Reaction to Wild Duck truth vs lie discussion

We had an interesting discussion last Thursday in class regarding the benefits and drawbacks of the differing philosophies of Dr. Relling and Gregers Werle in The Wild Duck. Relling avoids telling his patients the distressing truth about their conditions and instead deliberately manufactures lies to keep them going. Gregers, on the other hand, is more of an idealist and believes that he must break the truth to Hjalmar about his wife, even if such knowledge will initially be distressing to Hjalmar. When Hjalmar eventually learns the truth, he is extremely upset, and his emotions eventually lead to the suicide of his daughter Hedvig. That in The Wild Duck such a destructive act is portrayed as the end result of divulging the truth would suggest that Ibsen was a proponent of the “life-lie.” Ibsen believed, like Relling in the play, that if an individual has a certain truth that is comforting and beneficial to him/her, this truth should be cultivated and encouraged by everyone around the individual, even if the ‘truth’ is actually a fallacy. This is an interesting view on the human experience, as it advocates that comfort and peace of mind are more important than discovering the true nature of our existence. Perhaps Ibsen thought that humans are incapable of handling the truth, and that our very existence depends on the promotion of certain lies. This view is similar to that held by the Grand Inquisitor in The Brothers Karamazov, who criticizes Christ for giving to mankind the concept of freedom, which is a great burden rather than a gift. Thus, freedom and truth, two principles that are commonly connected with happiness (especially in the United States), are portrayed as harmful to the human psyche in The Brothers Karamazov and The Wild Duck, respectively.

I claimed on Thursday that I came out on the side of Gregers, that I would rather know the truth than live a “life-lie.” I’ve done some thinking on this subject over the past few days and my opinion hasn’t really changed, though it’s possible it will change with further life experiences. As Madeleine pointed out in our class discussion, perpetuating lies for sheer comfort or convenience can be destructive, especially if such lies are spread throughout the whole of society. For example, if the government were to falsely claim that a major spill at a nuclear power plant was small and that it would not have any adverse affects on the environment or the communities near the plant simply to pacify the public, such a lie could prevent the appropriate action from being taken to clean up the spill. What is comforting or easy is not always right, and what it right is sometimes difficult to handle, but this should not prevent the truth from coming out. I would much rather be told the truth and act accordingly than be lulled into a blind sense of comfort by fabrications meant to keep me going.