Debate: Should Nora have left?

“It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.”

Joseph Joubert

At the end of A Doll's House, the protagonist, Nora Helmer, has to make a decision: Stay at home with her controlling, ego-driven husband, or to leave, setting a new paradigm for women. If she leaves, her 3 children will be raised without a mother. Torvald's treatment of Nora until this point in the play leaves much room for empathy; and indeed, most readers accept her decision to leave as a natural consequence of his treatment. But, upon further examination, Nora's decision is complicated: Just like her friend, Christine, Nora will risk social depravation without a husband. So, having set up the premises, my 10th graders engaged in an important debate: Was Nora right to abandon her husband and kids at the end of the play?

The 2 sides, affirmative and negative, spent time preparing their cases, crafting arguments around Nora and Torvald's relationship with a focus on societal expectations. The debate, just like the conclusion of the play, gave the audience a window into Nora's difficult decision. Below I will chronicle some highlights from the debate:

1st Affirmative (Nora was correct in abandoning her husband and children): The 1st affirmative came out strong with arguments that Nora could not develop as a person if she stayed with Torvald. This, they argued, was a basic human right that he had denied to her. They followed up this argument with a discussion about Nora’s inability to parent her children in her current condition — here they argued, that she was incapable of being a mother-figure for them.

1st Negative: (Nora was incorrect in abandoning her husband and children): The 1st negative came back strong: They argued that given the societal expectations placed on Torvald (and the family), should Nora leave, he would have his reputation damaged. Further, they argued, Nora chose to forge the signature on the document — whether or not it was necessary — and therefore Torvald had a right to get upset at her. They concluded with remarks about Nora’s sense of selfishness driving her decision to leave.

After both sides had the opportunity to ask questions, the debate moved into closing remarks. Here, students again emphasized their main points: The affirmative discussed Nora’s right to pursue her own life, free from Torvald; the negative reworked their argument about Nora’s dishonesty through the play.

Most impressive of all — though there were many impressive aspects— was the spirit in the debate; students presenting cogent, thoughtful arguments and engaging in the great intellectual tradition of debate. Students respectfully listened and responded to arguments from the other side, acknowledging the legitimacy of the points, but using sources from the text to refute them.

As election season wraps up, I am reminded of the importance of civil discourse, whereby disagreeing sides can come together — not to coalesce about their similarities — but instead to share in the ancient art of debate; a tradition that my 10th grade students engaged in this last week.

~Joel Neft
English Instructor