I
feel that the Republic of Gilead, featured in Margaret
Atwood's novel "The Handmaid's Tale", is not a successful
dystopia. It doesn’t lack in qualities that we can easily
recognize as dystopian, of course – in Gilead citizens are
mistreated for the benefit of the ruling class, dissenters and
dangerous ideas are sniffed out with a very effective surveillance
network (e.g. the Eyes) and then quickly dealt with, etc. Despite
all this, we know from the ending of the book that Gilead eventually
falls. So what could be the problem?
Gilead
is not a stable dystopia. In the long term, I think that its model
for how society operates is not sustainable, since its citizens are
actually not brainwashed enough. To some extent, they are
conditioned to hold the beliefs of their leaders. This can be seen
when the Japanese tourists visit, and the Handmaids feel that they
are dressed inappropriately. But this conditioning falls short of
convincing everyone that they are truly happy in their stations in
life. From the small slice of Offred’s life we get a glimpse of,
we can see plenty of folks who are miserable and skeptical of the
idea that they are benefiting from their current situation, or that
it was better than before.
The
Handmaids, especially Offred, are an obvious example. From looking
into her inner thoughts we can see how she yearns for her old life
and her path to eventual rebellion. Ofglen’s situation is similar.
For these people, who are most affected by the new system, it is
easy to tell why their situations led them to rebel. But I’d also
argue that the Commanders (or perhaps the ones who aren’t close to
the top) are unhappy in their own way, despite supposedly helping to
build Gilead. This can be seen with the Commander Fred, whose
loneliness prompts him to make private visits with Offred. In
addition, the Commanders are not immune in society – they may be
put under review for violations of the rules and subsequently
punished.
If
people are not happy in a society, it follows that they will rebel in
some fashion or another. I think that in the situation taking place
in “The Handmaid’s Tale”, the broad unhappiness amongst various
classes of people led to the dissolution of Gilead – the event
talked about in the history lecture at the end of the book. Do you
think my assessment is correct? What are your thoughts?
This is true, however I wonder whether Gilead would have succeeded if the people were truly brainwashed. For example, we saw Offred and friends constantly reminiscing about how things "used to be". If these memories were forgotten in future generations, would the dystopia exist for much longer? I think that in the book, Gilead does go on for a few generations, however the people were still dissatisfied. This makes me wonder to what standard did the newer generations hold of their life since they didn't have any previous experiences to compare with? Perhaps word of mouth stories, or foreign influences.
ReplyDeleteI think the points you made are valid. There is widespread discontent at least from the range of characters that we have encountered in the text. I also think your point that they would likely rebel is a valid one. But that does bring up the question of why they haven't rebelled yet. Or why hasn't the world order changed yet? Who's the real ones in power and are they reaping all of the benefits? I'm not entirely sure of the answer, but I definitely rethought the power structure of Gilead when Commander Fred at the end was essentially powerless in front of the Eyes taking Offred away. Maybe there is a higher power that is benefiting from this world order and is indirectly asserting their dominance
ReplyDeleteI do think that Gilead probably came apart due to general civic unrest and rebellion because people weren’t happy in the society. However, I want to also say that the Gilead‘ s collapse can also be blamed on how implausible future in Gilead is. Mostly, I was skeptical of how the society would promote the birth of health children. If the majority of the society is sterile or messed up because of radiation and in addition, the birth rate is capped at a natural level (I.e. no mass production of children like in the world state) I really can’t see the population growing. The diminishing population combined with general unhappiness would undoubtedly have undermined and destroyed Gilead.
ReplyDeleteI agree that happiness is crucial for the success of a society. The Republic of Gilead lacked satisfaction for various power groups. I tend to overlook the situation for the Commanders because, like you said, there is definitely a case for them being equally unhappy. The Handmaids are surprisingly not the only group with thoughts of rebellion. Great assessment!
ReplyDeleteI think the Republic of Gilead only came about because the previous society was declining at a rapid rate. The general framework for the society was based on the need for the survival of the human race, but when the higher-ups made the society they obviously forgot to consider the happiness of their citizens. If the Republic of Gilead had considered this basic fact, it may have survived and been a more stable dystopia.
ReplyDeleteI still think Gilead was a successful dystopia, even if not perfect. It lasted for hundreds of years and it managed to control the people's day-to-day lives pretty fully. People might have had rebellious thoughts and feelings, but overall those were pretty ineffectual. We can look back and say Gilead isn't sustainable, but it did sustain itself for a while. You wouldn't call the Roman Empire unsuccessful just because it eventually ended.
ReplyDeleteI guess the "success" of a dystopia is dependent upon the lens we view it from. Because Offred is so anti-Gilead, we see the world from the perspective that things in the society are less than perfect. If we see things from the Commanders, perhaps we'd encounter a more positive view of the dystopic world. Ultimately, the society should be viewed as what it is, not in a utopian/dystopian context.
ReplyDeleteI think it depends on what you mean by a "successful" dystopia. I think the two words definitely contradict each other. It seems like what you mean is a dystopia which is viewed as a successful society by the people in power. I guess in that case it's not successful, because, like you said, it's not stable. For someone who is invested in the society, the way it turns out wouldn't exactly be successful. At the same time though, anyone who is invested in keeping the Gilead society, wouldn't be calling it a dystopia because they wouldn't perceive it as a dystopia. I think it's definitely a little confusing!
ReplyDeleteI think a major flaw of Gilead is that it runs on fear, and the controlling nature that fear has on the population. Fear in general is just not a very reliable way to control a country though, as no one truly believes in the cause, they just want to survive. To have a truly "successful" Gilead, the citizens would have to be truly indoctrinated in Gilead's beliefs, which I guess would have worked for kids born into Gilead or who were very young when Gilead was founded, but for people who remember life before, the hope of things returning back to normal will always crush the fear that the government instills.
ReplyDeleteThis idea that this society would become accepted based only on fear is one of the most unrealistic things presented in the book. If something along the lines of the governmental takeover happened in our society, I believe the population would fully rise up against the oppressors instead of giving up and accepting the changes.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to consider the realism of different dystopias we have read. I think one of the critical differences we pointed out is the scope of the book between BNW and handmaids tale. One is early when people remember a different way while the other is lifetimes after takeover. I've been thinking a lot about if people would rebel in the early stages or late, and comparing the depiction in these books.
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely correct. Gilead must have come apart by means of some civil unrest that occured when some secret group opposing Gilead rose up similarly to the way Gilead rose up originally to defeat Gilead. That dissatification is there, as often stated in the book, but the ability to rise up is not. Time could change the latter.
ReplyDeleteThe idea around which Gilead was founded makes sense: the human race has to continue living on when fertility becomes rare. However, the way in which it was excuted was horrible. In the fall of Gilead, I think morality outweighed the unhappiness brought by it. Unhappiness is acceptable to a degree in such situations. However, the structure of Gilead and what it deemed okay is terrible. No such society should have existed, and as we saw at the end of the book, it was eventually brought down.
ReplyDeleteYour assessment seems entirely right to me - the freedom of thought (however limited it may be) will always serve to undermine oppression. It would still be interesting though to see exactly what caused the fall of Gilead, I don't remember there being any specific details in the book. I'd be especially interested to see how the unique dissent of the separate groups (handmaids, commanders, aunts, etc.) contributed differently to the eventual decline of the society.
ReplyDelete