The ways in which freedom is defined varies from person to person. What some may consider rules, others may consider freedoms, and what some consider freedoms, other may see as rules. This concept is interestingly framed in The Handmaid’s Tale and The Children of Men.

The main concept I wish to focus on is this idea of “freedom from” versus “freedom to.” This appears in both The Handmaid’s Tale and The Children of Men. In the former, the obstruction of women’s rights and the freedom to do things such as wear what they please, control their finances, own property, and make their own decisions is supposed to provide the freedom from mishaps and incidents such as sexual assaults, violence, and being taken advantage of by men. Depending on one’s role in the new way of life, the level of distaste and understanding of this concept fluctuates. Those in power seem to view it in a positive light, seeing all its potential and what the new system has to offer. Those in positions such as the handmaids, however, are opposed and feel cheated, as though something was wrongfully stolen from them. The latter title describes the scenario such that removing the freedom to have choices under the “reproduction and world ending” circumstances allots the freedom from worries and stress such as hunger, safety, and dependability.

What each of these novels expresses is the belief that one cannot have freedom in any sense without being restricted or in some way suffering on the opposing front. This raises an interesting question concerning morality. Which is the better alternative? The freedom to establish a personality and a life with our decisions or the freedom from worrying about bullying, and being unemployed or homeless? Would we rather feel independent and vulnerable or dependent and safe? Who is it that should get to make this call? The answer is more or less going to rely upon factors such as one’s beliefs, social status, and experiences. Unfortunately, both cannot be had at once, especially not within a tight community or controlled nation. Even if half the U.S decided they would prefer the freedom from outlook, the change couldn’t be made in a day and opposition always arises.

These two novels essentially depict what life could be like in the event that a utopia tried to reign under the belief that conformity and structure were the better options. Freedom is subjective and can be morphed under different contexts to fit our desires and needs as we would like. It is worth taking the time to consider how current freedoms impact our way of life now and what its adversary is. For example, the ability to choose which college you attend and being accepted/declined means that you are subjected to comparisons and rankings as both a student and a person, which follows you into the workforce and can affect the rest of your life. On the flip side , if everyone were forced to attend the same colleges, with the same academic standards, learning paces, and opportunities, no one would ever have to feel like they weren’t good enough, smart enough, or qualified enough for something.

The important thing is to note the advantages and disadvantages to each side and consider in what ways the “freedom to” or the “freedom from” is better than the other. It is easy to hastily conclude that the “freedom to” is best simply because that is all (speaking from a US perspective) most of us have ever known. If the “freedom from” is all someone has been exposed to, then they are likely to think that is the better alternative. This is because it is both familiar and comfortable. We tend to fear and shy away from things that are different, things that test us and our abilities.

So ask yourself: Is having the freedom to choose worth the stress and worry?