Discourse analysis of class inequality in “Hedda Gabler”

Discourse analysis of class inequality in “Hedda Gabler”

The most essential obligation of critical discourse analysis is the development of equality by disposing the flaws of powerful community especially through the medium of text and talk.

Certainly, this formation of equality will be analyzed by highlighting the hidden and implicit facts of inequality and the power abuse of authority, command and control which are shown by displaying the opposite discourse aspects including Uncommonness, Poverty, Misery and Insufficiency etc. These aspects of inequality are often invisible either in form of presuppositions or in shape of implications, ambiguous – owing to the complexity of language_ and contradictory, due to its paradoxical discursive nature. Quite naturally, the elite and the aristocrat have control over the lower and ordinary class, the influence of which can be analyzed through any text.

Hedda Gabler is one of the most famous play of Ibsen in which class inequality through certain dominant aspects of discourse can be visualized. Ibsen’s account of human life is from an acute social and conceptual perspective where the control of elite can be perceived through the use of his discoursive approach and the expressions of his ideas about dominant class section. The essential requirement is to present the detailed analysis that how the forms of inequality have been expressed, enacted, legitimated and reproduced by his text, and how the elites have control, access, influence and power of discourse in society.

van Dijk explains this social power abuse by dominant, the formation of class inequality and its relationship with critical discourse analysis in following words;

“Critical discourse analysis is a kind of discourse, analytical research that primarily studies the way social power abuse by dominant and inequality is enacted, reproduced and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context.”

So the misuse of power and the production of inequality by any text in the social context is one of the most objective directions of a discourse analyst. A language user, in order to manage and memories all meanings of any discourse uses the semantic macro structures, which does not directly mean the title of the discourse but the global meaning or the overall and general ideas of the work.

To look at the title of the play “Hedda Gabler” in which the essence of authority can be felt as the title character is associated with her father instead of being related and attached which her husband. Ibsen in his letter to prozer describes the fact in these words,“The title of the play is Hedda Gabler. My intention in giving it this name was to indicate that Hedda as a personality is to be regarded rather as her father’s daughter than as her husband’s wife.”

The selection of the title constitutes the two different segments of society; Hedda with her father’s name and identity, and Hedda without her husband’s name and identity. Hedda Gabler instead of Hedda Tesman forms a particular ideology, which reflects the dominant identity of Hedda. This is what Karl Marx says about ideology;

“Ideology is discourse (in the form of language). So to learn the ideology we need to analyze the language.”

The choice of the title clearly distinguishes the binaries of “us and them” where Hedda constitutes a dominant expression of inequality, and Tesman is repressed under the influence of Hedda’s control. The patterns of discourse control are indeed closely associated with social power. Although society refuses the feminine dominance but this negative capability of Ibsen in presenting a women who is linked with the power and control is remarkable. This social power of the high class is defined in the form of control of one group by another. Just reading the title at the very beginning of the play, a reader certainly feels the control of Hedda’s personality, the basic fact of which is hidden under the surface of this influenced title.

The selection of characters is quite an important issue which forms the aspects of inequality, largely because they are the sources of providing global, overall and general ideas from the text. This ideological experiment which divides a society into two parts is quite visible in Ibsen art of choosing the characters and in their association with their different discourse approaches. In order to apprehend these discourse approaches we can divide the characters into two categories.

The one belonging to Hedda, the dominate group and the other to Tesman, the dominated group. This separation of two groups will differentiate the manners of authority, control and command from the surrenders, resigners and the weaker. So the one class constitutes the characteristic of dominance where as the second class produce the people such as the surrender, resigners and the weaker, and these characteristics can be visualised and apprehended though their discourse.

In the beginning of the play the dialogue of Bertha is quite an obvious example of the above mentioned fact when she says about Hedda;“she’s real lady wants everything just so.”

The sentence highlights the implications that instead of Hedda all other ladies are unreal who have neither any discipline, nor any proper sequence in their life schedules. The sentence also forms the binaries of “us and them” where “us” are real, original and well-mannered on the other hand “them” have not such any qualities. Soon after it another dialogue of Bertha clearly distinguished the facts of the two binaries when she says;

“But, Lord! I never dreamed I’d live to see a match between her and master George.”

Here the distinction of “us and them” is more obvious than before. The use of exclamation mark after “lord” indicates Bertha’s strong feelings of astonishment and curiosity. Her views suggest that there was not any match between their class and the class of Hedda. Again the choice of words “never dreamed” show the intensity of Bertha’s surprising emotions, and the distinction of class inequality.

Another example of semantic macro structure where the distinction of two classes in quite clear can be visualized in the grounds of marriage between Hedda and Tesman . It was more an agreement, a deal than a marriage. The very fact can be analyzed in the insisting dialogue of Hedda when she married Tesman. As she reminds her husband,

“You agreed that we should enter society and keep open house that was the bargain.”

The general idea of above mentioned sentence clearly depicts the in vain struggle of establishment of the two classes, trying to form it in single and equal form which basically, is not the possibility. “ Entering a society” and “keeping house open” are the composite characteristics of a particular elite class where the contrary ideas are the limited relationship and the separation with society. In this respect the dialogue again distinguishes the two opposite classes of society, the one accustomed to living the life of their own standards and of spending lavishly as per their status. The implication of the sentence also suggests the fact that the ground of marriage between Hedda and Tesman depends not on the levels of understanding and love but on the limited points of some agreement or on some bargain which again constitutes a characteristic of class inequality.

While discussing the micro-structure of the text so many examples are there which clearly separate the two different classes of the society. We have already distinguished the two categories, the one belongs to Hedda’s group the other to Tesman’s. In spite the fact of General Gabler’s death his name is related with his daughter in order to provide Hedda power and dominance.  The very fact of this dominance is visible in the following dialogue of Miss Tesman when she says, “General Gabler’s daughter! think of what she was accustomed to when the General was alive. You remember how we used to see her out riding with her father?”

The binary of “us and them” is quite visible in these lines, although Hedda has become the member of their family but the dialogue of Miss Tesman is highlighting the facts of class separation.  Hedda with name of her father is powerful and has control on the other class. Another particularity of Hedda’s class has shown through her habit of riding, and this habit of “riding” is also associated to her father, something possible and done only by the elite class.

The customs and habits of the elite clearly distinguish them from the other class or we can say that there is an erasure of boundaries which can never let two classes be joined with one another. Living in the same house, having become the member of Tesman’s family Hedda still stands at the point where her class can never be associated with the class of Tesman. The word “Generel” has been used two times which emphasizes the authority of the high class. The use of exclamation mark after “General Gabler’s daughter” is very important which show the perfect distinction between the two classes.

It is when Miss Tesman reminds the dead father of Tesman she says, “God’ if only poor Joachism could rise out of his grave and see what his little son has grown into.”

The use of adjectives with nouns is notable. Jochism, the father of Tesman associated with “poor” indicates that he has been a person deserving and inciting pity. Similarly the “son” Tesman is linked with “little”, a poor fellow, who now after marrying with Hedda has grown in something else. The ambiguity of Tesman’s identity is still in between the devil and the deep sea. Neither a reader is able to call him the husband of Hedda nor the servant of her. And in spite the fact of this ambiguity the quite common issue is the erasure of boundaries between the two classes. The words “poor” and “little” are displaying the common and local class of a society which can never be the same as is the class of “Gabler”.

What so ever discussion held between Hedda and Tesman the aristocracy of one class is always dominating the other class. She speaks less but her words possess the power of control which again forms a particular influence of inequality. One dialogue of Hedda is time and again repeated when she says, “people don’t do such things”. The word “people” is referred to the class of  Hedda, the elites and the rich people of the society, the sentence creates an ideology of doing and not doing the two different things which are prescribed for the higher and the lower sections of society. The implication of the sentence is that the people of high class are always well-mannered and educated and they never do the things which associate them with humiliation.

This specific ideology of a particular elite class has been created which constitutes the identity of the rich and the distinction between the two different segments of society, the one who never commit the foolish things and save them from any type of humiliation and the other who do such things and are marked as the lower class. For an instance when Hedda remembers about Mrs.Elvsted she at once says, “she was the one with that irritating hair she was always showing off”.

The use of adjective “irritating” is important which highlights the facts of Hedda’s importance. It is because Mrs.Elvsted belongs to a poor family so she has not the right of showing her hair. An ideology for the lower class has been created where the poor have limited sources and prescribed rights. The implication of this sentence is that the higher class has all the rights of living and of showing off their things. This in-built concept of inequality has been marked out so many times as Mrs.Elvsted unhappy marriage is largely owing to the influence of this particular ideology. The very fact can be analyzed through her speech when she says, “I think he finds me useful. And I don’t cost much to keep. I am cheep”.

The choice of words is notable which show that Mrs. Elvsted is determined and actuated by emotions rather than reason. The very fact is hidden in the words like “useful”, “cost much”, and “cheap”. She is useful because she only can work for the family of her husband and being the second wife she has no right to gain any entertainment for herself. The phrase “cost much” suggests that a woman belonging to a lower class of society is merely a product of a market the rich can go and buy them any time they like. Word “cheap” further highlights the fact of the worth of a poor class, that persons belonging to lower class are cheaper and flimsy. Mrs Elvsted is living her life with a specific ideology which has created her identity of being cheap and useless. Furthermore the language of Mrs. Elvsted constitutes the binary of “us and them” where the “us” are precious and worthwhile whereas “them” are cheap and useless.

In nutshell we can say that the role of discourse in the production of power abuse remained remarkable throughout the text and the triangular model of van Dijk where cognition, discourse and society, all fit in a frame, is quite befitted in “Hedda Gabler”. The discourse highlights the facts of beliefs, goals, evaluation and emotions including both local micro structure of situated face to face inter-action as well as the macro global and societal structure. And both these macro and micro structures with the help of discourse separate the two different classes of the society.

Works Cited

Ibsen, Henrik, Michael L. Meyer, and David Thomas. Hedda Gabler. London: Methuen Drama, 2002. Print.