Individualism on Stage

An essay on how Henrik Ibsen conveys his challenging of traditional Norwegian society's patriarchal views. His play "A Doll's House", which premiered in 1879, established him as one of the earliest critics to explore the discrepancies which traditionally exist between genders and a pioneer of the concept of individualism. The playwright executes this marvellously with great skill and ingenuity.

Watch it here

Traditional marriage of the 1800s constitutes the frame of Ibsen’s melodrama, though not the essence of it. Rather, it explores the concealed nature of patriarchal society embedded in an intense mood, denouncing its immorality. Nora’s character development is one of several factors addressing this topic, effectively conveyed through the setting of social status and gender roles.

Ibsen displays Nora’s character development through her developing rejection of women’s lower social status, accusing the lack of humanism in 19th century Norwegian society. In the exposition, the relationship between Nora and Torvald Helmer is characterised as a traditional marriage where the wife has an inferior position to the husband. This is explicitly seen through the use of belittling pet names such as “skylark” and “spendthrift”. Although they may initially suggest a certain fondness, the often precedent adjective “little” suggests an ironic twist, reflecting society’s deprecation of women’s dignity and social importance. Simultaneously, Nora does not reject the inflicted loss of dignity, suggesting acceptance of decreased social status.

Nora’s compliance with social norms is further seen in her lack of objection to Torvald’s order “Don’t disturb me.” The imperative sentence, compounded by its brevity and punctuation, creates dramatic effect to emphasise the strength of the command, advising the interruption of further thoughts on any request from him. As a symbol of patriarchal society, Torvald extends this acceptance to patriarchal society as a whole. Additionally, she is not simply dutiful towards Torvald, but adopts an obsequious position, as implied by her statement “Torvald wants me to go as a Neapolitan fisher-girl, and dance the Tarantella that I learned at Capri.” The use of a period and the lack of further explanation from Nora suggests she does not critically reflect on Torvald’s desires. It could perhaps even be said that Nora’s character coalesces into Torvald’s character to become a combined whole. The Tarantella points to the idea that she is metaphorically expelling the moral corruption from her blood, that she is progressing towards self-recognition and self-awareness as individual with a “duty to [her]self” in order to “get to know [her]self and the outside world” in contrast with Torvald’s opinion that the duty to her “husband and children” is more “sacred”. Furthermore, it was not of particular importance with whom you danced the Tarantella; the dance couples were often either two women or a man and woman, and varied across social class. A deeper analysis of this subtle rebellion against patriarchal society thus points to Ibsen advocating the need for equality across society.

Ibsen’s conscious division of his dramatic work into three acts mirrors the rising action, climax and resolution. Following the exposition of the dramatic premise and the complication (Krogstad’s threat to make her crime public), dramatic buildup is created through conflict between Nora and Torvald, where Nora “begs” and “implores” him to let Krogstad keep his place in the bank. She argues his reasons are “petty”, suggesting the initiation of her challenging of patriarchal society and forming the major dramatic question of whether and how she will disrupt women’s inferior social status. However, Torvald still holds the power over her and the relationship at this moment. Additionally, it could be argued that this is more out of desperation than a willingness to challenge contemporary norms. Nevertheless, Torvald’s reaction to her ‘fraud’ is evidently the turning point to her climaxing perception of her relationship with Torvald and, drawn to a wider perspective, of the contemporary patriarchal society. Christine furthers Nora’s development by acting as a foil character, her ‘true love’ relationship with Krogstad opposing Nora’s superficial relationship with Helmer. Indeed, Nora notes that she and Helmer “have been married now eight years” but that “this is the first time we two, you and I, husband and wife, have had a serious conversation”. The emphasis on the relationship through variant repetitions of “we two” evokes the need for equality in a relationship, and the idea that a relationship is dependent on the well-being and contribution of two, not one individual.

Although it can be said that Nora is reconsidering social status, it is not evident to what extent she does. The Tarantella does oppose established expectations and aid in the progression towards Nora’s realisation, although it does so in a submerged fashion, arguably to such an extent that it is frugal or insignificant to the challenging of social norms. During their final discussion, Torvald accuses her of “talk[ing] like a child” and of not “understand[ing] the conditions of the world in which [she] live[s]”. Nora does not entirely counter this, saying “No, I don't. But now I am going to try. I am going to see if I can make out who is right, the world or I.”. As such, Nora’s character is led to a further exploration of society, rather than immediate opposition. This is reflective of Nora’s character development, previously frivolous, superficial and impulsive, whereas she has now acquired a greater sense of composure, thoughtfulness and rationality. The irony in Torvald’s comment can also be explored; it is throughout the first acts that Nora’s behaviour is characterised by a frivolous and child-like quality, reflected by her initial interactions with her children where she integrates into their hide-and-seek game with admirable ease. Ibsen in effect highlights society’s disregard for women’s developing humanism and will for equal social status.

Ibsen displays Nora’s character development through her gradual rejection of gender roles in 19th century Norwegian society. The Tarantella costume is evidently symbolic women’s societal role as a means of entertainment, suggesting their role has been morally degraded to score purpose of dressing up and frolicking for others’ pleasure. It could perhaps also be said that clothing provides Nora with an outlet for personal desires. As such, the Tarantella costume could imply a disguising quality as well as a way to express her inner fiery nature, evoked in the stage directions for Nora’s gestures as “dancing more and more wildly”, repressed by societal expectations of composure and blithe cheerfulness. Her inner zeal is hidden by the Tarantella’s frivolous and upbeat nature, which becomes metaphorical for the social facades so overly present during the 1800s. Ibsen accuses society of the repressive gender roles which engender these social facades on which their lives “depend”.

The end of the second act coincides Nora making the important decision that if Torvald loves her truly rather than for the pleasure she provides him with and her role as housewife, it would be the “miracle of all miracles”. This decision has a profound impact on the plot, as it determines her final exit from stage. Dramatic structure that does not unfold chronologically. The disjointed time sequence allows for a chronological leap to the dénouement, where Torvald states that “no man would sacrifice his honour for the one he loves”, in contrast with sacrifice of honour being “a thing hundreds of thousands of women have done” due to their gender role as a source of pleasure. Her perception reaches a prime height through soliloquy, during which she realises that “[she] ha[s] been [Torvald’s] doll-wife, just as at home [she] used to be [her father’s] doll-child. And the children, in their turn, have been [her] dolls”. This falling action with heightened language reflects the idea that contemporary audience may have struggled to articulate avant-garde ideas about gender roles with expectations limited by tradition, similarly to Nora at the start of the play. In effect, the soliloquy enables Nora to engage in a rational analysis showing her character development and Ibsen challenges his audience to abandon simplistic traditional gender expectations. The apotheosis of her societal notion irrevocably results in her sudden rupture from societal norms, represented both physically and psychologically as she must choose which is right — “society or [her]”. She physically escapes the house, and, allied with its symbolic meaning of being “A Doll’s House”, suggesting her disapproval of established gender norms where the husband simply thinks it “pleasant to be in love with [his wife]”. The verbal irony of Nora’s response to Torvald’s forgiveness, “I thank you for your forgiveness”, draws out not only Torvald’s hypocrisy but those of society as a whole. As foreshadowed by the eating of macaroons against her husband’s wishes, the play culminates in a complete rejection gender roles, implied by the final stage directions of “the street door … slammed shut” on the “Doll’s House”, revealing the metaphor of her rejection of her role as a “doll”. Ibsen’s use of entrances and exits create an atmosphere of suspense and helps the audience form an image of the protagonist to clearly depict Nora’s character development both in terms of social status and gender roles. The final exit is what encapsulates the play as a whole, and it is where the protagonist breaks free and escapes the entrapment of the “Doll’s House”, yet leaves a mysterious mood as the audience wonders how long she will be able to sustain herself.

“A Doll’s House” is a complex critique of 19th century society, in particular gender roles and social status. Ibsen effectively achieves this through dramatic conventions to create a dynamic character , Nora, which takes steps towards social change. Nevertheless, Ibsen may be suggesting a lack of clear opposition to patriarchal society, as Nora favours implied resistance constrained to a private sphere. Nora’s character development is yet to be completed; there is evidence of an unfinished journey towards a more fully fledged individual which may have congregated the necessary elements for a more conspicuous opposition to patriarchal society.