~~General note: page numbers are missing from MLA format and some of the line endings are a little strange (please disregard those as errors)~~
Andrew
Bravissimo
Cohenour
English
102
16 October
2009
Breaking through the Dollhouse Construct
Ibsen’s “A Doll House” is a tale that depicts life within a construct.
Much like a child would play out a game with dolls, the lives of the
characters are privy to whim. Torvald and Nora Helmer function as two
characters that change and even reverse rolls within the story to illustrate
the fallibility of conventionality and propriety. Their lives cause
the reader to ponder the tragic price to be paid when one chooses a socially
constructed life as opposed to a conscientiously considered life.
A doll house is a miniature construct based on a
reality in which a child can “play” out relationships with inanimate objects.
This attempt to understand the relational world as it is modeled is an exercise
in development. Without maturity or reflection, a child simply emulates and
recreates scenarios in which they have participated. Ibsen demonstrates
the horror and tragedy of this scenario when the life sized construct is
imagined. Unlike a child, however, Ibsen uses conventional society to
mirror back to the reader the fallibility of social fabric. Ibsen uses realism
as the medium to criticize the constructs of propriety and status. Through his
portrayal of Torvald and Nora Helmer, the reader is forced to call into
question how convention shapes our relative world and where we should take part
in shaping our relational world.
Torvald and Nora Helmer live in the middle class of a
stratified society and have allowed themselves to be defined by the conventions
of their social world. Status and success are derived from maintaining or
succeeding this class standing and rewards are doled out to those who fit the
mold. Torvald has been rewarded with a beautiful wife, young children, warm
home, good income and the respect of his peers. Likewise, Nora shares the same
creature comforts and is able to partake in the status as she demonstrates the
richness of their lives through self, family and home portrayal and
adornment. The Helmer’s have everything going for them with blue skies
and greener pastures ahead, they appear to be the veritable poster children of
the socially accepted family.
Nora seems
to love her life. It is evident that she enjoys all aspects of that existence,
from the pet names and the playful games she shares with her husband to taking
care of her children and the home. This defines who she is and she takes her
role seriously. Nora clearly understands the roll she plays within the
household, it is her job to keep her family well fed, in good health, and
looking good. She will pragmatically utilize any means necessary to get the job
done. Her strongest socially derived tools are her ability to use her
charms to manipulate and persuade people and situations to further the means or
accomplish the goals of her family.
Torvald is no less dedicated in his role. He is a man
of unquestionable character. He is a good friend who likes fine things but
indulges with great restraint as depicted in his ability to have his life without
the constraints of debt. He is practical and keeps a tight rein on his finances
and family because he is well aware of what happens to people who fail to
function within the confines of society. He views life through the social lens
and takes responsibility for upholding these traits, and exults in being an
impeccable example of those values and a criticizer of those who fall short of
the social ideal as with his ironic remarks in regard to Krogstad, “Just
imagine how a man with that sort of guilt in him has to lie and cheat and
deceive on all sides, has to wear a mask even with the nearest and dearest he
has, even his own wife and children” (Ibsen 1238). He, as opposed to Nora, is
fully aware that society is a brutal master. Severe punishment justly waits for
its children when they deviate from the standards. With this understanding he,
believes he is lone protector, the last bastion of strength against a cold,
bitter world. Torvald views Nora as someone who he must protect and save
from the social elements. In a moment of ironic foreshadowing Torvald shares an
intimate fantasy, “You know what, Nora—time and again I’ve wished you were in
some terrible danger, just so I could stake my life and soul and everything,
for your sake” (Ibsen 1261). Helmer sees himself as the master of his own
destiny and as long as he maintains this integrity, he controls the world
around him. He so embraces the social structure that he is completely dependent
upon the construct and does not realize its limitations and weaknesses.
Eventually, the very constructs that served to build
the Helmer’s family, becomes the means to tear them apart. As characters who
fully embrace social convention, they are left without the necessary tools to
overcome the problems they face. When their allegiance to the construct brings
about possible destruction, we can almost see a resounding biblical parallel.
Similar to the fall from grace, as Eve handed Adam the fatal fruit, Nora is
responsible for the ruin of her family within the social paradise they live in.
Torvald is quick to blame Nora without taking into account his complicity. “Oh,
what an awful awakening! In all these eight years—she who was my pride and
joy—a hypocrite, a liar—worse, worse—a criminal! How infinitely disgusting it
all is! The shame” (Ibsen1262). It is in this light that the
characters begin to change rolls, redefine, and question the world that surrounds
them.
Nora has
been consistent in her responsibilities to the family. The crux of the plot has
Nora foraying into the world of men to procure a loan for the sake of saving
her husband’s life, “It’s true—I’ve also got something to be proud and happy
for. I’m the one who saved Torvald’s life” (Ibsen 1226). Apparently, from
Nora’s perception, Torvald is too honorable and proud to borrow money,
“Besides—Torvald, with all his masculine pride—how painfully humiliating for
him if he ever found out that he was in debt to me. That would just ruin our
relationship. Our beautiful family would never be the same (Ibsen1227). It is
precisely here that we see the fallibility of the social constructs that
surround them. Nora must preserve the integrity of the family. When faced with
a gender restrictive construct and the failure of her manipulative and
persuasive conventions, “I began talking about how lovely it would be for me to
travel abroad like other young wives; I begged and I cried; I told him please
remember my condition, to be kind and indulge me;” (Ibsen 1227), she is left to
discover a new means to save her family. This leaves her in a situation that is
unfamiliar and where she is far less savvy. Nora unwittingly enters into a
fraudulent contract. Taking out the loan is pragmatic, nothing more than an
extension of her wily ways to achieve the goals society has challenged her to
overcome, merely another means to another end. Yet because she had been
protected from the ramifications of this aspect of the social/business world,
she places her family at great risk.
As head of household, Torvald and the family are
synonymous; her indiscretion is his ruin. When the prospect of being
found fraudulent is manifested, the world, (as he views it) is going to condemn
him. He reacts instantly and decisively. The once powerful man of prominence
with an untarnished reputation instantly and utterly disappears as Torvald
addresses Nora in regards to the perceived blackmailing from Krogstad: “I’ve
got to appease him somehow or other. The thing has to be hushed up at any cost”
(Ibsen 1263). Torvald’s moral superiority is gone; this once pillar of social
standing and conviction becomes reduced to the very thing he abhors. Never once
does he ask why she had entered into this loan. It seems he presumes that she
is a childish spendthrift, a condition that he admonished, but also encouraged
when he gives her money after lecturing her about indebtedness in the beginning
of the play. In truth, she acted in love and responsibility. When being
confronted with the letter and asked if what Krogstad writes is “true”, she
answers boldly, if not a bit dramatically, “It is true. I’ve loved you
more than all this world” (Ibsen 1262). Torvald’s complete and utter adherence
to the social construct and its consequences deafens him to the love and pain
of his wife’s dedication. In near panic for his well being, he reveals to Nora
his ironic complicity:
And as for you and me, it’s got to seem like everything between us is just as
it was—to the outside
world, that is. You’ll go right on living in this
house, of course. But you can’t
be allowed to bring up the
children; I don’t dare trust you with them.—Oh, to have to say
this to someone I’ve loved so much! Well, that’s done
with. From now on happiness
doesn’t matter; all that
matters is saving the bits and pieces, the appearance—“(Ibsen 1263).
This
glimpse of Torvald’s inner being, this declaration of propriety over love and
compassion facilitates as the catalyst of Nora’s exodus from the construct.
Nora, depicted parenthetically as an actor’s cue “icily calm,”
demonstrates her feelings of resolve and frustration as she answers, “yes” to
the question Torvald asserts, “Can you see now what you’ve done to me?” (Ibsen
1263). Nora begins to realize that the world she knew and loved was a façade,
that the man she loved within the construct was a mere construct himself, and
that her entire life and understanding of the world around her was false. Where
she was once “…kept like a hunted dove…” (Ibsen 1264), she chooses freedom from
her gilded cage. Where Torvald had been the master of his eminent domain, he
now reveals himself a slave to the conventions of society. “We’ll just be
grateful and keep on repeating; it’s over now, it’s over! You hear me, Nora?
You don’t seem to realize—it’s over. What’s it mean—that frozen look? Oh, poor
Nora, I understand. You can’t believe I’ve forgiven you (Ibsen 1263). She
becomes the master of her fate and he grovels to have his illusions
replaced.
Torvald and Nora’s adherence to social convention so fully
defined them that they became objects within the constructs themselves. In the
end, it is Torvald’s betrayal of Nora’s perceived love for her that brings her
to recognize the fallacy of her life and moves her in the direction to
re-discover herself. Conversely, it is Torvald’s inability to recognize his
erroneous role in their marriage that brings about the tragic ending. One has
to wonder if this story could have had a happy ending. Had Torvald stopped for
a moment to understand Nora’s revelation and joined with her in the
understanding of how their lives had been artificially manufactured, could
their relationship have been spared the separation? After all, it is not enough
to understand the weight and dangers of social convention, if one does not
realize that the only resolution is to have someone to share his or her burdens
with.
