Ghosts by Henrik Ibsen, Essay Example

Henrik Ibsen’s Ghosts, one of the key works of nineteenth-century

Scandinavian drama, presents a psychological narrative that not only transpires within its respective characters, but moreover reveals a certain tension that exists between the interior lives of these characters and the exterior reality of their existence. It is precisely such a tension that is central to Ghosts, to the extent that the interior and the exterior may be said to overlap, such that there is no difference between the two. In other words, Ibsen employs a certain technique in which he demonstrates through his characters how the psychological inner world is determined by the exterior, social world, and vice versa. This overlapping effect suggests perhaps the central thesis of Ibsen’s play: that one cannot make a clear-cut distinction between some fantastical, inner world and some real, outside existence or realist viewpoint. Rather, this outer real, a real of social relations, obligations and duties is the pure fantasy. Furthermore, as Ibsen presents it, this outer real is the true location of horror and despair. The desire to break from this horror and despair can be understood as the point of departure for two key characters in the play – Helene Alving and Oswald Alving – insofar as both recoil from this outer real world, realizing it as nothing more than a social construct. What occurs in Ibsen’s text is a certain desired rejection of the real world, in terms of an understanding that this real world is no less fantastical, no less whimsical than any possible imagined world.  In the following essay, we shall provide a reading of the life-views of Helene Alving and Oswald Alving as they are presented in the play, in order to understand how both characters realize the fantasy of the so-called real world, and how they attempt to separate themselves from the illusion of some realist viewpoint grounded in society.

In Ghosts, it can be argued that the specific events of the narrative carry a certain secondary or supplemental importance when contrasted to the direct psychological experiences and viewpoints of Helene Alving and Oswald Alving. That is, these specific narrative events only hold meaning to the extent that for these characters these events are strictly devoid of meaning. These events are only a series of horrors and traumas, which extend themselves into the character’s lives. The characters of Helene Alving and Oswald Alving attempt to break with these meanings, in essence, to bury them or finish with them, thus making their meaningless real and actual. Such a motif is apparent when considering the central narrative event around which the story revolves: Helene Alving’s decision to construct an orphanage in the memory of her deceased husband. This orphanage, while at first glance representing something that is a positive remembrance of her husband, is rather an attempt by Helene to force a certain enclosure and destruction of meaning: it is to demarcate Helene’s break with the tempestuous and despairing relationship she had with her husband. As Bruce Thompson notes about the play: “the past haunts the present.”[i] However, this haunting that occurs between the past and the present must be understood in terms of the complicated relationship between the psychological and the social worlds present in Ghosts. They are essentially interrelated to the point where the decisive actions of the characters can be understood as attempts to negate the link between the past and the present, or in other words, to create a new future that is completely free of the past. Certainly, such a break in itself displays the determination the past has on the actions of characters such as Helene Alving. Nevertheless, the break cannot be understood as a pure retreat into the psychological or the fantastical, as Ibsen’s point is that the real relations between people can also be understood as fantastical and largely psychological. This is precisely the fantasy at the heart of what are considered to be “real obligations” or “real duties.” For example, Helene Alving states the following: “They had taught me a great deal about duties and so forth, which I went on obstinately believing in. Everything was marked out into duties – into my duties, and his duties.”[ii] The skepticism Alving realizes in regards to such duties is evident in this citation: Alving is precisely doubting the reality of these duties themselves. In other words, the societal obligations that one is indoctrinated into, and that afterwards one sees as central to human and social existence, are in themselves really fantasy, no more real than any fantastical or psychological inner world that a character in Ibsen’s play may create for him or herself. Alving’s use of the word “believe” in this quote is striking: it is precisely the acceptance of such duties and obligations that require belief, insofar as these obligations in themselves must be believed in to have any reality – just as one must believe in an apparition or a ghost to give it any meaning or existence. In other words, the existence of the ghost depends on the belief; in the same sense, Ibsen reveals through Alving’s words that society, obligations and rules are as fantastical as any ghost. Accordingly, Ibsen in this brief quote explodes any presupposed difference between the fantastical, inner world and some exterior reality – they are both intertwined, all meaning requires a belief to have any meaning whatsoever – nothing bears a meaning in itself.

This absence of distinction between the fantasy and the real at stake in Ibsen’s Ghosts is also apparent in the viewpoint of the main protagonist Oswald Alving. Oswald, the son of Anna Alving and the deceased Captain Alving suffers because of the indiscretions of his father. Particularly, it is his physical disease that demonstrates, as Thompson notes, how the past determines the present in Ibsen’s play. However, the character of Oswald represents a further nuance that Ibsen introduces between the relation between fantasy and reality. Firstly, Oswald’s illness is a physical illness, and it is precisely, for Oswald, this physicality that is real: it does not matter if one rejects the physical, the illness – this is impossible. For example, consider this dialogue in the Third Act between Oswald and Helene Alving:

Oswald. Oh, “father,” – “father”! I never knew anything of father. I remember nothing about him, except that he once made me sick.

Mrs. Alving. This is terrible to think of! Ought not a son to love his father, whatever happens?

Oswald. When a son has nothing to thank his father for? Has never known him? Do you really cling to that old superstition?[iii]

Oswald’s only memory of his father is the physical illness that he experiences; there is nothing else pertinent to be said about him. While Mrs. Alving implores Oswald to not reduce his relationship to his father to these terms – that there is a duty or an obligation to love one’s father – Oswald precisely identifies this as a superstition, as a fantasy of “Ghosts.” Such societal obligations and duties, the petit-bourgeoisie morality is what Ibsen attempts to critique throughout the play. As Emma Goldman notes: “Not only does this pioneer of modern dramatic art undermine in “Ghosts” the Social Lie and the paralyzing effect of Duty, but the uselessness and evil of Sacrifice, the dreary Lack of Joy and of Purpose in Work are brought to light as most pernicious and destructive elements in life.”[iv] In this dialogue, one sees how the fantastical thus intrudes and even supports what the characters consider to be most real – such as the invariable love for one’s father. Oswald demonstrates here the fantastical notion of this love itself, its difference from the real of his sickness – it is only the physicality of illness that is real, as opposed to the ghostly quality of psychological and social relationships. Such a notion is further demonstrated in Oswald’s reaction to his illness, to the thought of having to be physically ill, weak and decrepit. The physical illness is what carries a meaning for Oswald, as he prefers death to the thought that this type of reality would determine his life:

Oswald. No, never that! That is just what I will not have. I can’t endure to think that perhaps I should lie in that state for many years—and get old and grey.[v]

Oswald, despite his previous critique of societal obligations, nevertheless does identify something of meaning in a world that is filled with superstition and of fantasy – the reality of physical illness and death. It is not so much a case of Oswald using fantasy to escape this reality: Oswald precisely realizes that fantasy cannot overcome the real physicality of death. Accordingly, for Oswald, it is better not to exist than to have this fate. This is precisely because the world of superstition offers no retreat from such a reality. In other words, Oswald does not seek fantasy to escape from the real, but desires the real itself – however, if the real is physical pain and suffering, the price here is too high, and Oswald would rather die. While Oswald further says that if only he had Regina he would be able to overcome this illness, this, from Oswald’s viewpoint, is not fantastical – it is precisely his love for Regina that is also beyond fantasy, something that is real, beyond any false duties and obligations. The social mores that Oswald despises, that Regina is his half-sister, is the very reason that Oswald cannot be with Regina – however, insofar as this is a fantasy of societal prohibition, it is precisely either death or being with Regina that represent the only possible escapes from this fantasy. It is therefore, for Oswald, things such as death and love, which are beyond the illusory nature of society.

We can also detect such a separation between the real and the fantastical in Helene Alving’s own decision to construct an orphanage to rid herself of the memory of her husband. It is the construction of a real object, and the dispersal of his money (money, which is also fantastical) that will mark the break with the fantastical social relations between her and her husband. As Bruce Thompson notes, Helene is “forced to reexamine her life”,[vi] and such a reexamination leads her to the decision to break with her old life. Yet this break, for Helene, is not a fantasy – it is a rejection of the fantasy of some idealized relation she must have to her husband. As Helene Alving says: “But then this long, hateful comedy will be ended. From the day after to-morrow, I shall act in every way as though he who is dead had never lived in this house.”[vii] The first glance interpretation of this passage is that by undertaking these actions, Helene is somehow living in a fantasy world, attempting to forget “the hateful comedy” that was life with her husband. Rather, what we can argue is at stake in this passage is that Helene realizes that it is possible to break with the meaning that she had invested in her husband, and create a new meaning for her own. To obsess about her husband would be to remain obligated to him, to remain a prisoner to a purely social obligation of the dutiful, good wife. Helene, in essence, realizes the fantasy of this relation, that in itself it means nothing – her decision to break from the previous life is not to break from the reality of the relation, but is her recognition of the relation’s lack of meaning and of her own autonomous freedom to break with this relation. While throughout the play, Helene certainly gives an importance to certain social roles (such as in the aforementioned exchange with Oswald concerning the relations of fathers and sons, and in her own relation to Oswald), it is crucial to understand that Helene also realizes her own autonomy and understands the possibility to exercise her own free will. Accordingly, Helene does not retreat into a fantasy, but rather comprehends that insofar as everything is fantasy, it is possible to make one’s own reality against this backdrop, to take a stand and say: this is what I am for and this is what I am against. As Ronald Gray notes of Helene, “Mrs. Alving has failed once in the past to take her chance of achieving freedom for her husband, but since then she has steadily grown towards emancipation…In Mrs. Alving the concept of free self-fulfillment goes further.”[viii] It is precisely this self-emancipatory moment that Helene seeks to realize in all her actions throughout the play, from the disposal of her husband’s money, to not wanting Oswald to even receive a penny of the Captain’s money insofar as she wants Oswald to remain unbound to her father and the construction of the orphanage. As Emma Goldman writes: “Mrs. Alving who, though at a terrible price, works herself out to the truth.”[ix] According to this “working towards the truth”, we can understand that the burning down of the orphanage harbors the exact same meaning as if the orphanage were not to be burned down –both scenarios represent a break from the fantastical, the opportunity to realize self-emancipation through a physical gesture that overcomes the fantastical nature of social relations.

Thus, when examining characters such as Oswald Alving and his mother Helene Alving from the play Ghosts, we can understand that Ibsen develops a very complex topology of what constitutes reality and what constitutes fantasy. Essentially, for Helene Alving, fantasy is not some individual internal psychological disposition, which marks a retreat from the realist viewpoint of the social world. In contrast, it is the very non-individual, social realm of relationships and obligations, such as the meaning of her marriage that are fantastical. Furthermore, it is precisely because these relations are fantastical that they are devoid of meaning – it is possible, in an emancipatory moment, for these same characters to assert their autonomy by creating their own life, creating their own reality – this reality has nothing to do with the simple distinction between an internal or external life. In the character of Oswald we see this same disregard for obligations, as they represent a fantastical product of society and morality, one that people are led to believe is the true reality. Oswald disdains this reality because he sees it for what it is – a fantastical, social construct, one of any infinitude number of social constructs that are possible. However, for Oswald there is reality – this is the physical reality of love and of death. When Oswald says, “we are all ghosts”, he arguably plays on this double meaning – that the life amongst others is a fantastical life, a life of non-existence, yet the real existence is those selfless instances of love and of death, which are paradoxically annihilations of the self: thus, in essence, both in the fantastical and the real realm, as Oswald, says “We are nothing but ghosts.” This may be seen as Ibsen’s own consistent “dramatic vision”, as described by Thoralf Berg “Ibsen… succeeded in mastering the task of embodying this vision dramaturgically in one play after another.”[x]

Works Cited

Berg, Thoralf. “Henrik Ibsen’s Dramatic Vision”, accessed at http://www.ibsen.net/index.gan?id=1927&subid=0.

Gray, Robert. Ibsen, A Dissenting View: A Study of the Last Twelve Plays. New York: CUP Archive, 1980.

Goldman, Emma. “Scandinavian Drama-Henrik Ibsen: Ghosts” In The Social Significance of Modern Drama.  Boston: Richard Badger, 1914.

Ibsen, Henrik. Ghosts: A Domestic Tragedy in Three Acts. New York: Forgotten Books, 1977.

Thompson, Bruce. “Ibsen the Liberator.”  Lecture #3 from Professor Thompson’s on- line  History C 125, University of California at Santa Cruz.

[i] Bruce Thompson, “Ibsen the Liberator.”  Lecture #3 from Professor Thompson’s on-line  History C 125, University of California at Santa Cruz.

[ii] Henrik Ibsen, Ghosts, p. 102.

[iii] Ibid., p. 106.

[iv] Emma Goldman, “Scandinavian Drama-Henrik Ibsen: Ghosts” InThe Social Significance of Modern Drama.  Boston: Richard Badger, 1914.

[v] Henrik Ibsen, Ghosts, p. 110.

[vi] Bruce Thompson, “Ibsen the Liberator.”  Lecture #3 from Professor Thompson’s on-line  History C 125, University of California at Santa Cruz.

[vii] Henrik Ibsen, Ghosts, p. 52.

[viii] Robert Gray, Ibsen, A Dissenting View: A Study of the Last Twelve Plays, p. 61.

[ix] Emma Goldman, “Scandinavian Drama-Henrik Ibsen: Ghosts” InThe Social Significance of Modern Drama.  Boston: Richard Badger, 1914.

[x] Thoralf Berg, “Henrik Ibsen’s dramatic vision”, accessed at http://www.ibsen.net/index.gan?id=1927&subid=0.