Explore the significance of authority figures in ‘A Doll’s House’
In Ibsen’s ‘A Doll’s House’, Torvald Helmer is at first presented as a figure of
authority, whilst Nora initially appears to be powerless and ignorant. Torvald is a
stereotypical, middle-class businessman who strongly agrees with society’s view
of men as the masters of the house. Nora appears willing to act as he wants her
to: sweets and “macaroons” are “forbidden”, she doesn’t talk about her ‘old
friends back home” because he gets jealous, and she has his “taste in everything”.
To Torvald, his power and coercive control over his wife and home seem
absolute; she is not “not only his wife but also his child” and he is her “will and…
conscience”. The audience, however, knows better, making his utter self-
confidence ironic. Nora shows small signs of rebellion right from the beginning.
She hides macaroons in her pocket before assuring him that she “could never act
against [his] wishes”, and has in fact been lying to him and keeping secrets for
some time. The secret of her illegal loan from Krogstad is typical of a well-made
play, as the play’s climax is at its revelation to Torvald. At this climax, Torvald
also begins to realise the loss of his authority, or arguably his long lack of it. He
believes his future is “ruined” and “destroyed” because he thinks his respectable
reputation has been stripped from him. His respectability is, to him and many in
his society, what gives him his power in the real world outside his “Doll’s House”.
As soon as the situation is “hushed up” and his authority no longer seems to be in
jeopardy, he is once again happy to play the romantic hero with “broad wings to
shield” his “frightened little songbird”. His masculine authority too has been
restored in his belief that Nora acted out of “love of [him]” and that her “feminine
helplessness” gives him even more power. However, it is in fact his rigid belief in
his masculine authority and respectability that causes Nora to rebel against him,
and in doing so he loses his power. Ibsen therefore criticises the power structure
in relationships and society, and especially the parent-child relationship between
husband and wife.
By the end of the play, it is Nora who has taken the power and authority. Torvald
is unable to stop her from leaving him and for the first time in the play she takes
control of the conversation by interrupting him and telling him to “sit down”. She
is no longer “humming contentedly” in acceptance of her husband controlling her
life. Her earlier acts of rebellion, which seemed small and secret, now help lead
her to her most daring act of defiance against the patriarchal society, where she
leaves her husband and children to “educate [herself}”, an act that caused riots
when the play was first released. This absolute rejection of the role she has been
given is the greatest symbol of power in the play, making Nora the strongest
figure of authority. Interestingly, this symbol of power is a stark contrast to
Torvald’s typical view of the power in respectability and in moral behaviour.
Rather than staying with her children, which is arguably her moral
responsibility, she recognises herself as a “human being first”, before a mother or
wife. Through this final scene in the play, Ibsen may be suggesting that the power
of respectability is a façade, and is instead applauding the power of
independence. However, Ibsen’s main message may be to rebel against the
oppressive treatment of women, through his decision to make the initially silly
and oppressed Nora a strong, authoritative character at the end of the play.
In Ibsen’s ‘A Doll’s House’, Torvald Helmer is at first presented as a figure of
authority, whilst Nora initially appears to be powerless and ignorant. Torvald is a
stereotypical, middle-class businessman who strongly agrees with society’s view
of men as the masters of the house. Nora appears willing to act as he wants her
to: sweets and “macaroons” are “forbidden”, she doesn’t talk about her ‘old
friends back home” because he gets jealous, and she has his “taste in everything”.
To Torvald, his power and coercive control over his wife and home seem
absolute; she is not “not only his wife but also his child” and he is her “will and…
conscience”. The audience, however, knows better, making his utter self-
confidence ironic. Nora shows small signs of rebellion right from the beginning.
She hides macaroons in her pocket before assuring him that she “could never act
against [his] wishes”, and has in fact been lying to him and keeping secrets for
some time. The secret of her illegal loan from Krogstad is typical of a well-made
play, as the play’s climax is at its revelation to Torvald. At this climax, Torvald
also begins to realise the loss of his authority, or arguably his long lack of it. He
believes his future is “ruined” and “destroyed” because he thinks his respectable
reputation has been stripped from him. His respectability is, to him and many in
his society, what gives him his power in the real world outside his “Doll’s House”.
As soon as the situation is “hushed up” and his authority no longer seems to be in
jeopardy, he is once again happy to play the romantic hero with “broad wings to
shield” his “frightened little songbird”. His masculine authority too has been
restored in his belief that Nora acted out of “love of [him]” and that her “feminine
helplessness” gives him even more power. However, it is in fact his rigid belief in
his masculine authority and respectability that causes Nora to rebel against him,
and in doing so he loses his power. Ibsen therefore criticises the power structure
in relationships and society, and especially the parent-child relationship between
husband and wife.
By the end of the play, it is Nora who has taken the power and authority. Torvald
is unable to stop her from leaving him and for the first time in the play she takes
control of the conversation by interrupting him and telling him to “sit down”. She
is no longer “humming contentedly” in acceptance of her husband controlling her
life. Her earlier acts of rebellion, which seemed small and secret, now help lead
her to her most daring act of defiance against the patriarchal society, where she
leaves her husband and children to “educate [herself}”, an act that caused riots
when the play was first released. This absolute rejection of the role she has been
given is the greatest symbol of power in the play, making Nora the strongest
figure of authority. Interestingly, this symbol of power is a stark contrast to
Torvald’s typical view of the power in respectability and in moral behaviour.
Rather than staying with her children, which is arguably her moral
responsibility, she recognises herself as a “human being first”, before a mother or
wife. Through this final scene in the play, Ibsen may be suggesting that the power
of respectability is a façade, and is instead applauding the power of
independence. However, Ibsen’s main message may be to rebel against the
oppressive treatment of women, through his decision to make the initially silly
and oppressed Nora a strong, authoritative character at the end of the play.
