XXXXX
Danielle Domzalski
English 28B
14 March 2013
Feminism in
A Doll’s House and Trifles : The Individualistic Versus the Collective
On the surface, Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House and Susan Glaspell’s
Trifles share a very similar theme, the emergence of feminine agency. Nora Helmer, Mrs. Hale, and Mrs. Peters all find themselves in a male-dominated world, where their roles are first prescribed for them and then belittled. As a result, they strive to overcome these male-imposed obstacles and gain some freedom of action. However, the female protagonists of these two plays also have one very significant difference: the aim of their feminist efforts. While Nora is independently focused on herself and her own desires, Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters are working together on behalf of Minnie
Wright, as a result of sister-like empathy. The feminist undertones of both
A Doll’s House and
Trifles add to the symbolic significance of these works: presenting women as defying the orders of a misogynistic world, whether for their own individual rights or for the collective rights of their fellow women.
In A Doll’s House , Nora Helmer is constantly belittled by the main source of male authority in her life, her husband Torvald, revealing her position as one of very little agency in a male-dominated world. Torvald repeatedly reminds her of her inferiority by emphasizing his ownership of her and addressing her as one would address a child. This is illustrated within the first few pages of the play, before anything more is revealed about their characters. At the beginning of the play, after Nora has returned home from Christmas shopping, Torvald communicates his opinion on his wife’s money-spending habits with, “My pretty little pet is very

sweet, but it runs away with an awful lot of money. It’s incredible how expensive it is for a man to keep such a pet” (4). He begins this quote with the usage of the possessive determiner “my,” indicating his ownership over Nora, who is the “pet” in this scenario, while he is the aforementioned “man.” Her position as the expensive pet belittles her intellect to a belowhuman level—for in this situation, she is an animal—and reinforces the idea of property that is established at the beginning of the passage, through the allusion to money (indicating a commodity exchange), and the usage of the word, “keep,” implying that Nora is at his mercy for her care. His condescension, meant in a playful, flirty manner, as indicated by the usage of adjectives like “pretty,” “little,” and “sweet,” places Nora in a position that is distinctively below his own, reiterating his control, as a man, over the environment she lives in.
Nora’s emergent, individual sense of feminine agency is rendered in part by her emphasis on independent action. Even though she has committed a crime, forgery, she seems almost proud to admit that she had done it all on her own, and doesn’t want anyone to mistake her drastic action as belonging to anyone else. In this way, she seems to distance herself from everyone else in her life, as if her choices have distinguished her among her companions. This is illustrated in the following quote, where Nora frantically discusses the repercussions of her secret with her girlhood friend, Kristine Linde: “And I tell you this: nobody else knew anything, I alone was responsible for the whole thing. Remember that!” (56). The preciseness and clarity of her sentences, rendered by their brevity, simple vocabulary, and declarative format, indicate her desire to be understood. Rather than rambling on about frivolities and delving into childish observations, as Nora often does throughout the play, she speaks in a straightforward, unembellished manner. Her emphasis on her singular participation in the act is communicated through the repetition of “I,” as in “I tell you this,” and “I alone was responsible.” She clarifies

even further with, “nobody else knew anything,” reiterating how important it is for Kristine to understand that Nora’s actions were entirely independent. She finishes her dramatic affirmation of self-blame with an equally emphasized imperative, a signifier of agency and authority:
“Remember that!”
The second and final component to Nora’s individual feminism is her focus on her duty to herself. At the end of the play, Nora rejects all that she has known and accepted—her husband, children, and traditional role as a woman—for the sake of discovering who she is and building a new identity. She illustrates this in her speech to Torvald: “I am an individual, just as much as you are—or at least I’m going to try to be. I know most people agree with you,
Torvald, and that’s also what it says in books. But I’m not content any more with what most people say, or with what it says in books. I have to think things out for myself, and get things clear” (82). In this rather bold declaration, Nora places herself equal to her husband for the first time with the inclusion of, “just as much as you are.” She isolates herself from society and knowledge—as symbolized by “most people” and “books”—by countering what they promote with her desire to “think things out for myself.” Her individuality is presented as a lucid, simple statement, “I am an individual,” implying a strong sense of conviction that is furthered by the assertive diction of, “I’m going to,” and, “I have to.” Her speech is also heavy on the usage of the word, “I,” reiterating the importance of self for Nora in this moment. Her individual rights and duty to herself motivate her to leave behind the traditional female role of wife and mother and take agency to figure out who she truly is, not who the dominant males in her life have constructed her to be.
In Trifles , as in A Doll’s House , the female protagonists and their traditional realm of duties are disparaged by the prevalent male figures, demonstrating their restriction in an

environment controlled exclusively by men. Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters become the objects of much criticism at the hands of their husbands and the county attorney as they inspect the scene of the crime. After the women observe the state of order in the kitchen, noticing that the jars of homemade preserves have burst, Mr. Hale makes the statement, “Well, women are used to worrying over trifles” (10). The overgeneralized nature of this comment categorizes both the worries of Minnie Wright and the observations of Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters as mere “trifles,” and goes further to imply that the worries of all women are of this same unimportant quality, and are therefore inferior to the worries of men. The “well” that precedes this comment suggests a nonchalant tone, implying that Mr. Hale does not aim to offend the women, but rather thinks that the opinion he’s sharing is a universally accepted fact. This connotation further signifies that a patronizing attitude towards women—and their concerns—as a collective entity is entirely normal, possibly even a daily occurrence, in a male-dominated world.
Unlike Nora Helmer’s emphasis on independence, Mrs. Hale’s and Mrs. Peters’s actions stress a collaborative effort towards the agency that they ultimately achieve, contributing to their collective sense of feminism. Towards the conclusion of the play, they acquire a mutual understanding of one another, one that appears to be fundamentally rooted in their recognition as fellow women and wives. As is imparted in the following stage directions from the text, they find a solidarity that is conveyed through their movements, rather than their dialogue: “Then
Mrs. Hale rises, hands tight together, looking intensely at Mrs. Peters, whose eyes make a slow turn, finally meeting Mrs. Hale’s. They stare at each other for a moment, then her own eyes point the way to where the box is concealed” (19). In this crucial moment, where they decided whether or not to share the evidence they have discovered with their husbands and the county attorney, we note the development of nonverbal communication, namely through looks and

glances, as signified by the repetition of “looking,” “eyes,” and “stare.” Mrs. Hale announces her position by rising, with her “hands tight together,” indicating firmness, resolve, and leadership. Yet, rather than hiding the box all on her own, she looks to her companion for input.
Mrs. Peters is initially hesitant, and less decided, as her eyes make “a slow turn.” However, she eventually meets her companion’s gaze, and holds it—indicating a unification in thought and perspective—before revealing her own sense of leadership and agency as “her own eyes point the way to where the box is concealed.” The emphasis on unified movement, rather than speech, is effective at rendering an image of solidarity in agency, as it suggests that the feelings the two women share as a collective force are more deeply embedded than can be verbally communicated.
Equally important to determining Mrs. Hale’s and Mrs. Peter’s collective sense of feminism is their focus on their duty to one another as women, which is most clearly demonstrated through their empathy for Minnie’s situation and the actions that result from this feeling. This is exemplified by what Mrs. Hale says to her companion, just before they decide to hide the condemning evidence against Minnie: “I know how things can be—for women. I tell you, it’s queer, Mrs. Peters. We live close together and we live far apart. We all go through the same things—it’s all just a different kind of the same thing” (18). Rather than focusing on the individual scenario they are dealing with—that of Minnie’s evidently unhappy married life—Mrs. Hale delves into and unifies the collective struggles of women, as she articulates through a repetition of the pronoun “we.” She admits the existence of differences among women’s situations and the distances that separate them with, “We live close together and we live far apart,” but nonetheless asserts their vital similarities through the paradoxical statement,
“it’s all just a different kind of the same thing.” As she asserts by beginning with, “I know,” the

feeling she has for Minnie’s situation is more than just pity—Mrs. Hale is able to identify with
Minnie’s pain, as well as the pain of the many other women trapped into helplessness by the prevalence of male control. “We all go through the same things,” she states, and though the motivation for hers and Mrs. Peters’s decision to help Minnie is never directly articulated, it seems to follow from this empathetic, sisterly oration. This knowledge of feminine struggle and identification with the problems involved in it preclude inaction. Though it remains unsaid, the empathetic link between Mrs. Hale, Mrs. Peters, Minnie Wright, and “all” other women creates a duty to their gender, finally driving the actions that constitute their collective feminine agency.
While both
A Doll’s House and Trifles are ultimately feminist plays, they explore different aspects of feminism—Henrik Ibsen’s Nora Helmer demonstrates individualistic feminine agency, while Susan Glaspell’s Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters manifest a feminine undertaking of the collective nature. Both versions of female independence are significant in the literary progress of feminism, and both reflect the social contexts of the time in which they were written—the 19 th
and early 20 th
centuries. Understanding the varying aspects of feminism present in these plays, as well as their thematic similarity, is perhaps crucial to tracing the woman’s cause for equality throughout history.