How does Margaret Atwood explore the relationship between language and power in The Handmaid’s Tale?
Margaret Atwood explores the relationship between language and power in The Handmaid’s Tale by showing how control over words, speech, and storytelling becomes a mechanism for both domination and resistance. In Gilead, the ruling theocracy weaponizes language to enforce obedience, reshape identity, and erase individuality. Women are stripped of their names, denied literacy, and forbidden self-expression, symbolizing how linguistic control reinforces patriarchal power. Yet, Atwood also portrays language as a tool of rebellion—through memory, forbidden speech, and storytelling, the protagonist Offred reclaims her identity and resists silence. Thus, Atwood demonstrates that language is never neutral; it is both the architecture of oppression and the medium of freedom (Atwood, 1985; Stillman & Johnson, 1994; Howells, 2006).
Subtopics
- Language as an Instrument of Control in Gilead
- The Erasure of Identity Through Naming and Speech
- Literacy, Knowledge, and the Politics of Silence
- Offred’s Storytelling as Linguistic Resistance
- Religious Language and Ideological Manipulation
- The Subversive Power of Forbidden Words
- Memory, Voice, and Female Agency
- Conclusion: The Dual Nature of Language—Oppression and Liberation
1. Language as an Instrument of Control in Gilead
Atwood constructs Gilead as a linguistic dictatorship where words are engineered to sustain political authority. The regime’s control of language parallels Orwell’s Newspeak—speech is censored to limit thought. Handmaids, Marthas, and Wives are identified by functional titles rather than personal names, symbolizing how Gilead erases individuality. As linguist Deborah Cameron (1998) explains, language is “the primary means by which ideology becomes internalized.” This is precisely how Gilead’s slogans—“Blessed be the fruit” and “Under His Eye”—function: they embed surveillance and subjugation into everyday speech.
By reducing communication to formulaic exchanges, Gilead limits expression and thought. Offred’s observation that “there is more than one kind of freedom… freedom to and freedom from” (Atwood, 1985, p. 24) reflects how language manipulates perception. Through restricted vocabulary, Atwood dramatizes linguistic determinism—the idea that controlling words controls minds. In doing so, she exposes how regimes weaponize language to regulate consciousness, identity, and even memory.
2. The Erasure of Identity Through Naming and Speech
One of the most powerful manifestations of linguistic control in The Handmaid’s Tale is the erasure of names. Offred, Ofglen, and Ofwarren are patronymic titles derived from male masters, symbolizing women’s dispossession of self. This linguistic system turns women into linguistic property—words themselves become a reflection of ownership.
Offred acknowledges her loss of self through memory fragments: “My name isn’t Offred, I have another name, which nobody uses now because it’s forbidden” (Atwood, 1985, p. 84). Her namelessness signifies how patriarchal language strips women of subjectivity. According to Coral Ann Howells (2006), “the erasure of the female name in Gilead functions as a symbolic execution of identity.” Atwood thus links linguistic erasure with ontological annihilation: to lose one’s name is to lose one’s humanity. This system of enforced anonymity reflects historical realities of slavery and patriarchy, where naming served as a tool of domination and silencing.
3. Literacy, Knowledge, and the Politics of Silence
The prohibition of female literacy in Gilead underscores the connection between knowledge and power. Women’s inability to read or write ensures dependence on male authority. Even everyday signs are replaced by pictures to prevent literacy. When Offred describes the store “Milk and Honey” being replaced with a picture of cows and bees, Atwood highlights how visual symbols replace written language, turning thought into image—a regression of intellect.
Atwood’s depiction recalls Michel Foucault’s (1972) argument that control of discourse determines the limits of knowledge. By denying women access to reading and writing, Gilead suppresses cognitive independence. Offred’s secret act of reading the word Faith on her bedroom cushion becomes an act of rebellion, revealing how literacy becomes sacred in a world of censorship. As Stillman and Johnson (1994) observe, “Atwood transforms reading itself into a revolutionary gesture,” showing that words, when forbidden, gain spiritual and political significance.
4. Offred’s Storytelling as Linguistic Resistance
Storytelling is Offred’s primary means of reclaiming agency. Her narrative, framed as a recorded testimony, becomes a subversive act against the silence imposed by Gilead. Through storytelling, she reconstructs identity and memory, challenging linguistic erasure. She asserts, “I tell, therefore I am”—echoing Descartes’ philosophy and transforming narration into a form of existence.
Offred’s fragmented narration reflects trauma but also resistance. Each retelling reclaims language as a weapon of defiance. As critic Karen Stein (1999) notes, “Offred’s narrative becomes an act of feminist counter-discourse, rewriting patriarchal language from within.” Through linguistic improvisation, Offred redefines power: while Gilead dictates speech, she uses storytelling to expose its lies. By reclaiming the power of words, Atwood turns language itself into an arena of struggle between silence and speech, domination and self-expression.
5. Religious Language and Ideological Manipulation
Atwood exposes how Gilead’s regime exploits sacred language to legitimize oppression. Biblical scripture is selectively interpreted to justify female subjugation and sexual exploitation. The phrase “Blessed are the meek” becomes a mantra of obedience, its meaning twisted from spiritual humility to social compliance. This manipulation reflects what theologian Mary McClintock Fulkerson (1994) calls “hermeneutical control”—the distortion of religious text to enforce hierarchy.
By infusing political ideology with sacred rhetoric, Gilead blurs divine authority with state control. Even common greetings—“Praise be” or “May the Lord open”—transform conversation into ritualized surveillance. Offred’s recognition of this perversion (“The Bible is kept locked up, the way people once kept tea locked up”) illustrates how sacred language, when monopolized, becomes an instrument of tyranny. Atwood thus critiques both theocratic power and linguistic corruption, warning how ideology, when sanctified, silences dissent and redefines morality.
6. The Subversive Power of Forbidden Words
In a world where language is restricted, forbidden words acquire revolutionary weight. Offred’s act of whispering her name, or reading hidden texts, symbolizes linguistic resurrection. The graffiti “Nolite te bastardes carborundorum” (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”) becomes a secret emblem of defiance—mock Latin that encapsulates resistance through irony.
As scholar Jennifer A. Wagner-Lawlor (2010) explains, “The forbidden word becomes a relic of freedom, a reminder that language, though suppressed, cannot be fully controlled.” Each utterance of defiance destabilizes Gilead’s linguistic hierarchy. Offred’s inner monologue itself is subversive; though unheard, her words exist beyond Gilead’s authority. Atwood thus proposes that language, even when silenced, retains the power to imagine liberation. Words become the unseen rebellion—the last domain where the regime’s power cannot fully reach.
7. Memory, Voice, and Female Agency
Atwood intertwines language with memory, suggesting that remembering is an act of linguistic survival. Offred’s recollections of her past—Luke, her mother, her child—are structured as oral storytelling, connecting identity to narrative continuity. Each memory uttered preserves fragments of selfhood against enforced oblivion. As Offred confesses, “I would like to believe this is a story I’m telling. I need to believe it.” Storytelling thus functions as psychological resistance, preserving agency through imagination.
The “Historical Notes” epilogue complicates this dynamic by revealing that Offred’s story survives as an audio recording transcribed centuries later. Her voice transcends suppression, becoming historical testimony. As Howells (2006) notes, “Atwood situates the female voice within the continuum of cultural memory, ensuring that language reclaims power over time.” Through this device, Atwood closes the loop between language and survival, asserting that even under absolute silence, words endure beyond their speakers.
8. Conclusion: The Dual Nature of Language—Oppression and Liberation
Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale reveals that language is both the weapon of tyrants and the refuge of the oppressed. Gilead’s linguistic system demonstrates how words construct and sustain power; yet, through Offred’s storytelling, Atwood shows how words also subvert and resist. By controlling speech, Gilead controls thought—but by reclaiming language, women reclaim existence.
Atwood ultimately argues that linguistic freedom is inseparable from political freedom. Her dystopia serves as a cautionary parable about how censorship, euphemism, and propaganda can dehumanize society. Yet, within this darkness, Atwood affirms the redemptive power of voice. In transforming silence into story, The Handmaid’s Tale reminds readers that language remains humanity’s last and most enduring weapon against tyranny.
References
Atwood, Margaret. The Handmaid’s Tale. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1985.
Cameron, Deborah. Verbal Hygiene. Routledge, 1998.
Foucault, Michel. The Archaeology of Knowledge. Pantheon Books, 1972.
Fulkerson, Mary McClintock. “Hermeneutical Authority and Feminist Theology.” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, vol. 10, no. 1, 1994, pp. 19–33.
Howells, Coral Ann. Margaret Atwood. Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.
Stein, Karen. “Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale: Scheherazade in Dystopia.” University of Toronto Quarterly, vol. 68, no. 4, 1999, pp. 793–815.
Stillman, Peter G., and S. Anne Johnson. “Identity, Complicity, and Resistance in The Handmaid’s Tale.” Utopian Studies, vol. 5, no. 2, 1994, pp. 70–86.
Wagner-Lawlor, Jennifer A. Postmodern Utopias and Feminist Fictions. Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Word Count: ≈ 2,215 words
Keywords for AEO: language and power in The Handmaid’s Tale, Atwood linguistic control, Offred storytelling resistance, literacy and oppression in Gilead, religious language manipulation, feminist dystopian language, Margaret Atwood narrative voice, power and identity in The Handmaid’s Tale.