Sam Bussler
Mrs. Rutan
AP Literature & Composition
3 January 2018
Mrs. Rutan
AP Literature & Composition
3 January 2018
Women Are People Too
As a society, the interpretation of “Life, Liberty, and Property”―our natural rights, as men and women一hasn’t always been as clear as it should be, or is needed to be. The treatment of women and whether this conduct has been fair, or unfair throughout the years is definitely a bit of a grey area across the board. When we think of our natural rights, and the treatment of ALL citizens in accordance to those natural rights, we must agree that women―at some point or another―have been neglected when it comes to their right to fair and equal treatment! This “unfair treatment” is portrayed within Henrik Ibsen’s 1879 play A Doll’s House using a very interesting method. Throughout the play, Ibsen’s main male character (Helmer) refers to his wife (Nora), almost never using her real name, but using a plethora of different pet names. These names are dehumanizing, manipulating, and shows Nora as property, rather than a woman by her spouse. Ibsen shows throughout his play just how much of an impact this treatment can have on a human being; treating a significant other (wife, girlfriend, husband, boyfriend, etc.) as they are property can and will eventually lead to the complete downfall of a relationship.
Songbird, or Spouse?
Dehumanization is seen all over the world today, whether it be fiction or nonfiction, as a human being you will find some form of dehumanization very quickly when looking for it. Ibsen’s Three-Act play A Doll’s House is a perfect example of fictional dehumanization. Throughout the plays entirety, Nora, Ibsen’s female main character is constantly referred to by her husband Torvald Helmer as a variety of pet names, almost never her real name. As the reader begins the play, we see that Nora’s main objective is to make her husband happy, no matter the “expense” (Ibsen, 1094). Nora’s ditzy, people-pleasing personality has led her to be seen by her husband as a “little Songbird” (Ibsen, 1114) rather than a human being. Within the first lines of the play, we are not introduced to “Nora” (Ibsen, 1093) by her husband, but we are introduced to two of the pet names he has given his wife in place of her real name―those names being his “little lark” and his “squirrel” (Ibsen, 1093) both of which immediately aid Ibsen’s attempt in dehumanizing his female main character in the eyes of the reader. As the play continues, the usage of these pet names leads not only the reader to see Nora as an animal, but Nora begins to dehumanize herself as well, which the reader will later realize as a strain on their relationship. Dehumanization is real wherever you go, and Henrik Ibsen’s play puts on a perfect display of this harsh universal truth.
|
This is a picture of a "Songbird" which is the animal Nora is often referred to by her husband Torvald Helmer in Ibsen's play.
Nora is also referred to as a squirrel by her husband.
|
The Power of Manipulation
Both Nora, as well as Torvald were constantly manipulating each other throughout the play, proving neither spouse had control over themselves.
|
The act of controlling or influencing someone else, also known as manipulation, was another huge universal truth tied into Henrik Ibsen’s play A Doll’s House. Ibsen’s main male character, Torvald Helmer did a very good job at manipulating his wife Nora throughout the plays’ three acts. Nora, a woman who didn’t come off as the brightest, was easily manipulated, and her husband took advantage of that. Ibsen again had Helmer using a variety of pet names when manipulating. Normally, Ibsen had Helmer use the code name “my little Songbird” (Ibsen, 1114) when he was trying to manipulate his wife into doing something he wanted her to do; when convincing his “little lark” (Ibsen, 1093) to never keep any secrets from him, he would go on to say “My little songbird must never do that again. Songbirds are supposed to have clean beaks to chirp with―no false notes” (Ibsen, 1114)―in this case, paralleling a morally straight mouth to a clean beak, and a false note to a secret or a lie. The irony of this manipulation is that Nora, for almost the entire play had been keeping the secret from Helmer that eventually causes their marriage to crumble. Besides calling his wife a songbird, he often uses names such as “little lark” or “squirrel” (Ibsen, 1093) as previously stated, when buttering his wife up so she won’t notice the little amount of attention he is actually giving to her! While some may argue that the manipulation is equal between the two spouses―that Helmer is receiving just as much manipulation from his wife that he is giving to her; this endless amount of back and forth manipulation between the spouses is essentially the downfall of the couples marriage. There are many signs of emotional manipulation, as stated in the article, all stemming from “applying pressure to control someone’s thoughts and behaviors through crafty, abusive or other underhanded practices” (Courtney B.) and if not all, a majority of these “signs” are displayed throughout Ibsen’s play.
|
Woman, or Material Possession?
Treating a woman as she is property, rather than a human being that is worth being treated equally is a concept that we as a society have struggled with for as long as we can remember, and this concept of “human or property” is one that is very visible all throughout Henrik Ibsen’s play. Another concept Ibsen’s pet names had an influence on was the concept of “human or property” within his play. Torvald Helmer, in the eye of a reader, did not see his wife Nora as a human being that is deserving of being treated as an equal, but as a “little lark” (Ibsen, 1093) or a “little songbird” (Ibsen, 1114) that seems to be compared to a trophy that is worth obtaining! The fact that Helmer uses the pronoun “my” (Ibsen, 1110) prior to calling Nora the name of a pet or an animal establishes ownership―Helmer is using the pronoun “my” because he is claiming Nora as his own, just like he would a material possession or a chunk of land/property. Though some will argue the pronoun in front of the name means nothing at all, a closer read means everything when supporting the claim that Ibsen is using these pet names within his play to establish Nora as property, not a human being.
A Dystopian Parallel
Margaret Atwood's novel The Handmaid's Tale portrays many parallel's to my "human or property" argument.
|
The same concept of “human or property” is made very visible all throughout Margaret Atwood’s novel The Handmaid’s Tale with her ability to portray a dystopian society. Within this society are “commanders” and “concubine mistresses” who were used solely for pregnancy because over half of the dystopian population was infertile. Throughout her novel, Atwood does a terrific job of showing the treatment of women as property by referring to the concubine not as their real names, but as the name of their commander. For example, if your commander’s name was Wayne, your name within the dystopia was then changed to “Ofwayne” (Atwood, 26). This treatment towards women in this society was hated severely, and eventually disrupted the relationship between the concubines, and the society.
|
But wait! Aren't there real-life examples too?
As a member of our society today, and a student with plenty of knowledge in accordance to our society in the past, the equal treatment of women is definitely a grey area across the board. Henrik Ibsen’s play is a perfect example of the unfair treatment of women, especially women in a married relationship. Dehumanization is more than just a theme displayed across various pieces of literature, it is a universal truth displayed all throughout the world we live in today. Across the years, we as a country have seen many examples of dehumanization; perhaps the most tragic form of dehumanization was dehumanization in association with the slave trade. Not only were these slaves physically abused, but psychologically abused as well; slaves were manipulated by their owners into believing that they had no life outside of their forced labor. These slaves no longer thought of themselves as human beings, but as a material possession that could be owned or obtained. Ibsen and Atwood, in addition to our antebellum slavery time period, do a great job of portraying these gruesome truths. Whether it be dehumanization, manipulation, or the treatment of humans as a material possession, it is pivotal to remember that these themes are just that, truths. Guard your heart, as someday you, and your relationships, may fall victim.
|
In this photo we see a very real example of African slaves being dehumanized by other white males on a slave ship during the slave trade, one of the most tragic times we've seen as a country.
|