Significance of Knowledge
Perceived and dedicated for men
Based on religion
Weaponisation of knowledge
Both Gilead and Victor ridicule women's role in society; whilst Gilead believes “women can’t add” and strictly controls their right to an understanding, ‘Frankenstein’ also hints at women’s lack of comprehension, with the unresponsive Mrs Saville - the receiver of Walton's letters, and in turn Frankenstein and the creature's narrative, due to the mise-en-abyme structure.
In ‘Frankenstein’, Victor attempts to utilise womb and birth imagery, by calling his laboratory a "workshop of filthy creation". He also alludes to "midnight labours", functioning as a metonymy of gloom and horror, a typical feature of Gothic literature. Reproduction and birth are almost turned into monstrous actions, taking place in a location and at a time that is dismal, isolated and daunting. Monsters were typically interpreted as signs of divine anger or as portents of impending disasters, from classical times to the Renaissance. By providing a visible warning of the results of vice and folly, monsters came to exist as a moral function. Shelley deliberately problematises the distinction between the monster and humans, especially with the way in which the monster was produced, creating a liminal space, in order to destabilise humanity's place as civilised, placing humanity itself in that liminal position.
The notion of the monstrous is also explored by Atwood when Moira's feet function as a visible warning for handmaids considering escaping. The description "Her feet did not look like feet at all. They looked like drowned feet, swollen and boneless" plays on the idea that monster derives from the Latin words 'monstrare' and 'monere', meaning demonstrate and warn respectively. Whilst both texts play with the idea of the monstrous, it is arguably more subtle in ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’, since the creature in ‘Frankenstein’ has more stereotypical, visible features of what we would consider a monster in the modern world.
The Historical Notes further sneer at Offred and dismiss her experience in Gilead. This paratext of historiographical metafiction functions as a reminder that the power dynamic between men and women in society is still one-sided and dominated by patriarchal structures. The male Professors only care about the facts and wish Offred "had the instincts of a reporter or a spy". This shows Professor Pieixoto's lack of empathy towards Offred's situation, downplaying women's suffering, demonstrates that society has not learnt and continues to remain deeply sexist. Offred does have these instincts but chooses to report on private matters, providing a counter-discourse which challenges Gilead’s patriarchal narrative. Offred shared a typical feminine approach to narrative telling, focusing on emotions and relationships, rather than facts and evidence that are considered more masculine.
This links to Helene Cicoux's notion of 'L'ecriture Feminine', which is arguably a form of female empowerment as Offred is adopting a more feminine form, however, the Historical Notes suggest her ability to tell the story has been arranged by male professors. The title of the text links to ‘The Canterbury Tales’, since the 24 tales are titled by the character’s profession and function to society, much like Offred. It may be said that Atwood is reinserting the female voice into literary canon by referencing what many consider the first great work of literature.
The imbalance of power, shown through the control of knowledge may be crystallised in the phrase “nolite te bastardes carborun” in Atwood’s novel, since Offred only finds out the meaning of this phrase by the Commander. This is a metaphor for men dictating knowledge and controlling when women can know and understand something. The significance of the phrase not being translated draws attention to the act of rebellion rather than the meaning of the words. This may be considered an empowering rebellion to simply see it since women are forbidden to read and write. Offred is also mocked by the Commander when he responds "that's very clever. Butter. He laughed" to her methods of connection with her body after abjection. Offred distances herself and experiences a breakdown of the distinction between what is self and what is other - an idea Julia Kristeva refers to as "corporeal reality". To regain a relationship with her body, Offred uses butter to moisturise and physically bond with her body. By doing this, Offred further abjects herself and objectifies her body, referring to it with the simile "like a piece of toast". The imbalance of power is emphasised here since the Commander cannot understand the struggles of the handmaids, due to his position as a powerful man.
The notion of knowledge being controlled by men is arguably more obvious in ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ since the theocracy believes that it was a mistake "teaching them to read" and uses propaganda and censorship to keep women in a state of misunderstanding and mindlessness. However, in ‘Frankenstein’, there is a more nuanced approach to the dictation of knowledge by men, such as "I would penetrate their misty veil and seek them in their cloudy retreats". Anne K. Mellor discusses the abusive and oppressive relationship between men and women through depicting science and masculine and nature as feminine - in order to ultimately show the power imbalance.
Oppressed characters in both texts are constructed and placed together by men. THT - Use of the Historical Notes - Offred’s narrative has been constructed and ordered by men – sense of the future in Historical Notes – no equality – disturbing – sneering and misogyny powerful. Frankenstein – fundamentally constructed by Victor, a man, but then the attitudes of men, eg: Felix, force him into becoming the monster and “Declaring everlasting war against the species”
Shelley and Atwood evocatively explore the presentation of the significance of knowledge through an exploration of its subsequent impact on marginalised individuals as a result of imbalanced power dynamics, stemming from the weaponization of knowledge. Whilst Atwood and Shelley both manifest the impacts of “abhorrent” knowledge weaponization and the various value systems that can develop as a result of it the harnessing of power differently, with Shelley’s construction of the monster’s individualistic degradation far more localised than the collective erasure of authenticity of the Handmaids, it is discernible that both authors elucidate the palpable displacement of both marginalised groups, resulting from the phallocentric manipulation of knowledge and the power inherent within such an action. In doing so, perhaps both authors serve to underline the peril that lies within the facilitation of phallocentric power abuses, as to facilitate the degradation of contemporary societies on a collective and localised level.
In both Frankenstein and The Handmaid’s Tale, Shelley and Atwood evocatively examine the significance of knowledge through the ways in which the phallocentric pursuit of knowledge – to the extremity of having “lost all soul or sensation but for this one pursuit” facilitates the systematic erasure of female value; however, in Frankenstein, Shelley manifests such a motif through the usurpation of the female role within creation, as a result of the desire to satiate phallocentric desires. This is discernible throughout the novel, but is rendered particularly palpable through the construction that Victor has “always” been “embued with the fervent longing to penetrate the secretes of nature”, his “ardent desire” to “learn the secretes of heaven and earth” having replaced “all soul or sensation” but for “this one pursuit”. Shelley’s immediate deployment of the active verb “penetrate” in elucidating this “deeply smitten” attitude towards the pursuit of knowledge is significant, as to suggest an abrasion within this forcefulness that cannot be unnoticed, seemingly attributing a volatility and uncivility to Victor’s construction, as to perhaps reflects the nature of this “ardent desire” – which “greatly exceeded moderation” – to pursue knowledge as being one entirely supernatural in its potent abrasion and being reflective of the role of the male scientist in the victimisation of the natural world, according to Anne K. Mellor’s theory of ‘good’ and ‘bad science’.
Moreover, in Shelley’s mirroring of the undercurrents embedded within such eco-criticism, perhaps it is plausible to attribute a further lack of consent present between the “calm and heavenly” scene and the “fervent longing” to transcend the “metaphysical”, as to further lambast the belligerent violation of the extreme pursuit of science on the Romantic realm of nature – a particularly potent theme to Shelley, considering her stance as a second generation Romantic poet. Alternatively, in combining the active verb “penetrate” within the yonic construction of a phallocentric desire to “penetrate into the recesses of nature”, to show “how she works in her hiding places”, it is perhaps plausible to suggest that Shelley serves to underline the severity and ferocity of such an abrasive desire, its coupling with the adjective “fervent” in depicting this “longing” further appearing to emphasise the belligerence with which the organic process of creation within the realms of naturalism have been weaponized, as to satiate masculine desires for knowledge and violate natural autonomy. In doing so, perhaps it is alternatively plausible to suggest that in presenting such a violation of the natural autonomy of the “palaces of nature”, Shelley serves to reveal the banality within the phallocentric manipulation of knowledge to shape a holistic female perception, with the construction of Victor’s complete erasure of the female role within creation an entire disruption of Erasmus Darwin’s proto-evolutionary conception of nature, which saw the necessity of both the ‘male and female seeds’ being passed onto the next generation in order to transfer the necessary characteristics of a species.
Atwood similarly reflects the usurpation of the female role within creation as a result of the phallocentric manipulation of knowledge with the erasure of female validity, the structural decision to title the novel ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ a prevalent manifestation as such, the phallocentric classification of this homodiegetic narrative as a ‘tale’ constructing its presentation as one fictious in its ability to legitimise female experience. Perhaps in constructing the presentation of the weaponization of knowledge and its subsequently developed power dynamic, Shelley serves to highlight the extent to which the pursuit of knowledge is inherently perilous in its promotion of nonchalance towards female integrity and authenticity.
Whereas, in ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’, Atwood poignantly explores the presentation of the effects of the weaponization of knowledge within advanced power dynamics – in order to erasure female value – through the physical weaponization of the female form. In doing so, perhaps Atwood, like Shelley, serves to accentuate the prevalence of the power wielded by knowledge abuse as a result of its manipulation, illustrating the ways in which its abuse can facilitate the collective degradation of female value and validity. As such, Atwood examines this relationship through her construction of the weaponization of religious ideology, as to satiate masculine desire; in particular, that the Handmaids are always “Under His Eye” when walking “two by two” to complete their mandated domesticity is significant, with this suggestion of perpetual surveillance in conjunction with the formulaic phrases of “Blessed be the fruit” and “May the Lord open” perhaps underlining the perpetuity and ubiquity inherent within the weaponization of the female form, the yonic imagery of the “fruit” in conjunction with the biblical choes of being wished upon to be “blessed” physically manifesting this need for the Handmaids to be reduced to their reproductive ability, the adjective “blessed” alternatively attributing them a revered purity and benevolence in favour of satiating phallocentric desire. In immediately emphasising the ubiquity of the manipulation of knowledge within the exposition of Offred’s homodiegetic narrative, Atwood interestingly solidified their roles as only being “two-legged wombs”, “sacred vessels”, and “ambulatory chalices”, the collective reification of the Handmaids as being “worthy vessel[s]” juxtaposing its proxemics, as to emphasise, perhaps, the phallocentric perception of women as being physically empty appearing to confirm their positions within Gilead as ones possessing conditional authenticity and agency in response to masculine urges and desire.
Alternatively, perhaps it is plausible to suggest that Atwood’s dehumanised construction of the Handmaids as “sacred vessels” – ones who are not “concubines, geisha girls, courtesans – is polysemic in its biblical reference to the story of Rachel, Leah, and Jacob within Genesis, with Bilhah and Zilpah’s reductive physical exploitation to carry Jacob’s reflecting the emptiness that tinges the perception of the Handmaids when unable to fulfil their roles as “two-legged realms” in a totalitarian theocracy, in which “God is a national resource”. What is more, in constructing the dehumanisation of the Handmaids through their attributed physical emptiness as “vehicles” for the phallocentric desires of men, Atwood similarly links the unity of the Handmaids in being in this position of “reduced circumstances” to the localised weaponization of the natural world within Frankenstein, with the weaponization of knowledge to become the “creator” of a ”new species who will bless me as its creator and source” both ultimately erasing the authenticity of female experiences through its lack of ability – or lack of fulfilling – to satiate masculine desire. In doing so, perhaps Atwood serves to emphasise the ways in which the weaponization of knowledge through the veil of phallocentrism merely facilitates the degradation of female validity, as to maintain masculine control within such nuanced and imbalanced power dynamics.
In the book of Genesis, Rachel is married to Jacob, but cannot have children. So they can have a child, Rachel suggests that her handmaid, Bilhah, should have sex with her husband and carry their children. This Bible verse appears several times throughout the book: the book’s epigraph, before the Ceremony, and in Offred’s memories. “Then comes the moldy old Rachel and Leah stuff we had drummed into us at the Center. Give me children, or else I die” (Chapter 15). Atwood repeats this Bible verse to show how important this specific narrative is to Gilead. By interpreting this verse literally, it justifies Handmaids being forced to bear children and other forms of patriarchal oppression. This shows Gilead has been influenced by biblical ideas surrounding their solution to the falling birth rate. They use handmaids to force women into conceiving.
“Oh God, King of the Universe, thank you for not creating me a man. Oh God, obliterate me. Make me fruitful. Mortify my flesh, that I may be multiplied. Let me be fulfilled” (Chapter 30). This phrase is adapted from a prayer that traditionally says: “Blessed are you, Lord, our God, ruler of the universe who has not created me a woman”. Offred changes this phrase and instead thanks God for “not creating me a man.”. This change is ironic, as in Gilead, men are valued much more than women. However, even though she is subjected to rape and toture, Offred is able to have children (i.e. be “fruitful”), which gives her value in society. By following the idea of childbirth with the prayer “oh God, obliterate me” Offred conveys to the reader that having children will reduce her to nothing. In other words, Offred has to “obliterate” herself in order to have value in this patriarchal society. In 'Frankenstein', Victor says "life and death appeared to me ideal bounds, which I should first break through, and pour a torrent of light into our dark world". He takes on the role of God in creation. This opposes the handmaids' reproduction since they are taught to value God's input. Frankenstein highlights the importance of life when creating creature and shows a god-complex by attempting to create life. Shelly is saying that usurping God will lead to bad things.
"There is more than one kind of freedom, said Aunt Lydia. Freedom to and freedom from." - Chapter 5. Free will and predestination. Contrast between life before Gilead, and after (explore further in freedom and hope). Aunt Lydia seems to warn the handmaids about future societies where they have freedom to act with agency, but will lack the freedom from abuse and predatory behaviour. Puritans ideals and laws. Puritans were Protestants who sought to purify the Church of England of Roman Catholic practices. Puritans in America laid the foundations of religious, social and political order of New England colonial life. Atwood studied at Harvard under Professor Perry Miller who is a scholar of the Puritan mind and Atwood's ancestor Mary Webster underwent attempted hanging as a witch in 1683, Atwood says "The mindset of Gilead is really close to that of the seventeenth-century Puritans", Anne K. Kaler writes that Puritan women were assigned names like "Be Fruitful" to remind them "of their female destiny"