A Doll's "Marriage"

By: John Adams

Henrik Ibsen’s literary work A Doll’s House explores the conflict between the social and moral restrictions of bourgeois society and the psychological (often unconscious) demands of individual freedom. Written in the late 1800s, the play had a profound impact on European theatre, as well as on modern perceptions about gender roles, morality, social status, and internal demands for freedom and honesty. Today, some 140 years after its composition, A Doll’s House is still widely studied/analyzed by countless demographics around the world for several reasons. However, the play’s relevancy over time is due to its combative examination/exploration of the institution of marriage, the traditional roles of men and women in marriage, and how both of these themes are molded by (and contribute to) the social pressures/norms prevalent in a modern bourgeois society – such as the desire for status and wealth.

Until the turn of the 20^th century, marriage (for the most part; there are exceptions, of course) had historically been dictated by the will/wishes of the man. Women were (again, for the most part) charged with maintaining the household, caring for the children, cooking meals, etc. They were essentially expected to be the glue that kept the household from crumbling apart, while men were expected to provide the bricks the glue would hold together. Moreover, societal expectations dictated that men receive no help from women in providing for his family. In A Doll’s House, the traditional version of the institution of marriage, where the wife is the homemaker and the husband is responsible for providing for his family, is overtly recognizable in the opening moments of the play until its conclusion. It begins with Nora entering the drawing room carrying items she had just bought – hinting at her role in the family. She is the main character throughout the entire play, and in fact, never leaves the single room where the action occurs (which in itself sheds light on the traditional domestic/familial roles of men and women). Torvald subsequently enters and calls Nora by numerous pet names, as if she was a piece of property. Consider the following excerpt from some of the first lines of the play (11-17):

Helmer: Is that my little lark twittering out there?

Nora: Yes, it is.

Helmer: Is that my squirrel rummaging around?

Nora: Yes!

Helmer: When did my squirrel get in?

Nora: Just now.

Helmer refers to his wife as if she belongs to him, as if she is his property (his little lark or pet squirrel). Throughout the play he uses many other names as well; songbird and wood nymph are two such examples. Right from the outset Ibsen uses condescending language to portray how marriages at the time were practically dominated by the man. This feeling of condescension is further reinforced later when Helmer lectures Nora on economical purchasing habits and the dangers of borrowing money. Helmer’s below statements provide additional insight into the traditional role of men and women in marriage:

“That is like a woman! But seriously, Nora you know what I think about that. No debt, no borrowing. There can be no freedom or beauty about a home life that depends on borrowing and debt. We two have kept bravely on the straight road so far, and we will go on the same way for the short time longer that there need be any struggle” (Act 1, 45-50)

Here, Helmer is virtually speaking down to his wife with the expectation that because he had previously told her so, she should know that borrowing money is always bad – foreshadowing the main conflict of the play. Additionally, he appears to make all of the major decisions for both of them, evident in his telling her what they will do – with no input from Nora whatsoever. It initially appears that Nora is powerless in her relationship, and moreover, that she is completely fine with that (though we eventually discover she’s not). Again we see in the opening moments of the play that Helmer and Nora’s marriage is dictated by what Helmer believes to be right; he calls the shots because he knows best. The need for social status and wealth is another crucial element of the play, and in this quote, it is implied that “freedom” parallels financial stability. This is reinforced several times through Helmer’s deep concern with his social image and Nora’s satisfaction with her husband’s new job (and the larger paycheck accompanying it). During her conversation with Mrs. Linde, Nora proclaims:

“Carefree! To know you’re carefree, utterly carefree; to be able to romp and play with the children, and to keep up a beautiful, charming home–everything just the way Torvald like it.” (Act I, 494-497)

She seems convinced that financial security forms the bedrock of freedom and happiness. Financial freedom will allow her time to be a better mother and maintain the home the way a good wife should – the way that society deems appropriate. Ironically, a key message of the play is that Nora cannot find true freedom in this traditional domestic realm, despite having more money. This message unfolds and becomes clearer as the play continues as Nora’s mentality regarding true freedom evolves.

Ibsen also explores other aspects of marriage like keeping secrets and maintaining honesty. While the primary catalyst of A Doll’s House centers on her “big” secret, she likewise holds smaller ones. For instance, In Act I Nora brings home macaroons despite Helmer explicitly forbidding them. Later in Act II, Dr. Rank expresses his love for Nora behind Helmer’s back, shortly after she first begins contemplating leaving her family – two additional secrets she now carries and hides. Nora’s “big” secret – that she saved Helmer’s life – is the driving force behind the play. After all, society maintains, “A wife can’t borrow without her husband’s consent” (Act I, 399). The following excerpt from Nora and Mrs. Linde’s conversation is extremely revealing about the dynamic between marriage and society:

“For heaven’s sake, no! Are you serious? He’s so strict on that subject. Besides – Torvald, with all his masculine pride – how painfully humiliating for him if he ever found out he was in debt to me. That would just ruin our relationship. Our beautiful, happy home would never be the same.” (Act I, 436-440)

Ibsen makes a point to characterize precisely how marriages operated in the period, which is largely depicted as a function of society’s accepted norms/standards. It was frowned upon, or deemed a downfall or weakness, if a man received any kind of aid from his female counterpart; as she put it, it would be “humiliating” for him. Her marriage would fall apart because he would be unable to deal with the prospect of a stained reputation/image. Immediately after this, the audience witnesses yet another important theme of marriage – the importance of physical appearances. When asked if she would ever tell Helmer the truth, Nora responds:

“Yes–maybe sometime, years from now, when I’m no longer so attractive. Don’t laugh! I only mean when Torvald loves me less than now, when he stops enjoying my dancing and dressing up and reciting for him. Then it might be wise to have something in reserve.” (Act I, 442-448)

The author implies that physical attraction is paramount in marriage, especially from the husband’s perspective. Now, while it is undoubtedly important, I think Ibsen realized that it shouldn’t have so much sway in it’s functioning. That love is–to a degree–contingent upon attraction, but that it shouldn’t be considered more important than say, honesty with your partner. This is also the first time of the play that we realize Nora might not be as naïve as she appears–showing a capability to think critically, wisely, and even manipulatively. She may have a real sense of the nature of her marriage – that Torvald’s affection for her stems from physical attraction, and that as that fades with age, so to will his interest in (or love for) her.

Ibsen masterfully portrays the shortcomings of traditional marriages based on socially determined gender/familial roles in a modern world. It is society’s constraints on marriage (on the husband-wife relationship) that foster the conflict in the play. Financial freedom is synonymous with actual freedom, which for Nora is an illusion in her current situation. To me, A Doll’s House offers a unique glimpse into the struggles women encountered and to how they battled those struggles. The play portrays marriage not as a divine contract based on love, but rather an escape mechanism for women to maneuver around the hardships they encountered in the “real” world (i.e. society). Social pressures/norms heavily influence the characters in the play, and moreover, the institution of marriage itself – revealing that Nora (as a woman) is actually trapped, and far from actually being free.