Is Henrik Ibsen’s Play, “A Doll House” a Feminist Play?

Subject: Literature
Pages: 5
Words: 1411
Reading time:
5 min
Study level: College

In order to establish whether Henrik Ibsen’s play is feminist, one must first know the definition of feminism. Feminism is defined as wanting liberation from sexist role patterns for all people, whether male or female (The Lancet). The feminist theory seeks to understand inequality propagated against women, focusing on gender politics. It explores various gender themes, such as discrimination, objectification, and patriarchy. In “A Doll House,” Henrik Ibsen emphasizes the themes of self-realization and freedom. He explores their restriction against women in society and shows the women’s position as one of depravity and dependence. It also explores how individuality is taken away by a patriarchal society. This reinforcement and point of view make “A Doll House” a feminist play.

The author does not explicitly express the feminist opinions in the play but subtly appeals to the readers through the themes. In his representation of a marriage system that is not ideal and exposition of gender conflict between the women and the men, the author shows his belief in inequality in marriage and individuality, which is a component of feminism. A way to show this representation is through showing how Tovalt is a strong advocate of patriarchy and how he tried to keep Nora trapped in that system before she eventually comes to her self-realization and rebels from her marriage and system. This anchor point of the play reinforces that the play is feminist.

Anti-feminist theorists argue that women are empowered, and the feminist movement is a way of propagating hate against men and society overall. However, the truth is that this play shines a light on a societal problem where individuals, especially women, are disenfranchised and victimized by society. Nora is the protagonist of this story, and she lives a decorated life that is identical to a doll’s house. She later realizes that all this is merely a façade hiding that she is a trophy for her husband to showcase. Having such a moment of clarity is why she leaves her matrimonial home and children to discover herself. For Nora, this is seen as a way to get rid of society’s oppression and unacceptable conventions and a way in which the feminist nature of this play is reinforced.

Nora resides in a seemingly peaceful and loving home. Despite being affectionate to his wife, her husband, Hemler, is revealed to be proud and obsessed with his social standing. This makes him inconsiderate of his wife’s nature despite her forging vital documents needed to save Torvald’s life. The action itself was illegal, but the wife’s love makes her do it, and she believes that should a spotlight be shown on the illegal happening, her husband would protect and defend her from Krogstad’s accusations. When the truth is finally revealed, her husband does not aid her, and she realizes that she is an object to her husband. In retrospect, in an ideal marriage, a husband would have come to his wife’s aid and not acted the way Hemler did. This part of the play shows an unrealistic aspect of marriage as a means to strengthen its feminist nature.

A central issue in the play is marriage and the woman’s position in the union and society. When Henrik Ibsen wrote this play, the woman’s role in society was more of a subordinate, with them viewed as helpers and not partners. The husband was the family patriarch, and the women were expected to follow instructions. They were more of an attractive factor adding to the man’s prestige. Women could only romanticize achieving their dreams in such a society, as characterized by Nora. Escapist dreams were the means through which the women coped with their circumstances. In such a system, it is no surprise that the author made his play depict the current condition of that time and strengthen his feminist narrative.

At the onset of the play, the protagonist is portrayed as frivolous and carefree, which makes the audience not pay much attention to her initially. Later as the play progresses, Nora is revealed to have forged a transaction that enabled them to travel to Italy for her husband’s medical treatment. This action draws the audience to how complex her character is. When Nora talks to Caroline about her activities for the last years, her nature is further revealed. Nora says to Caroline, “You ought not to be superior.” And “You are just like the others. They all think that I am incapable of anything really serious” (Ibsen). When Caroline responds that Nora told her what was troubling her, Nora replies, “Those were trifles; I have not told you the important thing. It was I who saved Torvald’s life.” (Ibsen). The author shows her resourcefulness and strength of women at this point, reinforcing the feminist agenda.

The protagonist’s complicated personality involves lying multiple times throughout the play (Abele et al.). She lies to Torvald and Dr. Rank. “Yes. Well. These are some Christine gave me” (Ibsen). She lied to her husband that Christine was his visitor. “Now she’s traveled all this way to talk to you.” (Ibsen). Through these scenarios, the lie that the protagonist is living can be seen. Her husband considers her frail and lovable while, in essence, the wife is on a mission to pay a debt incurred to save a life while still giving them a vacation. She had to live a lie can be seen by the reaction to her deception’s discovery. The husband chastises her and Krogstad but then says, “Men often succeed in re-establishing themselves if they admit their crime and take their punishment.” (Ibsen, 42). The difference in this reaction is another reinforcement of the social situation that strengthens the fact that this play is feminist.

Everything in Hemler’s home had been set up to amuse him, and he did not consider anyone to be his equal. Initially, when the author reveals that the protagonist had taken a loan and was working on paying it back by working at a copy house, Nora reveals that it felt wonderful to work and thus feel how her husband felt. “We’ve been in no position for me to waste money. We’ve both had to work. I, too, have something to be proud and happy about.” (Ibsen). Through this phrase by Nora, it is evident that women were disenfranchised and not allowed to work. Only men were allowed to work, which made women vulnerable and needed the men to survive. The revelation by the author, albeit indirectly, about the situation of women and work is a subtle way through which the crucial feminist agenda of emancipation of women is promoted through the play.

One of the last and most important aspects of the play, which showcase its feminist nature, can be seen towards the end of the play. In the play’s final moments, Nora becomes aware of her societal position as a wife and a mother but not an equal member of society. She claims that her home has been like a playroom and that she must leave to educate herself. “I must educate myself, and you can’t help me with that. It’s something that I must do by myself; that’s why I’m leaving you.” (Ibsen, 67). Nora leaves her husband eventually with her, slamming the door behind her. The role and impact of the symbolism of literature cannot be understated (Newmark). When Nora says that she has to educate herself, it shows the realization that what she thought was the norm and her position in life was to be questioned. Her role had to be re-examined, and her position in society was not defined by marriage and children. The impact, especially in the play’s period, cannot be understated when she walked out and closed the door behind her. It showed that women could walk out of matrimonial unions if they did not feel fulfilled. The play’s ending was the strongest argument for a feminist narrative.

In conclusion, it is apparent that when Nora realized the life she lived, she realized it was meaningless without self-fulfillment. Her life with her husband and children became more like a societal expectation and not her own will. The protagonist, therefore, had no option but to walk out the door of her marriage. Henrik Ibsen has used this play to show the disenfranchising of women in the eighteen hundreds (Akter). By offering the women back then how they had the option to empower themselves and realize their dreams, he made his play a notable feminist tool.

Works Cited

Abele, Andrea, et al. Agency and Communion in Social Psychology. Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY, Routledge, 2019.

Akter, Saima. “Re-Reading Henrik Ibsen’s a Doll’s House: A Modern Feminist Perspective.” International Journal of English and Comparative Literary Studies, vol. 2, no. 3, 2021, pp. 79–87.

Ibsen, Henrik, and Nicholas Rudall. A Doll’s House. I.R. Dee, 1999

Newmark, Kevin. Beyond Symbolism. Cornell University Press.

The Lancet. “Feminism Is for Everybody.” The Lancet, vol. 393, no. 10171, 2019, p. 493, Web.