The Handmaid’s Tale contains a chilling… | Little White Lies

Not Movies

The Handmaid’s Tale con­tains a chill­ing envi­ron­men­tal warning

18 Jun 2017

Words by Lewis Gordon

Two women in red cloaks and bonnets, looking solemn.
Two women in red cloaks and bonnets, looking solemn.
The hit dystopi­an series isn’t just about vio­lence against women.

In A Woman’s Place’, the sixth episode of The Handmaid’s Tale, Com­man­der Fred Water­ford proud­ly boasts to Mex­i­can trade del­e­gates about The Repub­lic of Gilead’s new method of food pro­duc­tion. We’ve tran­si­tioned to a com­plete­ly organ­ic mod­el,” he tells them as the Marthas fer­ry in hors d’oeuvres on sil­ver platters.

It’s not a brag you’d imme­di­ate­ly asso­ciate with an auto­crat­ic régime intent on the vio­lent sub­ju­ga­tion of women, but it’s an envi­ron­men­tal real­i­ty the Repub­lic must con­tend with. Gilead’s abu­sive treat­ment of its women is right­ly cen­tre stage in The Handmaid’s Tale, both an imme­di­ate and lin­ger­ing hor­ror. But envi­ron­men­tal cri­sis looms just beneath these events; the cat­a­lyst for the gen­dered ter­ror the show deft­ly and expert­ly explores.

Offred (Elis­a­beth Moss) is a Hand­maid, the group of women both prized and chas­tised for their fer­til­i­ty in a soci­ety ren­dered infer­tile. Mar­garet Atwood’s 1985 source nov­el is coy on the rea­sons behind this cat­a­stroph­ic decline in birth rate but the results are plain enough. Fol­low­ing a theo­crat­ic coup, a group of reli­gious insur­gents estab­lished the Repub­lic of Gilead. And in the new state, Offred, along with her fel­low Hand­maids, are enslaved, held cap­tive to bear chil­dren and forced to take on their master’s name as a mark of their sacred posi­tion. It is a delib­er­ate, chill­ing strip­ping of agency. In a flash­back to before the coup we see Offred – then called June – rushed to hos­pi­tal in labour; lin­ing the streets are hun­dreds of des­per­ate men and women, there to wit­ness the poten­tial birth.

There are allu­sions, though, to the ori­gins of the fer­til­i­ty cri­sis. The colonies – tox­ic waste­lands at the edge of Gilead – are ref­er­enced through­out, framed as a fate worse than death for the unwomen” sent there. They’re either worked to death or die swift­ly from the pol­lu­tion and radioac­tive waste. We nev­er see the colonies but we can imag­ine, like those threat­ened with depor­ta­tion, the atroc­i­ties that await. From the Mex­i­can envoy, we hear of weath­er pat­terns dis­rupt­ing sta­ple crop cycles. And Ser­e­na Joy, Com­man­der Waterford’s wife, tells us how Gilead cut its car­bon emis­sions by 78 per cent in three years.

Obvi­ous par­al­lels per­sist between the world of The Handmaid’s Tale and our own. Atwood has long been an envi­ron­men­tal activist, and as a mem­ber of the Cana­di­an Green par­ty and joint hon­ourary pres­i­dent of the Rare Bird Club, she is well placed to elu­ci­date on the destruc­tive poten­tial of envi­ron­men­tal irresponsibility.

The radioac­tive wilds of the colonies are hewn from the nuclear anx­i­eties preva­lent in the sec­ond half of the 20th cen­tu­ry. The Three Mile Island acci­dent in 1979 was the worst nuclear dis­as­ter in US his­to­ry, an event that forced the evac­u­a­tion of the local area and a clean up oper­a­tion last­ing 20 years. Abnor­mal weath­er pat­terns are a con­se­quence of cli­mate change we con­tin­ue to live with, their effect on food pro­duc­tion increas­ing­ly demon­stra­ble.

The Commander’s boast of organ­ic pro­duce reflects the harm­ful effects of pes­ti­cides – chlor­pyri­fos, in par­tic­u­lar, has been shown to have a harm­ful effect on chil­dren. And in a recent arti­cle for the Guardian, Atwood spoke out about the cor­ro­sive effect of plas­tics on soci­ety and the envi­ron­ment, assert­ing that because of oestro­gen-imi­tat­ing chem­i­cals leach­ing from dis­card­ed plas­tics, the fer­til­i­ty of male sperm is plunging.”

Gilead’s response is the rejec­tion of free­wheel­ing con­sumerism and a return to some kind of half-remem­bered, myth­i­cal vision of 1950s-style domes­tic­i­ty. The shots of the Water­ford kitchen exude a soft-focus whole­some­ness, a cal­cu­lat­ed update of Cezanne’s still lifes depict­ing the rur­al idyll, albeit with the promise of rape. The super­mar­ket scenes extend this vision. There’s none of the gar­ish­ness befit­ting our own equiv­a­lents – instead, Gilead has replaced cor­po­rate con­tempt for food with a cool respect. The veg­eta­bles are large and imper­fect – plump – and the meat is wrapped beau­ti­ful­ly in paper. There’s no place for plas­tic in its shop­ping aisles. Blessed be the fruit, indeed.

But Gilead’s pol­i­cy of respon­si­ble envi­ron­men­tal regen­er­a­tion is car­ried out to serve its pri­ma­ry cri­sis: the infer­til­i­ty epi­dem­ic. And it does so through the vio­lent sub­ju­ga­tion of the Hand­maids, its only fer­tile inhab­i­tants. The total­i­tar­i­an­ism on show is no dif­fer­ent to that of our own world – the swift monop­o­li­sa­tion of its most valu­able assets, the fer­tile. With that, the régime exe­cutes a shrewd and nec­es­sary co-opt­ing of envi­ron­men­tal issues, an acknowl­edge­ment, away from its reli­gious bab­ble, of the real world events that caused the cri­sis in the first place.

The Handmaid’s Tale, then, isn’t just about vio­lence against women, although it is a grim unmis­take­able real­i­ty. It’s also about vio­lence against the envi­ron­ment and the unseen ways it affects us. Dis­turbing­ly, The Repub­lic of Gilead under­stands this bet­ter than our own governments.

You might like