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.