Skip to main content

Did Henrik Ibsen say whether A Doll's House is a feminist play?

It is said that, when asked, Henrik Ibsen denied that A Doll's House was a feminist play; instead, he asserted it was a humanist play.

Humanism, a social movement developed during the Renaissance, thought it necessary to re-introduce ancient Greek and Roman culture and philosophies into civilization. Humanists promoted a return to studying ancient Greek and Roman texts, and from these texts, they developed philosophies that endorsed fully participating in life, appreciating life's luxuries and beauties, and engaging in "rich and varied human relationships" ("Renaissance Humanism," The History Guide). Humanists especially endorsed individualism through promoting the pursuit of individual liberties, and rejected any form of oppression, especially the oppression that is a direct result of social class systems ("Renaissance Humanism").

Ibsen saw his play, as well as his works in general, as humanist rather than feminist because his themes did not pertain just to women. While the two lead female characters are certainly oppressed, even male characters, like Krogstad, deal with social injustice. Krogstad, similarly to Nora, once committed a fraud to save his wife's life, just as Nora forged her father's signature on a loan to save her husband's life. As a result of Krogstad's "indiscretion," society treated him as an outcast, forcing him to earn a living in any way he can to provide for his sons. As Krogstad says to Nora in the opening act, "The law cares nothing about motives," which Nora notes is extremely unjust. As a result of unjust law and unjust society, Krogstad has had to fight for years to regain his reputation, which drove him to threaten Nora with blackmail.


Since Ibsen does not distinguish between male and female victims, arguing instead that both sexes are victims of society, his play is really a humanist play promoting the need for individuality and freedom from oppression, not a feminist play.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more