Morality in 'A Doll's House'

Morality in 'A Doll's House'

In 'A Doll's House', Henrik Ibsen presents a view of morality that is not necessarily in line with the law, or societal expectations. In forging her father's signature on an official document, and consistently lying to her husband Torvald, Nora Helmer of course breaks the law or 'rules' of some sort. Despite this, it is clear to the reader that she does, to some extent, do the 'right' thing, as her actions result in saving Torvald's life. This raises moral questions for the reader. Is it ever right to take the law into our own hands to do what we believe is right? Is it better to adhere to social codes? Nora remarks on more than one occasion that the law and society are 'silly', showing her disdain.

At the end of the play, when Nora leaves Torvald and the children, she has a brief, honest discussion with him. While this ending received wide criticism for its promotion of the individual over the family unit (unheard of in the bourgeois, nuclear family world of the Victorian period), it portrays a strong sense of morality, and the idea that to truly do right by one's children, or one's family, the individual must be educated first. While Nora's actions may seem selfish, she is, I think, promoting a courageous view of morality when she defies her husband, and social codes to do the right thing.

'A Doll's House' ultimately presents an immoral world. It is a world in which both men and women are constricted by rigid gender roles thrust upon them by bourgeois, pro-capitalist, heteronormative and patriarchal society. Nora and Torvald are both victims of this oppressive, morally bankrupt regime. In attempting to buy the gender roles sold to them, Nora and Torvald morally stunt themselves. In a desperate attempt to be a conventional wife who feigns weakness to gain her husband's attention, Nora is, until the end of the play, a dishonest person. She spends her time playing with her 'doll-children', and being a 'doll-wife' for Torvald, and despite singing and behaving like a 'songbird' for her husband, she is unhappy. While he can be viewed as the villain of the play, Torvald himself is also a victim of the rigidly gender roled, morally corrupt society of the play. His gender has forced him into a role riddled with toxic masculinity, in which he is fixated with his status in the bank, and avoiding social humiliation. He even goes so far as to say 'No man would sacrifice his honour for the one he loves', despite the fact that Nora, a woman, is expected to do so, in dehumanising and objectifying herself for her husband's comfort and entertainment. While Torvald, of course, must accept some responsibility for his poor behaviour, I believe the corrupt world of the play is the real source of immorality in the play, and the characters are merely products of their environment.

The idea of immorality is seen also through Krogstad, however, he is not a 'cut-out' or stereotypical villain. Despite his moral bankruptcy in the way he blackmails and intimidates Nora, he experiences redemption when he reunites with Christine. Krogstad reaches fulfillment in joining a relationship, while Nora reaches fulfillment by leaving hers. Here, Ibsen is showing us how redemption and moral strength can be achieved through different means.

Similarly,