Dehumanization in Dystopian Societies: Dehumanization: a Product of the Attempt to Create a Utopian Society Lydia Slack 3M5 Gymnase Auguste Piccard 26th October 2015 Research paper supervisor: Michelle Tursi Table of Contents French Summary Critical Summary Introduction Part One: Ideal on which the utopian societies are founded Part Two: Oppression and suppression of freedom of choice Part Three: Dissatisfaction with the existing societies Part Four: Attempts, or not, to change the society Conclusion Bibliography 2 3 5 7 11 18 21 26 28 1 Résumé du travail Mon travail de maturité traite le thème de la déshumanisation dans les sociétés dystopiques. En analysant Animal Farm, écrit par George Orwell et The Giver, écrit par Lois Lowry, cette recherche montre la manière dont la déshumanisation est un résultat inattendu de la tentative de créer une société utopique, et la similitude entre les sociétés dystopiques et utopiques. Dans un premier temps, j’analyse les idéaux qui sont à la base de la création des deux sociétés. Ceci permet de constater que malgré de nobles aspirations au partage, à la liberté, à l’égalité et à la suppression de la douleur et de la tristesse, les projets pour ces sociétés idéales contiennent des défauts qui mèneront à la déshumanisation de leurs membres. Mon travail aborde également la question de l’oppression dans ces deux communautés. Dans Animal Farm l’oppression se montre sous quatre angles principaux : l’inégalité, la suppression de la liberté de choix, l’infliction de la peur et les mensonges. Dans The Giver l’oppression se montre plus subtilement par le biais d’un manque de choix personnels, par l’imposition d’une égalité totale entre les membres de la communauté, ainsi que par la surveillance constante de la population. De cette façon je montre que la déshumanisation est largement présente dans ces sociétés supposément utopiques qui correspondent en réalité plutôt à des dysotpies. Par la suite, mon travail s’intéresse à la déception que vivent les membres de ces deux communautés en comparant le véritable résultat de leur société avec leur rêve initial et la manière dont l’écart entre l’idéal et la réalité pousse ou non les protagonistes à vouloir effectuer des changements. Enfin, je montre comment les membres des communautés tentent de changer leur société. Dans le cas d’ Animal Farm aucun changement n’a lieu car les animaux ont été trop ‘déshumanisés’ pour avoir les capacités nécessaires afin de produire une amélioration dans leur société. Dans The Giver, au contraire, ce sont les deux personnages qui détiennent toujours des caractéristiques humaines qui tentent, et parviennent, à réaliser une transformation de leur société. 2 Critical summary Animal Farm, by George Orwell and The Giver, by Lois Lowry are two fascinating novels, in widely different settings, that address the topic of dehumanization within supposedly utopian societies. Animal Farm starts with a group of animals on a normal farm. An old pig encourages the other livestock to rebel against the human owners, giving them a vision of what the world could be like if animals ruled everything. The animals, led by the pigs, revolt and chase away their farmer. They begin constructing their dream world, in which all animals are to be equal. Things start well, but soon the pigs take on the work of overseers, shirking their physical duties and taking privileges denied to the other animals. In addition the two chief pigs fall out and one is chased away. He becomes the scapegoat for the farm. To maintain power, the pigs change the rules on which the revolution was founded, convincing the other, dubious, animals that this is what they always said. Violating one such rule, the pigs enter into trade with humans. Eventually, the pigs’ affiliation with humans deepens and the other animals watch them morph into men. The Giver is a novel about an eleven-­‐year-­‐old boy, Jonas, who lives in a supposed utopian society in which there is no pain, sadness or wrong choices, and where differences between people are erased. Jonas is selected to become the next “Receiver of Memory”. He is to find out everything about the world before the foundation of his community from an old man, the “Giver”, who has received these memories from another Giver before him. Jonas slowly discovers joy and love but also pain and grief. He and the Giver must bear the weight of these memories alone, without ever sharing them with anyone else. However, one day, Jonas and the Giver form a plan. Jonas must run away from the community so that all the memories he holds can return to the people of the community and thus awaken them to real emotions and true human life. The Giver must stay behind to reassure the community, as it gets accustomed to memories and emotions. 3 While Animal Farm, an allegory1 based on the events surrounding Russian Communism, represents a convincing scenario whereby initial worthy motives become corrupted, The Giver, being a science fiction novel, is less likely in actual possibility, though within the world of the book the events are believable. However, both novels bring light to the subject of human life and dehumanization. Animal Farm suggests that the attempt to impose equality on a society fails because not everyone has the same level of honesty or capacity for understanding. In addition, it demonstrates how those in positions of leadership can turn into dictators who monopolise power and privileges, perfectly reflecting the famous statement of Sir John Acton, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” In fact, it conveys the message that “no revolution promising equality and democracy can achieve its lofty aims because all revolutions tend to produce ruling elites which become corrupt through their thirst for power”(Brunsdale 131). Thus, deep disadvantages arise, as the weak are further oppressed by the strong who force their model of ‘equality’ on others. It also shows that the oppressed are not the only ones who are dehumanized but also their oppressors, who lose their morals and sense of compassion. Similarly, The Giver shows that eradicating differences and pain does not necessarily make the world a better place. In fact, love, joy and individuality disappear too. Consequently, people have no emotional depth or life experience. It is this reduction of their senses and emotions, supposedly for their own protection and well-­‐being, that causes them to be dehumanized. To conclude, these two works invite an examination of the values which are most important for all individuals to thrive within a community. Animal Farm conveys the message that dehumanization may be prevented by reminding people of the past, rather than hiding it, and by having a system whereby those in power remain accountable for their actions and hold the interests of the people they serve above their own. The Giver illustrates that to be truly human means to be an individual, with all the differences from others that this may imply. People might make wrong choices, but they will at least have 1 A story that reflects reality 4 the power and the freedom to do so, in contrast to what occurs in dehumanization, whereby choice is taken away. These novels encourage the reader to learn the lessons of history, and to recognise that vulnerable individuals in a society should not be taken advantage of. Furthermore, they make it possible to understand that revolution, and its promise of a perfect world, should be treated with suspicion and clear-­‐
sightedness. Finally, they warn against any attempt to create a perfect world, which can hide many drawbacks, namely loss of freedom, individuality and emotions, all of which are features of dehumanization. Introduction This research paper will endeavour to prove the connection between dehumanization and the attempt to create a utopian society. Dehumanization is the process of depriving an individual of aspects and qualities that constitute their humanity or “humanness”, thus treating them as inferior to others and less than human.2 Moreover, it is the psychological process of convincing oneself that certain individuals are subhuman. Humanness has two main features. Firstly, to be human is to have the right to one’s own identity, to be an individual and an independent person with the capacity and the ability to make one’s own choices. Secondly, to be human means to be integrated in a community where connected individuals care for and respect each other (Kelman 48-­‐52). These main features of humanity are protected by The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.3 As soon as these rights are violated, dehumanization occurs to a certain extent. Dehumanization can manifest itself in multiple ways: it can be physical, in as much as violence and abuse may be used to lessen a person’s physical capacities and cause them to live in constant fear. It can be moral, since the loss of compassion, respect for others, and moral values shuts down an emblematic part of what it means to be human or treated as human. It can attack a person’s 2 http://www.merriam-­‐webster.com/dictionary/dehumanization 3 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf 5 individuality by destroying their self-­‐esteem, ignoring their specificities or by excluding them from their community. In addition, dehumanization may prevent the victim from extending compassion to others, thus separating them from their acquaintances and circle of fellow humans. Dehumanization is generally facilitated by power and social status, and is a clear and proven antecedent to violence and brutality, as one does not attack or attempt to exterminate someone who is seen as an equal and is respected, but rather, someone who is perceived as less than human in identity and therefore value.4 Dehumanization has been a reality throughout history and also a long explored literary theme. In literature, dehumanization most obviously occurs within dystopian societies. These are “imaginary worlds in which the worst of all possible social conditions pertains” (Lee 35). Thus, dystopian societies are often characterised by powerful and oppressive governments, mind-­‐controlling propaganda, widespread poverty or a huge wealth gap between the rich and the poor. Surveillance and restrictions of freedom of thought and speech are fundamental aspects of these societies. By contrast, a utopian society is an idealistic place “in which all need and want have been removed and conflict is eliminated” (Lee 35). Consequently, the government is peaceful and its citizens are equal. The environment is secure and sheltered, and access to health care and education is guaranteed. In theory, dystopian and utopian societies are polar opposites and dehumanization should only occur within a dystopian society. However, in this paper we will explore the similarities between utopian and dystopian societies, and the possibility of dehumanization occurring within a utopian society. This will be done by analysing the novels Animal Farm by George Orwell and The Giver by Lois Lowry5. Firstly, we will cover the ‘dreams’ behind ‘utopian’ societies, and then the way in which dehumanization creeps in, despite these utopian expectations. This paper will go on to investigate the actual oppression and dissatisfaction within both societies. Finally, the new dreams of the citizens will be analysed, as well as their attempt (or not) to bring about a change to the community in which they now live. 4 http://mettacenter.org/definitions/gloss-­‐concepts/dehumanization/ 5 Although plenty of secondary literature exists for Animal Farm, despite extensive searches I have not found any secondary literature addressing The Giver. 6 Part One: Ideal on which the utopian societies are founded “A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at.”6 Oscar Wilde In view of the dehumanization that occurs in Animal Farm and The Giver, it is essential to look at the foundation of these utopian societies in order to determine whether a part of the cause for this dehumanization lies within the founding ideal itself, or rather with the members of the society and their actions. An ideal is the basis on which the community is built and can be used retrospectively to compare it to the actual result that is achieved in that society. In both novels the societies are aiming to create a perfect world. However, whilst the animals in Animal Farm have an active role in the making of their ideal, that of The Giver was made “back and back and back” (120) and none of the characters were present at its creation, which means that it does not necessarily represent their current desires. In Animal Farm, Old Mayor presents the ideal of the society. He is an old and experienced pig, which earns him the respect of his fellow animals. “He describes his dream that all the animals will someday be free of human oppression, running their own farm on a basis of non-­‐violent equality” (Rodden 138). Improved living and working conditions would be a beneficial consequence of this imagined society. His speech is very persuasive and convincing for the animals as it thoroughly inspires and leads them to rebel against Jones, their farmer. First of all, Old Mayor lays out the deplorable conditions of their current existence, reminding his fellow farm animals that their lives are “miserable, laborious and short”(3). They work to their full capacity until they tire out and are then immediately “slaughtered with hideous cruelty”(4). He summarises their situation thus: “The life of an animal is misery and slavery”(4). This current situation is, therefore, what he intends to change by addressing its one and only cause, that is to say human beings: “Man. Man is the only real enemy we have. 6 Wilde, Oscar. The Soul of Man under Socialism. 1891. p12. Print. 7 Remove man from the scene, and the root cause of hunger and overwork is abolished forever”(4). By saying this, he puts all the blame for their hard living conditions on human beings. Moreover, he provokes the animals by showing them everything man steals from them. For instance the hens have their eggs taken away, Clover, the horse has her foals sold, the piglets’ lives last only a year and Boxer, the strong carthorse, is sure to be killed as soon as he cannot work hard enough. Since man is the problem, the obvious solution is to “work night and day, body and soul, for the overthrow of the human race”(5). By removing Man they would gain freedom as it is he who imposes overwork, who harshly rations their food and steals their produce. Were he to be gotten rid of, the animals could personally be in charge of these aspects of their lives and subsequently adjust them to their advantage. As a matter of fact, the produce of their labour would be their own, and they could lead decent and harmonious lives: “and among animals let there be perfect unity” (6). This shows that in order to succeed and be happy, the animals must stick together and work together for their common interest as comrades. Despite all this, the pig concludes his speech with two considerable warnings: And remember also that in fighting against Man, we must not come to resemble him. […] Above all, no animal must ever tyrannize over his own kind. Weak or strong, clever or simple, we are all brothers. No animal must ever kill any other animal. All animals are equal. (7) By saying this, he is warning them about feeling superior to other animals. Whatever their different levels of strength and intelligence may be, they are working together for a shared goal and must cooperate and not be selfish or domineering. The way for them to thrive is to work as a team, encouraging each other and labouring shoulder to shoulder for their common good. Old Mayor’s vision appears to be perfect and all the animals are eager to accept it and rebel against Jones in order to install the utopian society of equality and plenty. His insistence on animals not taking the place of Man by recreating his tyranny, means Old Mayor has considered the possibilities of failure of this society. If the animals follow his words, there is a genuine chance of this new society becoming a place of well-­‐being. However, if dehumanization occurs, it can be concluded that it stems from the conduct of the animals themselves as there will no longer be humans to blame. 8 In The Giver, on the other hand, it is harder to form a clear picture of the founding ideal of the community due to the fact that it was constructed long before the existence of the characters in the novel. Nonetheless, a number of conversations between Jonas and the Giver give insight into the vision that lies behind the creation of this society. For instance, Jonas once asks the Giver why everyone does not share the memories they hold. The Giver replies that “everyone would be burdened and pained. They don’t want that”(142). The members of the community should be light-­‐hearted and happy, contented, sheltered and worry-­‐free. In order for this to be the case, memories of bad times have been done away with. However, in order to retain the wisdom of these memories and the lessons learnt from previous mistakes so as not to repeat them, a ‘Receiver of Memory’ must exist, who will be capable of helping make the important decisions concerning the future of the society. The Giver explains that memory gives him the wisdom he needs to advise the Committee of Elders when they seek guidance. The Receiver of Memory, therefore, becomes the only person weighed down with bad memories, which is why he is essential and honoured; he is responsible for carrying the burden they do not want. In order to better shield and protect ‘Sameness’ the was society, installed. Sameness means there are no trees, no colours, no hills and no variations in weather. In fact the only people capable of seeing colour are Jonas and the Giver, which (as shown in this image7) explains Jonas’ confusion as he perceives colour for the first time in an apple (30). The Giver explains that climate control was created for practicality, first for 7 Image made by my father, Martin Slack 9 growing crops and then for their transportation after harvest time. The community cannot be caught unawares by something under their own control, and so they try to micro-­‐manage everything. Our people made that choice, the choice to go to Sameness. Before my time, before the previous time, back and back and back. We relinquished colour when we relinquished sunshine and did away with differences. We gained control of many things. But we had to let go of others. (120) The things they did away with all contributed to the variety, and consequently vibrancy of life. In fact the Giver explains that “life here is so orderly, so predictable – so painless. It’s what they’ve chosen” (130). By losing this vibrancy and liveliness, they have gained a life where they cannot be surprised, overwhelmed or helpless. The idea of predictability and control for provision and protection is quite appealing when it relieves citizens from painful situations. They can be content and without anxiety. Nevertheless, the underlying problem is that they “did away with differences” (120). Everyone is dressed in the same, colourless clothes, everyone has the same haircuts and goes through the same life experiences. Although this was achieved in order to obtain equality between members of the community and thus fairness and acceptance of all, it is not entirely positive. While a parity of rights is beneficial, enforced equality in everything is destructive to individual personalities. It means undermining distinctiveness, originality and personal identity, which, as shown in the introduction, is a characteristic of dehumanization. Therefore, there is a problem with the very ideal of this society, because it inevitably leads to dehumanization. All things considered, both novels show plausible models for utopian societies, with the possibility of equality, satisfaction and freedom from pain and overwork. However, to retain this ‘utopia’ in Animal Farm, the animals need to abide by the words and warnings of Old Mayor. In The Giver a significant flaw in the very ideal of the society has been identified, that of containing all memories and emotions in one person. For dehumanization to be avoided this situation would need to be changed. The way dehumanization makes its way into both societies will be examined in the next part. 10 Part Two: Oppression and suppression of freedom of choice “Be very wary of people who declare that they’re going to create heaven on earth, they almost invariably create hell.”8 François Lelord After having looked at the two founding ideals behind the societies in Animal Farm and The Giver, it is important to examine if those involved succeeded in creating a true utopia, not only philosophically, which is the ideal, but also practically, that is in the concrete happenings of the community. Sadly, various forms of oppression can be seen in both novels, where oppression rears its head in two contrasting ways. In Animal Farm the oppression is generally more obvious and physical, whereas in The Giver it is more subtle and psychological. However, both methods dehumanize their victims. In Animal Farm oppression is seen in four main ways: inequality, suppression of freedom of choice, the use of fear, and lies. It is important to note that the oppressors are always the pigs. We see how quickly noble ideals become corrupted as inequality is visible very shortly after the rebellion against Jones the farmer. The pigs do not do any physical work but take on the jobs of overseers and directors because of their alleged “superior knowledge”(19). They see themselves as cleverer than the other animals, so their system where all animals are equal is already endangered. They reserve all the milk and apples for their own exclusive use, pretending that they are essential components for keeping them in good health and enabling them to continue running the farm. Thus, they deprive the other animals of treats in order to satisfy their own greed and it becomes obvious that they abuse their positions of leadership so as to serve themselves. Instead of using their intelligence to improve the living conditions for all the animals on the farm they use it to satisfy their own interests. For instance, Napoleon, one of the chief pigs, trains some puppies and uses them to chase off his rival Snowball. 8 Lelord, François, and Lorenza Garcia. Hector and the Search for Happiness. London: Gallic, 2010. 106. Print. 11 These dogs obey him as their master; he is above them in status. His whole position as the leader is developed and increased throughout the novel until he becomes an unchallenged dictator. Another way inequality is deepened on the farm is through the seating in the barn during the animals’ Sunday morning meetings: “Nowadays they did not all sit together as they had done in the past.”(41) The pigs sit opposite the other animals on a platform. The segregation of the pigs and the rest of the animals is now very visible as they are not only set apart from the other animals but also literally and symbolically above them. They consider themselves of a higher rank than the others and no longer wish to be seen as belonging to the same group as them. Consequently, the other animals are seen as inferior and unimportant. Later, the pigs even move into the farmer’s house and live luxuriously, and separately from the other animals, which shows that they now consider themselves as belonging to a higher class of society. In addition, the pigs largely restrict the animals’ freedom of choice, and also expression. Napoleon announces that there will be no more debates concerning the matters of the farm. A special committee of pigs will deal with all issues and inform them of their decisions afterwards. These decisions are not voted on, so the animals have no way of expressing their opinions or influencing the outcome of the decisions. In fact, they now have no way of shaping the farm according to their desire. The pigs then pretend again that this is all done for the others’ best and to protect them. They actually convince the other animals by explaining: “but sometimes you would make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?”(40) By saying this they put forward their goodness in caring for the well-­‐being of the animals and their desire for the latter’s happiness through good choices. The pigs clearly undermine the other animals’ intelligence and rational thinking capabilities. What is more, the animals are forced to work extra hours on their day of rest. This work was strictly voluntary, but any animal who absented himself from it would have his rations reduced by half. (44) This is extremely contradictory and shows how the animals are left no choice but to do the extra hours demanded of them for otherwise, they would go hungry. As the pigs, led by Napoleon, make all the decisions, the other animals have no say in any matter and, when they complain, the dogs growl at them. 12 This leads to the third method of oppression employed by the pigs, which is fear. In order to maintain their power and privileged positions, the pigs repress the other animals. At any sign of dissent, the dogs growl ferociously at the other animals, ensuring they keep quiet in order to stay safe. At the first sign of rebellion against the pigs, for example when Napoleon announces that the hens’ eggs will be taken to be sold and the hens smash them in anger, Napoleon shows that he can be a harsh leader. He ordered the hens’ rations to be stopped, and decreed that any animal giving so much as a grain of corn to a hen should be punished by death. (56) By doing so, he pressures the hens to stop destroying their eggs through fear of starvation and prevents the other animals from extending compassion by leaving them fearing for their own lives. He shows that his orders are not to be taken lightly, but rather obeyed. Napoleon has no scruples in killing the other animals. He ‘dehumanizes’ them, as they are not allowed to support each other through difficult times. He breaks their relationship bonds and prevents them from showing empathy, thus hindering their ‘human’ feelings. The pigs regularly ask the other animals if they want Jones to return. By reminding them of their greater hate and fear of this man, and life under his rule, they present their current situation as the only alternative to a worse state of oppression. Finally, the pigs lie constantly to the other animals by giving them made up statistics that supposedly show the improvements that have taken place on the farm (more food, better living conditions etc.). Of course, these numbers mean nothing to the other animals and since they are confused, they just accept them. This situation perfectly reflects Mark Twain’s famous statement, “There are lies, damned lies and statistics.” The pigs lie about the extra food they take being necessary for their health and mask other activities that go against the community’s ideal. When necessary, they repaint the commandments on the wall in order to suit their behaviour and tell the other animals that this was what they had always said to the point where they question their own memories. One clear example of this is when, after the pigs get drunk despite the commandment of no alcohol drinking, one of the animals notices a change in that commandment. “There was yet another of them which the animals had remembered wrong. They had thought that the Fifth Commandment was ‘No animal shall drink alcohol’, but there were two words that they had forgotten. Actually the Commandment read: ‘No animal shall drink alcohol to excess.’” (79) 13 This shows how easily the animals believe the pigs’ lies, and in fact are more willing to question their own memories than the pigs’ conduct. Taking all these points into consideration, it is obvious that the society constructed has strayed hugely from its original ideal. Old Mayor’s warnings were not heeded and the pigs have merely replaced Man as the oppressors of the other animals. They are greedy, self-­‐serving, merciless and untouched by the hard life they inflict on the other animals. In addition, they do not care about inequality now that their lives are luxurious, comfortable and labour-­‐free. Having themselves escaped from oppression under Jones, they have no qualms about imposing the life they used to hate on the others. They reflect perfectly the assertion of the educator and theorist of critical pedagogy Paulo Freire who stated that: "The oppressed, instead of striving for liberation, tend themselves to become oppressors."9 The fact that the pigs have ceased to see the other animals as their equals but rather as inferiors permits them to further oppress them. This theme is also present in the novel The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas, where the son of a German commandant in Nazi Germany asks his father who the people in the concentration camp are. His father replies, “Those people…well, they’re not people at all”(Boyne 53). He views his prisoners as subhuman and so justifies the horrors done against them. However, it is not just that the actions of the pigs ‘dehumanize’ the other animals. In their new role, the pigs are also ‘dehumanized’, since they lose their compassion, softheartedness and altruism. Their moral restraints against injustice, cruelty, and, ultimately, murder are progressively weakened and removed. They become incapable of acting in a principled, upright and just fashion. In The Giver, the oppression is less obvious, and none of the community’s citizens are aware of it. Having never known anything else, they are oblivious to what they are missing out on, and thus seem to be content. The oppression is not physical but exclusively psychological and appears to stem from a genuine concern for the welfare of the people. 9 Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Bloomsbury, 1970. Print. 14 One aspect of this oppression is that the governing body of the community, the committee of Elders, makes all the choices for its members. Hardly any free choice is possible. Clothes are distributed according to age and gender, and are identical for everybody in each category. In his essay The Soul of Man under Socialism, Oscar Wilde states that, “Every man must be left quite free to choose his own work. No form of compulsion must be exercised over him.” In the community of the Giver, it is the contrary. Jobs are assigned to each member as soon as they turn twelve. Although the elders take into account the person’s preferences by thoroughly observing their character, temperament and interests, it is not a free choice. Spouses and children are also assigned; each ‘family unit’ must have one girl and one boy. At first glance, this choice control can appear to be a wise idea. As explained in the novel, the elders “don’t dare to let people make choices of their own […] [they] really have to protect people from wrong choices”(124). As in Animal Farm, this level of control is presented as being for the good of the citizens, to protect them from mistakes that could hurt and upset them, to shield them from tough situations and, ultimately make the wisest choices. However, it is dehumanizing for numerous reasons. Firstly, it prevents people from expressing themselves through their choices, and stops them from being able to demonstrate their uniqueness. Moreover, this process underestimates their capacity for rational thinking and judgement. It shows that ‘normal’ people are thought to be incapable of weighing up a situation, or their desires, and making good decisions. Furthermore, it results in a loss of personal autonomy, since individuals are constantly dependant on someone else’s judgement. In his reflection on dehumanization Herbert Kelman defines personal identity as follows: To accord a person identity is to perceive him as an individual, independent and distinguishable from others, capable of making choices, and entitled to live his own life on the basis of his own goals and values. (Kelman 48) This shows that within the community of The Giver, personal identity is attributed to members of the community solely on a very restricted basis. They are distinguishable by their jobs and family units, but are neither independent nor seen as able to make decisions for themselves. They are not entitled to live as they see fit, but rather obliged to conform to the values and goals of the 15 community. The author Madeleine L’Engle very pertinently sums up this fundamental error (202): To take away a man's freedom of choice, even his freedom to make the wrong choice, is to manipulate him as though he were a puppet and not a person. Taking into account the fact that within in any civil community some personal freedom must be sacrificed for the greater good, the degree to which this occurs in the community of The Giver goes much further, unquestionably resulting in dehumanization. Another way in which the community’s residents are oppressed is through the suppression of their feelings. As soon as one starts to feel the beginnings of sexual desire (for Jonas this happens in a dream on pages 47-­‐48), the daily ingestion of a pill becomes necessary. These pills are treatments for ‘Stirrings’. They repress feelings of desire, but also all other deep feelings. During Jonas’ training he decides to stop taking the pills, the Stirrings return and he feels slightly guilty but knows that he can’t “go back to the world of no feelings that he had lived in so long”(164). He says this, because he knows that taking the pill and therefore losing his feelings would return him to the subhuman state that he used to live in. Another way the feelings are subdued is through the removal of memories. Although pain and grief have been taken away from them, so have joy and love. As Jonas receives more and more memories from the Giver, he becomes aware of everything that he never felt before. In fact we read that: Jonas realized that it was a new depth of feelings that he was experiencing […] Though he knew that his failure to take the pills accounted for some of it, he thought that the feelings came also from the memories. (164-­‐165) He undergoes an opening to the world of feelings that no one else in his community, except the Giver, experiences. The others who take the pills and do not possess the memories only sense shallow and mild feelings, that is to say diminished versions of those that Jonas now knows. Instead of anger they feel frustration, instead of love they “enjoy” (160) the presence of a person, instead of anguish they feel limited concern. Through all this, the vibrancy and depth of life is severely diminished, as none of their feelings go beyond surface level. In addition to this, every morning and evening the members of each ‘family unit’ have to share their dreams and feelings with each other. This calm discussion and deconstruction of their feelings removes any true depth and meaning they could have had. 16 Finally, there is the constant surveillance of the population. A speaker makes announcements over a public address system in order to give information to the members of the community. For example, when Jonas takes an apple home, an announcement is made saying that snacks shouldn’t be hoarded (31); and when his sister’s hair is undone, there is an announcement saying that braids must be kept neat (28). This shows that the members are constantly watched and even their most trivial movements rarely go unperceived. In the same way, conversations are listened to from speakers in the wall. During one session with the Giver, Jonas glances towards the wall speaker, “terrified that the Committee might be listening as they could at any time” (132). The Giver is the only person with the ability to turn off the speaker and during his training with Jonas, he always exercises this privilege. However for others without this possibility, private conversations are non-­‐existent. Whilst dehumanization is clearly present in the community depicted in The Giver, the form the society takes corresponds exactly to the ideal its creators hoped for. This is further proof that the original ideal was problematic. As has been shown above, both novels contain various forms of oppression. In order for ‘people’ to express their individuality and humanity, freedom of choice is essential. Even though the founding ideals in the two books are different, dehumanization is observed in both societies, and life within the communities becomes distorted, manipulated and far from utopian. In fact, due to all the dehumanization, fear, surveillance and inequality present in these societies, they now strongly resemble dystopian ones. 17 Part Three: Dissatisfaction with the existing societies “Revolutions produce other men, not new men.”10 Barbara W. Tuchman In the two societies of Animal Farm and The Giver, the oppression and dehumanization documented in the previous part of this research paper result in feelings of disappointment among some society members, alongside a growing dissatisfaction at the state of their lives and that of their communities. On the one hand, the animals in Animal Farm long for true equality instead of the oppression that once again rules their lives. On the other hand, Jonas in The Giver yearns for individuality and the depth of life he only knows in the memories he receives. In Animal Farm, after the pigs and the dogs massacre many of the other animals for ridiculously far-­‐fetched confessions to crimes, Clover and some of the other animals huddle together and contemplate the state of their society. They are shocked by “the contrast between their bright hopes and grim realities” (Rodden 136). Clover realises that whilst they have achieved what they wanted -­‐ the overthrow of man -­‐ this was not what they were ultimately aiming for. Deep down what she truly longed for was: A society of animals set free from hunger and the whip, all equal, each working according to his capacity, the strong protecting the weak. (64) Sadly, however Clover observes that: They had come to a time when no one dared speak his mind, when fierce, growling dogs roamed everywhere, and when you had to watch your comrades torn to pieces after confessing to shocking crimes. (64) Clover is distressed by the scenes of terror and slaughter she has just witnessed and is deeply saddened by the loss of her friends. She realises that something has gone desperately wrong and that this society controlled by terror was not what they had aimed, hoped and toiled for. During one winter the animals observe that: Life nowadays was harsh and bare, […] they were often hungry and often cold, and […] they were usually working when they were not asleep. (81) In fact, their life very closely resembles the one that they led before the rebellion: they still experience discomfort, overwork and hunger. The farm has increased 10 Tuchman, Barbara W. The First Salute. Bungay: Sphere, 1989. 395. Print. 18 its wealth and yet none of the animals experience a rise in their standard of living, except for the pigs and dogs. Despite their rebellion against Man, they did not ultimately gain anything, except the illusion that they are ‘free’. They remain proud of belonging to the only farm that is owned and run by animals, in spite of all the hardships and injustices they experience. This pride stems from the fact that they have achieved something that had never been done before. Although the animals realise that their situation is not what they had hoped for, that the pigs live indulgently and that their own lives are oppressed and miserable, they do not have the clear-­‐sightedness, or the cleverness, to accuse the pigs. Moreover the brain-­‐washing they have received under the pigs’ rule, prevents them from blaming the pigs for the state of things. Instead, they gladly accept the figures Squealer gives them, supposedly proving their lives are better, and are content with the knowledge that “all animals are equal”. (95) This shows that ‘dehumanization’ has robbed them of evaluative powers. In contrast to the widespread dissatisfaction on the farm, in The Giver, Jonas and the Giver are the only ones to experience any dissatisfaction. They alone are aware of the true state of their society and of how things used to be. As Jonas becomes aware of a world that is so much deeper, more interesting and more meaningful than anything he had known to date, he also becomes angry with his friends who are content with their empty and meaningless lives. He tries in vain to share his memories with them in order to make them more aware and to share a glimpse of the beauty that only he and the Giver know. He becomes increasingly annoyed at the lack of colour and more importantly at the absence of opportunities to make choices. If everything’s the same, then there aren’t any choices! I want to wake up in the morning and decide things! (123) He realises that, as the smooth running community controls everything and the committee makes all decisions, he has no freedom to make choices (however small) for himself. Instead, he has to comply with rules that have been fixed by others. The routine and monotony of his daily life leave no possibility for the unexpected or for surprises that could challenge his intelligence and desire for autonomy. These frustrations lead him to dream of ‘Elsewhere’ where there might be hills, sun and snow and he tells the Giver “I wish we had those things, still”(106). 19 The more Jonas learns, the more he becomes dissatisfied with the life he sees around him, a life that cannot compare to the colourful, emotionally charged memories that are so much more significant and lively. After receiving the memory of the home with the family, and the loving atmosphere he experiences, Jonas tells the Giver “I liked the feeling of love […] I wish we still had that”(158). The contrast between the warmth in that memory and his own sterile family ‘unit’ is stark and increases his dissatisfaction. Life becomes even harder for him as he realises that he loves his family and friends but that they cannot understand or return his love without the memories, which he cannot transmit to them. He begins to feel lonely and increasingly different from his family and friends. As Friedrich Max Muller said: “A flower cannot blossom without sunshine, and man cannot live without love.” 11 As Jonas becomes more truly human he begins to realize his strong desire and need for love. In addition to this, when Jonas realises that ‘Release’ is really just a lethal injection that kills people, and that his father has used it on young babies, he is distraught and accusatory towards everyone who kills so easily. However, the Giver tells him that they are not aware of what they are doing. They can’t help it. They know nothing. It’s the way they live. It’s the life that was created for them. It’s the same life you would have, if you had not been chosen as my successor. (191) All the people who don’t have the memories know only what they are told. They have no notion of death, rather, they celebrate Release. However, this is very hard for Jonas to accept now that he has seen how things could be different and better. His newly acquired awareness of the truth leads him to decide that Release is wrong and should be prevented. In both societies there are members who are deeply dissatisfied and disappointed with their lives. They know that what they are experiencing is not a perfect community and that, in truth, this is far from the utopian dreams they might once have had. This discontent pushes the members to reflect on a plan of action to bring about a more satisfying change. The attempts for change will be looked at in the next part. 11 "Max Muller." BrainyQuote.com. Xplore Inc, 2015. 14 September 2015. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/max_muller.html 20 Part Four: Attempts, or not, to change the society “If there is no struggle, there is no progress.”12 Frederick Douglass In both societies we are considering, dissatisfaction arises as a result of dehumanization. This in turn promotes feelings of unrest and therefore a longing for change and the creation of a new, different society, where the true humanity of its citizens is realized. However, dehumanization leads to a loss of power, autonomy and ability to make choices and decisions. This leads to a loss of ability to produce change. Thus, if a utopian society leads to dehumanization, we might expect the citizens to be incapable of fighting dehumanization and bringing about reform. Indeed, in Animal Farm no attempt is made to change the society or rebel and further reasons for this lack of action will be considered below. In The Giver, on the other hand, Jonas and the Giver, the two most truly human people, form a plan that, if successful, will lead to societal change. The first reason for lack of action in Animal Farm is that a considerable number of years have passed since the animals first took power. Only few can remember Jones, the previous farmer, and the times before the rebellion. This means that the others have no recollection of the initial (unfulfilled) dreams of a society where all animals are equal, and so cannot compare their current reality to the ideal it was meant to be founded on. In addition, those who can recollect Jones’ existence have no detailed remembrance of whether the state of their lives was any better or worse than their current one. Moreover, the animals are old, tired, underfed and overworked. The prospect of them successfully achieving change, or rebelling against the pigs, seems unthinkable, as they lack energy and enthusiasm. Furthermore, most of the animals do not have sufficient intelligence or audacity to blame the pigs or to challenge them. The most obvious example is Clover the mare, who, despite all her disappointment, her horror at the pigs’ slaughter of the other animals, and her consequent wariness, “lacks the strength, 12 Frederick Douglass, “West India Emancipation” speech, August 3rd , 1857, New York, http://www.blackpast.org/1857-­‐frederick-­‐douglass-­‐if-­‐there-­‐no-­‐struggle-­‐there-­‐no-­‐progress 21 imagination, and daring to act on her suspicions. She saves herself from liquidation by keeping quiet, but she dooms herself to slavery” (Brunsdale 129). Another reason for the absence of any attempt to produce change, is that all the animals have undergone thorough brainwashing by Napoleon, the chief pig. The personality cult that has evolved around him prevents the animals from attacking or even criticizing him. Coupled with this is their constant fear for their own safety at the hands of the dogs. Finally, the animals miss the one clear opportunity they have to rebel. One day the pigs leave the farmhouse and march around on their hind legs like men. The other animals are totally astounded and they even consider saying something. There came a moment when in spite of everything – in spite of their terror of the dogs, and of the habit, developed through long years, of never complaining, never criticizing, no matter what happened-­‐they might have uttered some word of protest. (97) Despite their brainwashing, exhaustion and fear, the visible resemblance of pigs to men is too much for them to handle. However just as they begin to show their dissent, the sheep start bleating the new song that Squealer taught them in the previous weeks “Four legs good, two legs better” (97). They do so for five minutes, by which time the pigs have returned to the house and the animals have lost their chance to say anything. Their failure to seize the moment condemns them to a continued life of enslavement. Shortly afterwards, Clover, and Benjamin the donkey, discover that there is only one remaining commandment that reads: “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others” (97). As shown in the image above13 , this contradictory statement sums up the lies that the pigs have led all the other animals to believe. It is the final proof that “the revolution on Animal Farm was now completed, from slavery and through revolt and through freedom and back again to slavery”(Ingle 86). From then onwards the animals are not surprised to see the 13 "MYP English A." MYP English A. Web. 13 Aug. 2015. 22 pigs carrying whips to supervise them, wearing Jones’ clothes, smoking pipes or keeping company with humans. In fact, this has come to appear normal. More than ever before, the animals have neither the strength nor the spirit to try and launch a rebellion against the pigs, as they have become entirely helpless and dominated. Eventually, they watch as the pigs progressively morph into men, taking on not only the role, but also the appearance of their despised oppressors, as illustrated in the image below.14 That which the pigs tried to hide for so long, substituting Man in his position as master, no longer necessitates concealment. The process of oppressing and ‘dehumanizing’ the other animals is complete: over time they have become entirely submissive victims of an all-­‐
embracing manipulation. Through the creation of a system based on violence, fear and oppression, the pigs feel, and are, unthreatened in their positions as leaders and masters of the farm and, subsequently, their transformation into men is complete. The total ‘dehumanization’ and enslavement of the other animals removes their ability to act, their lack of human capacities means that they cannot rebel. This theme also occurs in the novel When Hitler stole Pink Rabbit, in which one hears of a professor in a concentration camp who was chained in a dog kennel, forced to bark and eat scraps from a bowl without every being allowed to stand until he went mad (Kerr 81). As with the animals in Animal Farm, his dehumanization led to the loss of his capacities and, with them, the power to effect any change in his situation. 14 "“Animal Farm” Performed for Two Nights in the Vera Lawton Hall." Wynberg Girls High School RSS. Web. 13 Aug. 2015. 23 Whilst it is ‘dehumanization’ that seals the inability of the other animals to effect change, in The Giver things are different. It is the two people in the community who are most truly human -­‐ Jonas and the Giver -­‐ who bring about change. Both long to change things for themselves and for the people around them. Primarily, they desire to share all the joy that the memories give them and share true human life -­‐ full of feelings and depth – with those who have lived shallow and superficial lives for so long. However, Jonas rapidly despairs as his attempts to transmit memories to his family and friends end in failure. Nevertheless, the Giver encourages him by reminding him that in the past things were different, so they can surely change the current situation: “People felt things once. You and I have been part of that, so we know” (193). In addition, they want to lighten the burden of the bad memories that they carry. Since their personal training rules forbid them from speaking to others about the memories, they feel not only an intense loneliness but also a marked separation from other community members. For these reasons, they conceive the plan that Jonas must make the risky attempt to escape the community and leave for ‘Elsewhere’, forever. In this way, all the memories he holds will return to the community and awaken them to everything they have been missing out on, such as colours, joy, sorrow and love. Despite Jonas begging the Giver to accompany him, the old man insists on staying, as his role is to comfort and care for the community which will be overwhelmed by their new knowledge. Caring for the community is of fundamental importance: they are valuable human beings who will have opinions and feelings, and should be treated as such, otherwise there is no point in changing things. Jonas’ escape is brought forward as he finds out that Gabriel, a ‘newchild’ (143) his father had been looking after and bringing home at nights, is to be released. Since Jonas now knows that Release means death, he is even more determined to bring about change, and his affection for Gabriel results in Jonas taking him with him. As Jonas puts an increasing distance behind him he notices that the memories are dwindling. Sometimes, […] Jonas felt that they (the memories) were more shallow, a little weaker than they had been. It was what he had hoped, and what he and the Giver 24 had planned: that as he moved away from the community, he would shed the memories and leave them behind for the people. (212) The plan he and the Giver put together is working. Further on in his journey, the countryside starts changing, animals start appearing and Jonas is filled with amazement and happiness. However, he cannot find food, and he begins to fear that he and Gabriel will starve. As regrets at leaving the community start to build up, he has to remind himself of the reasons why he had to leave and attempt to bring about change. If he had stayed, he would have starved in other ways. He would have lived a life hungry for feelings, for colour, for love. And Gabriel? For Gabriel there would have been no life at all. So there had not really been a choice.(218) Eventually, the pair arrives in a snowy village. The implication of this is significant: he has come to a place where there is no Climate Control, where things are different. In the village Jonas hears sound that he knows must be music. But this stirs something else as well: Behind him, across vast distances of space and time, from the place he had left, he thought he heard music too. But perhaps it was only an echo. (225) This perception of music coming from behind is the first indicator of change within the community he left. He has done everything he can to bring about difference and he has succeeded in what he set out to do. This music is the sound of hope for a new and richer life for all those he left behind, and of a bright future for himself and Gabriel. These two novels have strongly contrasting endings. Whilst Animal Farm shows the animals’ inability to change anything to the point where they do not even attempt to rebel anymore, The Giver shows how even a small number of people can succeed in making a difference if they are prepared to take personal risks, work hard, and not give up. This contrast is due to the fact that the animals are so entirely ‘dehumanized’ and broken that they cannot fight the pigs, while Jonas and the Giver are the most truly human people of their community and so are capable of fighting to bring about change: that ‘humanness’ might be restored to the community. Both novels provide insight into different ways difficult situations are often dealt with. Either, one can despair and give up without even trying, or one can do one’s best, despite opposition knowing that the cause is worth the struggle. 25 Conclusion This paper has attempted to prove that dehumanization is a consequence of the attempt to create a utopian society using examples taken from the novels Animal Farm and The Giver. In conclusion, it is clear that creating a utopia is a noble, but ultimately flawed goal, because the very nature of humanity -­‐ individual, imperfect – makes such an endeavour anathema to what it means to be human. Therefore the attempt to create a utopian society seems bound to fail. This can be argued not only theoretically, but also historically, where there have been failed attempts at making utopian societies such as Communism in post-­‐revolutionary Russia and Nazism in Germany. The reasons for this systematic failure lie with the people creating and living in the society. Firstly, the conception of a utopian society is difficult because not everyone would agree on what a perfect world would look like since what pleases one can repulse another. However, even if an ideal could be agreed on, creating the reality remains problematic. Those taking positions of leadership may start to crave more power in order to impose their rules. With time, little or no freedom is left to other members, thus creating -­‐ or recreating -­‐ inequality. In addition, a community may attempt to control everything, with the goal of achieving and maintaining equality, but in doing so it prevents the very individuality necessary for people to be truly human from existing, as it is the case in The Giver. Ultimately, it is human failings that prevent utopian ideals from becoming reality. Where there is desire for self-­‐promotion, personal advancement is often achieved at the cost of others, sometimes even disregarding others’ misery. The wish for everyone to be entirely equal, so that no one is left out, can also, ironically, arise from personal selfishness as it prevents others from reaching their full potential; a potential that could be higher than one’s own. As Oscar Wilde (23) affirmed, “Selfishness always aims at creating a uniformity of type […] It is grossly selfish to require of ones neighbour that he should think in the same way and hold the same opinions.” Finally, the treatment of those who do not fit in in the ideal society is often harsh and dehumanizing as they are seen as inferior. As the English 26 theologian John Stott said, “The heart of the human problem is the problem of the human heart.” As soon as you see yourself as superior, it is easy to see others as inferior and then dehumanization, in one of its many forms, is almost inevitable. 27 Bibliography Primary sources • Lowry, Lois. The Giver. USA: Houghton Mifflin, 2014. Print. • Orwell, George. Animal Farm. London: Penguin Classics, 2007. Print. Secondary sources Books: • Boyne, John. The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas. London: Random House Children’s Books, 2006. Print. • Brunsdale, Mitzi M. Student Companion to George Orwell. USA: Greenwood Press, 2000. Print • The Cambridge Companion to George Orwell. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Print. • Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Bloomsbury, 1970. Print. • Ingle, Stephen. The Social and Political Thought of George Orwell, A reassessment. USA: Routledge, 2006. Print. • Kelman, Herbert. "Violence without Moral Restraint: Reflections on the Dehumanization of Victims and Victimizers." Journal of Social Issues 29.4: 48-­‐52. Print. • Kerr, Judith. When Hitler stole Pink Rabbit. New York: PaperStar Books, 1997. Print. • Lee, Daniel. George Orwell, Animal Farm/ Nineteen Eighty-­Four, A reader’s guide to essential criticism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001. Print. • Lelord, François, and Lorenza Garcia. Hector and the Search for Happiness. London: Gallic, 2010. Print. • L’Engle, Madeleine. The Young Unicorns. USA: Macmillan, 1968. Print • Moran, Daniel. Cliffs Notes Animal Farm. USA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2001. Print. • Madden, Caolan. Spark Notes The Giver. New York: Spark Publishing, 2003. Print. • Pavlos, Suzanne and Stephen F. Austin. Cliffs Notes The Giver. New York: Wiley Publishing, 1999. Print. • Rodden, John. The Cambridge Companion to George Orwell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Print. • Spark Notes Animal Farm. New York: Spark Publishing, 2014. Print. • Tuchman, Barbara W. The First Salute. Bungay: Sphere, 1989. 395. Print. • Wilde, Oscar. The Soul of Man under Socialism. 1891. Print. Sites: • "Universal Declaration of Human Rights." Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Web. 1 Mar. 2015. <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.
pdf>. 28 •
•
•
"Dehumanization." Metta Centre for Nonviolence. Web. 12 Mar. 2015. <http://mettacenter.org/definitions/gloss-­‐concepts/dehumanization/>. "Dehumanize." Merriam-­Webster. Merriam-­‐Webster. Web. 9 Jan. 2015. <http://www.merriam-­‐webster.com/dictionary/dehumanization>. "(1857) Frederick Douglass, "If There Is No Struggle, There Is No Progress" | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed." (1857) Frederick Douglass, "If There Is No Struggle, There Is No Progress" | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed. Web. 20 June 2015. <http://www.blackpast.org/1857-­‐frederick-­‐douglass-­‐if-­‐there-­‐no-­‐
struggle-­‐there-­‐no-­‐progress>. Image sources: • "Dehumanization." Dehumanization. Web. 15 Aug. 2015. <http://aragec.com/dehumanization.html#prettyPhoto[galeri]/0/>. • "MYP English A." MYP English A. Web. 13 Aug. 2015. <http://share.nanjing-­‐school.com/englisha/animal-­‐farm-­‐3/>. • "“Animal Farm” Performed for Two Nights in the Vera Lawton Hall." Wynberg Girls High School RSS. Web. 13 Aug. 2015. <http://www.wynghs.co.za/news/animal-­‐farm-­‐performed-­‐for-­‐two-­‐
nights-­‐in-­‐the-­‐vera-­‐lawton-­‐hall/>. 29 30