國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
M. Mohr offers two major themes of Offred’s narratives—“victimization and survival” (230). Both motifs “dominate the poetic narrative discourse of mental liberation” (230). Stressing on the function of Offred’s narration, Mohr defines Atwood’s usage of language as “a dystopian and utopian tool” (230). Eleonora Rao describes Offred’s narrative of “psychological struggle” which chronicles her suffering from “obliteration of consciousness and sense of self” as the key of
Atwood’s dystopian writings (16). It exposes the “contradictions and entanglements of power politics” and Offred’s mental chaotic state (16). Manuel Benjamin Becker foresees that Offred’s retrospective reflection “may come from an age which could be our present” (25). Becker shows a “development of our societies” in Atwood’s
dystopia where “definitive moment” may arrive (25). Ann Coral Howells specifies “a particular urgency” of Offred’s tale in “contemporary situations of cultural crisis”
(161). Both Becker and Howells describe Atwood’s dystopian satire as an allegorical fiction that predicts and represents modern societies. Researches of feminist
discourses elaborate oppressions and confinements imposing on marginalized women.
The feminist critique represents Offred’s female subjectivity of Offred’s suffering and identity. Dystopian reading on The Handmaid’s Tale reveals power politics, the authorities and divinity, the civilians and rebellion.
1.4 Methodology: Lefebvre’s spatial triad
Previous researchers show the designs of state apparatus, the establishment of the totalitarian society, and people under surveillance and coercion. However, this thesis targets on the characters’ deprived, regained, and reconstructed subjectivity
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
from physical space to mental space. By applying Lefebvre’s triad from The Production of Space, this study aims to represent the space and the “production” of Gilead from the perspectives of “all” inhabitants. In The Production of Space, Lefebvre develops Marxist spatial theory in consideration of the “making” of space.
He defines space as a social product that has “taken on, within the present mode of production […] as a sort of reality on its own” (26). To further this framework, he provides three stages of the shifting focuses in the process “producing” space from the
“physical,” then the “mental,” and finally to the “social” (19). In response to the three states, Lefebvre introduces conceptual triad of space: “spatial practice,”
“representations of space,” and “representational spaces” to epitomize how the space is “perceived,” “conceived,” and “lived” (33).
Published in 1974, then translated into English in 1991, Lefebvre’s La production de l'espace is not the pioneer to subsume sociology and economics into spatial theory. David Harvey brings out the urban political-economic theory earlier than Lefebvre. In Social Justice and the City, published in 1973, Harvey touches on recent social science in urban geography and focuses on the dynamic development of metropolises. Harvey defines that space is “neither absolute, relative, or relational in itself, but it can become one or all simultaneously depending on circumstances” (13).
On the basis of theoretical spatial triad: the absolute, the relative, and the relational, he represents the concretization of space and the city with the three spatial states.
After the publication of The Production of Space, Harvey develops the spatial triad into the general matrix of spatiality in responses to Lefebvre’s triad of space
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
perceived, conceived, and lived. Sociologist Mark Gottdiener points out Lefebvre’s Marxist readings on space and thinks of it as “a material, externalized realization of human labour and the condensation of social relations of production” (128).
Manuel Castells raises questions on the possibilities to “offer a theory of production of space on a strictly philosophical basis” (71-72). On the other hand, he shows sociological emphases on everyday life of inhabitants opposed to designer of the urban space. Castells argues the government dominates designs of city in the political and capitalist terms. City planning, applying design principle, is governed by
“economic efficiency and standardisation’s of production,” leaving no room for
“cultural values of the dwellers”(43). The fitness of the dwellers’ “patterns of behaviours” is forced and adopted into “relatively rigid schemes of the housing authority” (44). In spite of the doubts on Lefebvre’s philosophical interpretation of space, Castells agrees with sociological concerns on space with the emphasis on the inhabitants of the urban space.
Notwithstanding “engagement with sociology, architectures and urbanism,”
Lukasz Stanek agrees with Castell but argues Lefebvre by noting Paul-Henry
Chombart de Lauwe’s argument on the lack of a “direct knowledge of the terrain and sufficiently deep exchange with architects” in Lefebvre’s philosophical discourses on space (Stanek vii). Focusing on modern society and the “global urban condition,”
Stanek develops Lefebvre’s focuses on the urban into the globe and involves “the
social obligations and political ambitions” in his theoretical spatial readings (vii).
Rob Shields redefines Lefebvre’s theory and provides a “wide range of
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
conflicting usages of the word, ‘space’, […] designating the ongoing social construction of the spatial” (Shields, “Spatial” 188). Shields affirms Lefebvre’s engagement with philosophical readings that the study of space incorporates
“concrete actions, constructions and institutional arrangements” (188). Understanding Lefebvre’s spatial theory, he argues that Lefebvre provides not only “a social practice, in the sense of its social construction,” but he also emphasizes the “representations of it and discourse about it” (Shields, Lefebvre 154). Agreeing with Shields, Andrze Zieleniec notes, “space is a determining factor in the framing of social relations”
(150). Edward Soja has adapted Lefebvre’s triad but develops his own theoretical spatial triad by turning the focus of spatial theory into the study of social sciences, humanities, and linguistics. In Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and Imagined Places, Soja, while adapting Lefebvre’s spatial triad, reclaims the duality of space: the real, the imagined. He advanced the “third existential dimension,” defining as “thirding-as-Othering” (3). The term signifies the transcending spatial dimension among dual transition. Henri Lefebvre shows ambitions to offer a sufficient scale of spatial theory on the basis of philosophical, socialistic, and Marxist concerns.
By offering the three components of space, Lefebvre breaks the binary debates on space. His spatial triad not only echoes David Harvey’s concept of “absolute, relative, or relational space” but also inspires Edward Soja’s spatial triad, introducing
“the real, the imagined, and the thirding-as-Othering.” Moreover, Lefebvre’s triad not only brings about three states of space but also envisions the spatial matrix on the
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
basis of his spatial triad. He explains the matrix by showing various comparisons and contrasts posed by the physical against the mental space, the mental against the social space, and the physical as opposed to the social space. By including the third
dimension and offering the three states of space, Lefebvre offers more room for critical discussions beyond the physical and mental space, the concrete and abstract space, and the ideal and lived space.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Chapter II
Spatial Practice and Representations of Spaces in the Republic of Gilead 2.1 Lefebvre’s Spatial Theory
This study aims at Margaret Atwood’s fictional characters’ deprived, regained, and reconstructed subjectivity in the urban space of Gilead. Following with the analysis of physical space of the country and the mental space amongst civilians of The Republic of Gilead. This thesis aspires to represent the space lived in accordance with everyday life of the protagonist, Offred. By applying Lefebvre’s spatial triad, this study aims to represent the space and the “production” of Gilead from the perspectives of Gileadean inhabitants. In accordance with The Production of Space, this study develops from Henri Lefebvre’s Marxist spatial theory in consideration of the “making” of space. On the basis of Lefebvre’s spatial schemes, the public urban space of Gilead is a social product that has “taken on, within the present mode of production […] as a sort of reality on its own” (Lefebvre 26). To further this framework, I provide three states of space with the shifting focuses on three spatial statuses: the physical space, the mental space, and the social space in the course of
“producing” the urban space of Gilead.
The Handmaid’s Tale describes the construction of totalitarian theocracy in the near twenty-first century. The fundamentalist regime, Gilead, secures the political controls by means of constraints over Gileadean urban space. Published in 1974, then translated into English in 1991, Lefebvre’s La production de l'espace subsumes sociology and economics into spatial theory. Henri Lefebvre shows ambitions to offer
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
a sufficient scale of spatial theory on the basis of philosophical, socialistic, and Marxist concerns. By offering the three states of space, Lefebvre breaks the debates on binary opposition between physical and mental space by involving the social space into discussions. On the basis of the spatial triad, Lefebvre provides the matrix by showing various binary oppositions posed by the physical against the mental space, the mental against the social space, and the physical as opposed to the social space.
Adapting Lefebvre’s spatial theory, this study develops critical discussions of the physical and concrete space constructed by Gilead’s administration. This chapter represents the spatial practice through everyday life of protagonist Offred, and also furthers to epitomize the representations of spaces of the Republic of Gilead.
Lefebvre, on the one hand, introduces three spatial states orderly, firstly from
“the physical-nature, the Cosmos; secondly, the mental, including logical and formal abstractions; and thirdly, the social”(11). On the other hand he denies the distinctions, breaks, and disjunctions posed in between the binary opposition, emphasizing that the three states of space “involve, underpins, and presuppose” one another (14). In
response to the three statuses, Lefebvre introduces conceptual triad of space by defining the first, second, and third as “spatial practice,” “representations of space,”
and representational spaces” (33). This study aims to apply the spatial triad in order to interpret the spatial structure planned in Atwood’s work, to disclose the construction of space in the dystopian country, Gilead’s regime, and to amplify the production of Gileadean society through the everyday life of the protagonist Offred, her related
‧
acquaintance in the “Early Gilead Period” (Atwood 300).2 2.2 Spatial Practice Presented in the Republic of Gilead
With the aid of Lefebvre’s systematic framework, I embark on spatial analyses with textual evidence in The Handmaid’s Tale. The study begins with “spatial
practice” to disclose how the physical space is perceived by adapting Lefebvre’s triad.
Introduced in The Production of Space, “spatial practice” compasses the physical phases of the public urban space in everyday life (Lefebvre 33). Later, Lefebvre details the terms on the interaction between social subjects and the urban space.
Spatial practice reveals social formation and coercion that appear in particular
locations, such as churches, schools, libraries, public squares, daily supply stores, and prisons. “Spatial practice” in Gilead represents daily life of the regime’s inhabitants in visual state, embodies the space perceived, and embraces physical locations and social formations. In The Production of Space, Lefebvre defines the functions and elements of spatial practice. Spatial practice includes production and reproduction in particular locations and sets of spatial characteristic of each social formation. Spatial practice ensures social continuity and cohesion. By securing relationship between members of society and social space, the social continuity and cohesion “imply a guaranteed level of competence and a specific level of performance” (Lefebvre 33).Through Offred’s narrative, spatial practice of Gilead offers a cohesive understanding of social space of
2 Atwood provides a transcript of a seminar held in 2195. In the final chapter, “Historical Notes,” the documents of Offred’s the tale, is recognized as a record and reference to “early Gilead Period,”
defined by historical scholars from Gileadean Research Association. In The Handmaid’s Tale, Margaret Atwood concludes the novel by offering an extra chapter, “Historical Notes,” giving evidence to convince readers the dystopian fiction.
‧
the regime. Offred’s record embroils herself in the everyday life of Gileadean dwellers, showing spatial practice of the space perceived.
As a member of the social space, Offred sketches the city planning in her daily life that reveals the construction of the Republic of Gilead. In Offred’s record,
physical landscapes and buildings are categorized into public and private space by functions and naming systems of the Republic. The boundary of space is not only defined by political controls but also created by daily activities of inhabitants.
Gileadean government secures the public space with armed forces and dominates manipulation of the domestic space. Based on the understanding of manipulation of the urban space, this section aims to detect social formation and cohesions of society within both public and private space so as to represent the spatial practice of the totalitarian society.
Offred introduces her tale by telling daily walking around the city and revealing the monologue of being an actor3of the society. The daily purchases routine of Offred, implied in the second chapter “Shopping,” presents Offred’s first encounter of the urban space. The daily routing of handmaids are constrained by the laws of Gilead. As a handmaid, Offred is required to follow specific route towards “shopping” for the daily supply of the household of her Commander, Fred. She is designated to do daily purchases at two appointed supply stores: All Flesh, and Milk and Honey. After shopping, Offred takes the route toward the Walls. On her way home, she passes by
3 The term “actor” here denotes subjects who engage in particular social activities in the space. In The Production of Space, Lefebvre notes “social space ‘incorporates’ social actions” of the actors (33).
Social actions of these actors/subjects are both “individual and collective” (34). Thus, these actions and actors serve as a tool of analysis of social space and society.
‧
Soul Scrolls, the printing store of franchise for upper class. Offred’s everyday life in the public space is continuously under the surveillance of armed forces, the Angels and the Eyes, as well as her handmaid companion, Ofglen. The record not only records Offred’s monologue and her everyday life but also gives evidence to the urban space of Offred’s presence as well as the existence of the “tenants” of the republic, Gileadean civilians.4
The record serves as a “historical notes” so as to represent “the society’s space,” involving the city sites, buildings, stores, public space, churches, schools, and houses of Gileadean inhabitants (Lefebvre 38).5 The theocratic government serves as landlords while the inhabitants survive as tenants of the urban space. “Spatial
practice” of the republic is embodied and defined in the association between the perceived physical space and the daily life of the spatial inhabitants of Gilead
(Lefebvre 38). Gileadean society produces its spatial practice “slowly and surely, and appropriates it” (38). Spatial practice of the republic is produced in the course of history. Besides the emphasis on the present “participants” of the social space, Gileadean spatial practice involves and revolves into collective memory of the urban space. The memory of former handmaid of the Commander Fred is disclosed as a mysterious and unreadable carved sentence “nolite te basrardes carborundorum”
4 Lefebvre considers the inhabitants of a social space “tenants of government-subsidized high-rise housing project,” regarding the civilians as dwellers of the political governance, the inhabitants who embarks their daily life by means of the governmental constructed city sites (38).
5 Offred records her interior monologue in the tapes, including her prompt thought, events in her handmaid’s everyday life, the structure of the city, and the social order of the regime. Post-Gileadean historians reorganize Offred’s tapes and publish her journal in a lineal order. The tapes serve as the record of early Gileadean period. In the following section, I borrow the term, “record,” so as to refer Offred’s tapes.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
(Atwood 186). The Latin sentence, meaning, “don’t let the bastards grind you down,”
represents the short period of former Offred’s history (Atwood 187). Offred sees the past and inherits the past memory from the words “on the wall of the cupboard”
hidden in her limited space in the house (187). Collected and reorganized by Gileadean historical scholars, Offred’s record is “not the first […] discovery” of historical documents in comparison with early documents discovered around the same
“Early Gilead Period,” such as “The A.B. Memoir” and “The Diary of P.” (Atwood 301). The posthumous materials constitute the Gilead’s society that produces Gilead’s spatial practice. The visual state of Gilead is reconstructed in Offred’s recorded tape, serving as historical documents to spot in the Early Gilead Era.
2.3 Representations of Gilead’s Public Urban Space
Gilead’s society, considered as a social product, is interpreted as conceptualized codes and signs in accordance with the second elements of Lefebvre’s spatial triad. To offer representations of Gilead’s public urban, I shift my focus from physical space to spatial codes that are represented in Gileadean society. The Gilead’s regime constructs a theocratic social network restores “the capacity of powerful agents to realize their will over the will of powerless people” (Somacarrera 291). The formation of power politics and spatial practice of Gilead are further explained in “representations of space.”
On the basis of second state of Lefebvre’s spatial triad, “representations of space” shows “conceptualized space, the space of scientists, planners, urbanists, technocratic subdividers and social engineers” (Lefebvre 38). The designers of the
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
urban space identify “what is lived and what is perceived with what is conceived”
(Lefebvre 38). The space conceived is tied to the relations of production and to the order. The authorities, including Gileadean officials, politicians, and doctors dominate the conceptualized abstraction by enacting laws in the conceived phase of space.
Governed by Gilead’s law, Offred is not only the tenant but also the “ward” under Gilead’s law that specifies her handmaid identity (Myrsiades 232). As Mario Klarar argues “The Handmaid's Tale is clearly in the tradition of American dystopia,” the Republic of Gilead exercises totalitarian control and uses “military and secret police, manipulation through organized use of media, re-writing of history, re-education and terror” (Klarar 131). The regime constructs totalitarian theocracy, the conceived social codes, on the basis of the Bible. Nevertheless, the Bible is limitedly available to “the initiated,” the initial authorities and founder of the Republic of Gilead. Dorota Filipczak argues “the role of Bible depicted in the state is […] ambiguous;” it provides the “echo of cultural origins” that haunts Atwood’s Tale and demonstrates the “insidious presence of biblical images in the text” (171). The male aristocrats set the theocratic orders of naming system of the city and the functions of urban buildings so as to exercise power to determine the space of social practices.
Offred reveals the orders of society in her introductions to the “names” of the locations and “functions” of these sites. The names are the terms of everyday
discourse that serve to “distinguish, but to isolate particular spaces, and in general, to describe a social space” (Lefebvre 16). On the basis of Lefebvre’s spatial triad, the urban space incorporates social practice that shows the uses of spatial terms in