Ibsen’s A Doll’s House and morality

In A Doll’s House (1879), Ibsen takes aim at an outmoded sense of morality. In the following excerpt Torvald Helmer is lecturing his wife on morality, which for him is strongly gendered. The wife is primarily responsible for the generational transmission of morality. 


Helmer. My dear, I have often seen it in the course of my life as a lawyer. Almost everyone who has gone to the bad early in life has had a deceitful mother.

Nora. Why do you only say–mother?

Helmer. It seems most commonly to be the mother’s influence, though naturally a bad father’s would have the same result. Every lawyer is familiar with the fact. This Krogstad, now, has been persistently poisoning his own children with lies and dissimulation; that is why I say he has lost all moral character. [Holds out his hands to her.] That is why my sweet little Nora must promise me not to plead his cause. Give me your hand on it. Come, come, what is this? Give me your hand. There now, that’s settled. I assure you it would be quite impossible for me to work with him; I literally feel physically ill when I am in the company of such people.

Years earlier, Nora had forged her father’s signature on a loan application because she wanted the money to take her husband to Italy for his health, or to save his life, as she says. When Helmer learns of the forgery, he explodes.

Helmer. No tragic airs, please. [Locks the hall door.] Here you shall stay and give me an explanation. Do you understand what you have done? Answer me! Do you understand what you have done?

Nora [looks steadily at him and says with a growing look of coldness in her face]. Yes, now I am beginning to understand thoroughly.

Helmer [walking about the room]. What a horrible awakening! All these eight years–she who was my joy and pride–a hypocrite, a liar–worse, worse–a criminal! The unutterable ugliness of it all!–For shame! For shame! [NORA is silent and looks steadily at him. He stops in front of her.] I ought to have suspected that something of the sort would happen. I ought to have foreseen it. All your father’s want of principle–be silent!–all your father’s want of principle has come out in you. No religion, no morality, no sense of duty–. How I am punished for having winked at what he did! I did it for your sake, and this is how you repay me.

When she sees her husband’s true, selfish, ignorant nature, Nora questions what she learned of religion and the law. She also realizes that the law and justice and not the same thing. 


Nora. I am afraid, Torvald, I do not exactly know what religion is.

Helmer. What are you saying?

Nora. I know nothing but what the clergyman said, when I went to be confirmed. He told us that religion was this, and that, and the other. When I am away from all this, and am alone, I will look into that matter too. I will see if what the clergyman said is true, or at all events if it is true for me.

Helmer. This is unheard of in a girl of your age! But if religion cannot lead you aright, let me try and awaken your conscience. I suppose you have some moral sense? Or–answer me–am I to think you have none?

Nora. I assure you, Torvald, that is not an easy question to answer. I really don’t know. The thing perplexes me altogether. I only know that you and I look at it in quite a different light. I am learning, too, that the law is quite another thing from what I supposed; but I find it impossible to convince myself that the law is right. According to it a woman has no right to spare her old dying father, or to save her husband’s life. I can’t believe that.

For Helmer–and for most of Ibsen’s audience at the time–religion, morality, and duty were closely tied together. Thus, the play was shocking.  But the point, from a social systems theory perspective, is that the morality of stratified and patriarchal society cannot survive under conditions of functional differentiation. The individual is no longer locked into the family, and women cannot be controlled by their husbands.  

We see in thinkers like John Stuart Mill, who died just six years before the premiere of A Doll’s House, that morality and religion are only loosely coupled. For Mill, and his father, Christianity actually undermined morality.

In modernity, the universal validity of the law also comes into question. The law is no longer simply God’s law or the monarch’s law; the law is contingent, and it is not the same thing as justice. The law, like religion, is also only one function system among several. Justice is an idea, concept, or aspiration, but the law is what society actually uses to stabilize normative expectations

Ibsen and Chekhov share an interest in the question of morality–specifically, how a morality based on social hierarchy cannot survive in a functionally differentiated society. Dostoyevsky also explores the link between morality and religion, and the threat of nihilism. Another great novelist of the time, Turgenev, also dealt with the question of nihilism.

This can all be traced back to antinomianism, or the delinking of religion and morality.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.