A Comparison of How Orwell and Atwood Present State Control in Their Dystopian Novels, “1984” and “the Handmaid's Tale”.

A comparison of how Orwell and Atwood present state control in their dystopian novels, “1984” and “The Handmaid’s Tale”.

State control is central to both ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ and ‘1984’ for they present totalitarian societies, whose politics is to impose control on the individuals of which they are comprised. Both authors express their concerns for these societies, run by extreme dictators, and how they dehumanise individuals by depriving them of essential freedoms. They are both tales of warning which unfold as the novels progress. Orwell and Atwood introduce the reader to protagonists who have been stripped of their freedom and basic human rights and immediately bring the reader directly into a setting where there is clear evidence of control. The novels present explorations of what freedom means by showing what control does to the protagonists. There are many forms of control but in my opinion, the most significant in both novels are physical, linguistic and sexual. ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ is not a traditional realist novel, it is a first person narrative written in such a way as to deliberately encourage speculation whilst it explores the suffering mind as the plot unfolds. It presents an interior monologue, and as the narrative develops we learn about the protagonist’s life in fragments; both past and present, creating a sense of mystery. We learn as the character learns, emotionally engaging us in the novel. Atwood uses the technique of recall to exaggerate the change in Offred’s past and present lifestyle; i.e. when she was free, before the regime took over. The technique is used from the opening where we are brought into ‘what had once been the gymnasium’. There are frequent, fluent images and connotations of freedom; the individual fashion and eccentric clothing described, the ability to express the self through sex and dancing, and the lingering music, all coupled with the sense of youthful hope and expectations contrast drastically with ‘the army cots that had been set up in rows, with spaces between so [they] could not talk’. Everything is regimented and controlled. As grown adults they are denied human conversation, instead they must remain silent, isolated in their cots whilst the Aunts ‘patrol’. The deliberate, grim description of how the lights are turned down but not turned out is a subtle implication of how they are constantly watched and restrained. This form of control is comparable with the telescreens used by Orwell in ‘1984’. The telescreens are installed everywhere with the intention to spy on people constantly, so that people are denied a basic human freedom. Every action is scrutinised. Thus, the characters in this novel exist in a permanent state of discipline, never even allowing the mind to wander in case it is perceived as ‘thoughtcrime’. We are told by Winston, the focaliser of this omniscient narrative:

“It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander…Your worst enemy was your nervous system”.

The language itself suggests the terror under which all live: ‘dangerous…enemy’. Perhaps, more disturbing still is the reference to ‘your nervous system’ for it shows how to live in Oceania is to live in a constant state of fear, always on guard. Thus, the control exercised upon society is physical – even down to body language for the slightest movement can indicate resistance.

Dystopian novels written about the dangers of totalitarian societies are known to explore the connection between a state’s repression of its subjects and its perversion of language. ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ continues this tradition as Gilead maintains its control over women’s bodies by maintaining control over their names. As it is illegal for the women of Gilead to have jobs, a system of titles is in use to label both men and women. Men are defined by their military rank, whereas women are defined solely by their gender roles as Wives, Handmaids, or Marthas. By stripping them of their names, again the victims of the society have been stripped of their individuality. The Handmaid’s become a possession of their Commanders; Offred is ‘Of-Fred, (Fred being her commander), Ofglen is ‘Of-Glen’ (ie she belongs to the commander Glen).
Orwell also uses language as a form of state control, however he goes to the extremity of constructing a new language, ‘Newspeak’. Newspeak is the official language of Oceania and is engineered to remove all possibilities of rebellious thoughts i.e. thoughtcrime. The language is not a creation of new words, but simply a destruction of old ones, eliminating undesirable words and stripping the remains down as far as possible. Newspeak is designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and therefore making it another form of government control. It is not a language designed to express meaning, more to destroy them.

“Don’t you know the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?”

The idea is to make the Newspeak vocabulary smaller year by year. By the time Newspeak wholly replaced Oldspeak, the expression of any unorthodox view would be virtually impossible. For example, even though they could say the phrase ‘Big Brother is ungood’, the words needed to support their argument plainly would not exist anymore. The control of language eventually controls the mind, limiting how far it can think and ultimately forces people into a blind acceptance of Big Brothers doctrine. By controlling language and therefore limiting the boundaries people can think to, the Party are controlling people from the core.

“You will be hollow. We shall squeeze you empty and then we shall fill you with ourselves”.

The language chosen emphasises the control the state has over the people of Oceania. It is worded in a way to suggest that the victims of the society are not viewed as people by the Party, but merely objects. Orwell uses physical words such as ‘squeeze’ and ‘fill’ to stress the violence that underpins this new world. Through language control, Big Brother suppresses expression and denies individuality, consequently creating clones of obedient followers; “Three hundred million people all with the same face”. They literally take away the freedom of speech. Margaret Atwood creates an adult protagonist with similar levels of responsibilities to that of a child. She is told what she can do and when and where she can do it. Her material luxuries are removed to the point where she has to use butter as a skin moisturiser. She has her meals cooked for her and has no say in what she consumes. Everyday she eats alone in her room and Offred tells us that when her meals are brought to her, she does not eat with a knife; "I have a fork and a spoon, but never a knife… as if I’m lacking manual skills or teeth. I have both, however. That’s why I’m not allowed a knife." It is the simplicity of the writing and language which paradoxically explains the torment inside Offred as her apathetic approach intensifies her anguish. The writing works through understatement and implications, forcing the reader to read between the lines. Suicide can, by some, be viewed as the ultimate level of freedom. Jean Améry, in his book On Suicide: a Discourse on Voluntary Death, provides a moving insight into the suicidal mind. He argues forcefully and almost romantically that suicide represents the ultimate freedom of humanity. Offred’s deprivation of the escape of suicide proves that her life and her body do not belong to her anymore. By controlling suicide, the regime is controlling the epitome of freedom. They have the ultimate control over life; they control suicide, they choose who should be hung on The Wall, and ultimately they control the creation of life aswell. The Handmaid’s bodies become existent solely for the purpose of bearing a child. They have little other lifestyle choices other than that involving sex with the Commander. Interestingly, both Atwood and Orwell use sex as a type of freedom and rebellion in their books. In ‘1984’ the natural impulse of sex and love is controlled and suppressed:

“The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card. We shall abolish the orgasm.”

The vicous words such as ‘eradicated’ and ‘abolish’ reiterate the destruction the Party has caused and the level of control in which they can impose. Winston himself even states that “the sexual act, successfully performed, was rebellion. Desire was thoughtcrime”. This is similar to the situation in ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’. In Gilead it is the notion that sex is fundamentally degrading to women. Corporal punishment and capital punishment are inflicted onto anyone found to be having sex for pleasure. Sex is solely for the purpose of pro-creation, and takes place during a time known as ‘The Ceremony’, between the Commander and his Handmaid. Offred describes the ceremony saying;

"My red skirt is hitched up to my waist, though no higher. Below it the Commander is fucking. What he is fucking is the lower part of my body. I do not say making love, because this is not what he's doing. Copulating too would be inaccurate, because it would imply two people and only one is involved. Nor does rape cover it: nothing is going on here that I haven't signed up for."

This defines accurately what the religious regime of Gilead wants to achieve; the separation of sex from any emotion or desire. She is detached from her body and any emotion and this is demonstrated through the crude use of the word ‘fucking’. She speaks about ‘the lower part of [her] body’ as if it were someone else’s and composes simplistic sentences again to display paradoxically the disturbance felt. Love and desire are inscribed human emotions and thus pose the most threat to the regime leaders. Through love and sex, people find companionship and support, and the ability to express their emotions. By forbidding sexual freedom and removing all pleasure from sexual acts, the idea is that the victims of the society focus their energy on the goals of the regimes, and therefore conform under state control. Sex and relationships threatened the party in ‘1984’ because ‘the sex instinct create[d] a world of its own’. The society was ‘made this way to prevent loyalties, and install the belief that one only needed the Party to survive, as single people can be more vulnerable and isolated’. Interestingly though, both protagonists engage in affairs; Offred with Nick, and Winston with Julia. Their affairs are their only sense of freedom and the foundation of their insurgence. Together they feel emancipated to rebel against the regime; the exact reason why the Party attempted to suppress such happenings as now, all of a sudden, the people have hope and are beginning to think for themselves again. Things such as love and lust are natural instincts and inscribed emotions and simply cannot be controlled. The Regime’s attempt to suppress involuntary feelings was inevitably unattainable. In the nineteenth century, the work of Charles Darwin on animal and human emotions tended to support the view that physical expressions might be biologically inherited. He says that ‘the young and the old from widely different races, express the same state of mind by the same movements’. Love, and such feelings, are universal emotions and ‘reflex actions’ and although it may be possible to influence what people say and how people think, the way people feel is a personal instinct and cannot be dictated. Both protagonists attempt to attain freedom yet Atwood deliberately makes the ending of ‘A Handmaid’s tale’ ambiguous, leaving the conclusion subject to the readers interpretation; did she or did she not escape? Using the symbolism of light and dark, it is not clear whether ‘the darkness within’ is symbolic of death and ending, proving she was ultimately betrayed and therefore the regime conquered, or if the darkness is her escape, eventually bringing about the light. However, the ending to ‘1984’ is definitively pessimistic. In attempt to recapture freedom, Winston is defeated. He becomes in a way the ‘ideal student’, conforming to the regime and accepting and believing in the doctrine. He bows down in loyalty and adoration of Big Brother, showing that he is now part of the regime; it is in him. Orwell’s final line, ‘He loved Big Brother’, cynically ends the book on a note of horror; totalitarian societies and state control can overpower and conquer and crush an otherwise civilised world.

Anna Kaczmarczyk
2060