以往我國評論界認為,《玩偶之家》從提倡"婦女解放"的角度討論了"社會問題",易卜生是反對"男權主義",為婦女爭取自由的戲劇之先驅。這種解讀當然不無道理,該劇本確實也因此對歐洲,尤其是"五四"時期我國的婦女解放運動產生了廣泛影響。但這種理解只接納了文本的表層含義,沒有揭示"易卜生主義"之本質內涵,也不符合易卜生創作的初衷。實際上,該劇討論的問題已由"婦女解放"等一般"社會問題"上升為超前性、革命性的"關于人類和人類命運"的問題,揭示的是西方傳統文化所面臨的危機以及危機中"人"的覺醒與解放的問題,這才是《玩偶之家》和"易卜生主義"的深層內涵,也是易卜生戲劇之"現代性"特征在文化哲學內涵上的表現。由此而論,我國五四時期思想文化界對《玩偶之家》以及"易卜生主義"的理解與接受存在偏差,值得進一步深入研究與探討。

Critics in China have long held that A Doll’s House discusses "social problems" in terms of promoting "women’s liberation" and Ibsen is the forefather of those plays fighting against "male chauvinism" and for women’s liberty. Surely such an interpretation is justified since the play did exert a wide influence on women’s liberation movements in Europe as well as China, especially during the period of the May Fourth Movement. However, such an interpretation simply accepted the surface meaning of the text but failed in revealing the essential implications of Ibsenism in accordance with Ibsen’s original intentions. Actually, leading from the general "social problems" such as "women’s liberation" to revolutionary issues "about human beings and human destiny" ahead of the time, the play reveals the crisis faced by western traditional culture and the issue of the awakening and liberation of "man" in crisis, which is the deep implication of A Doll’s House and "Ibsenism" and the cultural and philosophical reflection of the "modernity" of Ibsen’s plays. Hence, there is a deviation in the understanding and reception of A Doll’s House and "Ibsenism" by the cultural and philosophical circles in China during the period of the May Fourth Movement, which deserves further investigation and discussion.