A Doll's House: Marital Power Relations

Not having a very detailed understanding of the history behind Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, my recognition of the gender significance of the play was very latent during my reading. However, as I approached the climactic action that defines Act III, and in turn the end of the play, I realized the true extent to which Ibsen analyzes and overturns the categorical power relations that defined, and unfortunately continue to do so in some respects, marriage and the respective roles of men and women his society.

To be blunt, I strongly believe that it is nearly impossible to regard the end of Ibsen’s play as anything but anti-patriarchal. Nora, on her own volition, walks out on her husband of eight years and her children because she is outright tired of being a “doll,” a mere object to “play” with. Ibsen conveys a strong message of the male commoditization of women as a possession not only through Nora’s forceful and serious discourse with her husband, Helmer, at the end of the play but also through his sheer failure in understanding that it is not a “stupid child” with whom he is speaking. Helmer, following social norms, defines their marriage in terms of their respective power positions: he—the male, the husband, and the controller—repulsively asserts this claim, saying “knowing that he has forgiven his wife…It’s as though it made her his property.” Helmer further states his understanding of his role in their marriage claiming that he will for ever after view Nora as a “helpless, perplexed little thing.” He derives a perverse sense of satisfaction and pleasure by forcing his wife into the role of the “simple-minded, frail woman” and himself into that of the benevolent, guiding master.

Much to my relief, Nora, after having endured eight years of this belittling form of existence rejects her husband’s implicit demands of an even more re-entrenched power-based relationship. Her double-edged response of “I’ve changed” to her husband’s question of “You’ve changed your things?” reveals the realization that she has achieved and the accompanying transformation she has undergone: no longer is she content with being treated as a child. This transformation is strongly textually marked by the change in her discourse at the end of the play with strong statements like “You don’t understand me. And I have never understood you” and “It’s your fault that I’ve never made anything of my life.” This is, as her tone demonstrates, a far different Nora than has been seen before by the reader. Through Nora’s “defiance” and egregious upsetting of 19th century mores, Ibsen establishes the true criticism of conventional gender roles. We see Nora as the stronger character, not her husband. She is the one who is assertive of her needs, conceding that she is inexperienced and will remain so in the world of the status quo; she truthfully tells her husband that she is not in love with him, never has been, and does not desire anything more to do with him.In the end, Nora walks out of their house confidently, with only a simple “Goodbye” to an emotionally distraught husband who has probably never been so bewildered in his life.

While above are assertions of A Doll’s House’s criticism of patriarchal power relations, the uncertainty of the play’s ending regarding Nora and her future render final conclusions somewhat ambiguous. Will Nora end up hopelessly failing in her endeavor to be independent, thus proving the stereotype of the “helpless child”? Or will triumphantly make something of her life now that she has thrown off her oppressive shackles? I will not produce a prediction for I am skeptical of forecasting at its best; however, I believe that it is a noteworthy reflection of the uncertainty that surrounded the nascent historical origins of modern feminism. Nevertheless, ultimately I do not believe Ibsen does a disservice to the play’s thematic significance for uncertainty does not mean the worst, it is merely indicative of an unknown future.

An Update on My Reading

Books I have Read So Far This School Year:

1. How I Became a Quant by Richard Lindsey and Barry Schachter
2. When Genius Failed: The Rise and Fall of Long-Term Capital Management by Roger Lowenstein
3. The Grass Crown by Colleen McCullough
4. Fortune's Favorites by Colleen McCullough
5. Derivatives Diary by Richard Folcker
6. Equity Portfolio Management by Frank Fabozzi
7. Fooled by Randomness by Nassim Nicholas Taleb
8. The Future of Everything by David Orrell
9. Caesar's Women by Colleen McCullough
10. Caesar by Colleen McCullough
11. The October Horse by Colleen McCullough
12. The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century by George Friedman
13. Bad Money by Kevin Phillips
14. Subprime Solution by Robert Shiller
15. Antony and Cleopatra by Colleen McCullough
16. The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable by Nassim Nicholas Taleb
17. The (Mis)Behavior of Markets: A Fractal View of Risk, Ruin, and Reward by Benoit Mandelbrot.
18. Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World by Niall Ferguson

The Question of Hamlet's State of Mind

It is virtually incontrovertible that Hamlet, as a human being, is not healthy. While there may be no evidence of his physical health being compromised, his state of his mental health is certainly in question. And yet, can one truly state with reason that Hamlet is crazy? The existence of such an ability is made dubious by his alleged “master plan” to convince the court of Elsinore that he is quite mad; however, it is rationally impossible to dismiss his status as a symptom of scheming.
Let us begin with the obvious: Hamlet is suffering from depression or whatever one may wish to designate his gloominess as. His condition is logical as his father has just died and his mother has inappropriately hastily married her brother-in-law, Hamlet’s uncle. Feeling isolated and alone, he believes that he is the only one who cared about his father. His sentiments are rightfully justified too, considering his mother’s new husband characterizes his emotions as impious and unmanly. Hamlet’s soliloquy in scene II of Act I reveals his tormented state of mind as he remarks, “How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable / Seem to me all the uses of this world!” His discourse cannot but reinforce the case for his depression. Furthermore, one could even argue that Hamlet is suicidal. In Scene IV of Act I, right before Hamlet is to engage the Ghost, he indicates his despondency by stating “I do not set my life in a pin’s fee.” Conventional wisdom, in an instance where conventional wisdom is correct, indicates that individuals are naturally inclined to value their lives; however, recent events have compelled Hamlet to lean the other way.
Although one might wish to immediately conclude that Hamlet’s behavior is a reflection of the chemical imbalance in his brain, Hamlet’s attempts to feign “madness” complicates the prognosis. To begin by eliminating possible conditions, I believe basic insanity can be easily dismissed. His odd conversation with Polonius and his frenzied encounter Ophelia can be easily attributed to his grand plan. During his dialogue with Guildenstein on the subject of the coming theatre troupe, Hamlet states that “my uncle-father and aunt-mother are deceived.” Hamlet’s elaboration, “I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind / is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw,” provides the necessary support for his claim of deception. Furthermore, we cannot merely regard the Ghost as a evidence of a hallucination or delusional state of mind for Hamlet is not the only individual to see it: Horatio and the other guards are the first to notice the apparition. Hamlet’s dialogue with the ghost is more suspicious, however, considering that (1) he is the only to hear it; Horatio and the others do not seem to detect its voice as it eerily whispers “swear” later in that scene.
Thus, if insanity is sufficiently ruled out, then the only two solutions that answer Hamlet’s medical question are simply depression or something more than depression. In the end, I have to conclude the latter. Hamlet has himself so caught up in this quest for revenge while at the same lamenting the continuing of his existence. This obsession with uncovering the truth of his father’s murder while simultaneously being tormented by thoughts of the Existential paints a picture of a man whose mind is viciously wracked. Hamlet’s attempts to oddly cope with his depression by rectifying the wrongs of Elsinore distort his awareness of his own state. While he may think his feigned madness is only a sham and that sufficient evidence exists to support his convictions over his uncle’s deeds, in reality, his alleged ruse distorts his reality to his suspicions. Although certainty is non-existent, it is quite possible that Hamlet perversely resolves his depression through the determination to avenge.