Essay: Is Language an Instrument of Oppression

“Dystopian writers focus on the oppression of their gender and fail to consider the oppression of the other sex within their novels” Explore how far you agree with this view [30]

Dystopian literature often suggests that gender plays a pivotal role in one’s freedom, both Atwood’s ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ and Orwell’s ‘Nineteen Eighty–Four’ demonstrate the difficulties within different gender divides. Whilst both novelists share the common theme of ‘gender oppression’ both texts approach oppression in separate ways.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place an order

Writers of dystopian literature focus on the oppression of their gender through the use of language. Both protagonists (Offred + Winston) experience restrictions on their language as the institutions attempt to reduce their thoughts by limiting their ability to communicate effectively. Both novelists stress the importance of language on freedom and without sufficient language, we’re unable to experience a full range of emotions further oppressing our thoughts. In ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ Offred is forbidden to read or write; even the cushions with “faith” and “charity” are removed from her bedroom making it impossible for her to expand on her vocabulary. Atwood explores gender oppression when readers discover that the men in Gilead are free to read the Bible and contextually this links in with 1st wave feminism where women were powerless in a patriarchal society that forbade them to have equal rights such as an education. Meanwhile, Orwell approaches language differently by considering both genders, the debauching of language in ‘1984’ makes criticisms of the Party “linguistically impossible” as argued by Bernard Crick. The debauching of language affects both genders and Orwell includes the ‘oppression of the other sex’. Although Orwell considers both men and women, the debauching of language seems to affect men more. Orwell excludes women by stating how Julia “didn’t care for reading” but Ampleforth has been arrested because he wrote the word “God” in a poem and due to the “destruction of words” he could not think of another word to rhyme with “rod”. This idea is mirrored in many other dystopias such as Lois Lowry’s ‘The Giver’, in this dystopia protagonist Jonas is “careful about language” as he “searched for the right word to describe his feeling” This description reinforces that without the right vocabulary we are unable to communicate our thoughts. This view is further supported by Ludwig Wittgenstein who states: “The limits of my language mean the limits of my world”. Wittgenstein’s statement supports the view that without the right vocabulary, one cannot express oneself, placing a “limit” on their “world”. In Atwood’s dystopia this statement mostly applies to women as the men in Gilead are free to expand on their vocabulary and Offred’s only chance of expanding her vocabulary is through a hidden note and scrabble. While this game of Scrabble is “indecent” and “dangerous” Atwood showcases through a feminist point of view that this game is Offred’s chance to escape into a “fantasy” world far away from the “heart of Gilead”. Both novelists highlight the significance of language on the range of thought and demonstrate how a reduction in words affects both genders – Orwell choosing to do so from a male point of view and Atwood exploring through a female point of view.

It could be argued that both dystopias ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ and ‘1984’ depict women as systematically degraded by men. In Orwell’s novel, we see a male point of view on women, Winston’s first impression of women is that they “were all alike” This description reinforces how women are looked down upon by men reducing their individuality to the collective. Similarly in Atwood’s dystopia the Handmaids are all described as being “alike” and “doubled” This diminishes their identity making them unimportant. Correspondingly, both novelists consider gender oppression of women, ‘1984’ Winston’s first impressions of Julia are sexual as he observes “the shapeliness of her hips” and in their first sexual encounter he objectifies her further stating how “except for her mouth, you could not call her beautiful”. It could be argued that Orwell is more interested in how Julia appears to Winston than her personality, Julia is described in a similar way to the Proles and Orwell has done this to perhaps indicate how women suffer from criticisms from men. This is most evident when Julia’s swearing is likened to “the sneeze of a horse” – the use of animalistic terms presents Julia as inhuman. Beatrix Campbell argues in her essay ‘Orwell – Paterfamilias or Big Brother?’ that the portrayal of Julia as a sex object with no interest in ideas is typical of Orwell’s negative attitudes towards women, even when he’s trying to be positive about them. About the question Orwell is trying to acknowledge the oppression of both sexes but fails to understand the opposite sex defining women using rational terms such as “rabbit” and “horse”. Comparably, Atwood’s dystopia explores the objectification of women through ‘The Ceremony’, in this ceremony the Handmaids are referred to as “two-legged wombs”. This links in with Second-Wave Feminism which Atwood was inspired by: this movement campaigned for social change regarding domestic violence and sexual harassment. In addition to this, a Marxist feminist would have turned their attention to how women are turned into commodities, in ‘1984’ Julia becomes Winston’s “physical necessity” and in Atwood’s dystopia, Offred is a necessity to combat the Birth dearth. This is supported by K. Reshmi who states how Offred’s “body is segmented, and her value is determined based on her reproductive capability” – this links in with the American New Rights movement in the early 1980s which warned about the Birth dearth and the right to abortion. Both novelists have focussed on gender oppression by demonstrating a bleak future for women as they’re often seen as a “physical necessity” rather than an individual.

Dystopian literature focuses on the importance of ‘names’ on different genders. Both Atwood and Orwell demonstrate the significance of belonging and having an identity, both dystopias suggest that without names one cannot claim individualism. In Atwood’s ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ women are stripped of their identities, almost every woman is referred to as either: a Wife, Aunt, Martha, Econowife, Unwoman, or Handmaid with the prefix “” before their commander’s name. This links in with Puritan New England, many of the practices in Atwood’s Gilead resemble those ideas of Puritanism. For example, Anne K. Kaler writes that New England Puritan women were assigned names like ‘Silence, Fear … Be Fruitful’ to be ‘reminded … of their feminine destiny’, and they were not allowed to use combs or mirrors or wear anything but plain and functional clothing according to Gina Wisker. This is reflected in Atwood’s dystopia as Offred’s identity has inevitably been stripped away from her and she’s physically confined inside her little red riding hood uniform with “white wings”. Atwood has deliberately placed the prefix “Of” before Offred, Ofwarren, and Ofglen’s names to demonstrate that they are the property of someone else – they’re objects rather than people. Atwood focuses on how patriarchy affects women by deliberately choosing to use the prefix ‘Of’ to showcase how Handmaids and women, in general, are commodities. However, in ‘1984’ names are addressed differently – Orwell gives his character Winston a full name but Julia is just a first name, this may demonstrate Orwell’s views towards women forcing readers to question whether are men more deserving of a full name than women. However, Orwell’s main focus is on the oppression of men – in Part 3 of ‘1984’ Orwell depicts how identity is easily erased, Winston is no longer referred to as “Winston Smith” but is referred to as “6079 Smith W”. Interestingly, in focussing on the oppression of men Orwell neglects Julia’s oppression in the Ministry of Love as he fails to consider her as a prisoner only focussing on Winston and how men are affected. It is only until the end of the novel we discover that Julia has been released but during the torture, we see no sign of her. Whilst both writers have addressed the oppression of their gender they both deceptively use names to suggest the opposite. Orwell’s reference to “Big Brother is watching you” perhaps sardonically overplays what the government should be like – an institution that cares for and protects its citizens by “watching” over them rather than depriving them of their individuality. By using such terms Orwell is criticizing the rise in powerful dictators of the 20th century – Stalin named himself ‘Uncle Joe’ and in the novel ‘1984’ the term “Big Brother” resembles this kind of oppression experienced in the 20th century. Similarly, Atwood has used deceptive names in her dystopia such as “Aunts” – usually an Aunt is a caring figure who looks over you, but the Aunts threaten to abuse Handmaids with “cattle prods”. Both novelists have addressed gender oppression similarly, the reference to ‘Aunts’ a feminine word makes us question whether is Atwood also addressing gender oppression on men, and the term ‘Big Brother’ is deliberately masculine perhaps addressing gender oppression on men + women caused by men.

Undeniably both novelists have focussed their attention on the oppression of their gender as pointed out by Margaret Atwood in the Guardian “The majority of dystopias – Orwell’s included – have been written by men and the point of view has been male”. Although both writers focus mainly on oppression towards their gender they both consider the opposite sex for example in ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ Atwood introduces us to Nick and how he is affected by this whole regime.