come together with Nora, Anne, and Christine playing the roles of Maiden, Mother, and Crone.  Although pagan in nature, the sacred goddess exists as a powerful mystical icon. (Husain)  Isben takes this philosophical image and uses the three women in the play to epitomize his reverence of womanhood.  Beneath the veneer of a problematic marriage, and under obvious metaphors for women’s rights, A Doll’s House says the portrayal of women in society runs opposite to their profound and sacred nature.

With such grand symbols in play, the theme of the drama expands outward from the literal action of Nora leaving her husband and family.  The harsh social structure of the Victorian era comes alive through both the male characters’ prejudices and the spiritual journeying of the women:  law versus spirit. A Doll’s House brings together this universal struggle and the women’s rights movement through the simple and easily-understandable concept of family.  Perhaps, as George Bernard Shaw said of the play, Nora’s final act likewise ended another act in the great play of human history.  A more likely conclusion comes from the layering of the play’s symbolism: women struggle in spirit and find themselves opposed by well-established conventions in society, while another struggle for men, namely for their emotional maturity, plays just as significant a role in the fight for gender equality and independence.  As the fight for women’s rights around the world commenced in earnest during this time, Ibsen’s play provided a harsh wake-up call for theater-goers everywhere.  The women’s rights movement benefited in part from A Doll’s House, yet the struggle continues to this day as women still battle social traditions for an equal share in life.  Contemporary thoughts and values regarding the sexes have yet to reach their conclusion, progressed only partially since the opening of Isben’s play.

Works Cited

Ibsen, Henrik.  A Doll’s House. Google Books. Plain Label Books.  n.d.  Web.  17 Mar. 2012.

Scott, Clement. "Review of 'A Doll's House." The Theatre 14.79 (July 1889): 19-22. Rpt. in Twentieth-Century Literary Criticism. Ed. Paula Kepos. Vol. 37. Detroit: Gale Research, 1991. Literature Resource Center. Web. 19 Mar. 2012.

Metzger, Sheri. "An overview of A Doll's House." Drama for Students. Detroit: Gale. Literature Resource Center. Web. 19 Mar. 2012.

Shaw, Bernard. "A Doll's House Again." The Saturday Review 83.2168 (15 May 1897): 539-541. Rpt. in Twentieth-Century Literary Criticism. Ed. Sharon K. Hall. Vol. 8. Detroit: Gale Research, 1982. Literature Resource Center.  Web.  26 Mar. 2012.

Lee, Elizabeth. “Victorian Theories of Sex and Sexuality”. The Victorian Web. N.p. 1996.  Web.  28 Mar. 2012

Husain, Shahrukh. The Goddess: Power, Sexuality, and the Feminine Divine.  Google Books.  UofM Press.  18 Feb. 2003.  Web.  31 Mar. 2012.