Do You Think the Ending of A Doll's House is Too Radical to Suit the Taste of any Sober Society? Discuss.

UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION(Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2024)

The ending of Henrik Ibsen's A Doll's House was indeed radical for its time and continues to provoke strong reactions. In the play, Nora Helmer, the protagonist, leaves her husband and children in a quest for self-discovery and independence—a shocking decision in 19th-century society. For a "sober" society, grounded in traditional values of family and duty, this ending could seem extreme, as it challenges deeply held norms about gender roles, marriage, and motherhood.

Nora’s decision to abandon her family can be seen as a bold statement about the oppressive conditions women faced, where their identities were often defined by their roles as wives and mothers. Ibsen critiques the institution of marriage, portraying it as a superficial contract that stifles true individual freedom. In a time when women had few rights and little autonomy, Nora’s choice to prioritize her own needs over societal expectations was revolutionary.

However, for many, this ending may appear too radical, especially in conservative societies where the sanctity of marriage and family is paramount. The idea of a woman rejecting her prescribed role and walking away from her responsibilities would be considered destabilizing to the social order. Some might argue that such an ending promotes selfishness or irresponsibility, especially when children are involved.

Nevertheless, Ibsen’s ending was not meant to simply suit the tastes of a "sober" society, but to provoke thought and spark debate about the limitations placed on women. It invites audiences to reflect on the constraints of social norms and to question whether the pursuit of individual freedom is worth the potential disruption of societal harmony. Ultimately, while the ending was (and still can be) seen as radical, it plays a crucial role in challenging conventional views on gender and autonomy.

((((((Evaluating the Answer:

From an examiner's perspective, it successfully addresses the question of whether the ending of A Doll's House is too radical for a "sober" society by exploring both sides of the issue. The response thoughtfully considers the historical and cultural context of Ibsen's play and provides a balanced discussion of the ending's radical nature and its potential impact on society.

Strengths:

1. Contextual Awareness: The answer situates the ending within the 19th-century societal norms, making it clear why Nora's decision was considered shocking at the time. This demonstrates a solid understanding of the historical context.

2. Balanced Perspective: The answer provides both viewpoints: on one hand, why Nora's decision was radical, and on the other, how it might appear too extreme for a "sober" society. This shows a thoughtful consideration of the topic rather than a one-sided argument.

3. Critical Engagement: The response highlights key themes of the play, such as the critique of marriage and the pursuit of individual freedom. It acknowledges that Ibsen's intention was to challenge social norms, showing critical insight into the purpose of the play.

4. Clear Structure: The answer is well-structured, with a logical flow that progresses from discussing Nora's decision to the broader implications on society.

Areas for Improvement:

1. Deeper Analysis: The answer could go further in analyzing how different audiences (e.g., contemporary vs. modern) might perceive the ending. For example, modern audiences might view Nora’s departure more sympathetically, which could add depth to the discussion.

2. More Specific References: While the general points about Ibsen's critique of marriage and gender roles are valid, the answer could benefit from specific textual references to strengthen the argument. For instance, citing specific moments in the play, like Nora’s conversation with Torvald, would support the points more effectively.

3. Critical Language: The phrase "too radical" could be explored in more depth, discussing how the term might vary depending on cultural or ideological perspectives. This would add nuance to the evaluation.))))))