Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities
Vol. 5, No. 7, July 2015, pp. 272-283
Asian Journal
of Research in
Social Sciences
and
Humanities
ISSN 2249-7315
www.aijsh.org
Asian Research Consortium
Power, knowledge and Discourse in Animal Farm
Shahram Jamali Nesaria, Elahe Kamarib
a
Master of English language and literature, Islamic Azad University, Eyvan-e-Gharb Branch,Ilam, Iran.
PhD Student of General Linguisticss, Allameh Tabataba’I University, Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages.
b
DOI NUMBER-10.5958/2249-7315.2015.00182.3
Abstract
In this paper, first, an introduction is stated. This introduction aims at defining knowledge as distortion of
facts, and not as true account of what had happened. Napoleon doesn‟t let other animals Vote, then,
Squealer calls it a sacrifice for the good of the farm. In fact, it is a sign of dictatorship, but Squealer
inculcates, gives false knowledge, in animals that comrade Napoleon is always right, and the animals take
it for granted. Then, discourse, authority, and power are discussed and applied in Animal Farm. Power
relations produce a discourse which, in turn, enhances power. In the next step, the birth of a new
discourse is stated. Power relation in the novel changes and this change brings about a new discourse. In
this new power structure, unlike the previous power structure, the prosperity of man is not the prosperity
of animals. Man and animal have not common interests. Therefore, in the new power relations headed by
the pigs man is put aside, and the old discourse which gives priority to man is replaced by a new
discourse which considers man as the root of all evils. The relation between power and knowledge is the
last concern in this paper. In fact, knowledge is not produced for the sake of knowledge but it is produced
in relation to power.
Keywords: Power, Discourse, Foucault.
272
Nesari & Kamari (2015). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 5, No. 7, pp. 272-283
1. Introduction
Probably, nothing is more important in keeping Napoleon in power than the general ignorance of the
animals and the knowledge the pigs have. Through their intelligence, the pigs can even produce a kind of
false knowledge which they know is worthless as knowledge but can work as an incredibly great help in
keeping the other animals in line. This false knowledge, which reaches the animals through Squealer, is
produced to make the animals see and interpret the events as the pigs force them to do so. It has nothing
to do with accuracy, and has little to do with what really happens or why really an event takes place.
There are clues enough in Animal Farm to make the reader and even a small number of more intelligent
animals in the novel understand the reason behind what happens. They know, for instance why the milk
disappears (AF:15), why the pigs move to the farmhouse (AF:40), who ruins the windmill (AF:42), where
boxer is sent by the pigs and what happens to him (AF:73). However, the majority of the animals believe
what Squealer says, and what he says distorts the facts in favor of the pigs.
What Squealer says affects the conditions on the farm to a very large extent. It cools the animals down
when they get angry at what the pigs do. It makes an interpretable neat pack of the events which would
otherwise seem a chaotic heap to the animals. It disciplines them by teaching them what is right to do and
what is wrong. It is Squealer who sets the morality principles up for the animals. “Bravery is not enough‟,
says Squealer „Loyalty and obedience are more important” (AF: 33).
Orwell shows the susceptibility of moral principles to power relations through discourse. The power of
the pigs with Napoleon as their leader produces a discourse that is represented by Squealer and uses
different ways including justification, establishing morality principles, false interpretation, etc. in order to
guarantee a power structure that takes on the responsibility of protecting the interests of the pigs first, and
then, that of the dogs.
2. Discussion and Conclusion
2.1. Discourse, Authority and Power
Discourse is closely related to power. Power produces a discourse to be enhanced by it. Foucault (1973),
uses “discourse” to refer to “the general domain of all statements, sometimes as an individualizable group
of statements, and sometimes as a regulated practice that accounts for a number of statements”(61). When
discourse is used to refer to “the general domain of all statements”, it includes all utterances and
statements that are made and are meaningful and can produce some effect. Discourse in its second sense,
that is, in the sense of “individualizable group of statements” can refer to those utterances that in one way
or another belong to a certain domain. They are thematically related and propose an idea concerning one
aspect of the same subject, for example, the religious discourse of colonialism or the discourse of
feminism. When Foucault uses discourse to refer to “regulated practices that account for a number of
statements” according to Sara Mills (2003), he means “the unwritten rules and structures which produce
particular utterances and statements”(53). For instance, there may be no rules written on how to talk to
one‟s superiors or inferiors, while the unwritten rules produce certain utterances in each case.
273
Nesari & Kamari (2015). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 5, No. 7, pp. 272-283
Discourse may be of little interest. However, when it comes to power and power relations, there is a
different story. According to Mills (2003):
The reason that many people find the term discourse to be of use is that Foucault stresses that discourse is
associated with relations of power. Many Marxist theorists have used that term ideology to indicate that
certain statements are authorized by institutions and may have some influence in relation to individual‟s
ideas, but the notion of discourse is more complex than this notion of ideology, in that, because of
Foucault‟s ideas on power and resistance […] a discourse is not simply the imposition of a set of ideas on
individuals […]. In Marxist theorizing, ideology is always assumed to be negative and constraining, a set
of false beliefs about something; whereas Foucault argues that discourse is both the means of oppressing
and the means of resistance (54-5).
Animal Farm displays the affinity between power and discourse. It also shows discourse fulfilling its two
opposite functions that is discourse as both the means of oppressing and the means of resistance. At the
beginning of the novel, the discourse Old Major produces is the first step taken toward the revolution
against Mr. Jones, and after the revolution the pigs employ Squealer to produce another discourse which
proves to be oppressing.
Old Major is an authority among the animals. He is “so highly regarded on the farm that everyone [is]
quite ready to lose an hour‟s sleep in order to hear what he [has] to say” (AF: 1). That is why his
discourse is of considerable force and vigor. His discourse although caused partly by the power structure
on the farm, does not ally with it. His discourse is one of resistance. The way Mr. Jones treats the animals
and exploits them to a great extent, the hard work and low rations he imposes on them as the director of
the farm, who is a superior arranging power relation in favor of himself, seem to be the major causes for
the impact Old Major‟s discourse produces on the animals.
Old Major‟s discourse moves at a certain direction to nullify the dominant discourse propagated on the
part of Mr. Jones and the likes of him. That discourse as can be inferred from what Old Major says has
had a tendency to inculcate in the animals that the life they are living is the only natural life possible for
an animal. Old Major tries to depict a quite different world using the utterances and the statements he
utilizes in his speech, in other words, he employs a certain discourse to depict a different way of life:
But is this simply part of the order of Nature? Is it because this land of ours is so poor that it cannot afford
a decent life to those who dwell upon it? No, comrades, a thousand times no! [...] This single farm of ours
would support a dozen horses, twenty cows, hundreds of sheep- and all of them living in a comfort and a
dignity that are now almost beyond our imagining. Why then do we continue in this miserable condition?
Because nearly the whole of the produce of our labour is stolen from us by human beings. There,
comrades, is the answer to all our problems […]. Man. Man is the only real enemy we have (AF: 3).
Man, up to that point, has been the center of a dominant discourse which has kept the animals under the
severest control, has exploited and oppressed them and, especially has depicted Man as the greatest friend
who protects the animals and feeds them. By declaring as the site where the answer to all problems lies
and as the only real enemy, Old Major targets at the heart of the dominant discourse of power and
274
Nesari & Kamari (2015). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 5, No. 7, pp. 272-283
undermines it. A counter-discourse is then introduced that debases all previously held beliefs and
destabilizes all power relations. It, actually, provides the ideological basis for the revolution that
overthrows Mr. Jones and his men. To further change the image that a man-made discourse offers of
Man, Old Major explains some aspects of Man‟s tyranny. That is what develops the counter-discourse
further and challenges the dominant discourse still further. Therefore; power produces a discourse to meet
its demands. It is a means at the hands of power to oppress the animals. If power exposes animals to over
working, it will be justified by the dominant discourse as an advantage. The discourse power produces is
not the only possible one. There are many other discourses as well, but power supports one at the cost of
the others. It declares one as the truth, and silences the others. That is why power is always associated
with resistance from many different sides. Rather, power by nature is productive of resistance.
Man is the only creature that consumes without producing. He does not give milk, he does not lay eggs,
he is too weak to pull the plough, and he cannot run fast enough to catch rabbits. Yet he is lord of all the
animals. He sets them to work, he gives back to them the bare minimum that will prevent them from
starving, and the rest he keeps for himself. Our labor tills the soil, our dung fertilizes it, and yet there is
not of us that owns more than his bare skin (AF:4).
Thus, Old Major paves the way for the sovereignty of the animals, because the discourse he produces
leaves no room for human begins as sovereigns. They are weak and useless, and contribute nothing to life
on a farm while they are benefited most from what others do; therefore, their rule is illegitimate. They
have no right to rule the animals, and the power structure that allows them to keep and manage the farm,
must collapse. The animals, in contrast to human beings are the real workers, but they are not profited by
their legitimate work. It is the animals who should govern. No wonder if Old Major‟s speech concludes
this way:
Only get rid of Man, and the produce of our labor would be our own. Almost overnight we could become
rich and free. What then must we do? Why, work night and day, body and soul, for the overthrow of the
human race! That is my message to you, comrades: Rebellion! (AF:4).
Thus, discourse functions here as a means of resistance. It would not have been so effective, however, had
Mr. Jones not produced his own discourse to run the farm the way he did. Old Major‟s speech is a
discourse of resistance, but is born of the same power relations that give birth to the discourse of
oppression advocated by Mr. Jones. The same discourse that declares “Man and the animals have a
common interest and that the prosperity of the one is the prosperity of the others” (AF: 5), is exactly the
discourse that Old Major aims at dismantling, and he finally succeeds.
Old Major‟s speech ends with the song “Beats of England” where a land without human beings and run
by animals is imagined. Interesting enough, this song is the climax of a discourse that overthrows 'Man'
and helps animals to succeed to the thrown of the farm. This song is repressed later on by the pigs
themselves who propagate a discourse of oppression, similar to the one Jones championed.
“Major‟s speech' that gives 'to the more intelligent animals on the farm a completely new outlook on
life”(AF:8), the secret teaching offered to animals by the pigs (AF:9), Mr. Jones‟s “idle and dishonest
275
Nesari & Kamari (2015). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 5, No. 7, pp. 272-283
men” (AF:11) whose misfunctioning leaves the farm in a sorry state so that “the fields were full of weeds,
the buildings wanted roofing, the hedges were neglected, and the animals were underfed” (AF:11)
together with Mr. Jones‟s excessive drinking and ignorance lead to the long waited revolution at a time
when oppression and starvation reaches its climax.
The revolution promised by Old Major is realized. Mr. Jones and his men are driven out of the farm and
the animals celebrate their victory. As a further step in uprooting Mr. Jones‟s discourse and establishing
that of Old Major, “the name of the farm changes from Manor Farm to Animal Farm” (AF:14). Jones, the
power structure that grants him the management of the farm together with the discourse that Jones and his
power relations produce, creates resistance which has a discourse of its own. This discourse leads to
revolution which brings about radical changes in power structure and the change in power relations in its
turn produces further discourse and certainly resistance. The first signs of the production of a new
discourse by the new power structure, appear, apart from the change of the farm‟s name, in what is called
“Animalism‟ by the pigs, the principles of which are „reduced to the seven commandments ”(AF: 14).
These commandments are reliable clues to prove that the discourse Jones produces is the major cause for
producing the counter-discourse that finally overthrows him, since these commandments are nothing
more than a refusal of Jones‟s discourse. They identify themselves only as a big 'NO' to what Jones
advocated. In fact, they have no identity as independent, self-sustaining statements. In addition, they take
all their power and desirability from the fact that they oppose Jones‟s discourse. “No animal shall wear
clothes, no animal shall sleep in a bed, no animal drink alcohol, no animal shall kill any other animal”
(AF: 14) are little more than a rejection of what Jones did. Thus, power proves to be productive. It
produces discourse and discourse can function both as a means of oppression (e.g. Jones‟s discourse) and
a means of resistance, for example, Major‟s discourse or the Seven Commandments.
Discourse as a means of oppression is appropriately a large part of Animal Farm. Almost on every page
of the novel, especially from the beginning of chapter III onward, there can be found some statements that
contribute to the gradually-rising dictatorship of Napoleon and the increasing oppression exercised on the
other animals. Therefore, discourse, as an indirect exercise of power, is at the hand of a state to justify in
its benefits whatever they do instead of resorting to direct exercise of power.
2.2. The Birth of a New Discourse in Animal Farm
Immediately after the revolution, a new power structure reveals itself, bringing with it a discourse of its
own. The present discourse is the discourse of resistance. It brings the animals a short period of prosperity
and happiness, but it is too short to embrace equality, and once more oppression dominates over the farm.
The animals call one another “comrade‟, but „comrade Snowball [leads] the way to the harvest” (AF: 15)
and comrade Napoleon places “himself in front of the buckets‟ of milk obtained from the cows and cries:
„Never mind the milk, comrades... That will be ended too. The harvest is more important” (AF: 15). This
is the opening of a discourse that paves the way for corruption, injustice and oppression, since “when [the
animals] came back in the evening, it was noticed that the milk had disappeared” (AF: 15). After that,
they discover that “it [is] mixed everyday into the pigs‟ mash” (AF: 15).
276
Nesari & Kamari (2015). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 5, No. 7, pp. 272-283
Power affects discourse through a selection process. In “The Subject and Power” , Foucault argues:
in every society the production of discourse is at once controlled, selected, organized, and redistributed by
a certain number of procedures whose mastery over is to ward off its powers and dangers, to gain mastery
over its chance events, to evade its ponderous formidable materiality (52).
Discourse is inevitably related with power. It can enhance or weaken an established power structure.
Every statement is pregnant with force, power, and a potential of making changes. Therefore, the
dominant power structure cannot help taking a position with regard to a given statement. It allows some
to be produced and represses the others. In a process of exclusion and inclusion, power determines what
discourses should be produced, maintained, and circulated, while the others are to be silenced, and
excluded. According to Mills, “Foucault is aware that we could potentially utter an infinitive variety of
sentences, but what is surprising is that, in fact, we choose to speak within very narrowly confined limits”
(57).
“After much thought Snowball declares that the Seven Commandment can in effect be reduced to a single
maxim, namely: 'four legs good, two legs bad'. This, he [says] [contains] the essential principle of
Animalism” (AF: 20). This statement or maxim is represented repeatedly in the novel. It is a statement
produced as a result of the radical change on the farm of the power structure on the one hand, it signifies
little more than the statements Old Major offers on the wickedness and viciousness of human beings and
on the other hand, the righteousness, legitimacy and goodness of animals. Because of the occupation of
the management of the farm by the pigs, a new outlook makes its presence felt which brings with it the set
of values naturally associated with it. The Power of pigs with four legs at its head, decides what is good
and what is bad. No doubt, such a power structure would declare four legs of pigs as good and their
enemies, two legs of man, as bad.
This maxim fulfills different functions in the novel. “The sheep [develop] a great liking for [it], and often
as they lie in the field they all start bleating 'four legs good, two legs bad! […] never growing tried of it”
(AF: 20). It is crucial for the power of the pigs since it grants them a sort of legitimacy and condemns
their enemies as illegitimate. Another function it fulfills is silencing dissent voices. While Snowball is a
brilliant vivacious pig, “quicker in speech and more inventive than Napoleon', Napoleon is 'not much of a
talker” (AF: 30). Therefore, in the fierce arguments the two leading pigs have with one another, on crucial
moments that Snowball is on the threshold of victory and Napoleon is doomed to defeat, the sheep
suddenly start bleating it. “It [is] noticed that they [are] especially liable to break into 'four legs good, two
legs bad' at crucial moments in Snowball‟s speeches” (AF: 28). They seem to interrupt his speech with the
slogan and provide Napoleon with a chance and an opportunity to recover. The maxim is used also, on
several occasions to prevent animal from objecting to the cruelty and corruption of the pigs. On such
occasions it functions as part of a discourse that beats and defeats counter-discourses until they dry up.
Sometimes they even do not find a chance to originate.
How crucial a role the maxim plays for the pigs can be inferred from the fact that as soon as they learn to
walk on two legs, their hind legs, Squealer takes the sheep to a private place and “teaches them to sing a
new song‟: „four legs good, two legs better ”(AF: 79-80). Now that they are established in power with no
277
Nesari & Kamari (2015). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 5, No. 7, pp. 272-283
two-legs (human) enemies to threaten them, and now that the pigs have distinguished themselves as a new
class walking on two legs, it is natural for the maxim to be thus replaced.
It is not just that maxim which undergoes change. All the statements made by the pigs and their agents
form a rather coherent discourse the pigs interests, and the other statements change as the power structure
changes. The most considerable ones are the Seven Commandments. Each of these commandments is
changed so that the maximum room possible is made for the pigs to Fulfill their ambitious, unjust desires;
for instance, “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others” (A.F: 81), “no animal
shall drink alcohol to excess” (AF: 65), “no animal shall kill any other animal without cause” (AF: 54), no
animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets, etc. Each of these changed statements works as an exact index to
show how the change in power structure changes discourse.
The relationship between power and a given discourse is not unalterable. No discourse binds itself
eternally to a power structure, and it is in this time that power produces resistance. According to Foucault
(1980a):
Discourses are not once and for all subservient to power or raised up against it, any more than silences
are. We must make allowances for the complex and unstable process whereby discourse can be both an
instrument and an effect of power, but also a hindrance, a stumbling block, a point of resistance and a
starting point for an opposing strategy. Discourse transmits and produces power; it reinforces it, but also
undermines it and exposes it, renders it fragile and makes it possible to thwart it (100).
The statements which the pigs change to adapt to their interest can exemplify what Foucault says
concerning the relation between power and discourse. Another instance is the song 'Beasts of England.' It
is taught to the animals by Old Major, which plays a significant role before the revolution, during the
revolution and well after it. It helps animals to undermine Mr. Jones‟s power structure and also helps the
pigs through the animals to control the farm and establish themselves as rulers. Therefore, the pigs
encourage animals to learn it by heart and sing it on different occasions; for instance, after the revolution,
after the Cowshed war, after the Windmill battle, etc. But soon after the pigs distinguish themselves as a
ruling class whose interest is in opposition with the interest of working class including the majority of the
animals on the farm, “one day Squealer appears, attended by two dogs to announce that by a special
decree of comrade Napoleon, Beasts of England is abolished. 'From now onwards it [is] forbidden to sing
it” AF: 20). When asked why by Muriel, Squealer says:
„It is no longer needed, comrade‟ …. „Beasts of England‟ was the song of the Rebellion. But the
Rebellion is now completed. The execution of the traitors this afternoon was the final act. The enemy
both external and internal has been defeated. In „Beasts of England‟ we expressed our longing for a better
society in days to come. But that society has now been established. Clearly this song has no longer any
purpose (AF: 20).
„Beasts of England‟, Squealer well knows, can stir the animals to another revolution, especially now that
Jones is back not in prison but in the form of four legs who have made life even harder for the animals
278
Nesari & Kamari (2015). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 5, No. 7, pp. 272-283
than it used to be under Jones. The song should, therefore, be repressed. Thus, a discourse which was
once taught and encouraged by the pigs is now repressed by the same pigs.
Propaganda, managed by Squealer and controlled by Napoleon, is a major part of the discourse that
power produces on the farm. Squealer, as an agent that represents a false, although to some extent
persuasive, interpretation of the events, is present almost from the beginning of the novel up to the very
end. The first time he is sent to make explanation to the animals is representative of what he does all
through the novel. When the pigs decide to collect all apples for their own use and the other animals
having no share of them, some of the animals murmur, but in vain. Soon Squealer is there to silence them:
„Comrades‟! He cried. „You don‟t imagine, I hope, that we pigs are doing this in a spirit of the selfishness
and privilege? Many of us actually dislike milk and appeals. I dislike them myself. Our sole object in
taking these things is to preserve our health. Milk and apples (this has been proved by science comrades)
contain substances absolutely necessary to the well-being of a pig. We pigs are brain-workers. The whole
management and organization of this farm depend on us. Days and nights we are watching over your
welfare. It is for your sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples. Do you know what would happen
if we pigs failed in our duty? Jones would come back! Yes, Jones would come back! (AF: 32)
Distorting the facts, interpreting disadvantage as if it was advantage, falsification, and especially
advocating a morality which is nothing more than an effective means to exploit the animals in favor of the
pigs, are among the characteristics of Squealer‟s speeches. What Squealer preaches in the name of
morality and moral principles that must be observed for their own sake, is in fact directly related to the
pigs‟ interest. There is no morality in Animal Farm at the service of the welfare and well-being of the
pigs, while Squealer speaks of it as if it were absolute, universal, and having nothing to do with time,
place or the power structure of the animal society.
Through the discourse that Squealer presents, power structure on Animal Farm produces and preaches
certain moral values on different occasions. It also determines crime and determines who should be
regarded as criminal. After the expulsion of Snowball, Napoleon puts an end to the meetings animals used
to hold on Sunday mornings in which the decisions to be made were debated and put to the vote. Such
debates are declared by Napoleon as unnecessary any longer, since “all questions relating to the working
of the farm [will] be settled by a special committee of the pigs, presided over by himself” (AF:25 ). The
animals are shocked, and even four pigs object severely to the decision made but the dogs silence them.
Immediately Squealer is sent round the farm to explain the new arrangements to the others:
Comrades he [says], „I trust that every animal here appreciates the sacrifice that Comrade Napoleon has
made in taking this extra labour on himself. Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure! On
the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon
that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But
sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be? Suppose you
had decided to follow Snowball, with his moonshine of windmills- Snowball, who, as we now know, was
no better than a criminal?‟ (AF: 33)
279
Nesari & Kamari (2015). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 5, No. 7, pp. 272-283
When one of the animals raises an objection to Squealer‟s condemnation of Snowball as a criminal and
reminds him of how bravely Snowball fought at the battle of Cowshed, Squealer says “Bravery is not
enough, loyalty and obedience are more important.” (AF: 33). The passages include three points
implicitly or explicitly made concerning the relation between power, morality, and crime. First, Snowball
who was one of the leaders well after the revolution and who was given the military decoration, “Animal
Hero, First Class” (AF: 26), is expelled and called a criminal, only because he is too influential an
opponent for Napoleon to bear. Napoleon, helped by the dogs expelled Snowball and using his status and
power, makes a traitor out of a leader who was once a great hero. Criminal is a mark which justifies the
injustice done to Snowball, and crime seems to have no objective definition except in relation to power
and power structure. It is the power structure that determines what crime is and who should be taken as a
criminal.
Second, some dictatorial activities, which are done by Napoleon, are justified as sacrifice. Napoleon‟s
violation of the right of others to make decisions about the farm‟s affairs and his increasingly dictatorial
measures are represented by Squealer as sacrifice. Extremely hateful tendencies are talked about as if they
were the highest moral inclinations just because power demands so.
Third, Snowball was admired after the battle of Cowshed; he was given „Animal Hero, First Class „and
his bravery was appreciated whole-heartedly because it served the pigs and their power. However, now
that Snowball is expelled and the pigs are in power, such bravery will hurt them. At best, it is no longer
needed. What Napoleon and the power structure allowing him to function like the center of power need is
loyalty and obedience on the part of the others. That is why bravery is put aside as unnecessary while
loyalty and obedience are highly regarded and preached as ideal moral objectives, on the part of
Napoleon‟s spokesman and discourse-maker, Squealer. Squealer‟s speech represents the whole function
he fulfills throughout the novel that is, distorting the facts to enhance the power relations that serve the
pigs' interests at the cost of the other animals, although neither the service nor the cost is absolute.
2.3. Power and Knowledge in Animal Farm
Foucault is interested in the relation between power and knowledge. Just as he questions and challenges
the originality of an author in his production of works in “What is an Author?” he challenges the so far
exaggerated importance bestowed upon scientists and philosophers as individuals who change the course
of history because of their exceptional talent and intelligence. “Foucault would like to produce a much
more anonymous, institutionalized and rule-governed model of knowledge- production” (Mills 68).
To Foucault, power and knowledge are closely connected so that it is hard to imagine one without the
other. This is a clear expression of the integration, entanglement and interdependence of power and
knowledge Foucault offers in his works time after time although he may put it in different words.
According to Foucault (1980c), then, it would be quite natural and logical to expect some sort of power
struggle both as a cause and an effect of knowledge whenever and wherever it is produced. It will be as
equally reasonable, too, to suppose some kind of knowledge wherever and whenever power structure
changes, power is transmitted or a system of power relations is undermined.
280
Nesari & Kamari (2015). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 5, No. 7, pp. 272-283
In Animal Farm, there is evidence enough to illustrate Foucault‟s ideas in both ways, the whole novel
being the narration of the story of a revolution that turns power relations upside down while it goes astray
and contrary to the principles it found itself on, it leads to the establishment of another system of power
relations which are not basically different from those they are replaced for.
The whole change in power relations on Animal Farm starts from the knowledge Old Major provides the
animals with, about the conditions of their life and how different they could have been and could be. On
the evening of the day of revolution Mr. Jones is drunk and when he gets back, “he immediately [goes] to
sleep […] with the New of the world on his face” (AF: 11). Over the past three years, Mr. Jones is
ignorant of the whole activity done by the animals to pave the way for the revolution. It is ironic that a
man who does not know what is happening around him, and a man who is ignorant of what is
immediately relevant to him, is curious about news of the world and does not seem to miss even a copy of
the newspaper. Jones‟s ignorance supplements the knowledge of the animals to undermine Jones‟s power.
The lack of knowledge is a major factor in changing power relations to show how important role
knowledge plays in relation to power.
After the revolution, too, it is the pigs‟ knowledge that helps them to rise to the leadership of the whole
farm and enables them increases their power step-by-step so that they make almost all decisions on the
farm and the other animals are almost excluded from the process. From the very beginning, that is, even
before the revolution, “the work of teaching and organizing the other [falls] naturally upon the pigs, who
were generally recognized as being the cleverest of the animals ”(AF:9). Intelligence and knowledge
function here as the means that gives the pigs the right to lead, manage, and control the rest.
The pigs, who probably know that knowledge is power, start teaching themselves to read and write
almost the same night that Old Major delivers his speech. Immediately after the revolution they “reveal
that during the past three months they taught themselves to read and write from an old spelling book
which had belonged to Mr. Jones‟s children and which had been thrown on the rubbish heap” (AF:14).
The ability to read and write which is exclusively the domain of the pigs now, gives them an unrivalled
opportunity to distinguish themselves, from the rest of the animals, as the ones who should have a greater
share of the management of the farm, that is, of its power. There are the pigs who now propose the Seven
Commandments as a social, economic and moral framework for the animals to observe. Knowledge gives
them still a greater share of power.
The first cooperative work the animals do after Jones is to harvest. They start the harvest and finish it in
less time than it had finished under Jones, which is a big success. However, during the harvest “the pigs
did not actually work, but directed and supervised the others. With their superior knowledge it was
natural that they should assume the leadership” (AF: 16). Animal Farm is actually abounding with
references, implicit or explicit, to the relationship between power and knowledge, but this is one of the
rare cases where Orwell reaches such a high degree of explicitness in reference to the affinity between
power and knowledge.
That the pigs, exclusively the pigs, study “blacksmithing, carpentering, and other necessary arts from
books which they had brought out of the farmhouse” (AF:18), that they pigeons to inform the animals on
281
Nesari & Kamari (2015). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 5, No. 7, pp. 272-283
other farm of their rights and how to resist and undermine the farm owners, as well as the fact that the
farm owners “were both thoroughly frightened by the rebellion on Animal Farm, and very anxious to
prevent their own animal from learning too much about it” (AF:23), are signs to prove that the relation
between power and knowledge is one of the more important themes of Animal Farm.
Since the knowledge that power produces is part of the broader discourse that it creates, circulates,
maintains and reproduces, it is natural to expect production of more knowledge about those in less
powerful positions by those in more powerful ones. Mills (2003) writes:
Because of the institutionalized imbalance in power relations between men and women in Western
countries, Foucault would argue, information is produced about women; thus we find many books in
libraries about women but few about men, and similarly, many about the working classes. There are many
books about the problems of Black people, but not about Whites. Heterosexuality remains largely
unanalyzed while homosexuality is the subject of many studies (68).
The information the pigs produce about Snowball after his expulsion affirms Foucault‟s idea discussed by
Mills. The first remark made by Squealer about Snowball after the latter is expelled is that he “was no
better than a criminal” (AF: 33). Then, he is announced by Napoleon himself to be responsible for the
destruction of the windmill. He is also announced as a traitor and death sentence is pronounced on him. It
is interesting that at the end of the long speech Napoleon makes about Snowball, he traces the latter‟s
footprint to Faxwood Farm, suggesting that he is taking refuge in an enemy‟s farm. Next, it is revealed
that Napoleon was on good terms with Faxwood Farm Owner‟s rival and he pretended to be an enemy of
the former. Information was produced about Snowball, especially on those occasions when something
went wrong on the farm. Whenever anything went wrong it became usual to attribute it to Snowball.
If a window was broken or a drain was blocked up, someone was certain to say that Snowball had come
in the night and done it and when the key of the store-shed was lost, the whole farm was convinced that
Snowball had thrown it down the wall (AF: 46).
The animals are so susceptible to the effect of the knowledge produced for them by the pigs that they
believe Snowball is the source of all harm and wickedness even when it is proved that the harm was
caused by someone else. “The cows declared unanimously that Snowball crept into their stalls and milked
them in their sleep. The rats, which had been troublesome that winter, were also said to be in league with
Snowball” (AF:47). Snowball is talked about by Squealer as a guide to Fredric of Pinchfield to lead him
in his attack on Animal Farm. Still as if so much about Snowball was not enough, he is said to be in
league with Jones from the very beginning and to have tried to lead the animals to their doom and defeat.
Foucault‟s books, especially Madness and Civilization, The Birth of Clinic The Order of Things, and
History of sexuality, show that various forms of knowledge about sex, crime, Psychiatry and medicine
have arisen and been replaced. Even in science a theory recognized in its own period if it doesn‟t conform
to the power consensus of the institutions and official organs of science. Mendel‟s genetic theories were
not accepted in 1860s; they were waiting until the twentieth century for acceptance. It is not enough to
speak the truth; It is already defined. This means that we cannot speak of any absolute truth or objective
282
Nesari & Kamari (2015). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 5, No. 7, pp. 272-283
knowledge. A piece of philosophy or scientific theory is not considered to be true if it adopts itself to the
theories and philosophies accepted by the intellectual or political authorities of the day, or by the
prevailing ideologies of knowledge. But power, sometimes, justifies a disadvantage as advantage, and
compels people, by Justification, to take it as true knowledge. Knowledge is produced, by the pigs in
power, about Snowball throughout the novel but the whole chapter VII is devoted to an image of him that
Napoleon and Squealer want the animals to see and believe. This image is a false one, but the gullible
animals take it for grant. They actually produce a „body of knowledge‟ about Snowball which is more or
less coherent. However, they also produce knowledge about the four pigs that on some occasion criticize
the pigs, the hens that lead the strike, etc. and they connect all dissent voices to Snowball in one way or
another. Animal Farm, thus, proves to be a work concerned with power and power relations which
submits itself to a Foucauldian reading, in which an examination of power, resistance, knowledge and
discourse prove to be fruitful.
References
Foucault, Michel.( 1973). The Archaeology of knowledge. Trans. A. M. Sheridan. London: Routledge.
Foucault, Michel . (1980a) “The Eye of Power.” Power/ Knowledge. Eds. C. Gordon. Brighton:
Harvester,
Mills, Sara. (2003.) Michel Foucault. London: Routledge.
Orwell, George. (2001). Animal Farm. Eds. Andy Hopkins and Jocelyn Potter. London:
283