This page is referenced by:

• 1 media/Handsmaids tale.jpg 2025-04-14T22:17:29+00:00 The Politics of Female Bodies in Margaret Atwood’s "The Handmaid’s Tale" (1985) 27 "The Handmaid’s Tale" is a dystopia where the government controls not just people’s actions, but their bodies and reproduction image_header 2025-05-18T16:23:14+00:00
  This project explores the mechanisms of power and resistance in Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale (1985), a dystopian narrative that portrays theocratic and patriarchal control over women’s bodies. Through the lens of biopolitics, the analysis examines how Gilead institutionalizes the control of reproduction, erases personal identity, and imposes rigid gender hierarchies. Drawing on scholarly work and textual analysis, the paper also considers how surveillance and silence are used both to enforce submission and to enable subtle forms of resistance. Offred’s narrative becomes a testimony of endurance, showing that even under totalitarian repression, agency can persist.
  
  
  The Handmaid’s Tale written in 1985 by the Canadian author Margaret Atwood is a futuristic dystopian novel which is set in a totalitarian theocratic and patriarchal regime. The novel provides a dystopian narrative of speculative fiction, portraying an imaginary future society, the Republic of Gilead, in which the environmental collapse and the low birth rate led to a restructuring of society. This reorganization of resources and hierarchies ended up positioning wealthy rich white men in the higher structures of society ruling not only the resources of the country but also women’s bodies. As a result, women were denied autonomy, they were deprived of their human rights, being forced into roles that served the domestic but also reproductive needs of the regime. 
  The narrative follows the personal story of Offred, a woman forced into the role of handmaid, whose purpose is to bear children for the state and a high Commander and his wife. Due to the lack of newborns in the United States, women like Offred, are treated as state property and they are reduced to their biological function in the new regime of Gilead. 
  Margaret Atwood’s dystopia creates a narrative about modern concerns such as reproductive rights, surveillance, authoritarianism, and gender oppression. For this reason, this essay explores the distinct mechanisms of power and resistance that dystopian societies such as The Handmaid’s Tale portray, for instance, biopolitics and the control of reproduction; the loss of identity and the process of dehumanization; the rigid gender hierarchies that hold the regime; and the use of both surveillance and silence to oppress but also resist totalitarianism. 
  
  
   The Control of Reproduction in Gilead – A Question of Biopolitics 
  The State control of reproduction is one of the main topics of discussion in The Handmaid’s Tale. Through the narrative, the Republic of Gilead has the authority over life, bodies and population, but also over reproduction. The government administrates all the medical and religious institutions through a biopolitical regime.
  Biopolitics is an ideology, it is a model that determines who is “useful” to a specific system, and Foucault defines the ideology of biopolitics as the form to “control people through the use of life, through caring for people’s organic wellbeing.” (Kelly, 2010) And through the control of life, the government of Gilead controls the population. Biopolitics focuses on managing reproduction, health, and sexuality as tools of state power. Therefore, Kelly explains that “Biopower is for Foucault specifically the technology that enables the control of populations” (Kelly, 2010). Gilead exemplifies a biopolitical state.
  For the government of Gilead, the main concern is the control of population through reproductive management. Due to the low-rate birth, the regime’s responds restructuring society around fertility. The women who are reproductively capable are critical for the survival of the nation, and they are called “Handmaids”. These women are restricted from their autonomy and considered property of the state which only appreciates them for their biological ability to conceive children. In addition to the social acceptance of the new role for women in Gilead, there is also an institutional transformation that supports the social transformation. Women’s bodies are monitored by the state. The state of Gilead has the power not only to regulate marriages and sexual relations but also friendships and any social interaction. In Gilead the survival of the state justifies the totalitarian intrusion into private life and the reproductive utility redefines and restricts society to the extent that it becomes a political currency. As “Foucault defines biopolitics/biopower as a technology of power, implying that it is invented a particular time can incorporate different particular techniques and inventions can be deployed flexibly by any agency and transmitted as known-how.” (Kelly, 2010) In consequence, the Republic of Gilead illustrates how biopolitics functions not only as a form of control but also as an ideology which rewrites human values.
   Biopolitical Mechanism of Control
  In order to stablish and reinforce the totalitarian regime, Gilead uses different mechanisms of control to institutionalize the control of reproduction, as Dorothy E. Roberts states that: “Handmaids were forced to serve as breeders for elite men and their infertile wives.” (Roberts, 2009) For Gilead, the “Ceremony” is one of the most relevant rituals done, which reinforces the control over women’s bodies and consequently reproduction. The “Ceremony” is a ritualized sexual act between the Handmaid and the man of the house, the Commander, it is a reproductive procedure approved by the state in which the women – neither the Handmaids nor the Wifes have a saying –. It is an obligation that everyone needs to fulfill, and Offred describes it as such when she says: “This is not recreation, even for the Commander. This is serious business. The Commander, too, is doing his duty.” (Atwood, 1985) Besides, Gilead tries to hide the abuse, violence and absolutism of these type of mechanism with symbolism. Offred describes how the Wife and her interact in the Ceremony: “My arms are raised; she holds my hands, each of mine in each of hers. This is supposed to signify that we are one flesh, one being.” (Atwood, 1985) The regime constantly portrays their mechanisms of control as something necessary and socially acceptable rather than a depravation of freedom and rights and as the sexual abuses these rituals are. Roberts states that when reproduction is governed by state interest, the bodies of women are no longer private but political, they are no longer sacred but strategic. (Roberts, 2009)
  The constant medical surveillance also enforces the reproductive control, the hospitals become an indispensable ally for a regime which bases most of its policies on reproduction control. The Handmaids have mandatory medical check-ups and evaluations to monitor their cycles and their pregnancies. Offred narrates one of her visits to the doctors: “Therefore I lie still and picture the unseen canopy over my head. I remember Queen Victoria’s advice to her daughter. Close your eyes and think of England. But this is not England. I wish he would hurry up.” (Atwood, 1985) The impersonal procedures reinforce the detachment of one’s body, Offred’s body is no longer hers, but rather a machine that she does not control but the government. Robert states that “the individual woman becomes the site of governance through self-regulation of genetic risk.” (Robert, 2009) Institutions help to normalize the state intrusion towards women’s bodies. Moreover, the sarcastic and ironic reference to Queen Victoria’s phrase can be understood as a metaphor of the duty expectation placed on women in Gilead. As a consequence of using medical institutions to normalize the intrusion, the biopolitical control over female’s bodies and fertility is maintained in Gilead.  
  
  
   Gender and Power Hierarchies in the Dystopian Society of Gilead
  The Republic of Gilead is a theocratic patriarchy in which the power is entirely concentrated in men, and it is justified by religious doctrines. The regime enforces a return to traditional roles, inspired by the bible, which position men as the protectors and rulers of society: Commanders (the husbands), Eyes (the secret enforcement of law), and Guardians (the military security). Meanwhile, women are degraded and controlled by social functions: Wives (self-explanatory), Marthas (domestic servants), Handmaids (fertile women), and Aunts (enforces of the doctrine). The distinct categories for women are classified by age and fertility, but also obedience. The hierarchy that Gilead creates not only removes women’s personal autonomy, but it also defines their worth in relation to only two things, their reproductive value, and their relation to male authority. Through this rigid and oppressive hierarchy, the novel criticizes the expected roles for women. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Power Dynamics and Use of Power by Women – Female Complicity
  The Republic of Gilead presents an extremely rigid patriarchal society; however, some women are granted limited power. Aunts, like Aunt Lydia, embody a character who serve as ideological gatekeeper to legitimatize oppression. Aunts are giving a small amount of power, as long as they perpetuate the regime’s values, and it normalizes control and encourages women to internalize their subjugation. 
  
  
  Unlike Commanders or Guardians, Aunts enforce control through indoctrination and emotional manipulation rather than institutional power. Courtney Landis explains that “the Aunts, more so than any other group of women, are the true believers. More than this even- they are enforcers and builders of this new society.” (Landis, 2018) The Aunts have the role of training the Handmaids to see their subjugation as a virtue they need to be grateful for. Aunt Lydia claims that “there is more than one kind of freedom, said Aunt Lydia. Freedom to and freedom from. In the days of anarchy, it was freedom to. Now you are being given freedom from. Don’t underrate it.” (Atwood, 1985) By stating this, Aunt Lydia is reframing the repression. Moreover, Aunt Lydia also uses physical violence when needed to “teach a lesson” to the Handmaids, and she justifies it as something necessary. Aunt Lydia even threatens them: “Remember, said Aunt Lydia. For our purposes your feet and your hands are not essential.” (Atwood, 1985) In consequence, Aunt Lydia’s perverse logic suggests that oppression is a form of protection.
    Fragmentation of Female Solidarity
  The female complicity of female characters like Aunt Lydia show that Gilead’s system not only oppresses women, but it also divides them. This fragmentation within women is essential for the regime; if solidarity is broken, rebellion becomes more difficult, or rather impossible as the narrative shows. By assigning women with very specific and delimited roles and duties, it creates a hierarchy of resentment and mistrust, and women end up seeing each other as rivals rather than equals in the subjugation. As Landis notes, “Gilead folds the role of Handmaid into the conventional and patriarchal family unit, isolating the Handmaids from their peers and setting them under the primary authority of their household while simultaneously under the authority of the state.” (Landis, 2018)
  The relation between Offred – the Handmaid – and Serena Joy – the Wife – portrays this fragmentation between women, and creates a toxic relation. Wives like Serena are unable to conceive children, and they are forced to watch the Ceremony every month reminding themselves that they are not capable of having children, but most importantly, that they need the Handmaids. Landis explains that “the Wife resents Offred, as Offred’s presence in her house is a constant reminder of her own failings – Offred would not be there had Serena Joy, over the years, been able to bear a child herself.” (Landis, 2018) This enforced participation in their husbands having sexual relations with the other women not only creates emotional but also physiological trauma, and they often blame the Handmaids instead of the system. This is the particular case of Serena and Offred. Offred even describes the Wife as “a malicious and vengeful woman.” (Atwood, 1985) Gilead’s system confronts them and makes it inconceivable for Wives and Handmaids to revolt against the system. This loss of solidarity among women reinforces the longevity of the regime, Gilead isolates women and made suspicious of each other. That is why Gilead’s regime is effective, not only because of its harsh rules, but also because it ensures that women cannot trust themselves. 
  
  
   Loss of Identity and Dehumanization
   One of the tools used by Gilead’s regime is to erase of personal identity throughout social roles, language and clothing. When the women become Handmaids, their names are changed and they are rebranded in relation to their Commanders, as Offred, indicating possession. This process of renaming the Handmaids dehumanizes them turning them into objects which can be possessed and are only defined by their reproductive value. As the main protagonist claims: “My name isn't Offred, I have another name, which nobody uses now because it's forbidden.” (Atwood, 1985) The act of erasing women’s name is not merely symbolic; it reinforces the idea that women are no longer people but belongings of the state. 
  In addition to erasing women’s name, Gilead also reinforces the loss of identity visually, creating visual conformity with uniforms:
  “Each morning, Offred wakes up and dresses in a long, shapeless red robe that stretches from neck to wrists to ankles. Accompanying this are red gloves, red boots, a long veil, and a white head covering—‘wings’—shading her face. Not a single flash of skin or hair to be seen, not even by accident. ‘Everything except the wings around my face is red: the color of blood, which defines us… The white wings too are prescribed issue; they are to keep us from seeing, but also from being seen” (Landis, 2018)
  The red dresses and whit bonnets serve as both to mark differently the Handmaids from other women of the state, and to deny any expression of individuality. Women are no longer valued by their thoughts, experiences or personalities; however, they are valued for their biological function. At some point on the story, Offred describes herself and other Handmaids as “two-legged wombs” (Atwood, 1985). In this context of Gilead, identity is not only repressed, but it is also systematically dismantled, a strategic dehumanization of people to maintain the power of the regime. 
   Physical Dehumanization of Women – Women as Vessels
  In the Republic of Gilead women are systematically objectified and instrumentalized, they are deprived from their personality but also of personhood itself. The Handmaids are not treated as full human beings; however, they are reduced to functional categories. Their objectification is so engrained in their regime that even the women themselves begin to internalize it themselves at some moments of the narratives. For instance, Offred observes “We are for breeding purposes: we aren’t concubines, geisha girls, courtesans. On the contrary: everything we do is supposed to be wholesome. We are two-legged wombs, that’s all: sacred vessels, ambulatory chalices.” (Atwood, 1985) The metaphor of the “sacred vessel” hides violence making the exploitation of women appear virtuous and necessary. 
  
  
   Surveillance, Silence and Resistance
  In The Handmaid’s Tale, surveillance is not merely a backdrop of the dystopian setting, it is one of Gilead’s mechanisms of control. Every aspect of people’s life is observed, judged and reported, which creates a fearful environment and silent becomes a form of self-preservation. Offred mentions early on the narrative “The Eyes of God run all over the earth.” (Atwood, 1985) Surveillance is sanctified as divine will as well as political necessity. Gilead’s surveillance regime does not only monitor behavior, but it also aims to invade people’s mind, shaping thought and silencing disagreement before even being formed. Landis explains that “in addition to control of the body, constant surveillance and awareness of the body link it to mental and spiritual power and control; the body and sexuality become the locus of social control. Individuals are shaped by their experience or role in power relations, limiting the ability of truly original or rebellious identity.” (Landis, 2018) This fusion of physical discipline and psychological containment renders rebellion nearly unthinkable.
  
  
  Silence as a Survival Strategy
  In Gilead silence is enforced as well as it is weaponized; speech is dangerous as it can betray, incriminate or incite rebellion, consequently, silence becomes a form of protection. For the Handmaids, withholding words becomes an essential survival strategy in society where language is controlled. Offred explains that “We learned to whisper almost without sound. In the semi-darkness we could stretch out our arms, when the Aunts weren’t looking, and touch each other’s hands across space.” (Atwood, 1985) Silence operated as oppression and also a form of covert intimacy and resistance. “Contemporary feminist dystopias overtly thematize the linguistic construction of gender domination by telling stories about language as instrument of both (men’s) domination and (women’s) liberation... These elements can be interpreted as [...] metaphors for the historical silencing of women.” (Landis, 2018) Silence is also a nuanced tool, sometimes is protective, and it reflects inner lives of characters who are denied outward freedom. 
  
  
  Acts of Resistance and Reclaiming Agency
  Despite Gilead’s overwhelming surveillance and suppression, The Handmaid’s Tale shows that resistance is never entirely extinguished. Even the smallest gestures such as a whispered phrase or a look become acts of rebellion in a society that demands total submission. Offred herself participates in subtle and meaningful resistance although seeming passive. “I would like to believe this is a story I’m telling. I need to believe it. I must believe it. Those who can believe that such stories are only stories have a better chance.” (Atwood, 1985) By telling her story, she asserts a voice in a world determined to silence her. 
  The ending of the novel is ambiguous and haunting, and it reinforces the power of testimony. The Handmaid’s Tale narrative shows that agency, even though it can be constrained, never disappears completely; resistance may be hidden, but it endures. 
  
  
  
  The Handmaid’s Tale presents a dystopian society where women’s bodies are controlled, their identities erased, and their voices silenced. Through mechanisms such as biopolitics, surveillance, rigid gender roles, and state-sanctioned rituals, Gilead constructs a system where oppression is institutionalized and normalized. However, the novel also shows that resistance is still possible. Even under the most repressive circumstances, gestures of defiance remain, whether in silence, memory, or storytelling. Offred’s narrative demonstrates that agency, although constrained, can survive through testimony and the refusal to forget. In this way, Atwood’s The Handmaid Tale (1985) not only critiques systems of domination but also highlights the strength of those who endure them. As a work of speculative fiction, the dystopian novel invites readers to reflect on the dangers of complacency and the urgency of protecting freedom, autonomy, and collective memory in our own world.
  
  _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
  Atwood, M. (1985). The Handmaid’s Tale (Ellen Seligman, Ed.). McClelland & Stewart. https://www.mcclelland.com/emblem
  
  Kelly, M. G. E. (2010). International Biopolitics: Foucault, Globalisation and Imperialism. Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory, 57(123), 1–26. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41802469
  
  Roberts, D. E. (2009). Race, Gender, and Genetic Technologies: A New Reproductive Dystopia? Signs, 34(4), 783–804. https://doi.org/10.1086/597132
  
  STILLMAN, P. G., & JOHNSON, S. A. (1994). Identity, Complicity, and Resistance in The Handmaid’s Tale. Utopian Studies, 5(2), 70–86. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20719314
  
  Landis, Courtney, author, Millersville University of Pennsylvania, degree granting institution, Rineer, Carla M., Millersville University, degree supervisor, Farkas, Kerrie, Millersville University, degree committee member, Jakubiak, Katarsyne, Millersville University, & degree committee member. (2018). A woman’s place is in the resistance : self, narrative, and performative femininity as subversion and weapon in The Handmaid’s Tale / by Courtney Landis. Theses, Dissertations, and Final Projects. Millersville University of Pennsylvania. https://jstor.org/stable/community.31982641