About Us: http://www.the-criterion.com/about/
Archive: http://www.the-criterion.com/archive/
Contact Us: http://www.the-criterion.com/contact/
Editorial Board: http://www.the-criterion.com/editorial-board/
Submission: http://www.the-criterion.com/submission/
FAQ: http://www.the-criterion.com/fa/
ISSN 2278-9529
Galaxy: International Multidisciplinary Research Journal
www.galaxyimrj.com
www.the-criterion.comThe Criterion: An International Journal in English
ISSN: 0976-8165
Mimicry, Reversals without Differences, and Satire in Animal Farm
Anulal. S
Doctoral Researcher,
Central University of Kerala,
Kasaragod.
&
Dhanya Krishna
Thalassery
Abstract:
Carved into popular culture as a political allegory, Animal Farm is primarily positioned
outside of the presence of any other purpose within the cultural space provided by the
conflicting polarities animated therein. However, the presence of many other politico-cultural
forces at play within the ideological metonymy of the text cannot be denied to the fullest
extent. Using mimicry as a strategy, the leader of animal farm, Napoleon the pig constructs
an interdictory space. Within the borders of this space, he creates his parallel narrative that
subverts the existing rule of justice and equality. This paper attempts to use Homi Bhabha’s
concept of mimicry for the re-reading of George Orwell’s classic social satire, Animal Farm.
Keywords: Animalism, Mimicry, Feudalism, Rebellion.
The animals in a farm named Manor Farm attempt to assert their Otherness in contrast
to the oppressive human interference through a Rebellion. The word Rebellion appears with a
capital ‘R’, as if the animals have almost found their harmony with deifying the act of
Othering. The capitalized ‘Rebellion’ seems a raw simulation of the anthropocentric deityfigure that appears in grand narratives of the religious kind. The Rebellion of Manor Farm
turns bloody and resembles in all its subtlety the Eurocentric notions of political upheavals.
A certain social order prevails in the post-rebellion Manor Farm. This social order
resembles or rather mimics a system originated in the polity that followed European
upheavals, Socialism. The preconceived notions of a society that appropriates the features of
a socialist utopia seem all too plausible in asserting its imagined presence in Manor Farm.
This title had an undertone of the Manor houses, the centres of power, during the era of
feudalism in Europe. For instance, in the post-medieval social scenario, Romanian small
farmers were still governed by the traces of the manorial system.
“For some time after emancipation, transitional forms hindered the introduction
of fully fledged capitalism. Rather than sell up their tiny plots and move into rural or
urban labouring, small peasants often rented part of the manorial demesne,
discharging their rent by working the lord’s land. Elsewhere this neo-feudalism
eventually declined, but in Romania it consolidated into the system of labour contract
between landlord and poor peasant which, as Mitrany has argued, combined for the
latter all the disadvantages of feudalism and capitalism” (Okey 120).
Inside animal farm, animals are consolidated under the leadership of pigs who are the
intellectually superior elite class to all other animals. The trajectory of the revolution at
animal farm, led by the pigs of the farm, and the socio-political changes that settled in at the
aftermath of the revolution points towards the tangible scenario of feudal exchange. The
animals, who were once under the oppressive dominance of humans, now settle down for the
Vol. 6, Issue. V
193
October 2015
www.the-criterion.comThe Criterion: An International Journal in English
ISSN: 0976-8165
dominance of another set of leaders, in the form of pigs, who inadvertently follow the
strategies of human feudal system. In his introduction to Information Feudalism, Peter
Drahos points out that feudalism has a cause-effect relation with insecurities, social, political,
and psychological. In order to prevent the uncertainties of the Dark Ages, people “looked to
more powerful neighbours capable of shielding them against the attacks of brigands or
barbaric tribes, offering in exchange their land and services” (Drahos 2). In this transaction of
property and liberty, people expected to receive protection in exchange. This exchange was at
the centre of the beginning of Feudalism. “Feudalism became a system of government. The
lords in the system gained the social subordination and services of the majority along with
enormous economic power and wealth. The majority, the peasant serfs who had to work the
land, had to live with the arbitrariness that absolute power brings” (2). The revolution that
began with the prophecies of Old Major reaches its culmination with the ousting of the
human owner of the farm. After the exile of Snowball, an early representative of liberation
and animal empowerment, the farm was led by Napoleon and Squealer, both appearing fitting
samples of feudal representation of power.
Intellectually superior pigs model the governance and social structure of animal farm
upon human societies. This gives the impression that the mimicry they exercise upon the
notion of human civil behaviours and social strategies is inclined towards installing
themselves as the usurpers of the Farm. The pigs attempt to assimilate human language into
their animal interactions enhancing the perception of verisimilitude of animals with humans.
They profess seven commandments including the lyrical representation of imagined society
based on animal equality, justice, and prosperity. The pigs, being the intellectual elites of
animal farm, share their superior wisdom in their oppressor’s language by disseminating its
lessons throughout other animals. The oppressor’s language, the very tool within the semiotic
environment in which the animals were tagged with the identity of Other in Manor Farm
becomes the sign of superiority and masterly privileges in animal farm.
“It must be remembered, however, that through his allegory Orwell plays a two-sided
game with his reader. In some ways, he clearly emphasizes the similarities between the
beasts on animal farm and the humans whom they are designed to represent; at other
times, he demonstrates with both humor and pathos the profound differences separating
animal from man? Differences which in the end serve to limit the former. In doing so,
he forces his reader to draw a distinction between the personalities and conduct of the
beasts and those of the human world” (Letemendia 128).
In order to “draw a distinction” the reader first undertakes a comparison between the animal
world and the human world. The resultant similarities in the cultural-scape of animal farm
project also the subtle differences. Perhaps, it is this dissimilarity that is foregrounded in its
increasing verisimilitude proposes the ‘interdictory space’ (Bhabha) and mimicry in Animal
Farm.
As the lives of animals unfold in animal farm, animals that are constantly othered and
dislocated from their imagined rights, social and civil space, and are exposed to what may be
called ‘Double Othering’. During the time of human rule, under Mr. Jones, the original owner
of the farm, the animals tend to find themselves underfed and subjugated within the rules of
human dictatorship. However, after the rebellion and the establishment of the seven
commandments and the imagined territory for animals, the farm animals are forced to be
citizens of a second class compartment.
Vol. 6, Issue. V
194
October 2015
www.the-criterion.comThe Criterion: An International Journal in English
ISSN: 0976-8165
The animal society appears far removed from being ideal, the way it was imagined by
Major, a boar who had the dream that suggested the possibility of an exodus into a promised
land of political and social equality. “Man is the only real enemy we have. Remove man from
the scene, and the root cause of hunger and overwork is abolished for ever,” (Orwell 4)
prophesises Major in his speech. Old Major believes that Man is incapable of understanding
other living creatures and is extremely harmful and animals on the other hand are capable
only of doing good.
Major’s assessment of human identity as an oppressor and imperialist gains weight in
the squalid condition Mr. Jones keeps his farm. Perhaps, Major’s speech also echoes one of
the grand critical narratives about the elimination of God in its spirit and ambition, The God
Delusion by Richard Dawkins. It may not be a farfetched idea to juxtapose Animal Farm and
The God Delusion. “Orwell's reference to the animals' view that the real class struggle lay
between animals and humans suggests, in the context of the allegory, the absence of any
significant class struggle between members of the ruling class—or humans—since they will
readily forget their differences and unite to oppress animals” (Letemendia 132) .
Carved into popular culture as a political allegory, Animal Farm is primarily positioned
outside of the presence of any other purpose within the cultural space provided by the
conflicting polarities animated therein. However, as the reader creates the gestalt, the
irrevocable creative bond with the text, one is bound to realize the presence of important
cultural forces at play within the ideological metonymy of Animal Farm. Then parallel with
the famous work by Richard Dawkins is just one of these.
Considered the real-life mimicry of Joseph Stalin, the communist leader of Russia,
Napoleon the pig, the self-asserted master of the animal farm and the imagined hero of the
new revolution captures serious concern. Through Napoleon’s character, Letemendia’s
argument makes its presence felt. Napoleon’s comrades mimic Stalin’s secret police and their
implementations of oppressive strategies. Napoleon’s loyal followers attempt covert
operations within and without the geological boundary of the animal farm. These operations
include psychological manipulation, thus creating parallel narratives within the territory the
animals have imagined for themselves. These parallel narratives are intended to substitute the
grand narrative originated through Major’s stunning introductory oration that engraved the
notion of animal farm upon their ideological imaginings. Attempts to create parallel
narratives by Napoleon and his taking charge of the governance of animal farm indicate what
Letemendia points out as the ‘absence of a significant class struggle’. The difference between
the earlier oppressor and the new one evaporates. This event could also be the result of an
attempt that may reflect the concept of ‘mimicry’ in that politically charged work by Homi K.
Bhabha. In The Location of Culture, Bhabha discusses “[t]he menace of mimicry is its double
vision which in disclosing the ambivalence of colonial discourse also disrupts its authority”
(Bhabha 126).
Within the premises of the animal farm, the imagined society and the resultant seven
commandments hold the position of authority equivalent to the colonial discourse or the
absence of any difference from the earlier oppressive regime by humans at Manor Farm.
Although the seven commandments seem a strategy and a semiotic assurance for the
prevalence of a less chaotic state of organisational structure, the resultant ideological
oppressive status of the commandments cannot be ignored. In other words, the juxtaposing of
a colonial authority with that of the covetousness of a specific individual for power indicates
a certain conflict. This conflict does not take place as expected in the case of Mr. Jones.
However, “[n]one of the animals could form any idea as to what this meant, except old
Vol. 6, Issue. V
195
October 2015
www.the-criterion.comThe Criterion: An International Journal in English
ISSN: 0976-8165
Benjamin, who nodded his muzzle with a knowing air, and seemed to understand, but would
say nothing” (Orwell 73).
The conflict for power was rather one sided and executed with precision. Snowball,
another potential candidate for leadership was expelled from the farm. None of the other
animals are able to defy the gripping narrative served up by Napoleon’s companion Squealer.
This narrative and many others that followed attempt to colour the identity of Snowball as a
spy to Mr. Jones and to all others in the human race. This narrative also pictured Napoleon as
the true leader of animal farm.
The very portrayal of Napoleon’s identity presents him as a “fierce-looking” boar
“with a reputation for getting his own way” (Orwell 9). This reveals the toughness of his
character. Napoleon controverts whatever Snowball does as most of the animals lack the
intelligence to learn and understand the Seven Commandments. Napoleon maximally
attempts to seize the opportunities to establish himself as a dictator and a true leader of the
farm. Squealer, a cunning pig who as the animals say “could turn black into white”(9) is with
Napoleon in all his covert deeds and works as mouthpiece of his master.
With the support of Squealer, Napoleon alters the very cornerstones of animal farm, the
seven commandments. The original commandments are:
1.
“Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
2.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
3.
No animal shall wear clothes.
4.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
5.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
6.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
7.
All animals are equal” (15).
These commandments proclaim the maxim "Four legs good, two legs bad!" and this
maxim has been promoted by the sheep on the farm to interrupt with the nature and policies
of Animalism. According to Snowball, “Whoever had thoroughly grasped it would be safe
from human influences” (21). Snowball devotes his time and energy for educating other
animals of the farm by culturing them with the Seven Commandments that he inscribes on
the barn wall hoping it would bring Animalism in their character. The purpose is to ensure
the farm animals live like animals by keeping their identity and are recommended not to
follow and imitate the human beings.
Napoleon is presented as the prototype of an avaricious man who with his cunningness
by wearing the mask of a decent leader commands the rights of other animals as if his actions
are done for the progress of the farm. In order to assert his plans to usurp the farm and rule its
subjects as a totalitarian authority, Napoleon alters the commandments by mimicking the
original ones and altering then ever so slightly. The altered commandments are as follows:
1
“No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets”. (45)
2
“No animal shall drink alcohol to excess”. (73)
Vol. 6, Issue. V
196
October 2015
www.the-criterion.comThe Criterion: An International Journal in English
3
ISSN: 0976-8165
“No animal shall kill any other animal without cause”. ( 61)
Altering seven commandments suggest mimicking the dominant strategies and or
attitudes of the imagined locale of the ideal animal society in order to vitalize similar forms
of strategies or attitudes, but in a way that differs from the original in order to give the
original an ‘interdictory space.’ (Bhabha) After these crucial alterations the seven
commandments “exhibit a difference that is almost the same, but not quite” (Bhabha 122). In
due course, these altered commandments are replaced by the maxim, “ALL ANIMALS ARE
EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS” (90). Obviously,
the pigs turned to show the inescapable ‘qualities’ of human. They tend to mimic the traces of
humans through their deeds and responses. This is evident when “[t]he pigs appeared
completely at ease in their chairs. The company had been enjoying a game of cards but had
broken off for the moment, evidently in order to drink a toast. A large jug was circulating,
and the mugs were being refilled with beer” (91). Orwell opines : “Between pigs and human
beings there was not, and there need not be, any clash of interests whatever. Their struggles
and their difficulties were one” (92) .
Napoleon realizes the disruption of the notion of unquestioned authority when with
gradual awareness animals start their individual struggles against power. In order to assert his
power, Napoleon joins hands with humans when animals in the farm start observing the
absence of difference between their previous master and the new one. The pigs devised a new
narrative in order to serve the demands of their leader, Napoleon to exist in power. The
struggles of man and animals do not exist in conflict with each other but are complementary
to each other. Gradually, “the name ‘animal farm’ had been abolished. Henceforward the
farm was to be known as ‘The Manor Farm’” (94).
It may not be less accurate to incite the discourse of mimicry Bhabha recorded in The
Location of Culture at this juncture as well. The scene unfolds as the pigs, all dressed in
human costumes and appearing less different than humans sitting around a banquet table
along with human beings. Other animals watch this scene through a window from outside.
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to
man again: but already it was impossible to say which was which” (Orwell 95). Mimicry
permeates the intention of the authority to spread altered narratives and they also altered the
seven commandments cunningly. The altered reality of the metonymy of the seven
commandments that proclaimed the identity and ideological status of animal farm, turned out
to be the oppressive and commanding alteration from man to pig. The discourse of mimicry
finds itself showcased in the final scene of the book too, where the difference between pig
and man appears to be quite too small to be recognizable. Those who watch this performance
of altered reality through a window are by virtue of their positioning labelled Others in
relation to the existing leadership of the animal farm.
Animal Farm carries signifiers suggesting some of twenty first century’s dynamic
political events. From his writing, it’s evident that Orwell’s goal in Animal Farm is to
encapsulate the Russian Revolution of 1917 with its ultimate impact on the life of the people.
Many of the characters and events of Animal Farm replicate the cream of the Russian
Revolution. “The text does indeed stand alone to reveal Orwell's consistent belief not only in
democratic Socialism, but in the possibility of a democratic Socialist revolution, but there is
also a considerable body of evidence outside Animal Farm that can be shown to corroborate
this interpretation” (Letemendia 127). Letemendia elaborates that “Animal Farm was,
according to its author, an attempt to strip away the mythical veil shrouding the Stalinist
Vol. 6, Issue. V
197
October 2015
www.the-criterion.comThe Criterion: An International Journal in English
ISSN: 0976-8165
regime; simultaneously, however, he was trying to renew what had been lost through this
deception and to revive the original spirit of the Socialist movement” (132). Animal Farm
when viewed through the discourse of mimicry, a liberated society appears to succumb to
those leaders and their strategic invention of a copy of ideological metonymy of the same
liberation that helped them imagine the very reality of animal farm in the first place.
Works Cited:
Bhabha, Homi K. “Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse.” The
Location of Culture. London: Routledge, 1994. Print.
Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. London: Bantam Press, 2006. PDF file.
Drahos, Peter, John Braithwaite. Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge
Economy?. London: Earthscan, 2002. PDF file.
Letemendia, V. C. “Revolution on Animal Farm: Orwell’s Neglected Commentary”. Journal
of Modern Literature 18.1 (1992): 127-137. Web. 22 September 2015.
Okey, Robin. Easter Europe 1740-1985: Feudalism to communism. London: Routledge,
1991. PDF File.
Orwell, George. The Animal Farm. New Delhi: Penguin Books India, 2011. Print.
Vol. 6, Issue. V
198
October 2015