Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House is recognized as among the most influential literary creations that have helped to fuel the feminist movement. Relying primarily on the character of Nora, Ibsen highlights the relentless, frustrating but eventually successful women’s movement for liberty and equality. However, a closer examination of the play reveals that it is more nuanced. In particular, the play challenges readers to recognize that even as they continue to make progress, women remain trapped in societies that deny their equality and sabotage their advancement. Ibsen expertly uses Nora’s finances, children, macaroons, and many other objects as symbols of the notion that women are only accomplished and complete when they satisfy society’s expectations of womanhood.
In many ways, Nora is a liberated woman. For instance, after unsuccessfully trying to reconcile her appetite for freedom and her life as a married woman, she walks out on her family. However, strewn across the entire play are various symbols of shackles that she struggles to break. Among these symbols are Nora’s children. One would expect that given her feminist spirit, Nora would refuse to let her children define her. In fact, according to Iseni (2014), Nora is a powerful symbol of the relentlessness and courage of women who reject societal notions of womanhood and craft their own identity. However, as Ibsen makes clear, Nora treasures her children and appears to suggest that her identity rests upon her status as a mother. For example, in her conversation with Mrs. Linden, a recent widow, Nora reminds her that her husband left her no children:
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Nora: No, Christina, it was horrid of me. Oh, you poor darling! How much you must have gone through!-And he left you nothing!
Mrs. Linden: Nothing.
Nora: And no children? (Ibsen, p. 861).
In addition to being insensitive and insulting, Nora also makes it clear that she derives her sense of meaning and value from her children. She proceeds further to flaunt her children before a sad and grieving Mrs. Linden:
Mrs. Linden: Oh, it happens sometimes, Nora.
Nora: So utterly alone. How dreadful that must be. I have three of their loveliest children. (Ibsen, p. 861)
The immense value that Nora places on her children clearly indicate that despite her best efforts, she is unable to develop a Nora-centric identity. Instead, she is forced to admit that no woman is complete without children. Therefore, Nora’s children and how she views them shows that even the most independent and liberated women struggle to feel accomplished if they have no children.
How Nora views and relates with her husband is yet another symbol of society’s unbreakable chokehold on women. For example, Nora essentially worships her husband. For example, in the exchange with Mrs. Linden, she portrays her husband as a key and necessary component of her identity and sense of value. Further, she announces that “Only think! My husband has been made Manager of the Joint Stock Bank” (Ibsen, p. 861). This statement is surprising given that Mrs. Linden has recently lost her husband and expected to find sympathy and comfort from Nora. Instead, she is greeted with arrogant gloating.
More importantly, it can be argued that Nora mentions her husband’s accomplishments because she feels that these achievements are hers as well. She is evidently unable to establish an independent identity. Another instance regarding Nora’s relationship with her husband highlights how she remains trapped in society’s expectations is when she asks for money. Essentially, Nora stoops embarrassingly low, going as far as accepting such labels as a spendthrift. The following interaction underscores how Nora betrays the feminist struggle by settling into the role that society has carved out for her:
Helmer: It’s a sweet little lark; but it gets through a lot of money. No one would believe how much it costs a man to keep such a little bird as you.
Nora: For shame! How can you say so! (Ibsen, p. 858).
While she is seemingly displeased with being regarded as a spendthrift, Nora is forced to submit to her husband. Mary (2011) would agree that while she eventually rebels, Nora complies with society’s demands. For example, in her text, Mary (2011) observed that Nora accepted the role of the caring mother and the subservient wife. Her relationship with her husband symbolizes society’s influence on the choices of women, even those like Nora with a desperate desire for freedom.
Mary’s approach to finances is another symbol of the tremendous influence that society wields over the lives and destinies of women. As shown above, Nora is entirely dependent on her husband for financial support. How Nora is tied to her husband can be seen in her response to the news that Torvald is set for a promotion. She gladly declares “He is to enter on his new position at the New Year, and then we will have a large salary and percentages…Oh Christina, I feel so light and happy! It’s splendid to have lots of money, and no need to worry about things, isn’t it?” (Ibsen, p. 862). What is even more disappointing is that Nora does not commit much effort to securing financial independence. For example, she describes her job as a laborious chore. She prefers being a wife who is fed, clothed and housed by her husband. The following interaction highlights how Nora resents her own means of raising finances while expressing preference for subservience in exchange for the money she receives from Torvald:
Mrs. Linde: That’s why I couldn’t take it any longer in that desolate hole. Maybe here it’ll be easier to find something to do and keep my mind occupied…
Nora: Oh, but Kristine, that’s so dreadfully tiring and you already look so tired. It would be much better for you if you could go off to a bathing resort.
Mrs. Linde: I have no father to give me travel money, Nora. (Ibsen, p. 862).
While the entire conversation between Nora and Mrs. Linde is important, what is particularly interesting is that Mrs. Linde feels the need to remind Nora that unlike her, she has no man from whom she can expect money. The fact that Nora is forced to forge her husband’s signature to secure a loan further highlights how women are captive to society’s stipulations. It is nearly impossible for a woman to find true freedom without the approval or support of the men in her life. In his exploration of A Doll’s House, Baseer (2013) acknowledged that society has reduced women to positions from which they cannot escape entrapment and oppression. Nora’s dependence on her husband is symbolic of women’s powerlessness.
In discussing the symbolism in A Doll’s House, it is crucial to consider the ridiculousness of some of the restrictions that Nora endures. The macaroons are among the objects that Ibsen uses to symbolize these restrictions. At the beginning of the play, Helmer interrogates Nora over whether she has eaten macaroons:
Helmer: Hasn’t nibbled some pastry?
Nora: No, not at all.
Helmer: Not even munched a macaroon or two? (Ibsen p. 859).
While the macaroons are a simple confectionary, they convey a powerful message in the play. They show that society expects women to account for the simplest and most basic actions that they undertake. These macaroons work in concert with other symbols like the loan. While she obtained the loan to fund a trip with her husband, she is forced to hide her actions. There is no dispute that even the bravest and most resilient women struggle to completely sever the strong hold that society exercises over their lives.
In conclusion, Ibsen shows that symbolism is a highly effective tool for exploring complex and powerful themes. In A Doll’s House, he employs symbolism to show that women pursuing freedom must brace for hardships. In particular, the women should expect to struggle in obtaining the resources and support they require. While Nora’s initial behavior is disappointing as it violates the feminist agenda, what is encouraging is that eventually, she defies and rebels and secures liberty. As they set out on similar journeys, women should anticipate problems but should find comfort in the knowledge that liberty awaits them.
References
Baseer, A., Alvi, S. D., & Zafran, F. (2013). The use of symbolic language in Ibsen’s A Doll’s House: a feminist perspective. Language in India, 13 (3), 622-9.
Ibsen, H. (2017). A Doll’s House. In Mays, K. J. The Norton introduction to literature. 12 th Ed. New York City, NY: W.W. Norton.
Iseni, A. (2014). Symbolic realism in Ibsen’s A Doll House: an overview. Anglisticum Journal, 3 (8), 8-17.
Mary, C. S. (2011). A feminist reading and symbolic significance of Henrik Ibsen’s ‘A Doll’s House’. International Journal of English and Literature, 1 (2), 13-22.
