You & I, Amplified: Craziness and Individuality in the Dystopian World of ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’

Recently we’ve begun our study of Margaret Atwood’s ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ in English Lit classes. This article is about something that came up in discussion when my English group looked at the first two chapters of the novel, which I have then elaborated on (unfortunately, I’m afraid these elaborations are likely to be highly incoherent, so be prepared!). We were discussing dystopian fiction and social satires through looking at these chapters and the epigrams at the start of the book, and got onto the question of what exactly is Gilead. Yes, it’s a dystopian world set in the future, but it is by no means alien: Atwood clearly bases it on precepts in the current world like government surveillance, the role of women in society and the Biblical concepts that Gilead is founded on. She herself in fact wanted this novel to be called ‘speculative fiction’ and not science fiction. So is this dystopian world really so far from what we live in now?

The fact is, Gilead is not that different from the current world, and this is what makes it so chilling. It is the present day world, with all its imperfections and prejudices, amplified. The different factions of men and women are basically an exaggerated version of the separation of social classes and clique-y labels; the slogans and catchphrases used to promote the regime are similar to the rhetoric of advertising in our capitalist culture; and the delegation of jobs (men as ‘Commanders’, controlling state affairs and business, or as Angels/Guardians [army, policing or manual work]; women as household maids and reproduction vessels) are really, unfortunately, only an amplified version of the typified gender-occupation divide in the world today.

It’s shocking how grotesque the world looks when exaggerated in this way.

One of the characters enforcing the new Gilead law is Aunt Lydia, who says:

"Ordinary … is what you are used to. This may not seem ordinary to you now, but after a time it will. It will become ordinary."

Surely this means that anything, however seemingly outrageous, crazy, unjustified, etc, can become ‘normal’ and accepted within time. How, then, does one decipher the difference between what is normal and what is abnormal, what is acceptable and what is not? How can one draw the line between the possible and the impossible? The world of Gilead may seem like a nightmare alternative reality, but is it really beyond the realms of possibility?

This reminded me of a quote from ‘Girl, Interrupted’, when Susanna is contemplating whether or not she was actually ever ‘crazy’:

"Was I ever crazy? Maybe. Or maybe life is. Crazy isn’t being broken, or swallowing a dark secret – it’s you or me, amplified."

Is this really all that ‘crazy’ or ‘abnormal’ is – ordinary, amplified? Taking a person or a concept or a set of principles and augmenting them? If you think about it, it makes sense. Aren’t people who are considered ‘mad’ just ordinary people, but with one or more characteristic or emotion within themselves magnified? Take bi-polars for example: everyone experiences moodswings between happiness and sadness; the cycles between mania and depression are surely more defined versions of these. And anorexics: everyone experiences some lack of confidence with regards to their body-image at some time during their life; anorexics have a more in-depth, concentrated version of this. Of course this is a generalisation, and I am by no means attempting to ‘simplify’ or belittle any mental illnesses here, far from it, but it is a notable general trend.

And so the question can be asked ‘what is normal?’ with regards to craziness. The saying goes that ‘everyone’s a little bit crazy’ – and so they should be! This ‘craziness’ is just a little bit of our personality, typical of human beings, that has been magnified out of proportion and is turned into a ‘quirk’ or trait. And, as ‘ordinary is what you’re used to’, this state of mind will seem normal to the individual experiencing it, as they don’t know of a different mind set. And thus individuality is born!

In ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’, individuality is repressed: everyone is prescribed a delegated uniform, code of conduct, manner of speech, etc. It gets to the stage where Offred, the main protagonist, feels that she even has to control her thoughts:

‘Like other things now, thought must be rationed. There’s a lot that doesn’t bear thinking about. Thinking can hurt your chances, and I intend to last.'

This is because thinking can give her away; betray her individuality, and her will for rebellion and freedom against the oppressive Gilead system. Her feelings – her individual amplified quirks interacting and responding to her surroundings, put into words inside her head – are dangerous because they betray her individual ‘craziness’, her personal amplifications, and this is exactly what the Gilead regime wishes to repress. Offred is afraid that if she accidently voices her innermost thoughts (which would mostly be considered treasonous), she will be punished for working against a system that enforces uniform roles, and treats women more as child-bearing machines than as people.

And this is where the Gilead world becomes a true dystopia. Whilst our current Western world may not exactly be a constant celebration of individuality, especially with the rise of consumerist culture, it is certainly a world where people’s differing dynamics are taken into account and used for the advantage of society as a whole. If you are good at a particular skill, for instance, photography, you are able to use that skill to your own personal advantage, through making money out of it or simply enjoying it as a hobby, and to the advantage of society as a whole, providing art for people. People are able to specialise within almost every different area of work ('the division of labour’, as it’s known by economists), so people make the most of their ‘quirks’ and talents, and the economy works as efficiently as possible. What frightens us about Gilead is the repression of this individuality that we so depend on to shape our societies into communities we wish to belong to. Because whilst personal amplifications may not be the most utilitarian way of exploiting ‘resources’ – which is what the Gilead regime aims for – it is certainly a far better way for the world to work.