Research Paper on Manipulation: “Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House”
Henrik Ibsen is a famous playwright renowned for his nationalistic sprit in exploring various themes in his literary works. In this case, he employs various techniques to picture the modern drama, even though some of his works dated way back in the early 1980s. Through his works, the world has realized that natural tragedies can be turned into interesting stories that are relatable by anybody irrespective of their backgrounds (Kumari, Sunalini 57). Although the author is attributed to various picture various aspects, he is better known to capture the sociological drama in most of his works. For this reason, he has gone the extra mile to incorporate social problems in written literature. It is converse to his confession that he only writes about themes touching on individuals and human relationships.
Among Henrik’s literary works, “A Doll’s House” is the famous one due to its focus on the study of different women characters. The issues raised in the play are generally conventional to women’s real conditions during the era of the writing and the current era. In this case, Henrik uses the theme of manipulation to capture the role of patriarchal ideology in the interference with the social behavior of women. Additionally, this theme captures various events that depict women’s crucial role in society as mothers, daughters, and primary house-makers (Gaikwad 395). Although the play is supposedly based on virtual occurrences, it has some connection to Laura’s stories, who is a close friend to Henrik. This literary approach is an indication of Henrik’s attempts to capture real-life events, which most authors have failed to do. In the play, Henrik uses the attributes and conducts of various characters, such as Nora, Mrs. Linde, and others, to explore the theme of manipulation.
The conduct of Torvald in her relationship with Nora is a perfect example of manipulation in the play. When Mrs. Linde returns from her errands, she is informed by Nora that Torvald has left a letter in the letterbox (Kurraz 124). The former is also convinced that Torvald lent Nora some money before the placement of the letter. Although Nora informs about possible forgery in the making, Mrs. Linde promises to blame Nora for reasons best known to herself (Kurraz 143). In this way, she intends to save Torvald, given that she is the primary perpetrator in this case. However, from the play, one is made to realize that the critical reason Mrs. Linde would like to save Torvald is that she is in a relationship with him, and the fact that she is expecting Nora’s disappearance and so as the case. This event is a depiction of the first event of manipulation in the play, given that Mrs. Linde intends to manipulate the authorities in a bid to Torvald and hold Nora responsible for the mess.
Torvald’s perception of a wife’s role in their home and his treatment of Nora as a doll is an act of manipulation. This event also indicates that he is unable to grow, unlike Nora, whose perception of people and various events in her surroundings is in constant development (Carbone102). Although Torvald pictures himself this way as a person, who does not keep secrets and harbor any hidden complexity, the situation also presents him as manipulative to himself. Although he seems to be updated in his conduct, the truth is that his real self is characteristic of an individual who cannot develop and gain the maturity required of fully developed adulthood.
Nora reveals an act of manipulation on her part when she adopts Torvald’s pet names for the sake of winning the latter’s cooperation. In the play, Nora seems to have advances and wishes that may be unacceptable to Torvald. Yet, she knows that referring to herself as Torvald’s “little bird,” “squirrel,” and his “skylark,” will make her to conform to Torvald’s standards easily and hence the probability of Torvald accepting her wishes and advances. Seemingly, Nora’s wish is to sweet-talk Torvald into accepting to keeping Krogstad on at the bank. In this case, she employs another manipulative move in her interaction with Dr. Rank. She flirts with him by showing her stockings with hopes that she would persuade the doctor to talk to Torvald regarding the acceptance of Nora’s evil plan. However, it is ironic that that when Dr. Rank gives in to the manipulations and confesses his love for Nora, the latter becomes reluctant to ask for the favor (Carbone102). In this case, the event’s perspective becomes divided between manipulation and Nora’s sudden implication of moral integrity. Maybe the change of plans is due to Nora’s realization that pursuit of her wishes would mean that she will be taking advantage of Dr. Rank, who is already capitalizing on his sincere love for her. Irrespective of the turn of events, the depiction of Nora as a manipulative character throughout the play makes her course to be unreliable, given that she is also morally unestablished.
Nora’s explanation that Dr. Rank’s poor health is liable to his father’s promiscuity is a manipulative move to avoid his love for her. In this case, it is essential to note that unlike Nora’s expression, there is no truth behind the allegations that moral corruption can be transferred from parent to child. Yet, in Act One of the plays, Torvald, is opined that young criminals are developed from a household full of lies (Gaikwad 391). Although this perception may hold in some circumstances, it lacks uniform application, given that children tend to inherit specific characters from their parents, which have no moral components. Arguably, apart from physique characteristics, children are likely to develop their characters as per their surroundings, and not necessarily inherit them from their parents.
Nora’s refusal to interact with her children on the grounds that she is a criminal is another act of self-manipulation. The play reveals that both Torvald and Nora have the perception that parents influence their children, hence the need for Nora to distance herself from her children as far as moral standards are concerned. However, another perspective emerges that the primary cause of the widening gap between Nora and her children is due to the establishment of a new relationship with Torvald hence possible changes in her priorities (Gaikwad 406). Is she manipulative in expressing her concern for the children when she is devoted to nurturing her newly established love with Torvald? Although Nora is generally manipulative, it is also essential to understand that she is concerned with the establishment of happiness in life, which she is determined to achieve irrespective of the prevailing judgment of the course she is taking.
Works Cited
Carbone, Elettra. “Nora: The Life and Afterlife of Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House.” Introduction to Nordic Cultures (2020): 102.
Gaikwad, Mr. Jotiram Janardan. “The Portrayal of Nora in Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House: An Emancipation of Women.” Journal of The English Literator Society ISSN 2455 (2016): 393-409.
Kumari, V. Nirmala, and K. K. Sunalini. “Women Perspective in Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House.” An International Journal in English 8 (2017): 52-67.
Kurraz, Abdullah H. “Harry Sullivan’s Theory in Characterizing Nora’s Personality in Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House.” Academic Journal of Research and Scientific Publishing 2.15 (2020): 113-157.
.