Independence in "A Doll House"

Layne Bolden

            If one were to ask a selection of modern people whether or not they would enjoy a play set in nineteenth-century Europe, centering around a woman who took out a loan, the likely response would be an uninterested one. Though this does, on a very shallow level, describe the plot of Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll House, the play itself functions with several layers of conflict, creating a nuanced perspective on the reality of life for women at the time, as well as on the idea of independence, whether that constitutes self-sufficiency or freedom from specific things, such as the past. Due to this layered plot, A Doll House remains relevant today, since people today, particularly for women, still struggle for independence of all sorts.

            Within the play, independence presents itself not so much as an explicitly stated theme, but as the central conflict and motivator for the actions of Nora, the protagonist. However, Nora would likely not have categorized herself as independent, and rightly so; at no time during the first two acts does Nora make choices specifically to further her own independence, whether materially or personally. Despite appearances, Nora still proves herself to have an independent spirit, which causes most of the trouble within the play but, juxtaposed with her outward demeanor, serves as commentary on independence for women in general. One of the first instances of Nora’s independent leanings provides an excellent example of this. In describing to Mrs. Linde some of the ways in which she earned money to pay back the loan, Nora recounts her experience taking in copying work: “Ah, I was tired so often, dead tired. But still it was wonderful fun, sitting and working like that, earning money. It was almost like being a man…” (1, 473-475). Here, Nora proves that the loan and all the business surrounding it are her matter and no one else’s. She accepted no help from anyone else in order to repay the loan and used her own resourcefulness to make up the difference, even if that resourcefulness was not always well advised. Additionally, this particular instance, by associating work with men, comments on the relation of gender to work and thus to independence. To Nora at least, working in this way is something reserved for men and yet she finds herself doing it. Nora’s actions incite another interesting observation on independence and reasons for contradicting an established system. In order to rationalize her forging the signature, she tells Krogstad, “A daughter hasn’t the right to protect her dying father from anxiety and care? A wife hasn’t a right to save her husband’s life? I don’t know much about laws, but I’m sure somewhere in the books these things are allowed…” (1, 906-910). Here, Nora demonstrates her naiveté just as much as she demonstrates the perfect motivator for independence. Nora, shallow young woman and dedicated wife, likely would not have bothered to break any rules had not it been for the sake of her family, who she truly seems to care for, at least in the first half of the play.

            Though the specific action of the plot centers on a time period long past and its social norms, Nora’s struggles remain relevant today. Freedom still remains a central human struggle, one that is always relatable, and Nora’s character provides an interesting alternative to the strong-willed brand of freedom often seen in media. While certainly not a weak individual, Nora does not quite fit the “strong independent woman” trope, and yet she still manages to work independent of the system, naiveté and all. Nora also acts as an encouragement specifically to women working for independence, since she takes it upon herself to do a “man’s work” for the sake of her family. Ultimately, Nora’s small acts of defiance build on themselves to create trouble on one hand, but a portrait of a uniquely independent woman on the other.