Thursday, November 17, 2011

Threats Keeping Gilead Alive


The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood is a novel that made me realize how lucky we are to live in the United States today. We are entitled to so many freedoms that we take for granted. Walking down the street is a right we are allowed that other societies do not permit, especially the one depicted in this book. The Handmaid’s Tale is set in the Republic of Gilead, formerly the United States. The society is kept in place because there are so many threats that keep people from rebelling. While 1984 by George Orwell is set back thirty years from now, this novel is set a lot closer to our time. Atwood makes many references to styles and trends that are similar to those we agree with today, such as the use of cars and televisions.  It is hard to believe that a society so similar to ours could be so quickly transformed into a metropolis ruled by threats and isolation, as depicted in this novel. Atwood shares the power of threats and the role of dehumanization in The Handmaid’s Tale by showing how threats prevent the demoralized handmaids from rebelling and keep the society in general running smoothly, however, there are many flaws in the system that could have potentially led to the downfall of the republic of Gilead.

Almost every day that Offred and Ofglen go into town to run errands, they stop at the Wall for reflection. This Wall is old and unattractive and serves as place for bodies after they have been hanged. Even though you would think that no one would want to visit this spectacle, the handmaids stop by it because it is an excuse for them to be away from home for longer. Offred remarks that, “sometimes [the bodies] will be there for days, until there’s a new batch, so as many people as possible will have the chance to see them” (42). The bodies are there as an example of what happens to rebels in Gilead. There is no tolerance for acting out and if you are caught, you are executed for all to see. 

Although in 1984, everything from the past is erased and forgotten, there is a faint memory of it in The Handmaid’s Tale. Even if they had jobs that were legal before the regime took over, it still haunts them. Offred acknowledges this by stating, “These men, we’ve been told, are like war criminals. It’s no excuse that what they did was legal at the time: their crimes are retroactive” (43). How are men and women supposed to move forward with their lives if their past haunts them? In a society like Gilead, everything from the past is supposed to be forgotten, yet it is impossible when individuals can be prosecuted for what they did before the regime was in place. The wall is a successful way for the regime to keep power over the handmaids and other citizens who may be considering rebelling against society. There is a constant reminder of what could happen if you get caught that keeps many men and women in line.

As I read The Handmaid’s Tale, I was especially interested in the differences between Orwell’s novel and Atwood’s. While both novels made it clear that people not of wealthiest class or highest social standing were supposed to be isolated and only have business relationships, the handmaids were forced to travel in pairs for their own protection. Although they were only supposed to say things like, “Blessed be the fruit,” minor communication turned into much more as the handmaids became closer with their partners (19). Offred and Ofglen quickly formed a relationship that, had Ofglen not been relocated, could have made both handmaids rebel from their positions and have put them both in a dangerous position in society. Although it seems that partnerships of women could not have gathered together and rebelled, I think their potential power cannot be underestimated, especially if other women were feeling the same about their positions as handmaids.

Throughout the text, Offred refers to the fact that she is not using her real name, yet never shares it with the audience. I understand that the handmaids must have their names changed because then it is much more difficult for them to find anyone from their past life, but I think this is cruel. They are separated from their friends, families, and now, the only thing left is their identity. The women are taken from their homes and are forced to have sex with strangers.

The back cover of The Handmaid’s Tale makes note of the dehumanization of the handmaids by describing their sole task as, “[lying] on [their] backs once a month and pray[ing] that the Commander makes her pregnant, because in an age of declining births, Offred and the other Handmaids are valued only if their ovaries are viable.” They are seen as less than human, as incubators, in fact. This dehumanization is just a part of society that no one else seems to have a problem with.

When Offred first meets Serena Joy, the commander’s wife, she acknowledges their situation and remarks, “As for my husband, he’s just that. My husband. I want that to be perfectly clear. Till death do us part. It’s final” (23). Serena Joy knows that Offred and her husband will be engaging in a previously intimate act that is now just a task that must be completed. Nonetheless, she treats Offred like a child who does not understand the sanctity of marriage or a commitment. I find it shocking how except for Moira and a few other characters, no one attempts to take a stand against society. This is a testament to the fear the regime has placed in the handmaids as a result of threats.

The Handmaid’s Tale shows how powerful threats can be, especially in a society as structured as Gilead. The fear that the regime instilled in the already insecure handmaids kept them from even attempting to rebel. By reducing the once self-sustaining women to the dehumanizing role as incubators, very few handmaids had the confidence to escape the regime. This novel makes the reader feel sorry for Offred and the other handmaids, and makes me take a step back and enjoy the various freedoms that I am entitled to that many of the characters of this book had taken away from them.

No comments:

Post a Comment