The roles of women have been a big part of literature and are usually a representation of how the roles of women in real life have evolved. Henrik Ibsen’s “Hedda Gabler” and “A Doll’s House” are considered by many to be representations of the issues women faced in the 19th century. During the 1800s, women began to slowly become more independent. More and more women began to enter the work force and take on more responsibilities. However, this change was a gradual process. Just because it was becoming more acceptable to work does not mean a woman could merely decide to get a job working along side a man. It depended on class and social status. As both “Hedda Gabler” and “A Doll’s House” show, middle class women were still expected to have less prominent roles in the household. While this was OK for some, there were always others that wanted more from life. They felt they were being told they had more freedom, but in actuality, they still were limited in what they could actually do. Evidence of this began to appear in the literature of the time especially in works written by women. Most popular fiction produced by women in the mid-nineteenth century was directed towards advocating social change” (Cruea). Women used literature as a way to speak their minds about the changes they wished to see.
When one considers these factors, it is not surprising that women viewed the characters Nora Helmer and Hedda Gabler as empowering. More and more things were being geared towards women, and women saw the characters as people they could relate to. Although accomplished in different ways, the main female characters from each play decide to take their life choices in their own hands and step outside of the box society has made for them. Their choices and the timing of the 19th century feminist movement caused the plays and Ibsen to become associated with being supportive of feminism. The characters could be seen as victims in situations caused by the men around them. As a result, many began to argue that the characters were Ibsen’s way of advocating feminism. Ibsen never confirmed or denied this, but many critics feel that others focus too much on the gender of the main characters and the plays are actually representations of realism. They feel if one looks past the gender labels applied to each character they will realize that there is more to each character’s story than being a woman that is “stuck” in a situation. However, if both sides would stop trying to label the plays as just one or the other, they would realize that both actually apply. The audience’s interpretation of the women was affected by the prominent issues of the time, and the stories do reflect the thoughts of some middle-class women at the time. Feminism in literature is a form of realism; therefore, “Hedda Gabler” and “A Doll’s House” are examples of feminism and realism.
The constant discussions regarding whether the plays are examples of feminism or realism leaves us with the question, “Why did Ibsen write these plays as he did?” Ibsen was a writer of drama and realism. Realism by definition is “a manner of treating subject matter that presents a careful description of everyday life, usually of the lower and middle classes” (Realism). Feminism was an issue among all classes during the 19th century. Based on the definition of realism, a piece of literature that depicts the everyday inequalities that exists between men and women would qualify as realism.
Ibsen did not set out to write a piece on feminism; nor did he specifically set out to write plays to empower women. He was only trying to capture life’s situations. Ibsen wrote the following in his personal notes when preparing to write “A Doll’s House”:
A woman cannot be herself in modern society. It is an exclusively male society, with laws made by men and with prosecutors and judges who assess feminine conduct from a masculine standpoint (Meyer 446).
Ibsen saw the inequalities that existed in society between men and women and chose to write about them.
This becomes more evident if you look at the characters and story lines from both plays. Susan Torrey Barstow best summarized Ibsen’s characters in her article “Hedda is all of us: Late-Victorian Women at the Matinee“. She writes,
…the contemporary, middle-class heroines of Ibsen and his followers seemed to live not in a fantasy realm, but in the spectators’ own world. Ibsen’s heroines do not face starvation, shipwreck, or attack by wild animals; instead, they struggle against the thralls of domesticity and the confines of traditional femininity. Their trials are the ordinary, familiar trials of pregnancy, childbirth, the double standard, sexual frustration, and, perhaps above all, boredom. When strong men appear, they tend to threaten the Ibsen heroine rather than offering her rescue and security.
Ibsen was not trying to create tales with happy endings. This is clearly obvious as neither play ends happily in the traditional sense. Some may consider the fact that Nora and Hedda free themselves from those around them a type of “happy ending”. It is not done in a glamorous fashion and is real. According to William Archer, Ibsen’s “…primary concern is the projection of character, and its development by aid of an interesting, moving, absorbing action” (Archer 145). This is evident if you really look at the characters of Nora and Hedda. The characters are deep and go through life changing experiences. The journey each character embarks on represents a timeless “life” lesson that can be applied to various situations.
In “A Doll’s House”, Nora Helmer is treated like a caged bird. In her husband’s eyes, she exists to be beautiful and there when he needs to be entertained. He even often refers to her as his little songbird. She does not do much around the house with the exception of shopping and playing with the children. She lives in a fantasy world and does not really care about the misfortune of others unless it directly affects her. This is evident when her widowed friend comes to visit her and asks for help finding a job. Nora cannot stop thinking about her “wonderful” her life and proceeds to share these details with her friend. It is almost as if life is just a game. In her mind, bad things happen but will not last forever. Until the events that occurred in the play, Nora was never required to deal with true misfortune on her own.
Nora is not taken seriously, but this is understandable because she has never had the opportunity to think for herself. Nora even realizes this herself. She states:
What I mean is: I passed out of Daddy’s hands into yours. You arranged everything to your tastes, and I acquire the same tastes. Or I pretended to… I don’t really know… I think it was a bit of both, sometimes one thing and sometimes the other. When I look back, it seems to me I have been living here like a beggar, hand to mouth. I lived by doing tricks for you, Torvald. But that’s the way you wanted it. You and Daddy did me a great wrong. It’s your fault that I’ve never made anything of my life (Ibsen 80).
One could argue that Nora is trying to push the blame off on others and not take ownership of the way her life is. However, due to the time period, she is correct. Women did not have the freedom they have now to find themselves. Both Torvald and her father likely did not mean to do harm when they sheltered Nora. It was what they were accustomed to. Men were to handle everything. There are still people today that firmly believe this. Nora even felt that was the way things were supposed to be. It is when she realizes that she does not have her own identity that her view changes. “…In the first part of the drama, she exploits the whole register of femininity as the feminine traditionally has been perceived and in the last part of the drama emerges as highly articulate and moreover willing to leave her husband and three children” (Rekdal). The fact that she was able to realize this and want to do something about it shows tremendous character growth.
If you look at Nora’s situation for what it really is, you will realize she is a person that is trying to form her own opinions. This does apply to feminism due to the fact that the movement became a way to empower women to think on their own. However, it also applies to many people regardless of sex, race, age, nationality, etc. There are many people today that are stuck in situations where others have made choices for them. It could be family members or a group of peers.
An example is choice of religion. Usually a person will choose a religion based on what their parents chose. While there is nothing wrong with this, there are people that would prefer to explore different types of religion, but they do not because of the backlash they would receive from family members. Nora touches on this when Torvald questions her religious values after she announces she is leaving her family. She states:
All I know is what Pastor Hansen said when I was confirmed. He said religion was this, that and the other. When I’m away from all this and on my own, I’ll go into that, too. I want to find out whether what Pastor Hansen told me was right-or at least whether it’s right for me. (Ibsen 82).
Ibsen was trying to tell us that everyone needs a chance to form their own opinions and choose which path they want to take in life. The only way to do that is to completely remove yourself from the people that are influencing your opinions.
Hedda, on the other hand, is the opposite of Nora. Hedda has her own opinions and is not afraid to share them. Hedda actions throughout the play stem from the fact that she feels she is a victim. She is forced to follow the rules of society in order to keep a certain image. She did not marry George Tesman because she fell in love with him. She did it because she was reaching thirty. She states, “I really danced myself tired, my dear sir. I had had my day…” (Ibsen 202). During the time the play was written, women were expected to be married by a certain age. Hedda most likely always expected to be married by the time she turned thirty. When George Tesman came along, she settled for him because she thought she would have a comfortable future with him. She also thought he would be able to afford her the type of lifestyle she deserves. From the outside, they appear to be the picture perfect couple which allows her to keep up appearance.
Hedda indicates numerous times that she desperately wants control over her life. The root cause of her frustration is her marriage to George. “Yes, there we have it! It’s these paltry circumstances I’ve landed up in…! That’s what makes like so pitiful! So positively ludicrous!…Because that’s what it is” (Ibsen 208). Deep down Hedda knows marrying George was a mistake. She chose to do what society feels is right instead of following her heart. Rather than own up to her poor judgment, she spins it around in her favor. She feels she is “stuck” in the situation. Since she is pregnant, she feels she has lost even more control. She does not have the courage to forge her own path. This is somewhat surprising because the image she portrays to others is confident. Her lack of courage is what causes her to toy with the lives of those around her.
Hedda’s mentality throughout the play is if she cannot control the events that occur in her life others should not have control of their own lives. The reason behind her actions is not to cause others pain per se. It is about playing puppet master. The fact that her actions cause others grief is just an extra perk. This is why she considers Ejlert’s suicide to be beautiful. She ignores the fact that she pushed him over the edge and focuses on the fact that by killing himself he did not conform to society’s standards. Hedda states, “Ejlert Lovborg has settled accounts with himself. He had the courage to do…what had to be done” (Ibsen 256). Hedda is looking for a way to transfer the same type of courage to herself.
If you look at Hedda’s situation and focus only on her character, we can see that Hedda Gabler is a coward and a sad individual. Her state of mind throughout the play worsens with every move she makes. She longs to be free and to live life on her own terms but is not brave enough to do it. Part of her animosity towards Mrs. Elvsted is due to her having the courage to leave her husband and her involvement with Ejlert. In suggesting suicide to Ejlert and thinking that he went through with it, Hedda created an illusion to try to inspire herself. When speaking of his death she states, “That he had the strength and the will to break away from the banquet of life – so young” (Ibsen 30). The final straw for Hedda comes when Judge Brack blackmails her with the information regarding her involvement with Ejlert’s death. She knows she has lost control and loses hope. “In your power, all the same. Subject to your will and your demands. No longer free! No! That’s a thought that I’ll never endure! Never” (Ibsen 262). Hedda cannot stand to lose control of another part of her life. She is almost the anti-Nora. Both come to see what is wrong in their lives and decide to change it; however, Hedda takes the easy way out so she will not have to deal with the consequences.
Often with plays, the reader forgets that they are written to be performed. During the 19th century, “…the matinee depended for its very existence on women spectators…” (Barstow). “…Women have always been recognized as central to the development of consumerism; the “new woman” of the 1890s can in fact be seen as the embodiment of anxieties about consumerism as well as feminism” (Prasch). Ibsen needed a way to keep women interested. Since feminism was an issue, it is understandable that Ibsen chose to write about situations related to women. If “A Doll’s House” had featured a male that left his family to find his own way, he would not have made a connection with this primary audience. What better way to do so than to tap into the thoughts that crossed the minds of many middle-class housewives during that time. He wanted to connect with his core audience through his words and through performance. This allowed Ibsen to make a connection with the housewives that wanted to do more than be just stay at home wives.
What Ibsen has accomplished in both plays is realism at its best. As previously mentioned, realism is merely a depiction of life without looking through rose colored glasses. Is feminism not real? In relation to feminism, Tanya Thresher writes that realism “reproduces what we already know, realism is a function of a continual reinstatement of order, a system of power that renews itself by authorizing some representations and censoring others”. Feminism is very real as is suicide, motherhood, divorce, independence and the other topics covered in both plays.
Since Henrik Ibsen never confirmed if he was for or against feminism, there will always be questions regarding his intentions when writing “Hedda Gabler” and “A Doll’s House. “He has drawn many noble women, true; but also many vulgar, base, an abominable women. If every poet who drew beautiful female characters were a champion of ‘women’s rights’, it would be the most gloriously championed cause in all history” (Archer 146). If he was not a supporter of women’s rights, why would he write plays that gave women power? Ibsen “…has asserted again and again, in opposition to his expositors, that he is not primarily a thinker, but a dramatist” (Archer 146). We as readers often forget that when authors write dramas, they are hoping to tug at our hearts and make us feel emotions we have possibly never felt.
Ibsen likely felt that he accomplished his goals with both plays. Even though they have been labeled as pro-feminism, the plays have always made audience members think. This is accomplished through both plays whether by reading them or seeing them performed. Many have seen themselves or someone they know in Hedda or Nora. For those that don’t, they have at least felt a connection to the characters. Even today, people are still stocked by Hedda’s insensitive actions and her need to play puppet master to those around her. With Nora, they can understand her decision to leave her family and find her own way in life.
There is no denying that the plays are primarily examples of realism but also examples of feminism. However, that does not deny anyone the right to form their own interpretation of the plays. Ibsen would want it. Rather than focusing on labeling the plays as one thing, we should look into the characters and learn from the choices they made. We are all different and the meaning behind the plays will affect us in different ways. As Nora Helmer stated in “A Doll’s House”, “I believe that first and foremost I am an individual, just as much as you are-or at least I’m going to try to be. I know most people agree with you Torvald, and that’s also what it says in books. I have to think things out for myself, and get things clear” (Ibsen 81).
Works Cited
Archer, William. “Henrik Ibsen: Philosopher or Poet.” 1905. Modernism: an Anthology of Sources and Documents. Ed. Jane Golden, Vassiliki Kolocotroni, and Olga Taxidou. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1998. 145-147.
Barstow, Susan Torrey. “”Hedda is All of Us”: Late-Victorian Women at the Matinee.” Victorian Studies 43.3 (2001): 387-411.
Cruea, Susan M . “Changing Ideals of Womanhood during the Nineteenth-Century Woman Movement.” American Transcendental Quarterly 19.3 (2005): 187-204,237.
Ibsen, Henrik. “A Doll’s House.” Four Major Plays. Trans. Jens Arup and James McFarlane. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981. 1-88.
Ibsen, Henrik. “Hedda Gabler.” Four Major Plays. Trans. Jens Arup and James McFarlane. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981. 165-264.
Meyer, Michael. Ibsen a Biography. Garden City: Doubleday and Company Inc., 1971.
Prasch, Thomas. Victorian Women and the Gendering of Culture.” Journal of Women’s History 9.1 (1997): 192-202.
“Realism.” Dictionary.com. 2008. Random House. 01 April 2007
Rekdal, Anne Marie. “The Female Jouissance: An Analysis of Ibsen’s Et dukkehjem.” Scandinavian Studies 74.2 (2002): 149-180.
Thresher, Tanya. The Performance of Sex and Gender in Oslo Nye Dukketeatrets Hedda Gabler.” Scandinavian Studies 78.4 (2006): 405-418.
