Kenton Kyger
Mrs. Rutan
AP Literature & Composition
27 January 2017
Mrs. Rutan
AP Literature & Composition
27 January 2017
The Art of Decision-Making... and Dealing With the Consequences
Picture this: your significant other is deathly ill but hasn’t been told because “that kind of stress would surely be too much to handle.” The only cure that the doctor recommends is a change in climate to recover. You hardly have a penny to your name, and your spouse would not agree to take out a loan to go on a trip without justification, but you couldn’t possibly divulge the reason... or could you? Do you tell your spouse about their condition (with the expectation that they aren’t so frail and oblivious that the information would kill them) and work it out together, or do you try to deal with the issue on your own? If you choose the latter, how will you go about getting the money? This was precisely the dilemma that Nora Helmer experienced in “A Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen.
Believe it or not, people are actually pretty smart.
Humans are a unique in that they have the most cortical neurons of any species on earth. The cerebral cortex plays a major role in attention, perception, awareness, thought, and consciousness among other things. Putting these two facts together provides evidence for why people are able to be mindful of and act according to future consequences. Animals are able to come up with specific solutions to specific problems, and when it comes to another problem, they are back to square one. Humans, on the other hand, are able take a specific solution and alter it to solve a different problem (Jabr).
The behavior and choices that animals make are reflective of the short-term consequences associated with their actions. For instance, some animals harvest food for the winter months when food is scarce while others know not to mess with certain creatures because of violent ramifications. But do animals think about what their lives will be like five, ten, or fifteen years into the future? Humans certainly have the ability to. In fact, most decisions are made with thought to the future (just think about how many things in the human world have the word "plan" attached to them). Unfortunately, many people choose to not exercise this ability, leaving them no better off than their animal counterparts. All too often, the thing that sets the poor-decision-ball rolling is allowing emotions to have control over choices. When analytical thinking and awareness are thrown aside in favor of over- (or under-) sensitivity and impassioned judgment, people can make choices that would not even be considered by a person who is not emotionally invested into the situation. The most destructive part about it is that once started down the path of making emotion-driven choices, it is very difficult to turn around. Ultimately, previous bias and subconscious tendencies cause decision-making to focus less and less on the future and more on the present. It is possible to change, however, and return to power over mind and will. Failing to foresee and take responsibility for the consequences of one’s decisions tends to produce a larger catastrophe. |
Coming back to the situation presented earlier, the choice Nora made was to attain the money for the trip on her own and tell Torvald, her husband, that her father gave the money to them to go on the trip. In actuality, she took a loan from Krogstad, forging her father’s signature as security (women were not permitted to take out a loan on their own, so this was a shady deal). Now, with her debt almost completely paid off, Torvald fires Krogstad from his position at the bank and Krogstad subsequently threatens to publicize Nora’s forgery if she does not convince Torvald to hire him back in a higher position.
Nora tries to conceal the evidence of the loan from Torvald, knowing that he would not have approved at the time. When he begins to question some of the peculiar habits she picks up to get the money to pay off the loan, she diverts Torvald’s attention with childish behavior, appealing to his superiority complex and fueling the father-daughter dynamic between them. By acting flighty and helpless, she allows herself to be objectified by Torvald, which becomes one of her primary complaints at the end of the play. He calls Nora his “wastrel” and his “squirrel,” which has a dehumanizing effect and supports the notion that, like an animal, Nora does not contemplate the consequences of her actions nor how to deal with them when they arise. She meant right by her action, but did not pay enough attention to realize the repercussions that would follow.
Nora tries to conceal the evidence of the loan from Torvald, knowing that he would not have approved at the time. When he begins to question some of the peculiar habits she picks up to get the money to pay off the loan, she diverts Torvald’s attention with childish behavior, appealing to his superiority complex and fueling the father-daughter dynamic between them. By acting flighty and helpless, she allows herself to be objectified by Torvald, which becomes one of her primary complaints at the end of the play. He calls Nora his “wastrel” and his “squirrel,” which has a dehumanizing effect and supports the notion that, like an animal, Nora does not contemplate the consequences of her actions nor how to deal with them when they arise. She meant right by her action, but did not pay enough attention to realize the repercussions that would follow.
Failing to foresee and take responsibility for the consequences of one’s decisions tends to produce a larger catastrophe.A major consequence of forging her father’s signature on the loan was giving Krogstad leverage over her and her husband. Ignoring Nora’s failure to prepare for the potential consequences of her action in the first place, the way that she handles the threat Krogstad makes only serves to affirm that her cognition of the situation and the ways she could go about dealing with it is clouded. Instead of alerting Torvald of the situation, which would have been of great benefit as she would not have been hindered by keeping it under his nose and he would be able to much more easily fix the situation due to his position, she decides that it would be better for him not to know while there was hope of fixing the problem. Instead, she wanted him to throw himself on the grenade…. the grenade she pulled the pin out of.
As Sigmund Freud would have put it, Nora's id was very much in control of her for the majority of the time that the reader sees her. She acts so childish in the few days the play covers that it is not even a stretch to assume that she has acted that way her entire life. In fact, her superego does not ever seem to make an appearance; her every action is either morally wrong or selfish, sometimes both. When Nora took the loan from Krogstad, she forged a signature, which was morally wrong and not thought-out very well. Despite fairly obvious idea that forging a signature illegal, Nora seems oblivious to the fact she committed a crime. In fact, she is so deluded that she is convinced the law makes "allowances for cases like that [breaking the law to "spare her dying old father worry and anxiety" and "save her husband's life"]" (Arp & Johnson, 1113). While in Nora's own world she was saving Torvald and her father from stress in difficult times, what she actually did was set up a time bomb that came to threaten her family's names and reputation.
|
Nora also manipulated Torvald by acting childish to keep a secret from him (although Torvald was not exactly an angel in their marriage, either; he was demeaning and enjoyed treating her like a child. The ultimate action her id had control over was leaving Torvald at the end of the play. While their marriage was not a healthy one, Torvald was willing to change (or at least to the idea of change) to make the marriage bearable if nothing else. Instead of facing the consequences and responsibility of marrying him and making the best of it she could, she ran from her vows to Torvald and her responsibilities to her children. In another situation, perhaps, leaving Torvald would have been perfectly acceptable, but here it was simply selfish and altogether telling of her true character.
As with her lack of knowledge for the laws when she takes out a loan and forges her fathers signature, Nora shows the reader just how short-sighted she seems intent on being when she tells Torvald she is leaving him. Nora says "when a wife leavings her husband's house, the way I am doing now, I have heard he has no more legal responsibilities for her" (Arp & Johnson, 1153). Aside from this statement's obvious clash with the reader's logos, a little history lesson shows that this was not the case. While there were most definitely flaws in the laws concerning women's rights in the mid/late 1800s, it makes sense that one could not simply walk out on a vow they made for life (this was the law for both en and women, in fact). Histories, Marital Exits and Marital Expectations in Nineteenth Century America, and Background of "A Doll's House" shed some light on the laws governing marriage during the time of this play and the extent to which Nora defied the societal norms of her time. Nora left Torvald without any sort of divorce or change of relationship contract, which was illegal and did not actually void his responsibilities to her. She also guaranteed Torvald's ruin, as Norway was going through a social movement, where the upper-middle class (the Helmers fell into this category) expectations included good morals, financial success without debt, and the portrayal of stable family life (Cron). Even if Torvald was able to emotionally recover and go on as if nothing had not happened, society would never have accepted him as a prominent bank manager. One can only hope that, after all of the wreckage she caused, Nora at least survived and was able to fulfill her "duties to herself" without knowing the laws or how to make a living on her own.
Although Ibsen was trying to send a very different message, "A Doll's House" is a perfect example of the destruction that results from failing to look into the future and make decisions accordingly. Even side characters hint at the importance of decisions throughout the play. For instance, Dr. Rank complains of the poor health he inherited because his father's poor choices (Arp & Johnson, 1124-1125) and Krogstad tells Nora that the mistakes he made cost him his "name and reputation" (Arp & Johnson, 1113). But when it comes to making destructive, impassioned, short-sighted decisions, Nora Helmer cannot be beaten. It is a pain to think about the consequences that her decisions bring to her and to those around her. May this play ever be a warning to be cognizant of the effect that we have on ourselves and on our surroundings, making the best choices we can to help both ourselves and others. No one wants to have regrets, so why make poor choices that will cause them when with a little extra effort and caution so much of it can be prevented?
To see the Works Cited page, click on the document below.
As with her lack of knowledge for the laws when she takes out a loan and forges her fathers signature, Nora shows the reader just how short-sighted she seems intent on being when she tells Torvald she is leaving him. Nora says "when a wife leavings her husband's house, the way I am doing now, I have heard he has no more legal responsibilities for her" (Arp & Johnson, 1153). Aside from this statement's obvious clash with the reader's logos, a little history lesson shows that this was not the case. While there were most definitely flaws in the laws concerning women's rights in the mid/late 1800s, it makes sense that one could not simply walk out on a vow they made for life (this was the law for both en and women, in fact). Histories, Marital Exits and Marital Expectations in Nineteenth Century America, and Background of "A Doll's House" shed some light on the laws governing marriage during the time of this play and the extent to which Nora defied the societal norms of her time. Nora left Torvald without any sort of divorce or change of relationship contract, which was illegal and did not actually void his responsibilities to her. She also guaranteed Torvald's ruin, as Norway was going through a social movement, where the upper-middle class (the Helmers fell into this category) expectations included good morals, financial success without debt, and the portrayal of stable family life (Cron). Even if Torvald was able to emotionally recover and go on as if nothing had not happened, society would never have accepted him as a prominent bank manager. One can only hope that, after all of the wreckage she caused, Nora at least survived and was able to fulfill her "duties to herself" without knowing the laws or how to make a living on her own.
Although Ibsen was trying to send a very different message, "A Doll's House" is a perfect example of the destruction that results from failing to look into the future and make decisions accordingly. Even side characters hint at the importance of decisions throughout the play. For instance, Dr. Rank complains of the poor health he inherited because his father's poor choices (Arp & Johnson, 1124-1125) and Krogstad tells Nora that the mistakes he made cost him his "name and reputation" (Arp & Johnson, 1113). But when it comes to making destructive, impassioned, short-sighted decisions, Nora Helmer cannot be beaten. It is a pain to think about the consequences that her decisions bring to her and to those around her. May this play ever be a warning to be cognizant of the effect that we have on ourselves and on our surroundings, making the best choices we can to help both ourselves and others. No one wants to have regrets, so why make poor choices that will cause them when with a little extra effort and caution so much of it can be prevented?
To see the Works Cited page, click on the document below.
works_cited.docx |