Ibsen and Feminism

Author(s): Michael Werth Gelber and Joan Templeton

Source: PMLA, Vol. 104, No. 3 (May, 1989), pp. 360-362
Published by: Modern Language Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/462452 .
Accessed: 12/11/2014 06:19
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Modern Language Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to PMLA.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 210.212.129.125 on Wed, 12 Nov 2014 06:19:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

360

Forum

canon as designatinga bodyof authorswhoseacquaintanceshouldbe urgedon thoseaspiringto be "educated

persons"willbecomeludicrous.Again,theproblemis less
withtheprocessthanwiththenomenclature
(and perhaps
withunrealisticexpectationsfor the receptionof the
newly"canonized" authors). Should we not perhaps
speak of "canons" (ratherthanof "a canon"), classical,
traditional,revised,expanded,possiblyschematizedby
ringsin concentriccirclesto demarcateamplifications?
JOHN PATRICK GRACE

Universite'
de Pau

Ibsen and Feminism

lieveit;I'veneverbeenso happy"),and itsavesthemboth

fromthat"Despair" whichattendsNora's departureaccordingto Ibsen'sworkingnotesfortheplay(The OxfordIbsen,ed. JamesWalterMcFarlane,5: 437). In Mrs.
Linde we findembodiedthatsame romanticprinciple
whichIbsenfelt,lateinlife,he had betterteachtheNorwegianWomen'sRightsLeague:
I amnota member
oftheWomen's
Rights
League.. . I am
notevenquiteclearas tojustwhatthiswomen's
moverights
whoshallsolvethehuman
mentreally
is.. . . Itisthewomen
problem.
Asmothers
shallsolveit.Andonlyinthatcapacity
they
cantheysolveit.
andSpeeches,
ed. EvertSprinchorn,
(Letters
337-38)

Templeton
maycomplainthat,inmyobjections,I mistakeherpurpose,whichis notso muchto discussA Doll
House as to assault its critics.Even assumingshe can
In an age of mandarincriticaltheory,
JoanTempleton
overturnotherpeople's interpretations
withoutsetting
ignoresthe basic principleof literarydiscussion:keep
forthherown,how reliableis hermethod?That many
youreyeon thetext.In heressayon A Doll House ("The
criticsbelievetheplayis "notreallyaboutwomen"hardly
and Ibsen,"
Doll House Backlash:Criticism,
Feminism,
backlash":many
supportsherthesisof a "gentlemanly
104[1989]:28-40), shetellsus muchaboutIbsenand his
theplayas narrowlyas she doesgentlemeninterpret
criticsbutlittleabouthisplay.She shouldhavefollowed,
forexample,Hans Heiberg(Ibsen:A Portrait)and Theat theveryleast,theadvicesheenjoinson othersand exodore Joergenson(HenrikIbsen: A Study),as well as
amined"'thehierarchical
oppositionson which. . . [the
FrancisFergusson
(The Idea ofa Theater),thepopularist
work]relies"' (34). Since "the moralcenterof A Doll
WilliamBenet(TheReader'sEncyclopedia),and,among
House" in herviewis the"conflict. . . betweenmasothers,JohnGassner(MastersoftheDrama). Although
culine and feminine,"Templetonshould herselfhave
shethinksherviewsareboldlyrevisionist,
arTempleton
"risento . . . [the]challenge"(35, 34) and explainedthe
guesa commonplace.She shouldhaveallowedhercoadmanyformsthattheconflicttakes.
jutors some notice.Their absence makes one wonder
The conflictis not confined,as Templetonbelievesit
about herfair-mindedness
and candor.
is, to themarriageof Torvaldand Nora. It envelopsthe
And one mustwonderabout muchelse.To proveher
entireplay,fromthesad storyofthenurse,a seducedand
special case, that Ibsen was a dedicatedfeminist,
she
abandonedservant,
tothecheckered
ofMrs.
relationships
pointsto Pillars of Society,thesubjectof whichis not
Linde. Mrs. Linde has a particularly
crucialrolein the
"the New Woman" but the confrontation
betweenthe
drama,forshe,farmorethanTorvald,is "Nora's foil"
trollsof modernrespectability
and a Norsegoddessin
(34). Accordingto Templeton,therebuttalof Nora's fimoderndress,and sheignoresHedda Gabler,thesubject
in"thedialogue
nal positionmustbe sought,ifanywhere,
of whichis the New Woman,but as femmefatale.She
. [ofthe]husband"(34), whereparadoxicallyitcanwarnsus notto inferIbsen's"intention"
inA Doll House
notbe found:nothing"deconstruct[s]"
Nora'sposition.
fromthe pronouncements
of "the aging playwright";
Templetonnotwithstanding,
therebuttalof Nora's final
nevertheless,from a pronouncementof the aging
positionmustbe soughtand foundintheactionsof Mrs.
playwright-he
waspleasedhisinfantgranddaughter
was
Linde.As thevoiceoftheplaywright,
Mrs.Lindeopposes
to be christened
Eleanora-she infersthathe cherished
to conventionalmarriagenot thecredoof "earlymodthenameNora,a commondiminutive
forEleanora,and
ern feminism"but a wise and lovingheart.When she
therefore
thathe had fromthebeginning
"admired,even
givesup herindependentlifeto marryKrogstadand to
adored,Nora Helmer"(34). She invents
an excuseforhis
care forhis children,she experiences"the miracle"of
repudiationof the Women'sRightsLeague ("he was
whichNora has onlydreamed,a senseofself-fulfillment primarily
inyoungwomenand annoyedbythe
interested
in love:
who surroundedhim")and thenfinds
elderlyfeminists
in hissupportforthefemalemembersof theScandinaMrs. Linde: Howdifferent!
Howdifferent!
Someoneto work
vianClub in Romeproofof "his passionatesupportfor
for,tolivefor-a hometobuild.
the[feminist]
movement"
butnotof his"'patheticlonging foryounggirls"' (37, 36).
Mrs.Linde'sdecisionresolvesthebattleof thesexes.For
Besidesherslipshodhandlingof evidence,thereis the
itsresultsareno lessmiraculousto Krogstad("I can'tbetreatment
of herkeyterm:feminism(orfeminist).Not
To theEditor:

This content downloaded from 210.212.129.125 on Wed, 12 Nov 2014 06:19:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Forum
onlydoes she failto providea precisedefinitionof the
wordbutinpracticesheallowsthemeaningto shiftfrom
page to page,evenfromsentenceto sentence.In itsnarrowestsense, her "feminism"is identifiedwitheither
nineteenth- or twentieth-centuryconceptions of
"women'srights"or "the women'smovement."In its
loosersense,feminism
signifies
thatmenand womenare
inessencethesame("'woman . . . [is]neithermorenor
less thanman . . . "' [32]) or,oddlyenough,thatmen
and womenare fundamentally
different
("theself .
[never]obliterates. . . biologicaland socialdeterminations"[31]).Finally,initsloosestsense,feminism
almost
ceasesto haveanymeaningand suggestsmerelya decent
respectforwomen("women'sfeelings
matter. . . "). The
advantageto Templetonof keepingthetermin suchan
uncertainstate is obvious. Her carelessness,whether
deliberateor not,allowsherto assert,dogmaticallyand
withoutevidence,that Ibsen is indeed a nineteenthwhilesheimplies,insistently
and withcenturyfeminist,
outevidence,thatahead ofhistimeheis also a twentiethcenturyfeminist.
In thedollhouseof Torvaldand Nora, bothhusband
and wifesuffer
fromarrested
development,
whichneither
mayeventually
outgrow.In anyevent,thereprobablyis
a sense in whichIbsen is a feminist;but in thatsense,
SaintAugustine,
Dante,and JohnPaul II arefeminists
as
well:all fourcelebratethemoraldignity
of womankind.
MICHAELWERTHGELBER
Lehman College,City University
of New York
Reply:
Having weatheredmanya "barbaricoutrage,"as he
ofA Doll House, Ibsendoubtcalled thefirstrewriting
lessdid notturnoverin hisgraveat thenewsthatin 1989
anotherangrymanis crusadingto makeNorareloveTorvald. Still, his eyes must have sparkled with their
to see hisdefenseless
celebrated
mischief
spiritforcedinto
thesame holyprocessionwitha Catholicpoet,a saint,
and a pope,all fourof themsolemnlydecrying
feminism
as theyhymn"the moraldignityof womankind."And
if theinventorof thishappy,ahistoricalquartetthinks
thaton thesubjectof womenhe can placewithimpunity
thegreatItalianpoetalongsidethefatheroftheChurch,
I suggestthathe read JoanFerrante'sWomanas Image
inMedievalLiteratureand thentakea look at De CivitateDei, where,inwhatElainePagelshas called"thepoliticsof paradise,"AugustinemakesGenesistheproofof
God's "placingdivinesanctionuponthesocial,legal,and
of male domination"(Adam,Eve,
economicmachinery
and theSerpent),thedemeaningdoctrinethatJohnPaul
memberofthismotleyunit,wouldcontinue
Ia,thefourth
to forceon the world'swomen.The "moral dignityof
womankind"indeed.

361

To makean honestargument
against"The Doll House
Backlash,"one wouldhaveto provesomeof thefollowing:(1) thatthereexistsno widespreadattemptto rescue
Ibsenfromfeminism;
(2) thatNora Helmerhas notbeen
repeatedlyattackedas silly,neurotic,immoral,insuffior too female;(3) thatI haveproposed
cientlyfeminine,
a logicallyfaultyanalysisin arguingthattheuniversalist
is too limitedto be thestuffoflitpositionthatfeminism
eraturerestson a tautology;(4) thatgenderhas no place
inA Doll House, thatis,thatNora'sstoryis notspecificallya woman's;(5) thattheplay'stextdoes notsummafeminism
denounced
rizeeverything
nineteenth-century
of thetext
aboutwoman'sstate;(6) thatmyexamination
failsto showthattheattackson Noramerely
repeatthose
of herhusband;(7) thatI havemade an erroneousanalysisin contendingthatseriouscriticalproblemsariseif
we do nottaketheplay'sprotagonist
seriously;(8) that
myresearchis flawed:thatIbsen did not admireNora
Helmer;thatPillarsof Societyis nota directlyfeminist
play;thatIbsendidnotmeanwhathesaidaboutwomen's
rights
whenhevociferously
arguedforthem;thatBrandes
misrepresented
Ibsen's positionon feminism.
My detractorattemptsnone of theabove. Contemptuouslydismissing
myevidence,he mountsan attackon
myintegrity,
falselyaccusingme of not acknowledging
othercritics'
work.Notone ofthefivepeoplemydenigratormentionshas written,
or attempted
to write,anything
at all faintly
"The Doll House Backlash,"and
resembling
neitherhas anyoneelse. The chargeagainstme,in fact,
is notonlybase butdisingenuous,
forthemajorpointof
theheavilydocumentedfirstpartof myessayis notthat
no one has evermaintainedthatA Doll House is femithatinspiteofitsstatus,to use
nist,but,on thecontrary,
ElaineBaruch'sphrase,as "feminist
playparexcellence,"
a greatnumberof Norwegian,English,and American
scholarsand critics,
world-renowned
on
including
experts
Ibsen,havegonetogreatlengthsingreatly
respected
publicationsto rescueA Doll House fromwhattheyconsider
thecontamination
of feminism.
My detractor
useslogic
as lamentableas hisprofessionalethics;forat thesame
timethatI lack "candor" and "fair-mindedness"
bynot
citinglike-minded
(nonexistent)
scholars,I believethat
myviewsare"revisionist."
he claimsthatI mySimilarly,
selfhave no interpretation
of the play and in the next
sentencethatmyinterpretation
is "commonplace."My
use of biography
is called"slipshod,"whenin factI have
triedto be scrupulous.UnlikethecriticsI argueagainst,
whograsptheold playwright's
irritated
responseat a banquetas theonlyand lastwordon thesubjectof Ibsenand
I putthisremarkbothin itsowncontextand
feminism,
in thecontextof otherstatements
and otherdeeds that
thatIbsen was a feminist
in earlier
show,indisputably,
days.Nor do I "infer"thatbecauseIbsenlikedthename
Nora he admiredNora Helmer,an extraordinary
confusionof threedistinctpassages,one on Ibsen'sabsorptionwithNora,one on hisadmiration
ofhercourage,and

This content downloaded from 210.212.129.125 on Wed, 12 Nov 2014 06:19:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

362

Forum

the otheron the cherishedsourceof hername. As for

Hedda Gabler,itis wrongheadedto call thissexualand
withthebourmoralcoward,whoseonlyconfrontation
geois worldis the mannerof her leavingit, "the New
Woman,butas femmefatale."The chargethatI use the
termfeminismas it suitsme is untrue:I relateA Doll
Fuller,and MarHouse pointbypointto Wollstonecraft,
(and whatcould be
myinference
tineau;I now reiterate
feminism
directly
moreobvious?)thatnineteenth-century
anticipatedits latermanifestation.It is clear that my
and understoodless;
detractor
has readlittleof feminism
as a conhisignorancewhenhe perceives
he mostbetrays
tradiction
thenotionthatalthoughwomanis biologically
to him.Fromthe
fromman she is notinferior
different
is not inequality;
standpointof logic alone, difference
of feminism,
thisfactis themostcrufromthestandpoint
cial in existence.
that
Butthewould-becoup de graceis thepaltrythrust
discussion,"
I haveviolatedthe"basicprinciple
ofliterary
forhad I "keptmyeyeon thetext"I wouldhavenoticed
thattheconfidantelovesthevillainand wouldhaveunderstoodthatNora shouldloveTorvaldtoo. Apartfrom
ofthisargument,
absurdity
thelogicaland psychological
whena man choosesto bringup a subjectso commonplace thatit is oftenused as a questionon undergraduate examinations-thatis, "Show howthesubplotof A
Doll House supportsthemain plot"-then he mustbe
preparedforthe failingmarkhis readingdeserves.As
knows,Mrs.Linde is Nora Helmer'sfoil;she
everybody
does not,however,
playthisrolebecauseshe"resolvesthe
battleof thesexes"whenshe "givesup herindependent
lifeto marryKrogstadand care forhis children."For if

thisis Ibsen's point-if, afterTorvaldrevilesher,Nora

shouldhavethrownhernewlygainedknowledgeto the
windsand herselfintoherhusband'sarms-thenwhat's
theplayabout?Whyhas Ibsenburdenedus witha drama
whose conflictis whollyimaginaryand whose protagonistpersistsin takingup mostof act 3 in discussing
it withher husband? But of courseMrs. Linde is not
Nora's foil because she gives up "independence"for
bothinlifeand in Ibsen'splays)
"love"(a falsedichotomy
butbecause,havinglivedfalselyherself,
sheknowsNora
mustexamineherown inauthentic
life."Hide," spoken
byNora,is thefirstwordofA Doll House, and itis Mrs.
LindewhomakesNoraexposewhatshehas hidden.Yes,
Mrs. Linde lovesKrogstad,and he, her;but theirmarriage,basedon openness,is a foiltotheHelmermarriage,
based on lies.
IbsenshowedNora'scriticsthefollyoftheirprotestin
A Doll House's grimsuccessorGhosts:"AfterNora, I
had to createMrs.Alving."HeleneAlvingreturns
home
to liveoutTorvald'sadmonitionto Nora thata woman's
dutyis to herhusband.The rewardof submissionis the
terrisyphilitic
son,blightedfruitof forcedconjugality,
ble manifestation
of thesicknessand thetenacityof the
ghosts,the"old,dead ideas,dead beliefs"thathauntMrs.
Alving'sdarkparlor.Wecan see themstill,gliding"thick
as sand" throughthelinesof theoffendedletterwriter
as theycreptthroughMrs. Alving'snewspapers."They
seemto comebackfromthedead,somehow,
and wecan't
getridof them."Ibsenwrotehisplaysto letin thelight.
JOAN TEMPLETON

Long Island University,

Brooklyn

This content downloaded from 210.212.129.125 on Wed, 12 Nov 2014 06:19:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions