Both Orwell and Atwood explore and present how two dystopian societies are completely controlled by different despotic regimes that restrict freedoms. In order to preserve the totalitarian states the secret police in both ‘The Handmaids tale’ and ‘1984’ the secret police invade and terrorise the personal lives of civilians so they are too scared to rebel against their leaders. Written in 1948, Orwell presents ‘1984’ in the future in order to present a message of alarm on the human race due to certain cynical mannerisms he believed would lead to the inevitable demise of humanity. Similarly, Atwood writes ‘The Handmaids tale’ in the near future and also presents a society run purely through dictatorship. Throughout both novels there is a clear restriction on knowledge, but also a restriction on sexual pleasure and in addition there is the idea that one will be punished severely if they speak out/rebel against the government. Essentially there is the recurring theme throught both novels that it is better to conform with the standard of society rather than to resist.
In ‘The Handmaids tale’ the fictional Gilead regime is the controlling system that allows for the restriction of any freedoms of those in society. One prominent restriction in Gilead is the restriction of sexual pleasure for the handmaids. For example if a commander wife is unable to bear childeren a handmaid would therefore need to come and get impregnated to have this child as their sole purpose is the bear childeren without asking questions or rebelling - “their status and purpose [is] made evident and their names formed by ‘of’ and the name of their commander” ~ (Peter G Stillman). This completely accentuates their value to society and reduces them to objects simply used to increase population. In chapter 16 of ‘The Handmaids Tale’ the ceremony impregnation is described where “the two of you will become one flesh, one flower waiting to be seeded.” This is removes any rights for women as they are not allowed to have sex for any sort of pleasure, as it is illegal in Gilead, but instead are completely objectified in an impersonal relationship. If they are found to be having sex for anything other than to populate they would be sent to colonies to be punished. This idea trumps traditional gender roles of society that women would stay at home, clean and look after the children. It goes to the extent to reduce the women to nothing instead of just below the men in society. Thus accentuating how hopeless and helpless the women handmaids were in the dystopian society run purely by men. Subsequently, any resistance from the women would be left futile and made in vain. This point and idea can be accentuated by the views of Micheal Ketterer who believes that “women with viable ovaries become ‘two legged wombs’”. Thus again reducing the women to mere objects instead of equals. This idea of the restriction of sexual pleasure in Gilead was also replicated in ‘1984’ by Orwell with the anti-sex league. This discourages the sexual relations between the youth and promote the idea that sex is only yo procreate instead of something about desire. Perhaps this anti-sex league was another way to indoctrinate the people in society because if you can control a persons desires then you are able to essantially control them as a person which wouldve been the main aim of ingsoc. Therefore, like The Handmaids Tale, 1984 also accentuates this idea that the resisitance of women (in particular) in society was useless because of how little influence they had in society. In addition, these restrictions on the people seen in 1984 would’ve been remiscent of those restrictions from a similar context in Weimar Germany - where sex would not be seen as something coming from desire but instead to increase the German population. This emphasises how the role of women in these two dystiopian societies was almost completely insignificant. Alternatively they could be seen as a pivotal item in society due to their ability to bear childeren but they were not valued people in society. Thus again making any sort of rebellion hopeless and helpless.
Furthermore, in both ‘1984’ and ‘The Handmaids Tale’ there is an element of punishment, particularly to those who chose to go against the regime in power. This is exceptionally prominent in ‘1984’ where Orwell presents “thoughtcrime” as an extreemely renound and egregious crime to commit: he has created an undesireable and terrifying dystopian society where you are restricted in every type of way. Though there are technically no actual laws in ‘1984’, but there are many things in which you can be punished for. A “thoughtcrime” would be one of these things and would be described as something where you think something that would go against the party. Winston, the protagonist, tells us about thoughtcrime in his diary as “whether he went on with the diary, or whether he did not go on with it made no difference. The Thought police would still get him the same.” This together with the idea that a thoughtcrime cannot actually be proven but instead is something that would be decided by the thought police would accentuate the idea that every aspect of a persons life would be restricted. Infact, the character of winston and his diary can be seen as important motifs to embody views and thoughts that went against the party but because of his supposed demise at the end of ‘1984’ it suggests that any resitance to the party would not actually lead anywhere. Winston goes from saying “down with big brother” repetitavely in his diary, to “he loved big brother” at the end of the book: this shows a definitve difference between his thoughts, he went from being an ordinary citizen to a rebel to finally a pawn used by the party. This evident transformation of character may have been done purposefully by Orwell to present a universal feel to the character of winston that anyone reading ‘1984’ could relate to. Furthermore his passionate rebelliousness together with his rebelious relationshipship with Julia would further emphasise the insurgent within him and the extent that he went to go against the party. However he begins to beleive that he is helpless in avoiding his innevitable demise under the party so begins to take unnecessary risks as he is captured in chapter 10 with Julia; “he was looking, with knowledge, at a member of the thought police.” His recklessness with his ‘relationship’ with Julia (which a reader may have thought could’ve blossomed into something) is now over because of him going agaisnst the authority of the party which was considered illegal in Oceania. Orwell makes a point to emphasise how insignificant these acts of resistance were through the use of room 101 where ‘thought-criminals’ would be sent to face their worst fear. For Winston, after he was found to be guilty of “thoughtcrime”, is first beaten, starved and tourtued but he does not have anything positive to say about big brother and still says that he loves Julia (he also does not know “how many times he has been beaten [or] how long the beatings had continued”). But then he is put in room 101 to face “a room full of rats” and only then when he faces his worst fear, he forsakes his love for Julia and devouts himself to big brother - “he loved big brother”. However his fear for room 101 was evident before he went into the room where he would “give up [my] three childeren [and] [...] anything but room 101.” Subsequently it has become clear that there is a differnce between the previous character of winston -that shared his rebellious thoughts within his diary and even to Julia - and this new character of winston that has to conform with the rules of the party or die. But in the end it seems as though his realisation that there is no way out comes too late as “the long-hoped-for bullet was entering his brain.” The ambiguity of this being towards the end of the novel provides two layers of meaning. Firstly there is the idea that he may have been killed due to how rebellious he had been which had brought up great suspicion from the party which left them with no other option but to kill him. And as there is no specific mention that he is left dead, a reader is only left to assume. Alternatively there is the idea that this “bullet” entering his brain was instead metaphorical and was not an actual bullet. It was instead the ideology and beliefs of the party that had plagued his mind and infected his intelligence. Infact due to his previous job being in the ministry of truth he would’ve rewritten history in the way the party desired. But more importantly he had access to all information about the party which put him in a dangerous position in the eyes of party officials which may have been part of the reason they believed he needed some “thought-reform[ing]”. To encapsulate this whole idea, it was said that “it is not always important that individuals reason well, it is sufficient that they reason” (~French philosopher Montesquieu) meaning that it is important for an individual to speak out regardless of the provenance of what is actually being said.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
This idea of a restriction of freedom and punishment used as a deterrent in 1984 thought the use of “room 101” is seen to be similar in ‘The Handmaids Tale’ with “the eyes of god” and “the wall”. Firstly “the eyes” act as the secret police for the republic of Gilead and they are responsible for maintaining law and order but also rooting out infidels and traitors to the tyrannical regime. It is also clear that the handmaids have become untrusting of those in society: even Ofred at one point was sceptical of her ‘walking partner’ Ofglen. But as they cannot actually be seen talking openly as it would show signs of intelligence or knowledge (which was not allowed for women in Gilead), as “they learned to lip read”. This therefore highlights their fear due to the constant fear of the watchful “eyes of god”. But becuase handmaids were not actually able to read or write it procides a hint of irony about the party. In a prodominently christian society, the women were not actually allowed to read the bible so they were living in fear based on indoctrination into beliefs they had no idea or thoughts on. However, “the wall” provided a different form of fear which supressed any type of resistance to the regime that could take place. This is where one would see “six bodies [of] mens salvagings”. Howvever the heads of the men are covered with white bags while one has blood where the mouth would be which reminds Offred of a childs drawing and therefore fertility. This then presents the idea that the regime in Gilead has both removes life and creates it (with the commander impregnating the handmaids). This power shown from those in power portrays the power and influnce of them, to the point that if they do not feel as though you are being a model role in society you could end up like those on the wall, which would make any forn of rebellion utterly futile. In addition the immense showcase of threat from the regime leaves Ofglen looking on in awe, confusion and fear - however it appears as though Offred is immune to the suffering of those she is not emotionally connected with as she does not feel any way about the men being there “as long as it is not luke”. Because of this there then comes the idea that Offred, despite the attempts to strip her of her identity so she is like every other handmaid, still has kept strand of her old self from the pre-Gilead regime society. This would then have likeness to the character of Winston in ‘1984’ where he is forced to stop loving Julia and conform with the ideologies of “big brother”, but instead he sticks to what he believes until he is pushed to his breaking point and put in “room 101” where he can no longer stick to what he knows and is indocrtinated. Which would therefore accentuate the idea that no matter how much you try to fight for what you believe in will all be done in vain because in a dystopian society there is a predestined fate that come with not conforming with any sort of despotic regime which would subsequently be death or rape in handmaids tale or for you to be “reformed” in 1984 which really meant for you to comptely disappear.
In addition to the idea that any form of resistance was hopeless in “The Handmaids Tale”, Atwood also presents the idea that the truth had been re-defined in Gilead so that the handmaids only knew the information that they were told. This was partly due to the fact that they were not allowed to become educated so they had no way of getting their own information but instead were propaganised into believing everything that those in power wanted them to believe. But it is also due to how in chapter 5 Aunt Lydia tells the handmaids that there are two types of freedom, “freedom to [and] freedom from”. Firstly “freedom to” is the idea that women are able to do what they want as they want but she decribes that this was a “pre-gilead” era where womene would have been beaten and raped. Instead she says that within the society of Gilead they now have “freedom from” all of these terrible acts, essentially saying that Gilead is the saviour from sin by putting these women in confinement so that they are ‘safe from it all’. However this is a deciteful character, as on the one hand she is also a woman so she should be able to empathise if not sympathise with the other women easier but she is not able to do this and also sees no wrong in what she is doing. Instead she is tasked with making the women believe everything they are told about freedom which would suggest that Aunt Lydia too is indotrinated by the regime and is stuck in the endless spiral of tyranny. Furthermore, in 1948 the United Nations released a declaration on human rights laws that stressed how ‘everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression’. This right is blatantly ignored with the thoughts on freedom shown in ‘The Handmaids Tale’ which would therefore accentuate the idea that “freedom, like everything else, is relative”. So once you begin to rebel against the regine in power then ones rights will be taken away and they will be left in an abyss of oppression and fear. So therefore Atwood successfully explores the idea that dystopia is the fiction of hopelessness and helplessness instead of resistance.
To return to the idea that you would be oppressed in the society of 1984, this was partially due to the constant survaillence and the watchful eye of “big brother”. This has a grip on the lives of those living in Oceania at the time as citizens were monitored in their house, bathrooms and anywhere else that they went (“there must have been microphones, they’ve heard us all”) - there was literally no such this as privacy. So people would be scared that anything that they did wrong would be seen as they would be put in room 101 for being thought criminals. It even got to the point that people who were not part of the thought police would be saying to one another that one is “a traitor!” and “a thought-criminal!” and “a eurasian spy!” The level of aggression coupled with the simplicity of the remarks made would convey how even the normal people in society were indoctrinated so much that they were now denouncing even those who they know. This idea correlates with China under Mao Zedong where normal citizens would denounce those around them, even family, of crimes they did not commit so that they would be viewed as a model member of society to the regime. Thus therefore again highlighting how there wasnt actually a point in rebelling against those in power because the disruption would be so minute that the secrete police would simply make you disappear making it a hopeless attempt.
Overall, in dystopian societies people are generally seen to conform with the societal standard so they are not dealt with extreemely, however there is always one person (usually the protagonist) who, through their mannerisms, are seen to attempt to go against the dictatorial regime at the time. Both Atwood and Orwell demonstrate this effectively. Atwood effectively conveys an extreeme system that has oppressed the handmaids into loosing their identity and not allowing them to speak out. While Orwell presents a society where someone does actually speak having clear opposing opinions to the regime (Winston) but is found guilty is possibly thought to be dead at the end as a result of his resistance and rebelliousness. Therefore it is clear that both writers have been effective in how they have presented the redundance of resistance in a dystopian society.
Stuck on your essay?
