Critical Interpretation of Nora in the Play: A Dolls House - Research Paper Example

A Critical Interpretation of Nora’s Search for ‘Identity and Individual Self’ in the play “A Doll’s House” Henrik Ibsen’splay, “A Doll’s House” deals with a traditional housewife, Nora’s self-awakening and her search for identity. Throughout Nora gradually learns that she does not live for herself. Therefore, she does not possess an identity of her own. She further learns that so far, she has lived the life of a doll which is expected, by the patriarchal society, to appease her husband, Torvald. This realization provokes her to leave Torvald’s house in the first place, since the concept of ‘house’ itself is a patriarchal apparatus for subjugating within the purview of male monopoly about a woman’s individual and independent being. In order to uphold this feminist theme, Henrik manipulates various literary elements as well as techniques such as characterization, symbolism, conflict and contrast, etc. But this paper will discuss that Henrik’s style of characterization and, conflict and contrast between the characters play a crucial role in the development of the aforementioned feminist theme in the play. The central trend in Henrik’s style of characterization is to use a character as a foil to another character. Though Nora is the central character, her husband, Torvald, is not any contrast to her. Even she is not in any major conflict with him until the end of the play. Rather Linda is a foil to Nora. On the other hand, Krogstad is a foil to Torvald. Though initially Nora appears to be loyal to Torvald, her stealthy desire to act independently to save her husband life by committing forgery, she comes into serious conflict with her husband. In the novel, Henrik comes up with the theme that women live a subjugated and subservient life in their husband’s household. Even though the institution of marriage seems to provide safeguard to a woman from physical harms, pain and hunger, it, in reality, robs her of her individual existence and freedom of choice. The institution of marriage prevent Nora, in general a woman, from involving in any financial activities. Therefore, it keeps her economically powerless, and eventually, throwing her from any decision-making (Moi 34-35). By mutilating her freedom to choose and to do, it prevents her from achieving experiences about the harsh realities of the world. Immaturity and cosseted childlike character-traits in Nora’s character are clearly visible. She imagines herself as playful as a squirrel: “Your squirrel would run about and do all her tricks if you would be nice, and do as she wants” (Ibsen, Act II). This speech shows that she lacks the knowledge of harsh reality. Her frugality, her attempt to help Torvald by breaking law, the habit of eating macaroons, etc are evidences of her immaturity. She is driven by a romantic devotion to Torvald. It is remarkable that both Torvald and Nora are beguiled by patriarchal heroism. Torvald imagines that Nora should fall in danger, and he would help her like a daredevil western hero, as he says, “[D]o you know that I’ve often wished you were facing some terrible dangers so that I could risk life and limb, risk everything, for your sake?” (Ibsen, Act II). Immature Nora believes in his words completely until her belief shudders down because of Torvald’s denial to help her in her real danger. Indeed, Nora is a complete contrast to Linda, who is endowed with a rigid sense of practicality. Linda decides freely to leave Krogstad for poverty. Unlike Nora’s decision to leave her ill father, she attends her father beside his sickbed. Indeed, Henrik attempts to depict this foliage character of Linda in order to expose the debilitating effect of patriarchal control on a woman. Both of these two women belong to the same patriarchal society; yet Linda is more matured and practical than Nora because she depends less on the patriarchal provisions (Urban 56). Linda’s practicality is evident in the following speech: “Mrs. Linde tells Krogstad, “I’ve learned to be realistic. Life and hard, bitter necessity have taught me that.” (Ibsen, Act II) On the other hand, Nora is beguiled by romantic assurance of shelter, support and provisions from her husband. Unlike Linda, she focuses her attention on appeasing her husband by her loyalty and physical beauty for a long term. She easily accepts her subservient role as a sexual appeaser in Torvald’s house. Instead of cherishing her freedom, she wants to depend on her husband. Nora seems to be happy for the material luxury which she receives from him in exchange for her loyalty and subservience (Moi 42-44). She remains beguiled by Torvald’s romantic promise of assistance in dangers. Unlike Linda, she endeavors vigorously to be a ideal mother and housewife. From the beginning of the play till the disclosure of her forgery of her father’s signature, Nora remains an immature fancy girl. But when Torvald refuses to take the responsibility of Nora’s crime on his shoulder, her romanticism shudders into pieces. Indeed right at this point her self-exploration starts. In the play, Nora is a void-character in comparison to Torvald. She does not possess her own self. Her being is overshadowed by Torvald’s character, as she admits that she wants “to…have everything just as Torvald likes it!” (Ibsen, Act I). Yet in the beginning of the play, she is in minor conflicts with Torvald. She defies him as well as the society to some extents. Though Nora’s crime of forgery is an immature act, it can be considered as her ability and desire to cherish freedom (Moi 45). It seems that she wants to affirm her individual existence and being by self-will secret actions. In his book, “On the Genealogy of Moral”, Fredrick Nietzsche says that “there is no ‘being’ behind doing, acting, becoming; ‘the doer’ is merely a fiction imposed on the doing—the doing itself is everything” (29). Nietzsche says that the ‘doer’ exists through his or her actions. In conflict with Torvald’s desire, Nora attempts to exist through her independent but secret actions. Indeed, it is the main conflict between Nora and Torvald. Though Nora wants to be (or exist) through her independent actions, Torvald does not want to let her exist and, therefore, he prevents her from involving in any self-willed free activities. She is fully dominated by his desires, since she wants to live for Torvald. Even she willfully denies her ‘self’, as she realizes it at the end of the play: “I have existed merely to perform tricks for you, Torvald. But you wanted it like that…It is your fault that I have made nothing of my life.” (Ibsen Act III) She also realizes that she never exists in the way Torvald exists. Whereas characterization plays an important role in the development of Henrik’s play, conflict among the characters makes it more successful. Characterization of Nora contributes to the development of the play the most. She has surrender her own individuality to Torvald’s expectation with a view to get his love. But she gradually learns about her lack of an individual identity. When Torvald refuses to take the responsibility of Nora’s crime, she becomes disenchanted. Therefore, she chooses to search for identity by learning to lead her life on her own. Indeed, Nora’s immaturity is highlighted by Linda’s self-oriented nature. Unlike Linda, Nora seems to be a pampered doll which is desired to play according to her husband’s expectation. Indeed, her existence in Torvald’s house is shaped rather by patriarchy-imposed set of actions for the women. Her individual identity is strictly mutilated by her economic dependency on her husband. Therefore at the end of the play she chooses to achieve self-dependency by leading her life according to her own will. Works Cited Ibsen, Henrik. A Doll’s House. Trans. Emma Goldman, New York: Penguin, 2006. Moi, Toril. Henrik Ibsen and the Birth of Modernism: Art, Theater, Philosophy. Oxford and New York: Oxford UP, 2006. Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Genealogy of Morals. trans. Douglas Smith, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Urban, William L. “Parallels in A Dolls House.” Festschrift in Honor of Charles Speel. Ed. by Thomas J. Sienkewicz and James E. Betts. Monmouth College, Monmouth, Illinois, 1997. Read More