sign in sign up
<<
Home , Marxist feminism

Radical Leanings:

Applying a Marxist-Feminist Lens to the

Dystopian Fiction of

and Margaret Atwood

By

Martha Hunsucker

A Senior Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Major in English and the Bachelor of Arts Degree

Stetson University, DeLand, FL

Advisors: Dr. Mary Pollock, Dr. Michael Barnes, and Dr. Grady Ballenger

Archival Copy

14 December 2016 2

Table of Contents

Title Page……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1

Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………...……………………………………….2

Abstract………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………3

Essay…………………………………………………………………………………...…………………………………………4

Works Cited…………………………………………………………………………………..……………………………...28

Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………….………………………………………..32

3

Abstract

Despite taking place in separate literary worlds and time periods, both Charlotte

Perkins Gilman’s Herland and Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale similarly exemplify feminist and social critiques of our world, past and present. Effectively showcasing the dichotomy between utopian and dystopian fiction, the novels portray the effects of class and gender division, thus inviting a Marxist-feminist interpretation. Marxist focuses specifically on gendered kinship structures and their relation to social class. The juxtaposition of the two novels warns of the consequences of a patriarchal economy and reveals the extraordinary possibilities of women’s liberation from men. By dramatizing the way things could be, and the way things ought to be, Gilman and Atwood’s novels maintain their relevance in the 21st century.

4

“A rat in a maze is free to go anywhere, as long as it stays inside

the maze.”

Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid’s Tale

"’[W]hy, this is a civilized country!' I protested. ‘There must be

men!'"

Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Herland

A thematic link between Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s Herland and Margaret Atwood’s

The Handmaid’s Tale may not appear obviously during an initial reading, but upon closer examination, the two novels exemplify both feminist ideologies and social critiques of our world, past and present. Although Herland and The Handmaid’s Tale occur in separate universes, several conclusions can be drawn with a comparative analysis. The novels provide examples of the utopian/dystopian binary; Gilman’s Herland features an entirely female society stumbled upon by three men, whereas The Handmaid’s Tale presents a totalitarian regime that aggressively oppresses women. The protagonists of both books are outsiders: not entirely belonging to the worlds in which they live. The juxtaposition of the two novels provides a harrowing warning on the consequences of a patriarchal economy along with the extraordinary possibilities of women’s liberation from men.

The inclusion of power struggles and class conflicts between men and women thus invites a Marxist-feminist exploration, which I conduct on both novels. “As early as 1844, in his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, Marx argued that women’s position in society could be used as a measure of the development of society as a whole,”(49) finds

Heather Brown, professor of Political Sciences. University of South Carolina’s Steven Lynn supplies further background to , explaining it is the “drive to see the world in 5 terms of economic classes, to identify who is being oppressed and exploited and by whom”(145).

Before these works were penned, there can be no doubt that both Gilman and

Atwood observed or experienced patriarchal in their personal lives. As women writers, their works reflect a desire to overcome such oppressive institutions: “Marxist criticism thus strives to see literature in terms of its relationship to society, and a work is assumed to reinforce the current social structure, or undermine it, or some combination of the two”(Lynn 148). The authors’ inclusion of Marxist themes as they exist in relation to the can be observed in their comments on social classes, the power of collective action, and the demonization of . Both novels fundamentally question systemic gendered economic structures.

An examination of Gilman’s biography may substantiate her inclusion of Marxist- feminist themes. Born July 3, 1860 in Hartford, Connecticut, (Kessler 14) Charlotte Anna

Perkins “inherited an illustrious and notorious lineage,”(14) notes Professor of English and

Women’s Studies at Penn State, Carol Kessler. Her parents were Frederick Beecher Perkins and Mary A. Fitch Westcott, relation to author Harriet Beecher Stowe and descendant to one of Rhode Island’s founders, respectively (14). Reading with her during her childhood may have influenced Gilman’s later works (14), where she elevates “motherhood to…the most revered national occupation”(14). Her schooling was erratic, and ended when she was just 15 (14). The lack of schooling could not curb her desire to analyze and write about women’s economic relationship with men. Sheryl L. Meyering, professor of English at Southern Illinois University, introduces Gilman’s popular work, Women and Economics: A study of the Economic Relation between Men and Women as a Factor in Social Evolution. 6

Meyering describes Gilman’s writings as including, “what could be called questions of economics”(iii). Gilman was no stranger to the economic struggle: she separated from her first husband in 1888, and experienced difficulty supporting herself and her daughter

(Kessler v). Although in her utopian fiction she elevated motherhood to the highest degree,

“the world in which she resided was no utopia”(Lane 179). She sought to overcome the hardships of her life; her residual poverty ultimately gave her an economic “perspective and vision she might otherwise have lacked”(Lane 232). Gilman began to recognize that financial dependency on men forced women’s social role to become sexualized and exploited (Kessler iv).

In the short Women and Economics, Gilman calls attention to the fact that human beings are the “only animal species in which the female depends on the male for food, the only animal species in which the sex-relation is also an economic relation”(3). She posits that women have been kept from becoming active members of society by the limits of their prescribed social role of “women’s work”—often including motherhood, cleaning, cooking, organizing the house, and so forth. Because of the economic system’s current setup, women “work under another will; and what they receive depends not on their labor, but on the power and will of another”(4). Women’s ability to produce their own is severely restricted in that their labor is entirely uncompensated; a ’s labor is considered to be a part of her “functional duty”(7)—not employment. “Thus,” she claims, “we have painfully and laboriously evolved and carefully maintain among us an enormous class of non-productive consumers,—a class which is half the world, and mother of the other half”(59). Gilman points out “the salient fact in this discussion is that, whatever the economic value of the domestic industry of women is, they do not get it”(8). Despite the 7 numerous hours of backbreaking labor put in everyday by a wife and mother, her work is still seen to be easier and less important than a man’s—and not deserving of pay. In

Women and Economics, Gilman shows that economic dependence “made women slaves of men and thereby hindered social evolution”(Kessler 31).

Written in 1915, Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s Herland is a feminist-utopian novel focusing on three men who are lured by the prospect of an all-female world. While this group of women demonstrates a socialist society: sharing labor, goods, and responsibilities in the community, they also exemplify the possibility of a successful Marxist society, free from social classes. In Herland, does not exist; instead, the women embrace ownership. Fueled by a desire to conquer, the three men underestimate the power of the women. They are taken prisoner and forced to learn the women’s ways. In doing so, they begin to doubt their own capitalistic and patriarchal tendencies.

When the three men first arrive in Herland, they automatically assume that other men must be the driving force of the women’s success. Instead, Terry, Jeff, and Van find out that no men have lived in Herland for over 2,000 years. They question the women’s ability to work together and their social classes, soon realizing that no such classes exist: “These women evidently relied on numbers, not so much as a drilled force but as a multitude actuated by a common impulse”(Gilman 36). In the beginning of the women’s civilization,

Van notes, “[T]hey worked together, growing stronger and wiser and more and more mutually attached”(48). This camaraderie created a society free from the restrictions of capitalistic social classes. For the women of Herland, motherhood is the source of their connection and sisterly love: “[t]hese women… whose essential distinction of motherhood 8 was the dominant note of their whole culture”(50). Van is astonished to learn “they had no wars. They had no kings, and no priests, and no aristocracies. They were sisters, and as they grew, they grew together—not by competition, but by united action”(51). When

Somel, a woman in charge of educating the three men, describes the education system of

Herland, Van shamefully remarks, “We boast a good deal of our ‘high level of general intelligence’ and our ‘compulsory public education,’ but in proportion to their opportunities they were far better educated than our people”(55). Without a divide in wealth or perceived differences, all children receive equal upbringing and education. The women of Herland are able to accomplish what American socialists of this time period could only dream of: liberation from restrictive social classes.

The patriarchal canon of Terry, Jeff, and Van clouds their ability to believe the women could create such a powerful symbiosis. Terry exemplifies a chauvinistic attitude when he tries to disprove the viability of the women’s successful society: “They would fight among themselves… Women always do. We mustn’t look to find any sort of order and organization”(7). Even Jeff, the biologist, concurs, saying, “[a]lso we mustn’t look for inventions and progress: it’ll be awfully primitive”(7). As the men penetrate further into

Herland, Jeff recants at the sight of a marvelous forest: “Talk of civilization… I never saw a forest so petted, even in Germany. Look, there’s not a dead bough—the vines are trained— actually!”(11). Slowly the idea dawns on the men that “[h]ere was evidently a people highly skilled, efficient, caring for their country as a florist cares for his costliest orchids”(15).

They come to find out that the elegant gardens are a result of the collective work of the women. “Everything was beauty, order, perfect cleanness, and the pleasantest sense of home over it all”(16). When Terry attempts to fight, pulling “his revolver”(20) and fires, 9

Van recounts, “Instantly each of us was seized by five women, each holding arm or leg or head; we were lifted like children, straddling helpless children, and borne onward, wriggling indeed, but most ineffectually”(20). Not only can the women work together to create works of natural beauty, but also they can unite to create a dominant force: “The solidity of those women was something amazing”(20). One of the women calmly assures

Terry, “If, by any accident, you did any harm to one of us, you would have to face a million ”(56), demonstrating the unflinching wrath Herland may dole.

Terry, Jeff, and Van are lured to Herland with patriarchal capitalistic greed, a concept the women starkly resist. Terry’s sense of entitlement extends further than his financial status; it is linked with both his masculinity and sexuality (DeFee 14). Although

Terry has the most wealth of the three men, “[h]is wealth means nothing to the women of

Herland… It alienates him from the women”(DeFee 15). “There was something attractive to a bunch of unattached young men in finding an undiscovered country of a strictly

Amazonian nature”(5). While Terry focuses on having sex with the elusive women, Jeff and

Van attempt to learn about the women’s culture and share their own stories on manmade concepts. For example, the women are upset to learn about the factory process of dairy- production and slaughterhouses. “It took some time to make clear to those three sweet- faced women the process which robs the cow of her calf, and the calf of its true food; and the talk led us into a further discussion of the meat business. They heard it out, looking very white, and presently begged to be excused”(41). The men are confused to learn that the women receive no tangible payment for their hard labor. Terry laughs, explaining that in their culture, “No one, I mean, man or woman, would work without incentive”(52). The 10 women love to hear the wildly different culture the men have, and in particular they inquire about what poverty is. Van explains:

[T]he laws of nature require a struggle for existence, and that in the

struggle the fittest survive, and the unfit perish. In our economic

struggle… there was always plenty of opportunity for the fittest to

reach the top, which they did in great numbers, particularly in our

country; that where there was severe economic pressure the lowest

classes of course felt it the worst, and that among the poorest of all the

women were driven into the labor market by necessity(53).

Poverty does not exist in Herland due to the equally inclusive community. The women defy capitalism, telling the men that in their culture, “the finished product is not a private one”(65). The concept of capitalistic greed is absolutely shocking to the symbiotic women of Herland. Throughout the novel, Terry, Jeff, and Van are forced to examine the ethical efficacy of their own patriarchal capitalism. In comparison to the liberated society of

Herland, theirs seems crudely primal. In the United States, several social classes result in a never-ending class struggle of the versus the .

Julie Harms Cannon and Adrian De La Rosa of Texas Tech University found in their article “Utopian Feminism and ” that feminist utopias typically feature several common themes: most of which can be observed in Herland. They find that the

“first core theme… is a shift in economic systems” (2). Herland portrays women’s economic freedom from men: their liberation from the chains of social control allows them access to education, exercise, and the fine arts. The omission of males besides the three protagonists allows the reader to gain more of an understanding on why patriarchal capitalism is so 11 detrimental. The women’s society as it exists could not have been a reality without men’s removal. The next theme is “the eradication of family names. In this way, children (and women) are no longer viewed as property”(3). The history of family names is deeply steeped in the patriarchy, symbolizing a man’s ownership over his wife and children. Next, women are allowed to “ move onto nontraditional occupations”(3); instead of those selected for them by men. Roles for women under male control are mostly subservient and entirely undervalued: raising children, housework, and cooking for the family. Another theme Harms Cannon and De La Rosa found in feminist utopian fiction is that “women are protected—they no longer live in fear of male violence, sexual or otherwise” (3). The

Herlanders have never been subject to the realities that women experience. When Van decides that his new wife must submit to him sexually and tries to rape her, the act is condemned as barbaric, and results in Van’s exile. Harms Cannon and De La Rosa conclude that the crowning elements are a development of “industry, social education, social motherhood… and family life designed to enhance the lives of individuals and ultimately the advancement of the Herlander society”(14). This particular concept exemplifies one

Marxist conviction: that work should always be conducted for the sake of enhancing one’s life, not defining it.

Brock University professor Anna Lathrop finds that Gilman “adopts a decidedly different literary strategy to convey her social critique”(49). In Herland, Gilman critically examines the “destructive implications of women’s economic dependency,” (494) discerns

Bernice L. Hausman, Professor of Humanities at Virginia Tech. University of Washington’s

Kim Johnson-Bogart provides further explanation on utopia as a concept. She asserts that in order to maintain their ideal; utopias compromise personal freedoms (90). In 12 comparison to our society’s values, however, this ideal appears to drastically invade autonomy (90).

The word utopia has a Greek origin, the “no-place” of the imagination; the possible

“good place,” better than the author’s current society; dystopia is the “bad place,” a deterioration of the author’s current society (Kessler 7). “Radical” is not meant to imply violence, anarchy, or chaos. It derives from the Latin word radix, which means, “root.”

“Radical” leanings thus demonstrates the authors’ desires to go to the root of the patriarchy, finding the deeper structure of systems of oppression and dismantling them from the inside out.

In the idealized case of Herland, Professor of English at Louisiana Tech University

Nicole DeFee in her article “The Brute Nature of Charlotte Perkins Gilman's Herland" observes, “there is no crime, war, conflict, or competition for resource. There is no real hierarchy”(13). Although Herland may be ultimately unrealistic, it does posit alternative ways to live and cohabitate: “the Herlanders expose much that is ludicrous, oppressive, and unreasonable about the way we do things, about the way we work, define gender roles, and establish social expectations” (Lane 293). Hausman concludes that Herland’s most valuable contribution is to “open up the current reader’s most deeply held assumptions, thereby enabling [them] to perceive the limitations of [their] own constructions of meaning with the possibility of exploring new alternatives”(91). Herland emphasizes gender differences and the possibility of women’s financial and social equality with men.

“What is the use today of reading … utopian visions?” (1) questions Kessler.

Gilman’s utopia “reveal[s] a world of possibilities and potentials available to women as a sex, rather than to present a sex-separatist society as a final utopian solution”(69). 13

Gilman in no way proclaims women’s innate superiority over men in Herland, instead, she

“deliberately invokes misogynist mythology so that she can demonstrate its false nature as unverified assumption”(71). Li-Wen Chang of Chinese Culture University espies that: “[t]he absence of male citizens secures both collective wealth and economic in

Herland”(326). And instead of maintaining a more somber tone (appropriate to the content matter) throughout the work, Gilman employs parody to cunningly subvert assumptions and practices related to constructed notions of gender (Kessler 70).

Gilman does not only critique the current system, but also describes ways in which it could be improved. She says that economic independence for women will involve a change in both the home and family relation (Women and Economics 104). Her ultimate goals are to increase the “productive power of the world”(121), which she says will not be possible until a woman can “stand beside man as the comrade of his soul, not the servant of his body”(117). Instead of just focusing on women’s financial status, she also observes how the current sexuo-economic relationship affects men:

Man, as master, has suffered from his position also… The easy

superiority that needs no striving to maintain it; the temptation to

cruelty always begotten by irresponsible power; the pride and self-

will which surely accompany it,—these qualities have been bred into

the souls of men by their side of the relation (166)

Although Gilman could have ignored the effect of this relationship on men, she actively seeks to include both men and women in her analysis. She acknowledges the human’s tendency to repeat history, and proposes a solution, saying that while operating under the sexuo-economic relation, “one civilization after another has climbed up and fallen down in 14 weary succession. It remains for us to develope [sic] a newer, better form of sex-relation and of economic relation therewith”(70-71). It is thus in her utopian narratives that she puts forth her feminist arguments and recommendations for social change.

Gilman attempts to embody these radical ideas in her fictional utopia, Herland. She firstly asserts, “no changes in social relationships could be expected to come about automatically”(Lane 231). Instead of encouraging , she proposed that the human race under the process of evolution would improve. However, she was not immune to the racist and classist tendencies of middle-class white women in her era; she did not take into account the daily struggles of women of color or impoverished women. “Although

Gilman’s racist, anti-Semitic, and ethnocentric ideas are most apparent in her personal writings, in her letters and journals, these biases inevitably limit and scar her theoretical work as well”(Lane 255). Ultimately, by her death in 1935, Gilman had to her name twelve books of verse, fiction, and discourse (Kessler 13).

Atwood’s feminist leanings can be traced back through her biography. She was born

November 18, 1939 in Ottawa, Ontario (Lecker and David 19). She was raised under the impression that should only speak when spoken to (Nischik 20), an opinion she did not later appreciate. Attending three different colleges, Atwood soon gained an exceptional understanding for literature and an appreciation of the arts. Her first was Victoria College, out of the University of Toronto (Nischik 159). From there she graduated in 1961 and received her B.A. in English. Finally, she attended Harvard University for her graduate studies on two different occasions, 1962-1963, and 1965-1967 (159). She never finished her graduate studies, however, as she failed to complete her dissertation on The English

Metaphysical Romance (“Margaret Atwood Biography”). 15

While at Harvard, Atwood discovered that women were not allowed to enter the main poetry collection (Stein 3). This jilt annoyed Atwood to no extent, and helped fuel a part of her feminist inspiration. Her feminism can also be traced to her strong mother, the empowering female environment at Victoria College, and her overall disgust at the treatment of women by the world (Nischik 20). This disgust also helped encourage her rather disputatious topic choices. Atwood embraces several common themes including the imprisonment of Gothic heroines (Stein 64), physical, psychological, and political violation

(Lecker and David 29), and feminism. She often portrays female characters dominated by patriarchy (“Margaret Atwood Biography”); “feminism has undoubtedly been the most controversial element of her writing”(Lecker and David 19). A favored topic is the politics of power between men and women in everyday life”(Stein 4). Social structures also seem to catch Atwood’s eye. The debate about gender is one of Atwood’s abiding concerns

(Nischik 141). Her writings question, challenge, and disrupt, conventions of traditions and normative structures (Stein 4). Asking provocative questions such as “‘what would happen if we heard the stories of marginalized, usually silent people, especially women’?”(1),

Atwood intends to dig into the moral psyche. She states, “‘ have their analogue in national politics’”(Lecker and David 29).

Because so many of her themes include comparisons between male and female gender roles, one can only assume that she has a strong feminist background. Growing up,

Margaret Killian Atwood, Atwood’s mother, was an exceptionally strong female figure.

Attending Victoria College may also have had an effect. The college offered a sturdy, respecting, and safe, home for Atwood’s ideas and imagination to flourish. She had classes with intelligent woman and made close friends with female peers. That Atwood faced 16 while attending Harvard University could only add to her fire. This anger is portrayed in The Handmaid’s Tale, when women are forbidden to read and no longer attend school. Growing up in a turbulent time where women fought for their rights may also have had an effect on Atwood. Atwood’s Canadian upbringing provides yet another lens.

In her 1985 novel, The Handmaid’s Tale, Atwood wryly points out dangerous social tendencies and analyzes personal and societal power relationships. The story begins with a fundamentalist Christian group murdering the president and all members of Congress, resulting in a totalitarian theocratic regime. The United States becomes the Republic of

Gilead, and with the new name comes complete social reform. Because of the group’s religiously traditional beliefs, women are classified as second-class citizens and harshly confined. They must maintain strict domestic roles, are not allowed to read, and are considered mere extensions of their reproductive organs. Although from the outside Gilead seems only to repress and objectify women, the Republic also does so to men through the means of sex and love, rejecting certain professions and lifestyles, and stereotyping per the

Bible. The sexism portrayed in the novel locks both men and women into narrow roles.

The Handmaid’s Tale, in contrast, features a distinct lack of the feminist utopian themes observed in Herland and specified by Harms Cannon and De La Rosa. The female characters have no economic agency. The ways the Gileadean regime takes control over women is by freezing their assets. Offred’s credit card is declined three times trying to make a transaction, only to find out “[a]ny account with an F on it instead of an M… [is] cut off”(178). In addition, “[w]omen can’t own property anymore”(178); women’s assets are to go to their husbands or male kin. By removing them from the workforce and retarding their economic agency, the Gileadean regime forces women’s economic dependence on 17 men. In the same vein, the regime strips away women’s power over themselves and their actions. Offred laments the anguish of her exploitation: “I used to think of my body as an instrument, of pleasure, or a means for transportation, or an implement for the accomplishment of my will”(73). Being recognized only for their value as reproductive vessels or hardworking laborers, women are entirely reliant on men for their livelihood.

Women also rely on the male figureheads for their own names, as protagonist Offred is named after her commander, Fred.

Professor of American literature Reingard Nischik in her book Engendering Genre:

The Works of Margaret Atwood makes the excellent point that “[t]he Handmaids’ social and personal dependence on men could hardly be shown more concisely and empathetically than in such a drastic patronymic naming system”(141). We never learn the main character’s—Offred—original name.

Whereas women in Herland have the agency to choose their profession, economic roles, these roles are forcefully imposed on the women in Gilead. Women are separated into categories entirely based on their reproductive capacity—which is “the basis of the state in Gilead… making it obvious that women are mere extensions of their reproductive organs” (Nischik 81). Offred exemplifies a Handmaid: a woman known to have had healthy children in her past and thus deemed fertile. There are also Wives, upper class women married to the Commanders, Aunts, female law-enforcers, Marthas, women employed in cleaning and cooking, Econowives, who do any hard labor, and Unwomen, unfertile, old, or lesbian women, known also in hushed voices as “defeated women”(46).

In Why Gender Matters in Economics, Vancouver School of Economics professor

Mukesh Eswaran observes, “[t]he female body, as a site of oppression, has always been the 18 means by which patriarchy exerts control over women”(2). Although a social hierarchy exists for male community members, males still extort a “certain status in Gilead”(Nischik

141). That men along with women are routinely executed and publicly displayed demonstrates how “Gilead is a failed utopia for everyone” (142). Both the group and the individual can be negatively affected if certain political ruling ideologies are made absolute

(143). Sofia Sanchez-Grant of Bridgewater State University explains that the

Gilead enforces “is a straitjacket fashioned by patriarchy to police the female body and the space it occupies”( 5). With a declining birthrate in Gilead, Handmaids like Offred are the only women who can feasibly bear children. This fact justifies to Gileadean society an even stricter hand.

The men create an effective hierarchy of women rule-enforcers, called ‘Aunts.’ The aunts “have kept some amount of power in society, yet it is used exclusively for the indoctrination of future Handmaids and for the general control of women”(Nischik 141).

Offred notes they carry cattle prods as weapons, but, “[n]o guns though, even they could not be trusted with guns”(Atwood 4). The Aunt’s power is but a loan lent out by the patriarchal society they live in. In the Historical Notes section, where a futuristic society studies and reflects on the historical implications of Gilead—much like we would with the

Civil War, for instance—Professor Pieixoto, a reputable Gileadean scholar, concurs with

Nischik’s remark that Aunts are an extension of patriarchal control, saying, “the best and most cost-effective way to control women for reproductive and other purposes was through women themselves”(308). Pitting women against each other was an effective way to divert blame and anger from male figureheads. The students in the class comment, “[i]t 19 was their lives. It’s not our lives”(301). This statement leads one to believe that this mindset of human objectification has hardly changed through time in the world of Gilead.

Another of the themes frequently observed in feminist utopian fiction, that women are protected, takes an ironic twist in The Handmaid’s Tale. Women and men are forbidden friendships and relationships. Because of their constant separation, logically women would be safer. Although one of the aunts posits that “[w]omen were not protected then”(24),

Offred comments that, “[l]ast week [the guards] shot a woman”(20) who appeared suspicious. Another aunt condescendingly says, “[t]here is more than one kind of freedom… Freedom to and freedom from. In the days of anarchy, it was freedom to. Now you are given freedom from. Don’t underrate it”(24). By this, she means that women are given freedom in Gilead from the dangerous aspects of being their own sex—being harassed, being raped, or being murdered all for being femae. In a scene where westernized Japanese tourists visit the compound, Offred comments that it has “been a long time since I’ve seen skirts that short on women… “I used to dress like that. That was freedom”(28).

Offred does notice that in her compound and on her errands, “no man shouts obscenities at us, speaks to us, touches us”(24)—as someone who has personally experienced , this offer tempts. Yet in the same breath as they condemn sexual predators, the aunts draw on victim-blaming rhetoric:

The spectacles women used to make of themselves. Oiling themselves

like roast meat on a spit, and bare backs and shoulders, on the street,

in public, and legs, not even stockings on them, no wonder those 20

things used to happen. Things, the word she used whenever it stood

for was too distasteful or filthy or horrible to pass her lips (55).

A society that truly valued women’s safety, integrity, and agency would never resort to this spiteful tactic of blaming them for their befallen harm. Swale makes a powerful statement:

“Ironically there is some truth in what the Aunts say about women being safer and less sexually exploited in hedonistic or vicious ways in Fundamentalist Gilead, except in the nightclubs which are only known to elite men. Of course the handmaids are compulsorily sexually exploited as breeding machines instead”(3). Women neither had a say in the new hierarchy nor have the ability to partake in the livelihoods they once experienced in the past.

Though the dystopia of Gilead seem confined to the role of fiction, Jill Swale in The

English Review notes warningly, “there is increasing danger that a patriarchal regime similar to Gilead could arise”(1). She continues that conditions under the Taliban in

Afghanistan add to the verisimilitude of such a society as Gilead existing (1). Atwood’s dystopia cannot be misconstrued as unrealistic; instead,“[i]t is an amalgam of trends which she has already observed and read about in various societies, past and present” (2). Gilead serves as a foreboding omen, actively critiquing our generations’ tendency to “take women’s liberation for granted”(2). The New York Times journalist Mervyn Rothstein notes

Atwood’s writings “aren’t just political messages”(11)—they are a study of power, and how it operates and how it deforms or shapes the people who are living within that kind of regime”(11). Although the novel focuses particularly on women, “its message extends beyond that to all people to avoid the dangers of the political apathy in which totalitarian regimes flourish”(Swale 4). 21

S. Banupriya in her article, "Canadian Feminist Consciousness in Margaret Atwood's

Bodily Harm and the Handmaid's Tale,” argues “[t]he aim of Canadian women’s fiction is to make women critically conscious of their own roles in conventional social structures”(1).

Atwood thus attempts to portray women’s imprisonment by the patriarchy (1). By directly placing her protagonists in sexist societies, she castigates social systems that delegate and restrict women’s roles (3). Professor of contemporary literature at the University of Rhode

Island Karen Stein corroborates Banupriya’s observations. She finds Atwood’s novels

“expose political dangers but eschew political solutions. Instead, the protagonists choose the role of witness, reporter”(xii). This embodiment of the witness allows a layer of depth to her themes of political power in daily life (4).

Critics have called the novel a feminist tract (Rothstein) and say that it has, in fact,

“excessive feminism” (McCarthy). Believability seems also to subtract from the book. The

Republic of Gilead is insufficiently imagined (McCarthy), and the intolerance of the militant right wing is also unimaginable (McCarthy). Another lacking quality is that of satire. “If

The Handmaid’s Tale doesn’t scare one, doesn’t wake one up, it must be because it has no satiric bite” (McCarthy). The lack of satire is a fundamental disappointment (McCarthy).

Another large component is the lack of a different language. Oftentimes dystopian tales come with a new set of clipped, metallic, or chilled language. Unfortunately, Atwood’s novel lacks “Newspeak,” and therefore has no new snappy bite (McCarthy). The generic language used is a serious unpardonable defect; a future that has no language invented for it lacks a personality. Burgess‘ A Clockwork Orange is written in a self-made language called Nadsat, which contains components of English and Russian slang intermixed. The language helps add quirky character and cushions some of the more gruesome scenes. 22

Atwood’s dialogue is indistinguishable from her normal way of expressing herself. The novel is generically written with common language; although the concepts may be complex, the language certainly is not. Finally, and maybe one of the worst flaws, the novel lacks detailed characterization.

Males in particular are stereotypical; representing only negative and destructive elements (Hill 61). Male characters are not easily distinguishable; Offred’s husband Luke is extraordinarily similar to the footman, Nick. The characterization is generally weak

(McCarthy). Atwood’s literature is widely acclaimed, critics agree that the characters in

The Handmaid’s Tale lack depth (Hill 61), and attribute this maybe to her poetic background (McCarthy). Overall, scathing remarks on the novel are that it is “powerless to scare”(McCarthy) and “lacks imagination”(McCarthy).

These novels portray themes of class struggles, especially in regard to gender. This portrayal and inclusion of social classes necessitates a Marxist-feminist analysis. Eagleton et al. in Marxist Literary Theory: a Reader, found specifically “there is little specifically

Marxist-feminist literary theory”(328). A knowledge gap then must be acknowledged between commonly practiced text criticism theory and the rare application of Marxist feminism. Marxist feminism should be understood “as a discussion of gender definition, kinship structures, and to some extent the relation between these and social class”(331).

In a letter Marx wrote to friend Ludwig Kugelmann, he even specifically states, “[e]veryone who knows anything of history also knows that great social are impossible without the feminine ferment. Social progress may be measured precisely by the social position of the fair sex (plain ones included)” (Marx). 23

Both Marx and Eagleton et al. agree that a woman’s subjugation is correlated with marriage and motherhood. “[M]arriage itself [i]s the crucial point of articulation between class and kinship struggles”(Eagleton et al., 331). Heather Brown draws a link between

Marx’s theory and gender. Marx acknowledges that the bourgeois family structure is oppressive, and must experience revolutionary change in order to improve society (51).

He concedes that women in both the working and upper class experience patriarchal oppression, providing a commentary on the “unique ways in which economics and the specifically capitalist form of patriarchy interact to oppress women”(56). A close reading of Marx’s theory reveals his riveting awareness of exploitation in the work force:

And this life activity [the worker] sells to another person in order to

secure the necessary means of life. ... He works that he may keep alive.

He does not count the labor itself as a part of his life; it is rather a

sacrifice of his life. It is a that he has auctioned off to

another.

The New Yorker columnist Louis Menard, in his article “, Yesterday and Today,” agrees that Marx’s significance often “lies in its downstream effects”(2). Similarly to

Atwood and Gilman, Marx’s ideas were used to “remake the world, or a big portion of it”(3).

Ultimately, Marx believed human life would improve only if every person worked for the benefit of all (9).

Ironically, many of Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s ideologies displaced her from Marxist coterie. “She sharply rejected any notion of class struggle and class violence… effectively remov[ing] her from all Marxist circles”(Lane 230). However, Gilman did acknowledge the chaos caused by industrial capitalism. In Herland, she projects her ideas that citizens 24 should “only work for the common good and only accumulate common wealth”(Chang

329)—an ideal observed in Marxist theory. Gilman avoided polarizing the middle-class by refusing to “advocate Marxist revolutionary change”(Lathrop 50). Her analysis on the sexual-economic of marriage in Women and Economics echoes Marx and Engels, arguing

“that women regardless of class are, typically, both economically dependent on the men in their household and socially subordinate to them”(Van Wienen, Knight, and Davis 38).

Margaret Atwood is well known for examining micro and macro power relations between genders. Nischik contends, “Atwood belongs to those writers of contemporary world literature who always addresses, both within and beyond their work, pressing global issues”(29). Furthermore, her analysis of dystopia offers depth on “themes of patriarchal tyranny and absolute social control”(141). Atwood critiques “a climate of fear and ignorance,”(Swale 1) explaining that the Gileadean regime gained power under the disguise of being for the greater good (1). Similarly to Gilman, Atwood also reflects on the extent to which males exhibit control over women’s lives and happiness. The social classes—Aunts,

Handmaids, Unwomen—further segregate women, ultimately preventing them from

“forming a unified front”(Banupriya 2).

The New Yorker columnist Kapur Akash published an article on the recent popularity of utopian and dystopian fiction, claiming, “utopia’s name has become so tarnished that it has recently been used almost interchangeably with its evil twin, dystopia”(66). He goes on to say that utopian fiction can be construed as a polemic for left and progressive forces, (66) and that “[a] rejuvenated Marxism underlies much of this thinking”(66). He corroborates that , egalitarianism, and the rejection of capitalism are championed in these narratives: 25

Nearly every utopia in these books begins with a determination to

create a new economy, usually through some amalgam of collective

ownership, central planning, and voluntary labor. Yet egoism,

acquisitiveness, competitiveness, and all the other ills of human flesh

bob repeatedly to the surface, like a cork that will not be submerged

(70).

The two novels examined in this essay do, in fact, feature “bobbing corks,”—the selfish and individualistic nature of humanity frequently arises—for example, Terry’s entitlement to the female body or the elite-access-only brothel in Gilead.

Critics of Gilman frequently condemn her utopian society as being unfeasible, but which specific elements are feasible, but rejected? Gilman’s arguments posited in Herland may provide answers. What naysayers may mean about unfeasibility is that they are “afraid of the implications of these possibilities: they would lose power, feel too guilty, have to accept responsibility, [and] have to give up comfortable habits” (Kessler 8). Gilman recognized the unspoken notion that if women are to be liberated from the patriarchy, the ruling class of men will undeniably lose some their privilege and power.

Shahizah and Vengadasamy, in their article, "Herland and Charlotte Perkins

Gilman’s Utopian Social Vision of Women and Society” make several concise analytical statements that could be applied to both Gilman’s and Atwood’s respective novels. They state Herland, “is intended as a social critique […] for a better social life for women especially, as well as society in general”(1) and “provides readers with a deeper sense of understanding of the ills of a society that subscribes to and is fixated with masculinity”(1).

The Handmaid’s Tale also exemplifies such intentions. 26

Herland is antiquated in many ways, and contains the respective motifs of gender essentialism, white supremacy, and pro-life rhetoric (2), notes Lindy West, Guardian columnist. Despite these downfalls, Gilman’s overarching goals with the narrative were to implement positive change. West discusses Herland’s relation to the modern-day world, saying Gilman’s commentary feels “fresh and relevant enough to populate any sarcastic modern-day feminist post blog”(1). She did not just preach from her soapbox, though; she was not just “a dewy-eyed utopian, pointing the right path then righteously withdrawing from an uncomprehending and skeptical world ”(Allen 233). Instead, she was a formidable historian and culture analyst, effectively creating her own social theory that encapsulated both socialist and feminist ideas (Lane 5). In fact, her final speaking engagement took place just weeks before she died in 1935 (Lane 229). She would be content knowing that the novel has been used “as a foil to examine and critique what feminism looks like now”(2).

The 77-year-old Atwood continues to write and educate herself. Although “she resists the label of feminism,”(Stein 6) her stories embody her beliefs and critiques of female and male relationships and power struggles, effectively engaging in feminist discourse and giving women voices. Atwood remains a respectful and eager spirit, destined to reveal reality. Her cautionary The Handmaid’s Tale warns the masses what may happen if reactionary social and political trends are imposed. Her novels incorporate

“evolving feminist social and political critiques, including , the gaze, and the masquerade of gender” (Stein 64). Like Gilman, Atwood seeks to acknowledge hazardous social tendencies with the intention of forestalling “the outcomes they depict”(Stein 78).

Some of the principles in these stories are mirrored in our current society. Access to reproductive healthcare is paramount to women’s agency—as stressed in Herland and 27 omitted in The Handmaid’s Tale—as male control over reproduction has been the norm for thousands of years. In 2015, Kenneth Roth of The New York Review of Books published an article on how “[m]odern slavery takes many forms”(49); in this case, in the form of sex slavery by the “self-proclaimed Islamic State, or ISIS”(49). Roth explains, “[w]hat is striking is that, in the minds of its authors, this is not a lawless document. It sets forth an interpretation of sharia, or Islamic law, albeit an extreme one”(49). We have observed how selective interpretation can distort text in The Handmaid’s Tale.

Even though the selected novels take place in two different time periods by authors of two different nationalities, the gleaned elements and lessons are strikingly similar. And to understand my point about the patriarchy that these writers were rebelling against, it is important to look at their biographical information—both women express dissidence from their respective gendered experiences. They reveal revolutionary ideas through their powerful prose. By dramatizing the way things could be, and the way things ought to be,

Gilman and Atwood’s novels maintain their relevance in the 21st century.

28

Works Cited

Akash, Kapur. “The Return of the Utopians.” The New Yorker, 3 Oct. 2016,

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/03/the-return-of-the-utopians.

Accessed 20 Nov. 2016.

Allen, Judith A. The Feminism of Charlotte Perkins Gilman: Sexualities, Histories,

Progressivism. U of Chicago P, 2009.

Atwood, Margaret. The Handmaid's Tale. Houghton Mifflin Company, 1986.

Banupriya, S. "Canadian Feminist Consciousness in Margaret Atwood's Bodily Harm and

The Handmaid's Tale." Language in India, vol. 15, no. 11, 2015, pp. 43-51,

http://www.languageinindia.com/nov2015/banupriyabodilyharm.pdf. Accessed

20 Nov. 2016.

Brown, Heather. "Marx on Gender and the Family." : An Independent

Socialist Magazine, vol. 66, no. 2, 2014, pp. 48-57,

http://monthlyreview.org/2014/06/01/marx-on-gender-and-the-family-a-

summary/. Accessed 20 Nov. 2016.

Carty, Linda. "A Genealogy of Marxist ." Studies in Political Economy,

2014, p. 177.

Chang, Li-Wen. "Economics, Evolution, and Feminism in Charlotte Perkins Gilman's Utopian

Fiction." Women's Studies, vol. 39, no. 4, 2010, pp. 319-348,

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00497871003661711. Accessed 20

Nov. 2016.

DeFee, Nicole. "The Brute Nature of Charlotte Perkins Gilman's Herland." ALN: The

American Literary Naturalism Newsletter, vol. 6, no. 1-2, 2011, pp. 12-17, 29

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/essays/70868103/brute-nature-charlotte-

perkins-gilmans-herland. Accessed 20 Nov. 2016.

Eagleton, Terry et al. “Women's Writing: Jane Eyre, Shirley, Villette, Aurora Leigh

(1978).” Marxist Literary Theory: a Reader, Blackwell Publishers, 1996, pp. 328–350.

Eswaran, Mukesh. Why Gender Matters in Economics. Princeton UP, 2014.

Gilman, Charlotte P. Women and Economics: A Study of the Economic Relation between Men

and Women as a Factor in Social Evolution. Dover Publications, 1998.

---. Herland. Pantheon Books, 1979.

Harms Cannon, Julie Ann, and Adrian De La Rosa. “Utopian Feminism and Feminist

Pedagogy: Charlotte Perkins Gilman and the Everyday Classroom.” Louisiana State

Shreveport UP, 2012,

http://www.lsus.edu/Documents/Offices%20and%20Services/CommunityOutreac

h/JournalOfIdeology/Utopian%20Feminist%20Pedagogy_%20Charlotte%20Perkin

s%20Gilman%20and%20Everyday%20Sociology.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov. 2016.

Hausman, Bernice L. "Sex before Gender: Charlotte Perkins Gilman and the Evolutionary

Paradigm of Utopia."Feminist Studies, vol. 24, no. 3, 1998, p 489, JSTOR, doi:

10.2307/3178576.

Hill, Douglas. “Margaret Eleanor Atwood.” Contemporary Literary Criticism, vol. 25, Gale

Research, 1983, p. 61.

Johnson-Bogart, Kim. The Utopian Imagination of Charlotte Perkins Gilman: Reconstruction

of Meaning in 'Herland.' Philological Association of the Pacific Coast, 1992, JSTOR,

doi: 10.2307/1316715. 30

Kessler, Carol F., and Charlotte P. Gilman. Charlotte Perkins Gilman: Her Progress Toward

Utopia with Selected Writings. Syracuse UP, 1995.

Lane, Ann J. To Herland and Beyond: The Life and Work of Charlotte Perkins Gilman.

Pantheon Books, 1990.

Lathrop, Anna. Herland Revisited: Narratives of Motherhood, Domesticity, and Physical

Emancipation in Charlotte Perkins Gilman's Feminist Utopia. Caddo Gap Press, 2006.

Lecker, Robert, and Jack David. “Margaret Atwood.” The Annotated Bibliography of Canada's

Major Authors, vol. 53, ECW Press, 1979, pp. 14–46.

Lynn, Steven. Texts and Contexts: Writing about Literature with , Pearson

College Division, 2016.

“Margaret Atwood Biography.” Biography.com, A&E Networks Television, 27 Oct. 2015,

www.biography.com/people/margaret-atwood-9191928#synopsis, Accessed 13

Dec. 2016.

Marx, Karl. “Marx To Ludwig Kugelmann In Hanover.” Letters: Marx-Engels Correspondence

1868, Marxist Internet Archive, 1868.

---. “ and Capital.” Wage Labour and Capital. Chapter 2, Marxist Internet

Archive, 1847.

McCarthy, Mary. “Book Review.” The New York Times, 9 Feb. 1986,

www.nytimes.com/books/00/03/26/specials/mccarthy-atwood.html.

Menand, Louis. “Karl Marx, Yesterday and Today.” The New Yorker, 10 Oct. 2016,

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/karl-marx-yesterday-and-

today. Accessed 20 Nov. 2016. 31

Nischik, Reingard M. Engendering Genre: The Works of Margaret Atwood. U of Ottawa P,

2009.

Nischik, Reingard M. Margaret Atwood: Works and Impact. Camden House, 2000.

Roth, Kenneth. “Slavery: The ISIS Rules.” The New York Review of Books, 24 Sept. 2015,

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2015/09/24/slavery-isis-rules/. Accessed 20

Nov. 2016.

Rothstein, Mervyn. "No Balm in Gilead for Margaret Atwood." The New York Times

Biographical Service, vol. 17, 1986, p 254,

http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/09/03/specials/atwood-gilead.html.

Accessed 20 Nov. 2016.

Sanchez-Grant, Sofia. "The Female Body in Margaret Atwood's The Edible Woman and Lady

Oracle." Journal of International Women's Studies, no. 2, 2008, pp. 77,

http://vc.bridgew.edu/jiws/vol9/iss2/7/. Accessed 20 Nov. 2016.

Stein, Karen F. Margaret Atwood Revisited. Twayne Publishers, 1999.

Swale, Jill. "Feminism, and Politics in The Handmaid's Tale: Jill Swale Examines the Social

and Historical Context of Atwood's Novel.” The English Review, vol. 1, 2002, p. 37,

https://business.highbeam.com/437089/article-1G1-92950402/feminism-and-

politics-handmaid-tale-jill-swale-examines. Accessed 20 Nov. 2016.

Van Wienen, Mark W., Denise D. Knight and Cynthia J. Davis. "Gilman's as

Background to Her Writings." Modern Language Association of America, 2003, pp.

32-39, http://trove.nla.gov.au/version/20149702. Accessed 20 Nov. 2016.

West, Lindy. Herland: The Forgotten Feminist Classic about a Civilisation without Men.

Guardian Newspapers Ltd., 2015, 32

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/mar/30/herland-forgotten-

feminist-classic-about-civilisation-without-men. Accessed 20 Nov. 2016.

Acknowledgments

I would firstly like to thank Charlotte Perkins Gilman and Margaret Atwood for being articulate, passionate, and reflective authors whose work I deeply respect and admire. I would also like to thank Dr. Michael Barnes, who taught my class on Text-

Criticism-Theory and originally introduced me to Marxist-feminist literary theory. Dr.

Barnes also provided essential advice on instilling an additional layer of importance to the project by referencing current-day examples of women’s subjugation to men. Dr. Mary

Pollock’s classes on contributed to my knowledge base of gender-based inequality, and how to bring these nuances issues to the forefront of an argument. Dr.

Grady Ballenger bestowed upon me the value of sticking to a calendar. He also questioned my intentions with the project, encouraging my voice’s presence within. Thank you to my friends and family who bore some of the implicit stress associated with my taking on a project of such gravity.