Last week I read Henrik Ibsen's play, "A Doll's House", for seminar. It took me about 2 hours to finish it. It disturbed me pretty deeply as I was reading it . . . in fact, I still think it's the most depressing thing I've read in seminar all four years. It's even more depressing than Lucretius and his theory that 'happiness is watching other people drown'. I mean, Lucretius was still speaking about speculative philosophy - there is a pretty good chance that he didn't follow his own theories all the time. This play is about a horrible marriage; a frightfully realistic, horrible marriage. That's really, really depressing.
If I am to take the back of the book seriously, it seems that this play is commonly held up as a courageous rebellion against the moral dictates of its time. I can see how it might be seen that way . . . Ibsen wrote it to make certain statements, and he made them.
However, I must say I didn't expect my seminar to be so duped by him.
I'm not sure whether to blame Ibsen nearly as much as the influence of modern culture, but something has really gotten to people, and I cannot help but say that my personal estimation of my classmates just went down by a pretty big percentage. Only two vocal people in the whole seminar were actively defending marriage as a lifelong commitment - - I simply cannot get over how appalling that is. Well, maybe appalling isn't the right word. I was angry, yes, (falsehoods generally tick me off) but more than that I was saddened. It was just too horrible!
To give a bit more background: at the end of the play, the woman leaves her husband. Okay, granted, the marriage was horrible. Granted, he was a total jerkface. Granted, up until that time she had been completely ignorant of a great many things. Separation may have been excusable, in fact - - the relationship was in deep trouble. But, she didn't just leave - - she took off her wedding ring and asked for hers in return. While she did so she expressly stated that she considered herself free from any commitment to him, and he was free from any commitment to her. That, my friends, is where I draw the line.
Universally, unequivocally, that is wrong.
Human beings aren't rodentia -- they mate for life. From the very, very beginning, man was created by God to leave his father and mother and cling to his wife - the two would become one flesh. What was worse is that this was the very reading from Genesis that we heard on the day our seminar was held. Anyone who had gone to daily mass that day would have heard it that recently.
Many people in my seminar were trying to argue that the woman in the play was just taking off her ring to make a show - to impress upon her husband how necessary it was for him to change. I don't buy that for a second . . . you can't expect someone you're married to to bear hearing you tell them you're through with them and not expect a deep, horrible rift as a consequence. The trust in that relationship would have been completely gone after that kind of an action. Even if the ends justified the means (which they don't - renouncing her wedding vows would be wrong no matter what) it's not even possible for her to have accomplished healing or constructive relationship changes through this action. Human relationships just plain don't work that way.
And, what's MORE - - the woman in the play left three children behind her, one of them a baby. How people could possibly be thinking her actions moral is quite beyond me . . . even if she did think her servants to be better caretakers than she, there is nobody who can replace a mother - she would have known that. Every mother knows that . . . heck, any lower animal with the most basic maternal instinct knows that.
Once again I am reminded that morality belongs to practical wisdom, not speculative, and that people here excel in the latter and not necessarily in the former. All I can say is that I hope that the arguments being made late last week were the results of naievete, peer pressure or impulse, and that nobody will have to learn about these things the hard way.
Oh, my sweet Jesus, please preserve them all from such a painful, terrible thing!
If I am to take the back of the book seriously, it seems that this play is commonly held up as a courageous rebellion against the moral dictates of its time. I can see how it might be seen that way . . . Ibsen wrote it to make certain statements, and he made them.
However, I must say I didn't expect my seminar to be so duped by him.
I'm not sure whether to blame Ibsen nearly as much as the influence of modern culture, but something has really gotten to people, and I cannot help but say that my personal estimation of my classmates just went down by a pretty big percentage. Only two vocal people in the whole seminar were actively defending marriage as a lifelong commitment - - I simply cannot get over how appalling that is. Well, maybe appalling isn't the right word. I was angry, yes, (falsehoods generally tick me off) but more than that I was saddened. It was just too horrible!
To give a bit more background: at the end of the play, the woman leaves her husband. Okay, granted, the marriage was horrible. Granted, he was a total jerkface. Granted, up until that time she had been completely ignorant of a great many things. Separation may have been excusable, in fact - - the relationship was in deep trouble. But, she didn't just leave - - she took off her wedding ring and asked for hers in return. While she did so she expressly stated that she considered herself free from any commitment to him, and he was free from any commitment to her. That, my friends, is where I draw the line.
Universally, unequivocally, that is wrong.
Human beings aren't rodentia -- they mate for life. From the very, very beginning, man was created by God to leave his father and mother and cling to his wife - the two would become one flesh. What was worse is that this was the very reading from Genesis that we heard on the day our seminar was held. Anyone who had gone to daily mass that day would have heard it that recently.
Many people in my seminar were trying to argue that the woman in the play was just taking off her ring to make a show - to impress upon her husband how necessary it was for him to change. I don't buy that for a second . . . you can't expect someone you're married to to bear hearing you tell them you're through with them and not expect a deep, horrible rift as a consequence. The trust in that relationship would have been completely gone after that kind of an action. Even if the ends justified the means (which they don't - renouncing her wedding vows would be wrong no matter what) it's not even possible for her to have accomplished healing or constructive relationship changes through this action. Human relationships just plain don't work that way.
And, what's MORE - - the woman in the play left three children behind her, one of them a baby. How people could possibly be thinking her actions moral is quite beyond me . . . even if she did think her servants to be better caretakers than she, there is nobody who can replace a mother - she would have known that. Every mother knows that . . . heck, any lower animal with the most basic maternal instinct knows that.
Once again I am reminded that morality belongs to practical wisdom, not speculative, and that people here excel in the latter and not necessarily in the former. All I can say is that I hope that the arguments being made late last week were the results of naievete, peer pressure or impulse, and that nobody will have to learn about these things the hard way.
Oh, my sweet Jesus, please preserve them all from such a painful, terrible thing!
5 comments:
I heard you had a pretty crazy seminar...
A.D.A.
From
THE PRICESS BRIDE:
IMPRESSIVE CLERGYMAN
(clears his throat, begins to speak)
Mawidge...mawidge is what bwings us togewer today...
Mawidge, the bwessed awwangement, that dweam wiffim a dweam...
...Ven wuv, twoo wuv, wiw fowwow you fowever..
... so tweasuwe your vruv..
Em, that's a really neat new picture you have.
I hope the last lap of your thesis is going alright?
ADA
Gah, Em. Get a profile picture. I mean, NOT a PROFILE picture, a profile picture. Something recognizable, if not your face than a flower or something. This "mummy standing in front of the window" business just doesn't work.
Hey, Em, I'm about 2 hours north of your soon-to-be-home right now! I hope you like humidity.
ADA EKT
Post a Comment