The Handmaid's Tale: what price freedom?

one item from the Bill of Rights:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Before you launch into your discussion this week, you should read the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States (see inset box) carefully.

What is it saying and why?

Here's what it is not saying: "the majority rules!"

Consider the wording of the amendment carefully; it does not state that Congress gives us the right to express ourselves freely verbally and in print (modern interpretations have inclded other media, such as CDs, not in existence in the 1770's). We are born with that right. Have you ever tried reasoning with an infant who is crying out of hunger? It is only later in life (the toddler years for most), that that freedom is "abridged", initially by parents: "Shhh! Don't you dare tell your Aunt Freida that she looks ugly! You'll get a time out if you use those words again!"

The Constitutions guarantees that Congress will never limit our freedom of expression, never pass a law interfering with it. And, of course, Congress does exactly that. I'm not talking about shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre; that's a specific safety issue; it's atypical. But books are censored in this country, radio personalities are censored in this country, newspaper articles are censored in this country, movies and television and video games and music--all are censored in this country because someone does not approve of certain content.

Isn't that the American way? If the majority (and in this case it really is not the majority even), doesn't like something, the majority rules?

That's not what the Bill of Rights is about. Consider this example: the majority of people in the U.S. are Christians (practicing or otherwise); so if majority ruled (like a schoolyard bully), then those practicing Hinduism, Islam, Taoism, and so forth would not be protected by the Constitution. But that's why people CAME to this nation, so that the bullies would not be able to tell them what to believe in, what to say, what political system to support, etc. Read the amendment again; it's about as clear as any document any government has ever produced.

Congress will never abridge these freedoms; Congress does it all the time, and many, like Offred, ignore it.

Discuss the following:

On one level the book is about freedom. Aunt Lydia comments about "freedom from" (Atwood 33) and says, "We were a society dying of too much choice" (Atwood 34). What does she mean? Just how free are we (think about both "freedom to" and "freedom from")? How do people, maybe even you, willingly give up some freedoms? And how do people, maybe even you, champion denying the freedoms of others because you don't approve of certain things? At the very least, consider that people, maybe even you, ignore when certain freedoms are taken away because you don't think that it impacts you.

You might want to consider that all people willingly give up some freedoms because the benefits seem to outweigh the consequences: e.g. most people stop at stop signs NOT because they want to (the free thing would to be to barrel right through), but they willingly restrict their forward motion because it's worth it not to crash or get a ticket.

That's a slight example. Other areas seem to raise more debate--censoring music or books or paintings or movies or video games, raising taxes for ________, creating a national healthcare system that citizens must participate in, enforcing curfews during a crisis (such as Hurricane Katrina), requiring employers to pay a minimum wage, etc.

I imagine most would reject the extreme repressiveness of Gilead (though some people don't have that choice). But there are some positives in Gilead: no unemployment, no homelessness, very little opportunity crime. The cost for such things is the elimination of most free choice, though.

It is really just be a question of where YOU draw the line and why.

As always, the discussion questions are not "I think," "I feel," "I believe," "in my opinion" questions. This time, however, you are welcome to include personal experience ("Although it is inconvenient, I choose not to use plastic bags because...").

Also, your discusssions need to be supported with actual examples from The Handmaid's Tale (which you quote and document; don't just use my examples) and with actual real-world examples. And do not make claims that you can't support with concrete evidence. And once again you are encouraged to do some research and include Works Cited references or links in your posting.