For section one
What do you think Atwood’s view of society (or what it can/may potentially become) is, as revealed thus far in the book? How does she present this new society; what are the contrasts with our own?
posted by nin the bean @ 7:48 PM
2 Comments:
I’ve only read up to page 40, but so far Atwood reveals an altogether bleak view of society and especially women’s roles in it. The book contemplates how women may lose control of their own bodies, and it seems that this issue could indirectly relate to that of abortion. When the book was written in 1985, Roe v. Wade was still fairly recent (well, a decade or so is semi-recent...). As they still do today, debates abounded over how much control women would be given: should they be able to decide whether or not they are going to have a child? While the book never directly mentions it, I believe Atwood is insinuating what may happen if our society allows itself to move in a direction in which rights that women have regarding their bodies, such as abortion, are taken away from them; it may come to the point that, as in the book, women are not even allowed to decide with whom they wish to mate. On this note, I think it is also significant that the novel takes place in The Republic of Gilead, for I found out from the website http://www.keyway.ca/htm2001/20010827.htm that Gilead is actually a Biblical place in which many important events took place and many significant people from the Bible were born- the prophet Elijah, King Jehu of Israel, etc. Perhaps, then, Atwood is subtly suggesting what could come of our society if the Church was allowed to take control; after all, the church is strongly against abortion. Hence, if the Church were able to do away with abortion, society could be reduced to the state in which it is in the novel, one in which women have virtually no rights to decide what is best for their bodies. Furthermore, according to the Bible, women should be submissive to men in all accords, something which is clearly a foundation for Atwood’s society. Take, for example, this quotation from the Bible that mandates the dominance of males: “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing” (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/womens_rights.html). Thus, perhaps Atwood is also commenting on what could happen in our society if men are given the dominant role as the Church dictates, and how demeaning and atrocious this would be for women. This could also relate to what was occurring at the time that the book was being written: in the early 1980s, women were still fighting for the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment which would give women and men equal rights, but it met with much resistance from politicians like Ronald Reagan, and so women were unable to pass the amendment in the House of Representatives in 1983 (http://www.now.org/issues/economic/cea/history.html#1980). Because the amendment was not passed and women were still not guaranteed the same rights as men, Atwood could very well be suggesting the dramatic results of a world that allows for the subordination of one gender toward another.
The book also seems to be commenting on a fundamental flaw in our society: this propensity to be manipulated by the government. The level of regimentation in the fictitious society created by Atwood seems almost reflective of fascism or some form of military-style, dictator-type rule where every minute detail of the people’s lives was controlled. The people in Atwood’s tale allowed themselves to be manipulated to this point; they show no signs of trying to rebel against the system that has been set up and in which they are in bondage. Aunt Lydia seems to be the “voice” of the society and government, an almost ubiquitous presence that gently tries to coax everyone into believing in the justness of this corrupt system: “In the days of anarchy, it was freedom to. Now you are being given freedom from” (33), she declares. Everyone is so easily brainwashed by this wheedling, and even if they don't agree with it, no one speaks up against it. Those that are in disagreement remain silent; Offred comments of Ofglen, “She may be a real believer, a Handmaid in more than name” (26); no one could tell who the dissenters were because they had to keep quiet about their views.
The dichotomy between the society described by Atwood and that of modern day is interesting because it describes the latter from a foreign stand point, and renders an everyday image into something peculiar and strange. We would never think of wearing high heels and lipstick as something foreign, but the way in which Offred describes it—“They wear lipstick, red, outlining the damp cavities of their mouth” (38) makes it seem so bizarre. Similarly, Offred declares with awe that it had been so long since she had last seen skirts that “short,” but the skirts worn by the tourists were below the knee, a length which is very long by our standards. She also thinks, “…I used to dress like that. That was freedom,” (38), and from this one can sense the striking discord in our perceptions and theirs. Wearing skirts below the knee isn’t freedom to us, it is a right, and furthermore, a skirt of that length today would never be given a second glance. That would seem very prim to us. I get the sense that there is some sort of “Enjoy your life while you can” theme running through the novel, for the women of the Republic all had fairly happy lives before their livelihoods were snatched away from them—Offred often thinks wistfully of her prior life with Luke, when they dreamed of buying a house together, a “freedom that now seems weightless” (32) she laments. Again, there is that almost sinister idea that our lives can change for the worse so quickly, and that everything that once brought us joy can be snatched away.
To comment on a few specific aspects of Atwood’s society, it is disgusting how women are treated like objects. Offred says that because Nick, one of the Guardians, was of lower social standing, he “hasn’t been issued a woman” (24), as if women are things to be given out to men. The only power that the women had was that of seduction, which Offred uses to her advantage when she walks by the Guardians, in order to make the men suffer. It also seems as if the society created by Atwood is almost inhuman—there is no happiness or pleasure, and everything about it is mechanical. Even the conversations are almost like broken records, their words pre-chosen: “Blessed be the fruit;” “praised be” they say often and without thought. There is no real human contact among them; Offred herself proclaims that she “hunger [s] to commit the act of touch,” (14), as if physical contact among humans is not something that occurs in this Republic. She also comments on how “the way men caress good cars” (23) hasn’t changed, but this same type of caressing is conspicuously absent between man and woman. Everything is simply so perfect on the outside that the town looks like a “museum” (31), with the perfect houses and lawns, but without any human life.
-As a side note, I forgot how to post the websites as links! Maybe someone can help me with this later...
Upon reading the next chapter, I'm not so sure the book is making any sort of comment on the Church; after all, it says the church in the town is now used as a museum. If there is no connection, why would Atwood have named the town Gilead? I feel like it must have been intentional. What do you guys think?
Post a Comment
<< Home