The Misapplication of Democracy and the Plight of the Individual in the Drama of Henrik Ibsen

Innocent Ettia Meh

doi:10.11648/j.ijla.20210901.12

Abstract

Let me begin by stating the obvious. It is now common knowledge in Henrik Ibsen’s scholarship that the Norwegian playwright had a very uneasy relationship with politicians. The dramatist took delight in satirizing the pomposity and hypocritical practices of politicians and other public officials through the use of a flowery rhetorical style characteristic of platform politicians. A close reading of critical writings on Ibsen’s major plays that have a political agenda reveals that most of the reputed commentators conclude that the author directs his criticism against the democratic form of government. Some of the critics are even of the opinion that Ibsen in his works is in favour of aristocracy as an alternative to democracy. What is however intriguing about the claims of these critics is that they do not actually take up time to define what democracy as a form of government is all about before illustrating how the dramatist writes against it in his plays. The central concern of this paper therefore, is to demonstrate from a new historicist standpoint that Ibsen in his drama does not completely condemns democracy as a form of government except when it comes to the application of some democratic principles which are hostile to the welfare of the individual.

Highlights

According to New Historicists, works of art can be read as subversive discourses offering a critique of the prevailing socio-political and economic ideologies of the society in which they were written
The quickening force behind the writing of this paper is to critically examine how conservative middle class politicians misapply some democratic principles that inhibit the progress and self-fulfillment of the individual
“Minor flaws in the springs” must be covered up in order not to scare potential customers away. Ibsen shows his indignation against the democratic principle of majority rule in the words of Doctor Stockman when he says: I am against the age old lie that the majority is always right...the Majority never has truth on its side-I say

Summary

Introduction

According to New Historicists, works of art can be read as subversive discourses offering a critique of the prevailing socio-political and economic ideologies of the society in which they were written. “Minor flaws in the springs” must be covered up in order not to scare potential customers away Ibsen shows his indignation against the democratic principle of majority rule in the words of Doctor Stockman when he says: I am against the age old lie that the majority is always right...the Majority never has truth on its side-I say. Under the corrupting influence of the all-powerful Mayor, Doctor Stockman is ironically rejected and stigmatized by all the members of the community whose welfare he struggles to protect This is the sad reality we all notice around our contemporary societies wherein the good intensions of some members of the civil society are often frustrated by politicians in the so-called majority democratic political parties. The playwright is often quoted to have said, “I do not believe in political measures nor have much confidence in the altruism and good will of those in power.”

Socio-Economic Corruption and the Individual

Conclusion