In his first volume of The History of Sexuality, Michel Foucault

established one of the most prominent concepts of postmodernist philosophy:

biopower. He argued that modern societys formation could be understood as
the result of the ability of one group (often a government) to control the
bodies of individuals for political ends, often taking measures to select who
lived and who died (the Holocaust being a prime example). While Foucaults
primary work involved analyzing history to understand the present, some of
his conclusions can be used to psychoanalyze characters in The Handmaids
Tale. Specifically, aside from merely being an interesting story, The
Handmaids Tale provides insight into the viewpoint of a person subjected to
biopower. Throughout the narrative, the reader follows as Offred constantly
has her body controlled by the state, often faced with a choice between
giving up her body for the governments purposes or being severely
(probably fatally) punished. This is evident when she remarks I used to think
of my body as an instrument, of pleasure, or a means of transportation, or an
implement for the accomplishment of my will (27) while lamenting the
pressure on her to bear a child. However, this control plays a psychological
toll on Offred. In the same paragraph, after discussing her duties to have
children, claims The expectations of others, which may have become my
own. Apparently, she has internalized her external expectations and
demands. This is fascinating because it seems to link to another crucial part
of Foucaults work, which involves the mental implications of prisoners
internalizing what he refers to as the gaze of the guard and reforming
themselves due to a lack of privacy while incarcerated. With this, it appears
that Offred has not only been subjected to biopower by the oppressive
government and had her bodily agency taken from her, but she has
internalized the demands of the state and reformed her desires to be in line
with her oppressors desires. This tells us that the effects of biopower and
lack of privacy go hand in hand; the gaze of the guard (or ever-present eye
of the state) can make biopolitical control psychologically normalized after
the pressure of being watched results in aligning oneself with the desires of
the government.
As important as the psychoanalytic implications of The Handmaids
Tale are, the books historical context might yield even more understanding.
Atwood published her novel in 1985-not over six years after the Iranian
Revolution. This is of significant interest because there seem to be parallels
between the events in Iran and the events in The Handmaids Tale. Namely,
the way Offred thinks pleasantly about her past life (often of Luke) but must
push those thoughts aside in order to meet the demands of the present is
resonant of interviews and memoirs of women in Iran recalling the years
directly after the Iranian Revolution. The generalizations that can be drawn
from Offreds and the Iranians memories are strikingin both, currently
oppressed women long for a time when they had basic freedoms and rights,
there seems to be little public support for the current state of affairs, and life
has become increasingly regulated and micromanaged by religious
authorities. The thought that the political climate in Iran was an inspiration
for Atwoods book is reasonable, considering it was only written a few years
after the Revolution. Ultimately, recognition of these similarities provides a
window into the past; when The Handmaids Tale was written, it is possible

paranoia of Iran-like regimes spreading was rampant, and thereby reflected in

literature.