The Language of Violence in Dystopian Novels:
An Analysis of the relationship between language and state violence in The Handmaid’s Tale, Nineteen Eighty-Four and V for Vendetta
By Manouk Schippers
Supervisor: dr. K.A. (Kristine) Johanson
MA thesis, i.e. English Literature and Culture, University of Amsterdam 29 June 2018
Abstract:
This master thesis explores and analyses the relationship between language and violence in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale and Moore and Lloyd’s V for Vendetta. This thesis argues that states in these novels use language to justify and protect both their own violence as well as their own existence. It does so by analyzing different instances of violence and language throughout the novels and closely analyzing these instances by using different critical theories. This thesis distinguishes three relationships between language and violence; Language instigating violence, language being violence and language legitimizing violence. It shows how the legitimization of violence is dependent on the perception of those observing violence, and how language may be used to legitimize violence through the altering of perception.
Declaration:
I have read and understood the UvA guidelines of Plagiarism. This thesis is my own work and any primary and secondary sources have been properly cited.
Signed:
Table of Contents
Title Page 1
Abstract and acknowledgement 2
Table of Contents 3
Introduction 4
Language causes violence 9
Language is violence 14
Language as legitimization of violence 19
Propaganda 24
Changing of truth 29
The Reason for Oppression 34
Myth and the creation of enemies 38
External Enemies 41
Limitation of Language 45
Conclusion 50
Introduction
Both in literature as well as outside of it, a state generally holds the monopoly of violence within its own borders, meaning that only the state may exert legitimate physical force. Civilians may not exert violence against one another or against the state. Because of this monopoly of violence, a state generally finds itself in a position where it erases, obscures, naturalizes and re-presents its own violence as legitimate while simultaneously condemning violence used by its subjects. This thesis will analyze twenty-first-century dystopian novels Nineteen Eighty-Four, The Handmaid’s Tale and V for Vendetta and the way in which states use language to justify and protect both their own violence as well as their own existence.
This thesis will focus on three novels from the genre of dystopian literature: George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), Margaret Attwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale (1985) and the graphic novel V for Vendetta (1988), written by Alan Moore and illustrated by David Lloyd. For
dystopian literature as a genre this thesis uses the definition given in an article by Gorman Beauchamp, who defines it as; “a genre that projects an imaginary society that differs from the author's own, first, by being significantly worse in important respects and, second, by being worse because it attempts to reify some utopian ideal.”(‘The Politics of The Handmaid’s Tale’, 11) All of the chosen novels conform to this definition; each novel has a society that is
significantly worse than that of the authors, in all of them the dystopian system originates from a wish of being an improvement on their original 20th century modern societies. Furthermore, all of these novels are set in societies that have a totalitarian regime that has come to power through revolution. This last point means that in all three novels there is a clearly defined state which can use language, which can exert, vilify and justify violence and which can be attacked. The choice for dystopian literature as a genre is based not only in the fact that it is relevant for the current political debate, but also in the fact that through dystopian novels the reader gets confronted with a state that has a negative impact on its citizens lives and that very explicitly establishes its authority over these citizens. Because of this the subject of violence performed by and against the state within these works stands out. Both Nineteen Eighty-Four and The Handmaid’s Tale are very similar in how they are structured. Both represent an oppressive totalitarian regime seen through the eyes of one of its subjects, who narrates and analyzes the effects the regime has on their lives. In this sense, V for Vendetta is the odd one out. V for Vendetta shows many aspects of life within its totalitarian society. While V and Evey are the main focus on the novel, their inner
world is not represented unless they make it explicit. The fact that V for Vendetta is so different from the other two novels makes it relevant, as it shows the oppressive regime not through the experiences of the characters but through scenes representing life within a totalitarian state. However, this does also mean that certain subjects are not shown explicitly within the novel. The novel plays the smallest role within this thesis because, while certain aspects of violence and language can be assumed to be present in this state too, they are simply not explicitly addressed within the novel. This is however not a problem for the analysis of language in relation to violence in V for Vendetta, as the relationship between state violence and language explicitly present in the novel is sufficiently addressed.
The three novels have also been chosen because all of them have found their way into modern popular culture as well as into recent political debates. Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four has never been unpopular, but has been compared to the political climate in recent years, an era that is now regularly dubbed ‘post-truth’. As John Rodden argues in his article “Donald and Winston at the Ministry of Alternative Facts”;
within hours of the swearing-in, White House press secretary Sean Spicer heatedly insisted that the inauguration was the best attended inauguration ever –“Period”-
regardless of what the photo and statistical evidence might indicate. Two days later [..] a close advisor to the President, defended Spicer by Explaining that his false claim were merely alternative facts. Alarms rang out across the globe that Winston Smith could not have come up with a better line in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth (216)
V for Vendetta, and more specifically the Guy Fawkes mask of main character ‘V’ became an emblem of hacktivist milieu ´Anonymous´ and subsequently became employed around the world in a multitude of social movements and contexts. S. Yigit Soncul states that ‘With the graphic novel V for Vendetta and with its film adaptation, Guy Fawkes was transformed into a secular hero of positive significance” (1) Finally, Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale has seen a surge in popularity through its adaptation into a television series, but more importantly it’s discourse as well as it’s outfits have found their way into debates and protests regarding feminism and abortion. An example of this is the protests in Texas concerning the restriction of abortions, where women dressed up as Handmaids in order to protest the state taking away reproductive rights.
This thesis will use multiple scholarly theories for its analysis of the relationship between language and state violence. The first three parts will be concerned with the three main relationships between language and violence; Language causing violence, language being violence and language legitimizing violence. From this, the thesis will look more in dept at specific ways language relates to violence throughout the three novels. In ‘Language causes violence’, the theories of Walter Benjamin and Ricouer, who pose language and violence as each other’s opposites, will be briefly analyzed and compared to Žižek’s theory, which states that language is complicit to violence. This theory will be used to argue that language instigates, encourages and justifies violence in both Nineteen Eighty-Four and The Handmaid’s Tale. The next part of this thesis will argue that in these two novels, language takes on the role of violence by causing harm. This will be argued through the theories of Gay, Ross and Feindberg. The part ‘Language as Legitimization of Violence’ will argue that alteration of language may affect perception in general, and the perception of violence specifically. It will argue that in all three novels, the state hold the monopoly of violence and therefore has an interest in justifying its own use of violence while condemning the use of violence by citizens. In doing so the states aim to maintain their own power. Philippe Bourgois work will be used to explore the way perception of violence influences whether violence is considered legitimate or illegitimate. This will be used to argue that in The Handmaid’s Tale, Offred and the Commander perceive the same violence differently. Through the works of Max Weber and Jacques Derrida, the argument will be made that all three states in the novels have a monopoly of violence and that because of this, all three state have an interest in legitimizing their own violence while condemning that of their citizens. It will then follow Linda Coats and Allan Wade in arguing that because of the interest states have in the perception of violence, they use language in order to affect the perception of this violence.
From the broad reading of the relationship of language and violence in the three novels, this thesis will then go on to analyze more specific forms and instances of language and violence. In ‘Propaganda’, the ways in which language is used to influence the perception of state violence is addressed. Following Fergenson, this part argues that in The Handmaid’s Tale the state uses propaganda in order to substitute individual interpretation of history, the concept of freedom and the bible for an interpretation constructed by the state and aimed at legitimizing its rule and use of violence. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, the state uses propaganda in order to replace the country’s history with its own interpretation of history. In doing so, it creates a one-sided story that cannot
be falsified by citizens in order to legitimize its own existence and represent itself as an improvement from the past. The next part of the thesis, concerning the changing of truth, will focus on the way perception of reality and truth is influenced by the state in all three novels. It will argue that in Nineteen Eighty-Four and The Handmaid’s Tale, history is not only
reinterpreted but also falsified in order to create a narrative beneficial to the state. Furthermore, the state ensures that any other version of history becomes wholly inaccessible to its citizens, thus ensuring that they have no way of falsifying the state’s propaganda. Through Žižek’s theory on subjective violence versus objective violence, it will show that in V for Vendetta, the narrative of the state has caused Evey to not know or imagine a life without the violence of the state, and that therefore she does not perceive this violence as violence.
In ‘The Reason for Oppression’ it will be argued that in all three novels the state uses language in order to oppress certain groups within it population. It will then go on to argue that in the case of Nineteen Eighty-Four and The Handmaid’s Tale, this oppression is used in order to prevent opposition of the state and in order to ensure the continuation of the state. In order to do so it will use Joseph Ribakoff’s argument that discrimination erodes trust between groups. Through
Beverly Greene’s analysis of how divide-and-conquer techniques may be used in order to prevent groups from unifying against their ‘bully’, it will analyze how in Nineteen Eighty-Four, these techniques are used in order to prevent citizens from rising up. It will continue to analyze how in The Handmaid’s Tale, these same techniques are used in order to justify the state’s regime, and by extent its existence. In ‘Myth and the Creation of Enemies’, the focus will be on the way in which states in V for Vendetta and The Handmaid’s Tale use political myth in order to justify their violence against minority groups. It will argue that in V for Vendetta, the state uses political myth in order to persecute minority groups using a pre-existing us-versus-them narrative and that in The Handmaid’s Tale, the state invokes association with the word ‘traitor’ in order to shape the perception of homosexual men. ‘External Enemies’ will in turn focus on the way the state in Nineteen Eighty-Four creates an image of a foreign threat in order to maintain its position of power and create a narrative in which they are the protector of a society that should be protected. Finally, in ‘Limitation of Language’, the focus will be on how in all three novels, the state limits language. It will look at how the state has full control of the media that citizens are exposed to and the way in which, in The Handmaid’s Tale, the state creates a culture of self-censure, limiting language even further. It will then go on to address Newspeak and argue that
this alteration of language in Nineteen Eighty-Four aims to take away citizen’s ability to express themselves as well as limit their ability to formulate thought.
This thesis will not have one explicit definition for what is considered violence. This is primarily because any definition of violence cannot have explicit parameters without making artificial distinctions, and any definition that shuns such distinctions is so broad that it cannot be used in practice. Through literature a subjective side of violence may be exposed and explored, both from the point of view of the victim as well as from the point of view of the perpetrator. This in turn allows for the analysis of these subjective aspects of violence. As Judith Butler points out in a lecture on ‘Distinctions on violence and nonviolence’ (2016); “most of us would be relatively uncomfortable with the claim that only a physical blow qualifies as violence” A similar notion is also pointed out by Žižek in the preface of ‘Language as Violence, Violence as Language’;
Violence is not simply an action or a practice; it has many dimensions. Violence is a perception. It is an expression. A way to be seen or heard. A form of domination. A mode of discrimination. A lack, absence or decline of communication. All these dimensions are interdependent […]. Violence is a social, economical, cultural and political issue,
instilled in language. Language acts as a map that mediates reality through everyday communications; so violence becomes instilled in reality. (2)
The quote from ‘Language as Violence, Violence as Language’ gives a definition of sorts that allows for the defining of violence through subjective means, while not being so broad that nearly every human interaction is covered by it. The subjective aspect of violence does mean that, without a rigid definition, the person defining or perceiving violence has a large influence over what is deemed violence and what is not, and risks coloring this with their own experiences and perceptions. However, giving a rigid or purely objective definition risks sacrificing the ability to address certain aspects of violence for the sake of objectivity.
Langue causes Violence
Language may be a tool used to condemn violence and to describe it. However, language may also cause and enable violence. This can be seen in Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which the created image of Eurasian spies, thought criminals and traitors that justifies violence. There is no attempt at a peaceful solution through language. Instead, language causes the violence to be seen as justified and encouraged. In The Handmaid’s Tale, this distortion of the responsibility of violence plays an important role, here language enables violence by laying the responsibility of violence outside of the perpetrator.
This statement is not unopposed. In his ‘Critique of Violence’, Walter Benjamin argues that non-violent resolution to conflict is possible because “there is a sphere of human agreement that is non-violent to the extent that it is wholly inaccessible to violence: the proper sphere of
‘understanding,’ language.” (245, qtd. In Žižek ‘Language, Violence and Non-Violence, 1) Benjamin’s argument is that language is inaccessible to violence because it “presupposes a minimum recognition of the other.”(Žižek ‘Language, Violence and Non-Violence p.1). Paul Ricoeur makes a similar argument, stating that language is not violent, but rather that “the problem of violence is […] that it is language that is its opposite.” (Violence and Language, 32-33.) The main difference between these two statements is that Ricoeur does not apprehend the ‘understanding’ of language. Regardless, both men’s arguments fall within what Slavoj Žižek argues to be “the mainstream tradition in which the prevalent idea of language and the symbolic order is that of the medium of reconciliation and mediation, of peaceful co-existence, as opposed to a violent medium of immediate and raw confrontation.” (Language, Violence and
Non-Violence, 1)
Ricoeur does not argue that violence and language are mutually exclusive, or that violence cannot be present in language, but rather that “A violence that speaks is already a violence trying to be right: it is a violence that places itself in the orbit of reason and that already is beginning to negate itself as violence.” (33) he continues to argue that when looking at language and violence, the point of departure must inevitably be that “Violence and language measure from one end to the other as two contraries each exactly adjusted to the whole extension of the other.” (33) Ricoeur make a number of assumptions that are at least disputable. First of all he assumes that there can be a violence that is ‘trying to be right’. This, in combination with his statement that
language and violence are each other’s opposites holds the assumption that violence is always wrong as well as that there can be a form of violence that is trying to not be violent and is therefore trying to be right. Another assumption Ricoeur makes is that violence falls outside the realm of reason, whereas language falls within it. Numerous scenarios are imaginable in which violence is a rational, deliberate and well-calculated choice, just like it is possible to imagine instances in which language is used without it being rational or reasonable. Take for instance ethnic violence, such as the systematic killing of Jews, Roma, Homosexuals, disabled people and communists during the second world war. It is hard to deny that this violence was a rational choice, or to deny that it was meticulously planned. A less harmful and more common example can be found in for instance erotic domination in sadomasochism, which Jessica Benjamin dubs ‘rational violence.’ (144) On the other hand, speech can be irrational or unreasonable; physical and mental afflictions may affect speech, as may mind-altering substances. On a more linguistic level there are for instance non-lexical conversation sounds, such as “err” or “oh”, which serve no purpose in communication and are generally not consciously added to speech, but which are nonetheless part of language.
Slavoj Žižek makes a different argument than Benjamin and Ricoeur when it comes to the relationship between language and violence. He states that “when we are dealing with the scene of a furious crowd, attacking and burning buildings and cars, lynching people, etc., we should never forget the placards they are carrying and the words which sustain and justify their acts.” (Language, Violence and Non-Violence p. 3). Žižek’s argument is not that language and violence are each other’s opposites. Instead he asks “What if […] humans exceed animals in their capacity for violence precisely because they speak?” (2) Žižek argues that language does not necessarily diminish violence amongst humans, but rather that language is at the root of violence. He states that language is the first divider between humans because “it is because of language that we and our neighbors (can) “live in different worlds” “(2) Žižek gives anti-Semitism as an example but states that it can “stand in for all racist violence” (2) Regarding anti-Semitism he states that it is not the “immediate reality of Jews” that provokes violence, but that this provocation is caused by “the image/figure of the ‘Jew’ which circulates and has been constructed in their tradition.” (2) From this Žižek argues that what the anti-Semite tries to destroy “is this phantasmatic
dimension” (2) This creation of an image/figure, which becomes the enemy, rather than the individual against whom violence may be exerted is what can be seen happening in George
Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. In this novel, it is the created image of Eurasian spies, thought criminals and traitors that justifies violence. An example of this can for instance be found in this scene from chapter two;
‘Up with your hands’ yelled a savage voice.
A […] boy of nine had popped up from behind the table and was menacing a toy automatic pistol’ […]
Winston raised his hands above his head, but with an uneasy feeling, so vicious was the boy’s demeanor, that it was not altogether a game.
‘you’re a traitor!’ yelled the boy. ‘You’re a thought-criminal! You’re a Eurasian spy! I’ll shoot you, I’ll vaporize you, I’ll send you to the salt mines!’ (755-56)
Even though this passage is concerned with ‘mock’ violence, it is language that lies at the base of it and propagates it. The boy in Orwell’s tale will have never (knowingly) met a ‘traitor’,
‘thought-criminal’ or ‘Eurasian spy’, yet he has an idea of what these are and uses this idea to justify his threat of violence. It even make’s the boy so vicious in Winston’s eyes that the situation does not quite feel like a game to him. There is no attempt at a peaceful solution through language. Rather it is language that has taught the boy that this violence is justified or even encouraged. His opponent is not, to use Žižek’s terms, ‘the reality’ of a ‘traitor’, ‘thought-criminal’ or ‘Eurasian spy’ but rather the ‘image/figure’ within the ‘phantasmatic dimension’. Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale likewise shows how language precedes violence;
"In the past," says Aunt Lydia, "it has been the custom to precede the actual Salvagings with a detailed account of the crimes of which the prisoners stand convicted. However, we have found that such a public account, especially when televised, is invariably followed by a rash, if I may call it that, an outbreak I should say, of exactly similar crimes. So we have decided in the best interests of all to discontinue this practice.. […]” (191)
Here, the power of language to precede violence is explicitly acknowledged. While it can be said that the language is itself preceded by violence, this violence is not observed by the people present at the Salvagings. In that sense, it is irrelevant whether said violence actually took place.
As Aunt Lydia proves, it is speaking of crimes that may perpetuate crimes. Language may inspire violent acts that would have otherwise not been conceived. The protagonist of Atwood’s novel, Offred, confirms this. She states that “The crimes of others are a secret language among us. Through them we show ourselves what we might be capable of, after all.” (191) Thus, language speaking of violence may inspire violence that would have otherwise not been conceived by showing what citizens are capable of doing if they chose.
Another way in which language may be complicit to violence lies in “its capacity to shield its users from the reality of their acts” (Fergenson, 73) In her text ‘From language to Thought to Action’, Laraine Fergenson supports this argument by addressing the notion posed by George Orwell, who in turn responds to Huxley, that “ “abstractions” about groups of people can obscure the horror of “Concrete reality” (Huxley [1973] 1975, 463; Orwell [1946] 1968, 132-37;
Fergenson 1975, 74) In his text, Orwell states that “In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible.” (136, qtd. In Fergenson, 74). Additionally, Fergenson argues that language may create ambiguity regarding the responsibility for violence. Or, to put it differently, language might create a barrier between the person performing violence and the violence itself. For this, she addresses the subject of legal context discussed by Robert Cover in “Violence and the World” (1986) Following him, she argues that “a judge who sentences a convicted felon to a prison term is actually using language to commit a violent act[…]. The judge […] is empowering others, through physical violence and with weapons if necessary, to make sure that the convict is confined. The legal word, thus, becomes the means by which violence is perpetrated.” (81) she continues to argue that “Neither the judge, nor the law’s other agents […] feel personally responsible for committing violence.” (81)
In The Handmaid’s Tale, this distortion of the responsibility of violence plays an important role. During the previously mentioned ‘Salvaging’ that Offred is made to attend, the prisoners are to be hanged for their crimes. She narrates; “I've leaned forward to touch the rope in front of me, in time with the others, both hands on it […] then placed my hand on my heart to show my unity with the Salvagers and my consent, and my complicity in the death of this woman.” (192). In this, the question of responsibility, as well as consent, is indeed distorted. The prisoners have been convicted by someone other than their executioners and the women in attendance are made to give their consent for the execution of this verdict. Offred acknowledges that she is complicit
in the violence, yet she has no choice but to be there. Thus, in the end, every person involved in this violence can lay the responsibility for the violence outside of themselves, because it is the speech act deciding the prisoners are to be executed that is the direct cause.
Thus, there are multiple ways in which language may be complicit to violence. It may, as Žižek argues, precede violence. This can be seen in Nineteen Eighty-Four in which language causes violence to be seen as justified and encouraged. In The Handmaid’s Tale, language is also seen directly inspiring violence by creating ideas that may otherwise not have been conceived. In The Handmaid’s Tale, language also shields its perpetrators from the reality of their actions by laying the responsibility for violence outside of the perpetrator and allowing people to commit violence without having to take on the responsibility for it.
Language is Violence:
Thus far, it has been argued that language precedes violence. However, there is yet another argument to be made regarding the relationship between language and violence, namely that language in itself may be a form of violence. In order to fully comprehend how language can in fact be violent, a distinction must be made in what type of consequences violence can have. In “Linguistic Violence”, William C. Gay follows the argumentation of Stephanie Ross and Joel Feinberg that “Hurt is a species of harm […] (for example, while assault is a hurt, undetected burglary is a harm).” (16) From this, he derives that “language in general can perpetuate the harm of a system of oppression, regardless of whether individuals consciously experience the hurt of its offenses against them.”(16) This is what he dubs ‘linguistic violence’. Gay argues that the distinction between hurt and harm can be equivalated to “distinction between offense and oppression.”(16) Gay gives racist and sexist language as “the most obvious examples of
linguistic violence” (22). He argues that the way in which linguistic violence becomes apparent is for instance the way in which “in most languages the female form is “marked” (that is, carries endings that mark a term as feminine). (22) An other argument that Gay gives, which he bases on research by Brittan and Maynard, is that the language of oppressed groups is, through language, “presented as inferior”(22) and that because of this people who do not speak a socially accepted form of language are disadvantaged through bureaucracy in an increasingly bureaucratic society. These two distinct examples are important in understanding the violence within language and will be expanded on in what follows.
An example of victims of linguistic violence are the ‘proles’ in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. Throughout the novel, the proles are marked and treated as separate from the rest of society. An example of this can be found in a conversation between Winston and Syme in Nineteen Eighty-Four:
‘Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?’
‘Except——’ began Winston doubtfully, and he stopped. It had been on the tip of his tongue to say ‘Except the proles,’ […]
‘The proles are not human beings,’ he said carelessly. ‘By 2050—earlier, probably—all real knowledge of Oldspeak will have disappeared. (67)
From this fragment it becomes clear that in Oceania, the country of Nineteen Eighty-Four, the proles are not considered to have ‘real knowledge’. The proles are the lowest social class in Orwell’s novel, they are referred to by an abbreviation of the word ‘proletariat’ (264). The prejudice against this particular group of people goes as far as them not being subjected to the enforcement of newspeak and even to the proles not being regarded as human beings. There are of course more examples to be found of the prejudice against the proles in Nineteen Eighty-Four: They are segregated in movie theatres (12), do not have access to the same media (55), and are not protected by the police (83). Furthermore, the proles are linked to ‘fornication’ (82), something that is frowned upon within the higher levels of society;
“The poorer quarters swarmed with women who were ready to sell themselves. […] Tacitly the Party was even inclined to encourage prostitution, as an outlet for instincts which could not be altogether suppressed. Mere debauchery did not matter very much, so long as it was furtive and joyless and only involved the women of a submerged and despised class. The unforgivable crime was promiscuity between Party members.” (83) The proles are disregarded, discriminated against and equated to animals. They are only valued for working and procreating and not held to the same rules as Party members because they are not perceived as human. As Winston states; “the Party taught that the proles were natural inferiors who must be kept in subjection, like animals, by the application of a few simple rules. In reality very little was known about the proles. It was not necessary to know much. So long as they continued to work and breed, their other activities were without importance.”(91) and indeed, a party slogan reflects this; “proles and animals are free.”(92)
The proles are perceived, and treated, as livestock. Wilson compares them to “cattle let loose on the plains” (91) who grow up in the gutters, start working at the age of twelve and die at sixty. (91) The proles are controlled with lies and live in poor circumstances, have to go into
prostitution and are mistreated and neglected. They are not protected from crime because “since it all happened among the proles themselves, it was of no importance.” (92) Furthermore, the fact that the proles are deliberately denied access from education and political ideas, in combination with the fact that those who are deemed capable of inspiring any sort of uprising are eliminated
(91), means that the proles are made incapable of resisting their position within society and their treatment; “even when they became discontented, as they sometimes did, their discontent led nowhere, because being without general ideas, they could only focus it on petty specific grievances. The larger evils invariably escaped their notice.”(92). Thus, while not directly hurt by this linguistic violence, proles are harmed by it because they are mistreated and neglected and are made incapable of resisting this abuse.
In The Handmaid’s Tale, yet another aspect of linguistic violence can be found. This is the internalization of negative stereotypes by oppressed groups. This means that people who are part of an oppressed group may internalize the inferior image constructed of them through
aforementioned linguistic violence. According to Quintana and Segura-Herrera markers of this internalization are “outgroup favoritism, derogation of the ingroup, and ‘‘tolerance of
injustice’’.”(Developmental Transformations of Self, 271) They argue that; “Internalization of inferiority can lead to favoritism and preference demonstrated toward dominant groups by oppressed groups. Additionally, internalized inferiority may be associated with the development of bias and prejudice toward one’s own ingroup in which members of oppressed groups
stigmatize themselves and their group.” (271) Thus, not only do negative stereotypes affect the way marginalized groups are viewed by society, but it also negatively affects the way members of these groups perceive themselves, leading them to reproduce the stigma’s and to tolerate oppression.
Through the first person narrative of The Handmaid’s Tale, the effects of internalization become evident. The state in the novel promotes a conservative idea of women, who are not allowed to read, with the exception of the aunts (90), or freely choose their own partners (152). Offred slowly but certainly internalizes the state-promoted image and role of women; “My nakedness is strange to me already. My body seems outdated. Did I really wear bathing suits, at the beach? I did, without thought, among men, without caring that my legs, my arms, my thighs and back were on display, could be seen.”(46) Offred remembers life from before the revolution and the raise to power of the totalitarian state in which the novel is set. Yet she has internalized the new role of women within society, causing her to perceive her naked body as strange and outdated. The shift in Offred’s perception of women’s bodies can also be seen when Offred and another Handmaid encounter female tourists that are not subjected to Gilead’s dress code; “We are
fascinated, but also repelled. They seem undressed. It has taken so little time to change our minds, about things like this.”(23) Offred is not merely startled by a sight she has not seen in a while, she is repelled. She acknowledges this shift in her perception of the way women should dress by acknowledging that her mind has been changed. More subtle ways of Offred’s
internalization of her own oppression can also be seen in the way she speaks about handmaids; “We are for breeding purposes: we aren't concubines, geisha girls, courtesans. On the contrary: everything possible has been done to remove us from that category. […] We are two-legged wombs, that's all: sacred vessels, ambulatory chalices.”(95) While it could be said that Offred is simply repeating the narrative of the state, the internalization of this narrative can be found in the fact that she says ‘we are’. She does not accredit these views to an outside party by saying that the handmaids are perceived this way by others, or that this is the narrative of the state. She simply says ‘we are’.
While it can be said that in her affair with Nick, Offred disregards this image again, this is not entirely true. While she does develop feelings for Nick, she only sleeps with him once Serena Joy, the Wife of the household to which Offred is posted, asks her to (142 when Offred keeps returning she notes “For this one I'd wear pink feathers, purple stars, if that were what he wanted; or anything else, even the tail of a rabbit.” As Peter Stillman and Anne Johnson argue;
“Whatever form her feelings for Nick take towards the narrative's end- whether desire, sexual passion, or love -they seem particularly incapable of leading to resistance or identity […] for Nick, Offred reduces herself to body.”(76) An other aspect they point out is that she ignores the requests of Ofglen, a fellow handmaid and thus someone from her ‘ingroup’, at his request. (76) While Offred may defy the rules set for her in her role of Handmaid she has internalized her submissive role. Offred does not defy the image of her being an object which is to be molded to the wishes of the dominant group; She defies the rules because people from the dominant group ask her to, and is willing to submit herself to Nick’s wishes. Furthermore, she chooses to fulfill his wishes over helping a fellow handmaid.
In short, linguistic violence may cause harm even when it does not cause hurt. In Nineteen Eighty-Four the effects of linguistic violence can be seen through the creation of an image of inferiority of the proles, which harms their position and opportunities within society and which renders them powerless against oppression and abuse. In The Handmaid’s Tale, Offred
to a certain extent, internalizes the idea that women’s bodies should be covered. Furthermore, she has internalizes her submissive role, reduces herself to an object and her defiance of the rules set for her originate from requests from the dominant group. Finally, she favors the ‘outgroup’ over the ‘ingroup’ by choosing to listen to Nick rather than to help Ofglen.
Language as legitimization of violence
In order to be able to further explore language in relation to violence throughout this thesis, this part will focus on language used to legitimize violence and argue that alteration of language may affect perception. First it will argue that violence is subjective to perception and that a difference in perception may cause the same violence to be considered legitimate by some while others perceive it as illegitimate. From this, it will argue that, within the three novels, the states hold the monopoly on violence and therefore benefits from altering the perception of their violence through language in such a way that it is perceived as justified.
Philippe Bourgois explores the perception of legitimate and illegitimate violence in his article “The Power of Violence in War and Peace”, in which he revisits field notes that he made during the Cold War. He recounts; “I thought I was transcending Cold War ideology, but instead I merely mimicked it. […] I maintained a moral opposition between ‘worthy’ political violence that rallies the subordinate in the face of repression by an authoritarian state versus ‘unworthy’ violence that confuses and demobilizes the socially vulnerable in neo-liberal democratic societies.” (11-12) There are two things that become clear from Bourgois’ account. First of all, that ideology and propaganda are reproduced through citizens and that such reproduction can happen unwittingly. Second of all, that subjectivity causes a distinction to be made between ‘worthy’ and ‘unworthy’ violence which is not based on the acts of violence themselves, but on how they are perceived.
There are many examples within the discussed novels that could be given to illustrate Bourgois’ findings on the influence of perception on the interpretation of violence. One example can be found in The Handmaid’s Tale. This fragment was chosen because it shows different
perspectives on the same violence This fragment shows a conversation between Offred and the Commander about the way the world has changed and the position this has put Offred in. What becomes clear is that while both are aware of the state-enabled violence committed against Offred, their perceptions on this are different.;
Come now, he says, pressing a little with his hands. I'm interested in your opinion. You're intelligent enough, you must have an opinion.
About what? I say.
I hold myself very still. I try to empty my mind. I think about the sky, at night, when there's no moon. I have no opinion, I say.
He sighs, relaxes his hands, but leaves them on my shoulders. He knows what I think, all right.
You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, is what he says. We thought we could do better.
Better? I say, in a small voice. How can he think this is better?
Better never means better for everyone, he says. It always means worse, for some. (146)
While to Offred the offenses are acute and unacceptable (‘How can he think this is better?’), to the Commander they are justified. In his perception, the violence, affecting ‘some’, is acceptable as it is necessary for the way their society is constructed. Or, as he puts it; “You can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs.” What stands out in this conversation is the fact that the Commander does not make the violence explicit. First of all, by saying ‘what we have done’ he does not commit to a definition. Second of all, he uses the seemingly harmless and domestic metaphor of making an omelette to refer to state-sanctioned oppression and rape. The metaphor is telling as it shows the difference in perception through its symbolism; Offred has no autonomy within society and is under the control of the commander in a role that has dehumanized and objectified her. The commander is free to sacrifice her autonomy in order to create a world from which he benefits, at little to no cost to himself. The meaning of the metaphor is clear, but as Karen Stein argues, the lapse into cliché shows that ”his response is superficial [and] trivializing both the issue and the person he is answering.”(67) The commander is not only sharing his own views, but by equating it to ‘sacrificing’ an egg to an omelette, trivializes the violence
experienced by Offred.
As shown before, perception affects whether violence is interpreted as legitimate or illegitimate. This fact is particularly important to the state’s in the three discussed novels, as they hold the monopoly of violence and therefore have a stake in how violence is perceived. In his work Politics as a Vocation, Max Weber defines the modern state as the “human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” (1) He goes on to argue that “The state is considered the sole source of the ‘right’ to
use violence.”(1) and that ‘If the state is to exist, the dominated must obey the authority claimed by the powers that be.”(2) Thus, in order for a state to exist, it has to be able to claim the
monopoly of violence and this claim has to be perceived as legitimate and it has to be obeyed by the subjects of the state. This monopoly of violence is explored further by Jacques Derrida, who, following Walter Benjamin’s Zur Kritik der Gewalt argues that; “At its most fundamental level, European law tends to prohibit individual violence and to condemn it not because it poses a threat to this or that law but because it threatens the juridical order itself.” (Force of Law, 985) Derrida makes a distinction between two types of state violence; “Founding violence” and “conserving violence” (1001). Because the state in Nineteen Eighty-Four, The Handmaid’s Tale and V for Vendetta have already been founded at the start of the novels, it is especially this latter, ‘conserving violence’ that is relevant. It is this ‘conserving violence’ that is used by the states against their subjects and which is aimed at preserving the state. Derrida also links this to the state’s monopoly of violence, arguing that; “From the moment that this positive, positional (setzende) and founding character of another law is recognized, modern law (droit) refuses the individual subject all right to violence.”(999)
In all three novels, the state holds the monopoly of violence; all three states control the police force and punish citizens for transgression of rules. While some violence by citizens is permitted, this is only within the confines set by the state. In V for Vendetta the fingermen, who fulfill the role of the police, may rape and kill Evey, but only because they catch her for prostitution, which is “a class-h offense”, meaning that they “Get to decide what happens to [Evey]”(11). Outside of state-control, such violence is not permitted and is in fact countered by the fingermen (238). In The Handmaid’s Tale, a similar monopoly of violence can be seen; the Wives of commanders are permitted to commit violence against the handmaids, but the state forbids the Wives to kill them, especially when they are pregnant. If a Wife does kill a handmaid, the state in turn
executes the transgressor.(191) While here violence is permitted to a certain extent and against a specific group, the state has full control over what violence is permitted and only violence that it permits may be committed without punishment. What adds to this is the fact that handmaids are dehumanized and objectified through the state’s rule. The state bases its treatment of handmaids in an attempt to repopulate the country. Handmaids are valued only for their ability to procreate and if they are unable to do so they are removed from society. This takes away prerogative for the state to protect them as human beings. What the state protects instead is the possibility of
procreation. Violence against handmaids is therefore not considered violence against a person but rather violence against an object with a specific function on which the state bases its rule. Thus, as long as this function is not damaged, this violence holds no threat to the position of the state. Finally, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, the state controls every aspect of its citizens’ lives and may even punish its subjects for thinking certain thoughts, which it calls ‘thoughtcrime’(24), if it perceives these as a threat to the juridical order. Again, the exception to this rule is the lowest class, the Proles, as these are not seen as a threat to the state. (92)
Thus, following Weber and Derrida, it can be said that states in all three novels hold the
monopoly of violence, and that the goal of this violence is to preserve the state. Yet, what can be seen from Weber’s argument is that the state’s claim needs to be accepted by its subjects. As can be seen in Bourgois’ account at the beginning of this chapter, what violence is and is not
accepted depends not so much on the nature of the violence, but rather on how the violence is perceived. This perception of violence can be, and is, actively influenced by the state. As Linda Coats and Allan Wade argue;
Where military, administrative, or economic power is used on a large scale, such as war, genocide, or political repression, representational practices akin to those employed in Orwell’s “ministry of truth” (Orwell1966) are always at work. As a general rule, the more strident the abuse of power the more effectively it must be justified or concealed by perpetrators and their supporters. (“Langauge and Violence” 512)
For states to be able to maintain themselves, or to minimalize opposition against them, states have to justify or conceal their violence through representation. The justification of a state’s violence is closely linked to the justification of a state’s existence; The main reason for an established state to use violence is, after all, to ensure its own continuation.
Concluding, language plays a large role as a constituent of violence. Language can alter perception, which influences whether violence is seen as legitimate. In The Handmaid’s Tale, Offred’s experience and perception differ from that of the Commander, who equates the violence done against her to breaking an egg. The state in all three novels holds the monopoly of violence which is aimed at conserving the state. Furthermore, this hold means that only the state can legally perform violence, or allow others to do so. In order to justify their own existence and to
justify or conceal their use of violence, states use language to influence the perception of this violence.
Propaganda:
One of the ways in which a state may use language in order to influence the perception of violence is propaganda. This can most explicitly be seen in The Handmaid’s Tale and Nineteen Eighty-Four. Through propaganda these states represent their violence as justified or necessary, for example by presenting a threat that their violence protects from. What their propaganda aims at on a broad level is a shift of interpretation of reality. Or, as Fergenson puts it; “In order to make sure that its objects are completely involved […] propaganda seeks to reconstruct the world, to redefine reality, or rather to substitute for individually-apprehended reality a recreated world.” (75) Thus, the states use propaganda to substitute the individual perceptions of reality of their subjects for a communal reality which benefits the state. In The Handmaid’s Tale and Nineteen Eighty-Four through changing perceptions of reality, the states justify both themselves as well as their violence.
In The Handmaid’s Tale, one way in which the state uses propaganda is by attempting to
substitute individual interpretation of memories for an interpretation of history constructed by the state. The state speaks to Offred and other Handmaids through the ‘Aunts’. The Aunts run the ‘Red Center’, where Handmaids are schooled, and in a sense brainwashed, before they are posted and their main role appears to be the spreading of propaganda and the justification of the state’s violence against the handmaids. Giving an interpretation of the past is one way in which they do so; “They seemed to be able to choose. We seemed to be able to choose, then. We were a society dying, said Aunt Lydia, of too much choice.” (21) Aunt Lydia uses language to justify the behavior of the state and the position this state puts the ‘handmaids’ in. By paraphrasing the past and by stating that values from before, like freedom of choice, were wrong or harmful. (‘we were a society dying […] of too much choice’). Importantly, it is not relevant whether this statement is strictly true. Citizens are stripped of the freedom to interpret the world. Instead, the only
interpretation of past and present that is accepted is taught to them and based in the currently ruling ideology, which is a form of radical Christianity. Those who cannot, or will not, conform to this are executed or deported.
Another aspect of the past that has been re-interpreted by the state is the definition of the word ‘freedom’ itself; “There is more than one kind of freedom, said Aunt Lydia. Freedom to and freedom from. In the days of anarchy, it was freedom to. Now you are being given freedom
from. Don't underrate it.” (20) In this case, Aunt Lydia refers to street harassment, which is of course never justifiable. Noteworthy however, is that the limitation of freedom in the form of segregation and the banning of social interaction between people within the novel’s society is reinterpreted by the state to be a different ‘kind of freedom’. A similar example can be found in V for Vendetta, in which the leader justifies his support for and implementation of fascism by stating that “the only freedom left to my people is the freedom to starve. The freedom to die. The freedom to live in a world of chaos. Should I allow that freedom? I think not.”(38) Thus, where in The Handmaid’s Tale the limitation of freedom is rephrased as ‘freedom from’, in V for Vendetta, the leader connects freedom to starving and dying, and justifies the government’s fascist regime by arguing that it should not let people die and starve. In both of these cases, the interpretation of both freedom, as well as the state’s violence that limits freedom, is justified.
A final example of the way in which the state reconstructs and substitutes its subjects’
interpretation of the world in The Handmaid’s Tale is through the interpretation and alteration of bible verses. In The Handmaid’s Tale, only specific bible verses are used by the state, and the only accepted interpretation of those is given by the state. As Karen Stein argues; “In the guise of a re-population program, Gilead reads the biblical text literally and makes it the basis for the state-sanctioned rape, the impregnation ceremony the handmaids must undergo each month.” (“Margaret Atwood’s Modest Proposal” 61) In some instances, Offred suspects that the texts are being manipulated. However, this suspicion is of little use to her as she has no access to anything that could prove this or that could help her find the original: “Blessed be the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are the merciful. Blessed be the meek. Blessed are the silent. I knew they made that up, I knew it was wrong, and they left things out, too, but there was no way of checking.”(63) Offred is correct in her stating that this version is both altered and that parts are left out. The original goes as follows;
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:1-10, New International Version)
This state, which give such an important position to the bible, alters bible texts exactly to fit its own needs. It omits phrases such as ‘for they will inherit the earth” and “for they will be shown mercy”, which could give its subjects the idea that, as long as they conform to these rules, they are entitled to such things. Not only are certain phrases left out, and has the order of the verses been scrambled, but the phrase ‘Blessed are the Silent’ has been invented completely.
It is this use and the alteration of biblical texts that perpetuates and justifies violence. Stein’s phrase ‘state-sanctioned’ might be too mild here, as the violence is not merely approved of, but promoted. The state does not use these bible verses to convince the handmaids of the
justifiability of what is expected of them. Rather, they put them in a position of little to no choice. If they refuse the position of handmaid, or if they become infertile or are unable to give birth to a healthy child within three ‘postings’, they are sent to work in the toxic wastelands. For the handmaids, the future holds either, as Offred puts it being “two-legged wombs” (95) or slow and painful death. It is this violence and the complete stripping of rights that the state justifies, perpetuates and promotes with its altered bible verses.
In The Handmaid’s Tale the state uses its propaganda not only to justify its own existence and violence, but also to justify punishing anything, past or present, that goes against what the state stands for. It does so in order to represent its own existence not only as justified, but also as necessary to right wrongs from a morally corrupt past. An example of this can be seen in the way the state constructs the narrative around abortion;
Each has a placard hung around his neck to show why he has been executed: a drawing of a human fetus. They were doctors, then, in the time before, when such things were legal. […] These men, we've been told, are like war criminals. It's no excuse that what they did was legal at the time: their crimes are retroactive. They have committed atrocities and must be made into examples, for the rest. […] What we are supposed to feel towards these bodies is hatred and scorn. (27)
As Offred mentions, the men have committed no crimes under the current regime, but the fact that they have committed them at all is enough for the state to punish them. Furthermore, the state’s narrative that these men should be perceived as war criminals has multiple results; First of all, it justifies the violence the state uses against these men and, in combination with the
executions poses a strong derogative from transgressing the state’s laws. Second of all, by equating abortion to war crimes the state attempts to alter the perception of abortion and by extent reinforces its justifications for its own existence. By moving abortion away from being something that was once legal but is now illegal to being something that is, like for instance genocide, immoral and has always been inacceptable, the state poses itself as the hero that finally rights this wrong.
In Nineteen Eighty-Four, the state justifies its own existence and violence through altering the perception of history in order to create the interpretation that citizens lives have improved under the regime’s rule. An example of this can be seen in a conversation Wilson has with an old man who was alive before the revolution;
The history books say that life before the Revolution was completely different from what it is now. There was the most terrible oppression, injustice, poverty here in London, the great mass of the people never had enough to eat from birth to death. Half of them hadn’t even boots on their feet. They worked twelve hours a day, they left school at nine, they slept ten in a room. And at the same time there were a very few people, only a few thousands—the capitalists, they were called—who were rich and powerful. They owned everything that there was to own. They lived in great gorgeous houses with thirty
servants, they rode about in motor-cars and four-horse carriages, they drank champagne, they wore top hats——’worse than anything we can imagine. (part 1 ch. 8)
Winston is trying to discover whether the information in the history books is true. He doubts the accounts that the regime gives. The state of Oceania, the country in which the novel is set, benefits from this negative representation of society before the regime. Similarly to the narrative by the state in The Handmaid’s Tale, this justifying narrative holds violence. On the one hand there is the threat of the violence of the world before the revolution, which is described as oppressive and harmful to its citizens. At the same time, in making this threat, the state justifies its own existence and the violence it uses to maintain itself. The quote from the history book
reminds, at least to a certain extent, strongly of a capitalist society. Yet the state narrative in Nineteen Eighty-Four only shows negative aspects of this. It disregards what was perhaps better, or even simply different. Like in The Handmaid’s Tale, the state uses propaganda “to substitute […] individually-apprehended reality” (Fergenson, 75) for a reality constructed by the state.
In order to change and replace the interpretation and perception of reality, the states in both The Handmaid’s Tale and Nineteen Eighty-Four use propaganda. In The Handmaid’s Tale, this is aimed at justifying the state’s existence and happens through a substitution of individually
interpreted history for an interpretation constructed by the state. One of the ways in which it does so is by reinterpreting abortion, which it has forbidden. It represents this as immoral, and in this justifies both the state’s violence and its existence. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, a selective reading of history allows the state to interpret this history as having been worse than its own rule. Through this representation of history, it justifies its own existence and the violence it uses to maintain itself by presenting the world before the regime as a negative situation to which people should not want to go back.
Changing of truth:
In all three novels, the perception of reality and truth is influenced by the state. The totalitarian states of Nineteen Eighty-Four and The Handmaid’s Tale do not merely change history, but they reinterpret it. Their goal in this is to eventually replace all historical narratives with their own. In The Handmaid’s Tale, the reinterpretation is taught to people who still remember the time before the revolution, whereas in Nineteen Eighty-Four this generation has nearly disappeared. Because of this it is difficult, if not impossible for Wilson to assert truth or alternative interpretation. This part will also explore the difference between objective and subjective violence and argue that in V for Vendetta the distinction between objective and subjective violence is different for Evey than it is for V, because here too interpretation of violence and the perception of reality has changed.
The idea that a state, and in particular an unopposed totalitarian state, may be able to influence objective truth was argued by Orwell even before he wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four. As Orwell stated in a letter in 1944;
I believe, or fear, that taking the world as a whole [totalitarianism, leader-worship etc.] are on the increase. […]Hitler can say that the Jews started the war, and if he survives that will become official history. He can’t say that two and two are five, because for the purposes of, say, ballistics they have to make four. But if the sort of world that I am afraid of arrives, a world of two or three great superstates which are unable to conquer one another, two and two could become five if the fuhrer wished it. (George Orwell: A Life in Letters 232)
From his letter, it becomes clear that Orwell was afraid that the kind of world portrayed in Nineteen Eighty-Four would come to pass. And indeed the phrase “two and two make five” has found its way into the novel (102). What this letter also shows is his argument that a totalitarian state, with which there is no interference from the outside, is able to alter perception as it wishes. According to Orwell, even objective truth may become subjected to the whims of the state.
In Language, Ideology, and the Human, Bahum and Radunović revisit the work of analytic philosopher David Gorman, arguing that; “one ideological statement can be true regardless of the
actuality of its truth-status; its truth claim is conditional only upon the agreement of the members of the community that receives that statement.” (5)
In Nineteen Eighty-Four, some of the texts from history books are given, whereas others are simply paraphrased; “There was also something called the JUS PRIMAE NOCTIS, which would probably not be mentioned in a textbook for children. It was the law by which every capitalist had the right to sleep with any woman working in one of his factories.”(94)
Aside from the fact that there is no historical evidence that this practice ever existed in the real world, outside of stories, the idea behind it is that noblemen had the ‘right to the first night’ with peasant brides on their land and has nothing to do with factory owners and their employees. So while the idea is not conceived by the state in Nineteen Eighty-Four, it is twisted into a lie that fits the states needs for propaganda.
Lawrence Philips argues that “It is the obliteration of any sort of reliable historical record by the Party that is a key plank in the ideological apparatus by which it retains power.” He
acknowledges that history is based on “interpretations of factual material” and is thus not by definition objective, he argues that
“it is the stifling of historical debate, of contestation over the meanings of the past, which makes this form of thought control ostensibly so effective and provocative. Orwell provides what appears to be an all-powerful exemplar of this power in the Ministry of Truth. Despite Winston's memory of discovering an uncensored document that disproved the Party's version of the past, such evidence is on the whole unimportant in a system where 'All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly and as often as was necessary'.” (“Sex, Violence and Concrete.” 71)
the old man Wilson speaks to does not give him a straight answer, leading Wilson to conclude; “The party histories might still be true, after a fashion: they might even be completely
true.”(116) Another observation that Wilson makes is that “Within twenty years [..] the huge and simple question, ‘Was life better before the Revolution than it is now?’ would have ceased once and for all to be answerable. But in effect it was unanswerable even now, since the few scattered survivors from the ancient world were incapable of comparing one age with another.” (118)
This is not a strange conclusion for Wilson to come to, and indeed that appears to be the exact objective of totalitarian states in literature. Or, as one of the party slogans in Nineteen Eighty-Four states; “Who controls the past […] controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.” (44) Aunt Lydia from The Handmaid’s Tale expresses a similar objective, namely that the life before the revolution should be forgotten. She states;
You are a transitional generation, said Aunt Lydia. It is the hardest for you. We know the sacrifices you are being expected to make. […] For the ones who come after you, it will be easier. They will accept their duties with willing hearts.
She did not say: Because they will have no memories, of any other way.
She said: Because they won't want things they can't have. (81)
Both Nineteen Eighty-Four’s England and The Handmaid’s Tale‘s Gilead are in the process of changing truth and erasure of certain accounts of history. History is colored, where it is not erased and made up entirely. As Wilson so accurately concludes; “Everything faded into mist. The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth.” ‘(95) This replacement of truth, this decision by the state on what is and is not true, can be seen in both The Handmaid’s Tale and Nineteen Eighty-Four. On Gilean and its authoritarian regime Michael Greene says the following;
Like any totalitarian system or any fundamentalist philosophy, Gilead’s authority, its attraction, and its injustice derive from a radical simplification of social possibility and human truth. For the subjects of Gilead, all answers are provided and unquestionable; theirs is the luxury of not having to think, to explore alternatives, and theirs is the sacrifice of not speaking, not voicing contradictory perspectives and possibilities. (“Body/Language in The Handmaid’s Tale” 101)
Thus, not only is history changed, but it is also made impossible for the subjects of Nineteen Eighty-Four and The Handmaid’s Tale to vocalize these changes or to create referential frameworks with which they could analyze or appraise these changes within a greater whole. Through this there is a shift in norm, in what is acceptable violence to citizens and in what freedoms they are willing to sacrifice in exchange for the continuation of the society in which
they live because the alternatives are either vilified and used as a threat, or made wholly incomprehensible.
Slavoj Žižek makes a distinction between subjective violence and objective violence. He argues that subjective violence is “directly visible” and “performed by a clearly identifiable agent.” (Violence, 1) Subjective violence is what people within a society perceive as violence, against a “non-violent zero level. It is seen as a perturbation of the ‘normal’, peaceful state of things.” (2) According to Žižek, only when we take a step back we can identify objective violence, which is the violence that “sustains the very zero-level standard against which we perceive something as subjectively violent.”’(2) By taking away or limiting subjects referential frameworks, notions of what is ‘normal’ are shifted, what may be subjective violence to the reader becomes objective, and thus invisible, violence to the citizens in these novels. As Žižek argues; “ When we perceive something as an act of violence, we measure it by a presupposed standard of what the “normal” non-violent situation is” (“Language, Violence and Non-violence”, 2)
In V for Vendetta, this distinction between objective and subjective violence plays an important role. This can be seen in the experiences of Evey and the way she, in turn, perceives violence. Main character V challenges the border between subjective and objective violence in Evey. Evey has had a difficult life filled with violence caused by the state; Her father was taken away for having been part of a socialist movement, she is forced to work in a factory, she is nearly raped and killed when she tries to earn money through prostitution, and her lover is killed. Upon Evey’s release she is angry at V for imprisoning her. V argues that “you were already in a prison”(168) and that Evey has lived in a prison all her life; “I didn’t put you in a prison Evey. I just showed you the bars” (170) . Evey resists this, stating that she was happy, and that she does not care if that is a prison. (169). Her reason for resisting shows the baseline of her world; “it’s just how life is” (170). While Evey has let a life wrought with violence and hardship, to her that is normal life. She was very young at the time of the revolution and has grown up in the
totalitarian state in which the book is set. Furthermore, due to her losing her parents at a young age she has also not been raised by parents who lived their adult lives before the revolution, but rather in a state-led hostel. The violence that readers perceive is, to Evey, objective violence, against which V’s imprisonment is perceived as subjectively violent, as he is not the state and thus his imprisoning Evey does not fall within ‘normal life’ within V for Vendetta’s England.
George Orwell himself argued that an unopposed state would be able to alter the perception of reality to the point where they would be able to alter objective truth. This changing of reality can be seen in the way both Nineteen Eighty-Four and The Handmaid’s Tale treat history; In both novels, the state not only reinterprets history, but also changes it. Their final goal in this is that eventually their interpretation will become the only interpretation, strengthening the state’s power. In V for Vendetta, the state achieves a shift in reality by influencing the distinction between subjective and objective violence. State violence is objective violence, and thus ‘normal life’, to Evey.
