The Handmaid's Tale: Political Parallels? (unboxed spoilers)

In My Humble Opinion
1

The discussion involves the film version of The Handmaid’s Tale, by Margaret Atwood. It was made back in the eighties by HBO pictures, and starred Natasha Richardson and Robert Duvall.

  1. The opening scene has Richardson and her family attempting to escape the evil Republic of Gilead by night; it is snowing, and we know they’re headed north. Upon entering the heavily guarded border area, her husband is shot dead, and her little girl taken from her; she is shuttled off to a Handmaid Reeducation Center.

Conclusion: South is the evil theocracy of Gilead, run by Nazilike politician-preachers whose legal code is drawn straight from the Old Testament. North, where it is snowy and cold, is some other country where Gileadean law does not apply; Canada, possibly, or perhaps the US has fragmented into two or more countries.

  1. Early in the film, we hear a news broadcast about resistance to the forced relocation of “The Sons Of Ham,” accompanied by footage of black folks being forced onto a freight truck by riot cops with clubs.

Conclusion: In the Bible, Ham was the son of Noah, who supposedly was turned black by God as a punishment for making fun of his old man. In Gilead, black folks lack political power, and are apparently viewed as troublemakers, and can be pushed around with impunity by the ruling party.

  1. During one of the reeducation sessions at the Handmaids’ Reeducation Center, the issue of abortion is brought up; the docent talks about how the issue was once “freedom to choose,” but things are better now, because we have “freedom FROM choice;” decisions are made by the ruling party, thus making the lower classes even more free. Some of the political prisoners at this session dismiss this; others embrace it.

Conclusion: The ruling class wishes to remove power from the lower classes, and make decisions as to how they should live. Some people will think this is a cool idea, no matter how the ruling class screws them sideways.

  1. Robert Duvall’s character is the only member of the ruling party we meet. He is clever, personable, and not a member of the clergy, although he can quote Scripture, and is plainly a very religious man – at least, in appearance. Later, however, we discover that the ruling party has its own private vice dens, partly for fun and partly for networking purposes – the plebes don’t even know the places exist, but the ruling class often holds informal meetings there.

Conclusion: The ruling party is big on appearances as far as keeping the common folks fooled and in line, but they don’t hold themselves accountable to the same laws or morals… at least in private. They make a big public show of being deeply religious, while making decisions that directly contradict those supposed beliefs.

  1. At one point, a political prisoner we met earlier is brought before the assembled Handmaids at the center; he’s obviously been tortured and beaten stupid, but he’s conscious, and has been dressed as a police guard, for some reason, even though he isn’t one. The docent tells the assembled handmaids that this man is a guard who raped a pregnant Handmaid, who then miscarried. The assembled Handmaids, whipped into a fury, are then permitted to fall upon the man and tear him apart with their bare hands.

Conclusion: The ruling party lies like crazy in order to manipulate the reason and emotions of the plebes. Most of them seem to believe it, and act accordingly. Those who don’t are singled out as “suspicious characters.”

  1. In a scene that’s not in the book, we hear a brief snippet during a newscast in the background of one scene where the newscaster is talking about military action against “Baptist guerrillas in the Black Hills.” These guerrillas are apparently responsible for a series of bombings in Gilead.

Conclusion: The ruling party is carrying on a war against terrorists of some sort. They are apparently terrorists because their religious faith is not that of the ruling party of Gilead, or at the very least, religion has something to do with it. We do know that bombs are being set off in public places, but it is unclear whether the guerrillas are actually doing it, and why; it could be a political resistance, it could be a religious war, or the Gileadean government could be doing it to keep the people scared; we never do find out.

  1. It is made clearer in the book than in the movie, but education is at a premium in Gilead; most people’s education is minimal, and the next generation is being brought up largely illiterate. Signs in stores and on streets are nontextual, being more symbolic or simply illustrated, instead.

Conclusion: Public education funding is largely nonexistent, except for the kids of the ruling class; presumably, there are private schools for them. The implication is that an uneducated plebe class is more easily controlled.

…now, am I the only one seeing some parallels between this stuff and the Bush administration? Or am I just bein’ paranoid? :confused:

2

I can’t say I really see the parallel between this and Bush (though I am definitely not a Bush supporter), but the main message I got out of the book (didn’t see the movie, but I’d assume it’s similar) is that there is freedom to choose and freedom from the consequences of having to choose. Basically the ruling party, the Gileadans or whatever, made life simpler in many ways for the people by simply making their choices for them. Thus woman were safe walking down streets no matter what time of the day. There was no crime (or at least none other than political rebellion). But on the flipside women and men had one or two basic paths they could take.
Is the movie good? I didn’t even know they made a movie. I just started reading some Atwood recently. Quite good. Oh, and in the book, they pretty much state that North was Canada, or at least somewhere north of Maine.

3

Probably not and yes.

4

Not sure Robert Duvall ever made a bad movie. It wasn’t as good as the book, of course, but it did an excellent job, for a made-for-cable movie, of getting the basics across. I’d highly recommend it as ancillary material to the book.

Yes, I know, I’m bein’ paranoid… or at least a little facetious… but after reading the thread about the supposed exodus of Americans to Canada because Bush won the election, durned if I didn’t get to thinking…

…and the post above is what resulted…

5

Of COURSE there are parallels! Margaret Atwood is not the most subtle writer around, and the entire story is an obvious left-wing parable.

So, to the OP, yes, you’re paranoid if you see even the slightest connection between the book and reality. But you’re no more deluded than Atwood herself.

6

Honestly, I think that trying to draw conclusions from the film version is kind-of pointless. Most of what you’ve asked was explained handily in the book, as I’m certain you well know. For those who are less well (or adequately) read, though, I’ll elaborate:

1.) North is Canada. And, well, it makes sense. How many other times in history have groups of people–from escaped slaves to draft dodgers–from the US fled to Canada? I mean, hell, if you read the expanded notes that come with the newer edition of the books, you find out that the town that Offred and the Commander are in is Cambridge, MA. Hardly Dixieland.

2.) In the book, it’s made pretty clear that Gilead is very white Christian based. The “Children of Ham,” as the book calls them, are relocated for either farming or a concentration camp–that part is unknown to Offred, and thus unknown to the reader.

3.) The “freedom from” is actually a damn creepy extension of feminism, for the most part. Women are free from assault, from objectification. . .all at the expense of their freedom to choose. I think that it reflects more on the nature of narrow-minded groups than on any sort of “the upper class controls the lower class” kind of thing.

4.) I think that it’s more of a “power corrupts” thing. They may have acquired power with the best of intentions. . .and suddenly found themselves with the power to have harems and luxuries beyond imagining. Like most human beings, they submitted. . .and, like most human beings, they lied their asses off above it. Absolute power and all that.

5.) What you’ve said is true. . .but you can also think of it as bread and circuses. You give the populace someone to cheer for or someone to deride, and they do it with all their zeal. It’s a form of emotional release used as emotional control. The Handmaids–who really get the shittiest deal of the whole society save Unwomen–do this because it directs their anger away from the government. That the man was a political prisoner was simply convenient–it disposed of a rebellious individual–possibly one who held some Gileadian rank–without many questions.

6.) I can’t disagree what you said here. You get the impression in the movie–which is what you are critiquing–that the resistance is very real, and that Gilead is about to fall apart. In the book, you get the impression from the epilogue that Gilead lasted for several generations. It’s a bit fuzzier there.

7.) Education is limited because it keeps people easier to control.

As to whether you’re the only person to see ties between the novel and the way things are now. . .you’re not. I’m sure that many, many people have noted the connection. The novel to a large extent involved a massive rise of evangelical Christianity, a movement which has grown stronger–or at least more visible–since the book was written. There are going to be parallels on a smaller scale. As to whether we’re headed there. . .I think that, to a large extent, many of the things in the novel are improbable or impossible now. The conquering of women, for instance, would not be tolerated by society at large, at least not at this time. Maybe it would’ve been more likely when Atwood wrote the book, but I can’t remember (I was only 2 or 3 at the time).

So in short, you’re being a bit paranoid, yes. Don’t worry; it’s healthy.

7

But the book wasn’t written that long ago, was it? Sometime in the eighties, I think.

8

I reread the book recently, and was surprised by how easily the takeover of society was accomplished. Got me worrying…but not about the Bush administration. Or any administration.

9

The Handmaid’s Tale describes a patriarchal religious state that bears little resemblance to existing North American political systems. However, every aspect of society in The Handmaid’s Tale parallels what already exists in contemporary society. As speculative as Atwood’s dystopia is, it is built from patriarchal structures that already exist, such as religious fundamentalism, tribalism, and totalitarianism. IToday this strikes a chord because in both Gilead and Bush’s America, the state preys on the fears of its citizens. Here is my take on the novel in full: http://my.tbaytel.net/culpeper/RecognitionAndRejectionOfVictimizationInTheNovelsOfMargaretAtwood.html#Darkening_Vision_of_a_New_World_Dystopia

10

A non-political detail Atwood correctly predicted was the rise of the debit card or “cash card”. We’re not a cashless society yet, but I don’t think these cards even existed when she wrote the novel so it was a good guess. An early step in Gilead’s plan to reduce women to second-class citizens was to make it so that the cash cards had to be in a man’s name, making financial independence impossible for women.

11

I must respectfully beg to differ, just a little.

Haven’t read the novel lately, and I remember the film better than the novel… but the film portrays Gilead as your basic fascist police state. The patriarchal religious structure isn’t much more than an overlay to justify the actions of the ruling class. The implication of the nightclub… and the use of political prisoners for forced prostitution… is that the ruling class doesn’t actually believe in the stuff they’re foisting on the masses; it’s all nonsense, to strengthen their hold on power and justify what they do.

“The Divine Right of Fascist Dictatorships,” so to speak.

Been hearing quite a bit of nonsense that supposedly justifies what we’re doing in other countries, as of late.

12

Debit cards existed when the novel was written, but most places, they were useless except for getting cash out of ATMs; businesses wouldn’t accept them yet. Still, it doesn’t take much imagination to predict what would happen with that. When I read the novel, my first thought was, “And no one objected when they cut the women off from the right to own property and shuffle money?”

13

Here is a nice summary by Dalhousie law prof Philip Girard on how husbands legally controlled women’s finances in Canada until the 1880s. http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:P4_-DY6hoD8J:www.queermarriage.com/PhilipGirardaffidavit.pdf+“doctrine+of+coverture”+quebec&hl=en&start=1&ie=UTF-8

A terrific person to speak to about the Doctrine of Coverature as it applied in Ontario (Atwood’s province), is Ottawa prof Connie Backhouse, whose article “Married Women’s Property Law in Nineteenth-Century Canada.” Law and History Review 6, 2 (1988), 213, is well worth reading.

14

My understanding of The Handmaid’s Tale was that it was written in part as an allegorical response to the rise of the post-Shah Islamic theocray in Iran (which, IIRC, had just happened around the time the book was written). Atwood made it clear in the book that Gilead was the continental US, and the the country to the north was Canada. But aside from being a commentary on some of the more extreme aspects of evangelical Christianity, and an expression of what she felt was a growing backlash over feminism, I don’t think she intended to claim that this was the necessarily the direction the US was going, nor do I see significant parallels with the current presidential administration. To put the sort of repressive state in place that was described in Atwood’s book, IMO, would require a violent religion-based civil conflict that does not seem to be in the offing.

My personal impression was that the book was intended more as a framework for discussion about the hypocrisies inherent in a basing political governance on fundamentalist religious principles (such as the constant demand of the masses to push away their natural or “base” desires, but with considerable slack given to the rulling elite) and to make the salient point that any form of government that does away with at least a representative democracy has the same potential for abuse as any other repressive, totalitarian regime, no matter what the underlying principles.