Radical Leanings: Applying a Marxist-Feminist Lens to the Dystopian Fiction of Charlotte Perkins Gilman 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 ideologies 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 feminism 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 Marxism, 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 oppression 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 patriarchy can be observed in their comments on social classes, the power of collective action, and the demonization of capitalism. 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 mother 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 capital is severely restricted in that their labor is entirely uncompensated; a woman’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, private property does not exist; instead, the women embrace cooperative 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.