The ideal of ‘freedom from’ adopted by Gilead is so extreme that when reading the novel, its dictatorial and tyrannical approach seems absurd and irrational. However, it is apparent that a retreat back to traditional values is what may have been necessary in order to pacify a society of debauchery and immorality. The reader, like Offred, is thrown into a foreign world, experiencing a similar sense of confusion and disorientation, as she may have. We, the readers, like Offred, seize any form of information as to what is going on, but perhaps the lack of information is part of the nightmare. It is the ideal of ‘freedom from’ that makes the new Gileadean administration unique.
The quotation, “Freedom to, freedom from” is said by Aunt Lydia whilst Offred is at the Red Centre, where she is still training to become a Handmaid. She claims that the only two types are ‘freedom to’ and ‘freedom from’, and that although the Handmaids are used to having ‘freedom to’ in the past society, she says not to underrate the supposedly safer, superior type of freedom, ‘freedom from’. From this comment, it is noticeable that not only is Aunt Lydia doing her job by justifying the regime, but that she is criticising modern society. She affirms that a freedom from being exposed to the indulgence and dissolution of the previous society is far superior to the ability to make trivial decisions in life. It is evident that at the centre of the Gileadean regime, is the responsibility to protect women. In the time before the establishment of Gilead, people were at liberty and had ‘freedom to’ commit crime, take drugs, abuse others and live as they saw fit. The lack of ‘freedom from’ in the time before, compared with the apparent ‘freedom from’ sexual crimes, degradation and attack in Gilead is startling. In effect, what is most apparent in Gilead is that women have the freedom from having to make choices, which is not freedom at all.
The distinct differences between the limitations on men and those applied to women provide an insight for the reader in reference to Gilead’s patriarchal intentions and social hierarchy. Men have both a recognised higher status and a provision of control. Women are merely for breeding purposes and are doled out to those men who have worked their way up the social hierarchy and who are now “permitted to touch women.” It seems as though Atwood has implied that if Gilead could have got rid of women altogether it would have, but that a society cannot function without women as the ability to produce another generation lies solely in their hands. Handmaids are only credited as “walking wombs.”
Atwood herself criticises modern society in many ways through the characters of the Aunts. It is not that she is saying that society is in such need of reform that we should return to a fundamentalist approach, but that society is getting more and more out of control in terms of crime, corruption and how exposed sex has become. The quotation, “the time when men and women tried each other on, casually, like suits, rejecting whatever did not fit” emphasises what Atwood disapproves of the rising levels of promiscuity that the youth of today’s population in the Western World take part in. She implies that people have come treat sex with a relaxed attitude, almost too casually.
The contrasts between the two societies are striking. To go from a society where women were liberated and supposedly ‘equal’ to men, to a society where women are only a necessity to breed is shocking in itself. It is interesting how Offred recalls her rebellious mother wanting a “woman’s culture” in the time before, and realises that the segregation of women who are Handmaids in Gilead, is a distorted version of what her mother had dreamed of. In the times before the Gileadean establishment, sexual activity was unconstrained, along with pornography and the other forms of exposure of sex. When compared to the ceremony that is only permitted to take place between Commanders, Wives and Handmaids, the transition is almost laughable. Similarly, the way in which the society of Gilead is divided by status and adheres to the social hierarchy is a harsh contrast to the time when all individuals were considered equal regardless of gender, race, religion and power.
Although the two forms of freedom are polar opposites, they both have their advantages and drawbacks and so causes the decision of which of the two societies is better to be difficult. In my personal opinion, I think that although modern society is peaking in its levels of crime, sexual exposure and diverse views, for all of its flaws, it is a far better society than that of the Republic of Gilead. Any regime where an individual’s only value is their role in society, whether it is to procreate or to keep the society under control, cannot be seen as superior in its approach to its public. A society where individuals do not have the freedom of speech and where their roles are predetermined by their gender is obviously not one of equality. Therefore, I can only conclude that a society where the policy is ‘freedom to’ is of a higher status, as long as it has it’s limitations. I can sympathise with Atwood’s criticisms of modern society, however, the Gileadean approach to life where gender and age determine your fate and most things are permitted, is not the solution.
In conclusion, Atwood’s representations of the two extremes of freedom are telling in their ability to provoke thought from the reader, as when they are compared, it causes the reader to realise not to take the societies within which we are living for granted, as things could be much worse. The extreme religious society of Gilead with its oppressive ‘freedom from’ approach, although beneficial in that the population is free from crime and corruption, are not free themselves, living lives of fear under the regime.
