Materialist Feminism in Ibsen's A Doll's House The nature of man is inherently oppressive. In every documented civilization there exists or has existed a class system that identifies some individuals as "inferior" to their superiors. In ancient Rome, patricians ruled over plebeians and women were not considered citizens; in ancient Greece non-Greeks were used as slaves; and in France and England the oligarchy was above the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Whether it is race, gender, sexuality, disability, or social status, humans have established a system of oppression where these inferiors are not afforded the same privileges as the elite class. Oppression can manifest itself in many forms: physical brutality, cultural imperialism, psychological coercion, or materialist control. As long as the hoi polloi are willing to accept these disparities, the persecution continues. Henrik Ibsen's A Doll's House exposes the economic and material barricades of society that apply to women, resulting in a separate class of oppression presented in his play. By examining A Doll's House through the lens of materialist feminism, readers can empathize with Nora's struggles and better understand Ibsen's motivations for writing this socially transformative piece. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The term “materialist feminism” is a relatively new concept, emerging from earlier critical theories of Marxism and socialist feminism (Hennessy and Ingraham 5) . The theorist credited with driving the divergence between materialist feminism and previous precedents is Christine Delphy, a leading figure of feminist criticism who expanded the work of the French activist Simone de Beauvoir. Since documenting her theories in The Main Enemy: A Materialist Analysis of Women's Oppression in 1977, Delphy's work has received recognition among feminist theorists and sociologists. Materialist feminism is rooted in Marxism; however, Delphy – along with many other feminist critics – believed that Marxism “had not adequately addressed the exploitation and oppression of women” (Hennessy 7). In The Main Enemy, Delphy identifies the two key differences between Marxist feminism and materialist feminism, stating that "[Marxism] does not take into account the oppression common to all women" and "[Marxism] is not centered on oppression of women, but on the consequences of this oppression for the proletariat” (1). Thus, for the past four decades, Delphy's term has been used to describe the specific materialist oppression of women. According to Lois Tyson, author of Critical Theory Today:[Delphy] focuses her analysis on the family as an economic unit. Just as the lower classes are oppressed by the upper classes in society as a whole, she explains, women are subordinated within families. As such, women constitute a separate oppressed class, based on their oppression as women, regardless of the socioeconomic class to which they belong. (97-98) As Tyson explains, Christine Delphy's materialist feminism recognizes the specific oppression of women. This form of oppression occurs primarily within the family, as women are “subordinates” controlled through economic and material means. Historically and in many cultures, men are considered the breadwinner, meaning they are typically the breadwinners and spokespersons of the family; they maintain complete control within their families from the allocation offinances, to determining what their family members read, wear and even eat. the People and A Doll's House - in which he addressed contemporary issues. According to Michael Meyer, a famous biographer of Ibsen, these plays had a far greater impact than any newspaper, debate or book written on the topics they addressed (Henrik Ibsen: The Master Playwright). Since its debut in 1879, Ibsen's A Doll's House has been among his most controversial works. Progressive feminist themes have caused a stir among both men and women. One actress, Hedwig Niemann-Raabe, refused to perform the play as written, forcing Ibsen to revise the ending and exclude Nora's (Byatt) dramatic exit. Although these reactions have subsided over the years, readers and the public still struggle to understand how a woman could leave her husband and children. However, a critique of materialist feminism serves to help readers better understand the reasons behind Nora's ultimate decision to leave her family. The primary use of oppression in A Doll's House takes the form of economic injustice; showbiz women are controlled by financial means. Nora appears to be well cared for by her husband, but still faces economic oppression in her home. In Close to Home: A Materialist Analysis of Women's Oppression, Christine Delphy states:[a]ll contemporary “developed” societies. . . they depend on women's unpaid work for domestic services and child care. These services are provided within the framework of a particular relationship with an individual (the husband). They are excluded from the scope of exchange [i.e. these services are not treated like jobs that people perform in exchange for money outside the home] and consequently have no value. They are not paid. What women receive in return is independent of the work they do because it is not distributed in exchange for that work (i.e. as a wage to which their work entitles them), but rather as a gift. (60)According to Delphy, women's work is no less important than that of men, yet women are considered "non-workers". Any compensation received is not related to the work performed. He goes on to discuss how “ruling classes get the classes in their power to do productive work. . . the pre-eminent sex works less” (61). Women do the tasks that men don't want to do; therefore, their work is never completed. Materialist feminism analyzes these more subtle ways in which men assert power over women. Nora, like most women, contributes her fair share of work, but her work is considered less important because it involves caring for children and maintaining the home. These jobs are no less important than jobs outside the home, but because they produce no income, his work is undervalued and undervalued. Men can confine women to housework and demand that the money they earn outside the home is theirs to distribute as they see fit. In the opening lines of Ibsen's play, Nora calls her husband, Torvald, to see his latest purchase, to which he responds: “My little spendthrift has made the money fly again. . . . Come come; we cannot afford to waste money” (Ibsen 2). This text implies that Torvald maintains control of the finances and monitors Nora's expenses. Shortly after this incident, Nora says: “You could give me some money, Torvald. Only what you think you can spare” (Ibsen 2). Once again, Nora asks for extra money, indicating that she has no control over the family's finances and proving Delphy's claim that any money received is simply a "gift". With no money of her own, Nora must rely on her husband fortake care of her. Therefore, requiring women to work in the home without compensation is a common – and often overlooked – form of oppression. Although Delphy focuses her analysis primarily on the family unit, she also recognizes that patriarchy is “a system” and, therefore, extends beyond domestic boundaries (Close to Home 3). Ibsen's play reveals how financial oppression exists on a larger scale. In the play, Nora mentions Torvald's recent illness, presumably caused by the stress of his job and the birth of their youngest child. The doctor suggested that Torvald take a trip to get away for a while, but Torvald refused. Nora, not having financial freedom, had to go to other ways to try to convince her husband. She tells Christine Linde: I told him I wanted to go on a trip abroad, like other young wives; I cried and prayed; I said he should think of my condition and not hinder me; and then I made him understand that he could borrow the money. . . He said I was frivolous and that it was his duty as a husband not to give in to my whims and fancies. . . . (Ibsen 8)In this situation Torvald once again asserts his control over the finances by refusing to pay for the journey; however, it is also evident that Nora does not have the financial freedom to get the money elsewhere. Nora cannot apply for a loan in her own name, but must forge her father's signature for a loan. His father, already quite ill, conveniently died soon after so that his secret could remain hidden. Furthermore, Nora does not have the means to repay her loan because she does not earn her own income due to oppression at home. Instead, every time Torvald gives her a salary for household needs, Nora sets aside half the money to pay the loan. So while Delphy argues that patriarchy begins at home, the “system” she refers to expands to create a completely oppressive society. While Nora is the main focus of economic oppression in A Doll's House, the patriarchal system Delphy describes is also evident in an examination of Christine Linde, Nora's childhood friend who comes to visit her in Act 1. Christine reveals who once loved Krogstad, the banker in charge of Nora's loan. However, to provide for her family, she chose to marry Mr. Linde, a remarkably wealthy man. This decision allowed her to care for her mother and younger siblings until they were old enough to care for themselves. He tells Nora, "My mother was still alive, you see, bedridden and helpless; and then I had to think of my two younger brothers. I didn't think it would be right of me to refuse him" (Ibsen 6). She puts her family's needs above her own and marries a man she doesn't truly love. Towards the end of the play, when Krogstad asks her why she didn't wait for him, Christine replies: “You shouldn't forget that I had a helpless mother and two little brothers. We could not wait for you, Nils, for your prospects then” (Ibsen 33). When her husband dies, Christine is left childless and penniless. As a woman, Christine was not allowed to take over her husband's business. With no one to take over, Mr. Linde's business soon went bankrupt, forcing Christine to find work to survive. Due to social paradigms, however, Christine is unable to find stable work. Instead, she has to do odd jobs in areas considered “women's work,” such as sewing and embroidery. Christine's first marriage for the purpose of supporting her family is an example of patriarchy. Because of the way the system is set up, her best option was to marry a rich man. Furthermore, her inability to provide for herself financially after her husband's death constitutesfurther evidence of the extensive oppression women, especially single women, faced during this time period. A single woman could hardly find work, let alone take out loans or secure paid employment. Christine is only able to get a job because Nora's husband gets a big promotion and Nora pleads with him on Christine's behalf. Materialist feminism, like Marxism, is often focused on the financial aspects of a society in relation to literature; however, one of the benefits of using a materialist critique instead of a Marxist critique is that the application of a materialist critique can extend beyond finance to explore multiple aspects of oppression. One of the earliest examples of materialist oppression occurs in the first scene of A Doll's House and uses a French cookie called a macaron (sometimes spelled "macaron"). According to Delphy in Close to Home, “food prohibitions – even when internalized – remain constraints, above all because they are linked to a necessarily transitory status” (49). This explains how Torvald uses macaroons as another form of materialist oppression. Torvald returns home and notices the sweet smell on Nora's breath. He asks her: “Didn't the little greedy girl play pranks today? . . Didn't even munch on a macaroon or two?” (Ibsen 3). Rather than tell Torvald the truth, Nora hides the fact that she has been eating macaroons and responds, “I should not think of doing what you disapprove of” (Ibsen 3). In this statement, Nora reveals the true nature of their relationship at the beginning of the show. She is so tied up and subjugated in her marriage that she can't even decide for herself what to eat, and feels the need to lie to her husband when he breaks his rules. Nora is treated like another of Torvald's children, insofar as he dictates every aspect of her life. On top of that, he uses other characters to check up on her when she's not around. For example, when Nora offers a macaroon to Dr. Rank, a close family friend, he responds with “What! Macaroons! I thought they were doing contraband here” (Ibsen 11). Nora then lies, claiming that Christine brought the macaroons, still reluctant to admit her disobedience to her husband even when he is not present. Perhaps a more obvious demonstration of Torvald's control over Nora is the lock on the mailbox that prevents Nora from retrieving the mail without Torvald's permission. According to Delphy, “It is as accurate to say that the wives of bourgeois men are themselves bourgeois as to say that a plantation owner's slave is himself a plantation owner (The Main Enemy 36). Therefore, women are simply production workers, not co-owners or partners within the productive force. Nothing within the family belongs to the wife because they are considered dependents paid for support. Collecting the mail seems like an innocent enough task, yet Torvald asserts his power by using a lock and key to prevent Nora from accessing what doesn't belong to her. Nils Krogstad, an employee of Torvald's bank, is the perpetrator of Nora's fraudulent loan. When Nora convinces Torvald to hire Christine, she unknowingly endangers Krogstad's position, forcing him to extreme measures. He discovers Nora's crime while examining her loan, supposedly signed by her father. However, the loan is dated several days after her father's death, as Nora was not yet aware of her father's death when she forged his name. Krogstad reveals this fact to Nora, saying: I had left the date blank; i.e. your father would have had to date his signature himself. . . . Your father died on September 29th. But look at this:his signature is dated October 2nd! Isn't that extraordinary, Mrs. Helmer? Can you explain it? It's also notable that the words "October 2" and the year are written not in your father's handwriting, but in one I think I know. Well, this can be explained; Your father may have forgotten to date his signature, and someone may have added the date at random, before your father's death was known. There's nothing wrong with that. It all depends on the signature. Of course it's authentic, Mrs. Helmer? Was it really your father himself who wrote his name here? (Ibsen 15)Krogstad uses this leverage to blackmail Nora into restoring her position. When his plan fails, Krogstad writes a letter to Torvald and places it in the family mailbox. After Krogstad places his letter back in the box, Nora and Christine plan how to retrieve it. Christine asks, “And your husband has the key,” to which Nora replies, “Always” (Ibsen 30). Nora tries to keep Torvald busy so that Christine can pick the lock, but ultimately the women are unable to stop Torvald from reading the letter. Therefore, the lock and key serve as an important form of oppression, which prevented Nora from intercepting the letter and ultimately led to her downfall. Upon receiving the letter, Torvald immediately enacts another form of materialist oppression on his wife, this time using his own children as objects. According to Delphy in The Main Enemy, the Latin word “familia” includes land, slaves, women, and children, all “owned by the father” (27). This is demonstrated in Torvald's initial reaction to Krogstad's letter, when Torvald says: The thing is so incredible, I can't understand it. But we have to come to an agreement. Take off that shawl. Take it off, I say! I must try to calm him down one way or another: the matter must be put to rest, whatever the cost. As for you and me, we don't have to make any outward changes in our way of life - no outward changes, you understand. Of course you will continue to live here. But children cannot be left in your care. I dare not trust them. . . . From now on we will no longer be able to talk about happiness, but simply about saving the ruins, the shreds, the spectacle... . . . (Ibsen 40) Torvald tells Nora that the children cannot be left in his care, which would suggest that he sees the children as his possessions to be taken care of as he sees fit. He also maintains control over Nora's life, insisting that they will continue to live together and pretend nothing happened, although their marriage is effectively over. Normally, a split between the parents would result in split custody, but since Torvald "owns" everyone and everything in his home, only he has the power to determine what is best for his children. She refuses to allow Nora future contact with them, out of fear that she is unfit to raise them, although she has done nothing to diminish her abilities as a mother. Nora is also guilty of treating her children like dolls. He plays with them whenever he wants and sends them to a nurse when he is done with them. Towards the end of Act II, the children specifically ask for their mother, but she refuses because it is not a convenient time for her. The way Nora treats her children resembles that of a little girl who plays with dolls and abandons them when she is done. In his article, "Nora as a Doll," Michael Wiseman of the Inquiries Journal points out that Nora's treatment of her children reflects her own treatment. She states, “Nora, having grown up as a tool manipulated by others, is under the impression that manipulation of others is a social norm” (Wiseman). He continues the tradition in the first act when he gives his young daughter his doll to play with.However, after acknowledging her own mistreatment, Nora acknowledges her mistake in treating her children like dolls, saying, “And the children, in turn, have been my dolls. I thought it was fun when you played with me, just as the children did when I played with them” (Ibsen 42). Finally, Nora herself materializes as an object of control. Torvald continually refers to Nora by animal names such as "lark" and "squirrel". In doing so, not only is Torvald asserting his power over his wife, but he is also dehumanizing her. The title of the work also materializes Nora, making her the “doll” with which Torvald plays. According to Michael Wiseman, “Nora Helmer spends most of her time on stage as a doll: a bland, passive character with little personality. His whole life is a construct of social norms and expectations of others” (Wiseman). He dresses her in fine clothing and dictates every aspect of her life. He plays with her when he wants her company, but leaves her to her own devices when he's done. Nora admits that she and Torvald never had a serious conversation in their marriage. This further demonstrates how Nora is treated more like a child or toy than a wife and companion. In her great monologue, Nora describes her role as an object in Torvald's games: While I was at home with my father, he told me all his opinions, and I had the same opinions. If I had others I wouldn't have talked about it, because they wouldn't have liked it. He called me his doll, and played with me like I played with my dolls. Then I came to live at your house. . . I mean, I went from my father's hands to yours. You organized everything according to your tastes, and I had the same tastes as you, or at least I pretended. . . . When I think about it now, I feel like I lived here like a beggar, from hand to mouth. I lived doing tricks for you, Torvald. But you would like it that way. You and dad have done me a grave wrong. It's your fault that my life ended in nothing. . . . And you have always been so kind to me. But our house has been nothing more than a playroom. Here I was your wife-doll, just as at home I was daddy's doll-doll. . . This was our wedding, Torvald. (Ibsen 42)In this great monologue, Nora reveals the extent of the oppression in her life. In her childhood home, she was controlled by her father; during her marriage, she was controlled by Torvald. Nora compares herself to a doll and claims to have lived like a "beggar" and performed tricks, such as dancing the tarantella for Torvald at their party. Nothing belongs to Nora and her work has little importance to Torvald. Instead, she is treated like a child, with no influence on her life. In this way, Nora herself can also be considered an object of materialist oppression. Not all scholars support the application of a critique of materialist feminism to literature. Nora is often considered impetuous and irresponsible for leaving her children, which is why the initial controversy over this play was so dramatic. In “The Dollhouse Backlash: Criticism, Feminism, and Ibsen,” Joan Templeton, a renowned Ibsen scholar, notes that critics of a feminist analysis argue that Nora is simply an “irrational and frivolous narcissist; an "abnormal" woman; a "hysterical"; a vain, unloving egoist who abandons her family in a paroxysm of selfishness” (29). She secretly disobeys her husband's wishes and risks her career for a vacation, proving herself to be impetuous and irresponsible. She hides her sweets and lies about them, which shows that she is "deceitful" and "manipulative" (30). Torvald's nicknames for Nora serve to represent his inability to understand complex issues. Based on.