A Doll's House: Feminist or Humanist in Nature?

By Sonakshi Bhatnagar 

The category under which Ibsen’s ’A Doll’s House’, classes itself has been argued. Some say that the bases of the play is humanist, some say feminist. Both the themes are evidently prevalent in the play, both with equal amounts of emphasis. But to understand why Ibsen, himself, has titled ‘A Doll’s House’ to be a humanist play in nature, we need to understand the qualities and differences between the two concepts.

Humanism, refers to a train of thought in which human interests, values, and dignities predominate. Feminism, on the other hand, only caters to the advocacy of women’s rights on social, political, and economic matters, in relation to men. Naturalism, was a movement, which was prevalent during the time, and of which, Ibsen has made use. What it employed was the idea of creating an illusion of reality, by tackling everyday issues in a relatable form of entertainment. Ibsen, often brought in controversial subjects to this set. 

Due to the societal values of the time, and the obvious differences between the two sexes, it may be blatant in nature that the play directs its attention to Nora, a woman. However, the depth of the issue which is addressed, has it roots planted in much deeper than what meets the eye. These strict morals, and stereotypical bounds weren’t only placed upon women. Each individual, every member of the society was oppressed by expectations which they were expected to meet. There was very little to no freedom which allowed the people to just be, and discover their identities. Their lives were dictated by predestined roles. 

One needs to meet the play with a keen eye, to better understand the structuring and working of life during that time. With Nora as a lead character, we may omit certain details because we feel they may not hold any relevancy. What we fail to see the ample number of instances in which this humanist theme reoccurs, and is visible in the path of many characters; male or female. Krogstad, would be a fair example. Nora and him, had both been responsible for a crime of the same nature. It dictated how it is the circumstances which demanded these actions, and not their individual minds. Their actions were the cause and the effect, both at the same time— The causation to the climax, and the effect of their surrounding circumstances. 

Speaking of giving into their emotions, we often found these characters to conform to the society. They were merely another brick in the wall, but the play acted as a ground for them to all grow and progress as characters. This happened in the form of revelations, climaxes, and plot twists. Nora walking out, wasn’t just a symbolic movement for feminism; it was one for all humans. Her leaving should be taken in a metaphoric and symbolic manner, rather than a literal one. The world she thought she existed in, simply was an illusion of freedom. She did leave behind her family, but she did it to exercise her right to merely be her own person. Whereas, when we looked at Torvald, he was simply bound by the life she left behind. This also acted to further emphasise how contrasting the two were. Two sides of the same coin. 

Obviously, the intent of the playwright, and the way a viewer perceives it, can be and is completely varying in nature. One cannot pin down a piece of literature onto a single wooden board, when it spreads itself over several. Different people will perceive this differently, will interpret it differently, and will learn from it differently. Regardless of how they do so, all paths lead to the point that the purpose of the text was fulfilled, i.e. to address critical social issues. These social issues still embody themselves in hidden corners, of today’s society, as his work remains relevant and true, upto this point in time.