Orwell's Animal Farm - Book Report/Review Example

The Concept of Language and Thought Throughout his writings, one can determine that the ideas of politics weighed heavily on the mind of George Orwell. Although he is most known for his books Animal Farm and 1984, Orwell also wrote many articles as a political journalist and writer of short stories. During the course of his writing career, Orwell naturally made the connection between writing and political thinking, analyzing the various ways in which political leaders communicate. In his books, he wrote of the inhumanity of socialism. Whether he was using humans or animals to illustrate his points, he nevertheless made it clear that the control of the human being, while possible, was never advisable. At the same time, he made it understood what some of those forms of control might take. His essay “Politics and the English Language” addresses what Orwell felt was the primary vehicle by which the English language was losing its meaning, primarily as it was used within the political arena. By enumerating the various ways in which English was being misused by those who would lead the people, Orwell indicates both the reasons why the language has been subverted to concentrate more on the printed words than the actual meaning as well as how this process might be reversed using the same medium. By analyzing his argument and investigating several of his supporting arguments, one begins to understand the various ways in which language works to shape human thought. Orwell made little effort to disguise his criticisms of the modern world and attempted to call attention to the ways in which language shaped thought. Orwell’s 1984 addresses the ills of politics directly as his protagonist, Winston, attempts to thwart the established forms of control. In the novel, he investigates the extremes of a dystopian society, which is easily controlled by the manipulation of language. The world introduced in 1984 is deliberately reminiscent of Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany. Winston’s job is to edit the ‘news’, both present and past, to reflect the current dictates of Big Brother, who has control of everything from the constantly changing political agenda to the new definitions and creation of words in the form of Newspeak. “If all others accepted the lie which the party imposed – if all records told the same tale – then the lie passed into history and became the truth” (Orwell, 1949: 37). In this process, Orwell illustrates how manipulation of the printed word served to manipulate human thought. Without language to illustrate things had ever been anything other than the current situation, human thought is restricted to a single interpretation. Orwell ensures he provides real-life examples of his ideas by drawing very close parallels between his story and the actions of Stalin, who ordered his underlings to ‘doctor’ images that showed him together with his rival, Trotsky, so as to avoid any reminders to the public that the two men were ever considered on the same political side (Curry, 2001). The story includes such entities as the Thought Police, the Party and the hero worship of Big Brother. When Winston is finally taken to the Ministry of Love as punishment for his participation in the Brotherhood, a resistance group, his great fear of rats is used against him to make him betray Julia and break his spirit to again submissively follow the Party’s dictates. Through these and many other similarities, the book becomes a dark mirror of real world regimes and demonstrates the escalation of literature’s interest in political issues and language studies. This same approach is used in Orwell’s Animal Farm. Napoleon’s spokespig Squealer has a healthy grasp of the art of language, skillfully using rhetoric to convince the other animals of the rightness of Napoleon’s directives. Following the distressing expulsion of Snowball from the farm and the new order of farm management, Squealer is the one who circulates among the animals to calm them. “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?” (ch. 5). This type of language use comes in handy by the end of the novel, when Squealer finds himself working to explain away the fact that Boxer was removed in a van marked as belonging to the local slaughterer. “Surely, he cried indignantly, whisking his tail and skipping from side to side, surely they knew their beloved Leader, Comrade Napoleon, better than that? But the explanation was really very simple. The van had previously been the property of the knacker, and had been bought by the veterinary surgeon, who had not yet painted the old name out. … The animals were enormously relieved to hear this … and the sorrow that they felt for their comrades death was tempered by the thought that at least he had died happy” (ch. 9). In changing the commandments, Squealer brings forward the idea that “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” “In this simple but effective way, Orwell presents the tragedy and confusion of thought control to the extent that one seems better off simply believing that Napoleon is always right” (Hassani, 2005). Again, there is a close connection to the real life examples, in this case relating to Stalin’s propaganda machine, the newspaper Pravda. “It was through Pravda that the people of Russia were made to believe that Stalin’s gaining more wealth and power was absolutely necessary for all. All of Stalin’s success was based on how well Pravda could distort the truth” (“Pravda vs. Squealer”, 2001). The Pravda was able to convince the people of Russia that they were better off under Stalin in all the important parts of life by using simplified language to limits the terms of the discussion and by using overly complicated language to confuse the issues, skillfully blending the two for maximum confusion effect. Comparing Squealer to the Pravda, Lamont says Squealer has a big mouth and enjoys using it. He uses this skill to convince animals to believe in his words and to follow Napoleon’s lead. He also uses this skill to subtly change the commandments in such a way that they are familiar to what the animals remember, but manage to convey completely different meanings from what was originally intended. This is a duplicate of Winston’s job in 1984. The propaganda machine of the Lenin/Stalin government also worked diligently to use language that supported the image of their chosen leader and were willing to use any lie necessary to convince the people to follow him. Also like Squealer, the Pravda was able to capitalize on the relative illiterate nature of the general population (Lamont, 1995) while the lack of literature in 1984 forced people to rely on sketchy memory. Orwell’s exploration of the concept that language shapes thought is not only evident in his fictional works, but also appears in his non-fiction. In his essay “Politics and the English Language” (1946), he illustrates how the English language has become slovenly as the result of political and economic games designed to lull the public into acquiescence. He supports this assumption by demonstrating how the English language has become meaningless through the use of phrases and other literary ‘tricks.’ This type of meaningless communication fosters foolish thoughts in the minds of the public forced to use it. He provides several examples of the type of writing he is criticizing, describing it as a “mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence” which “is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing. As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse” (para. 9). As long as people are thinking foolish thoughts, political leaders can feed them more meaningless phrases and avoid discussing the real issues or the ugliness of reality. At the same time, they are reinforcing the sub-message that encourages the public to continue thinking foolish thoughts. Within this argument, Orwell suggests another argument, that the political leaders intentionally introduce this form of miscommunication into the English language as a means of hiding the truth of their activities from the public. By focusing on the stringing together of phrases rather than conveying any real meaning in their statements, political leaders are capable of seeming to say something when, in reality, they are saying something completely different. Because these phrases are made to sound intelligent and meaningful, using a number of communication ‘tricks’, the public is easily lulled into acceptance of what is being said as something positive toward the political leader or negative toward those who stand in opposition to the political leader. Although the concept was difficult to communicate in such straight-forward terms, Orwell managed to incorporate it into his fictional novels, as has been demonstrated in 1984 and Animal Farm. Works Cited Curry, Andrew. “Now You See Him, Now You Don’t.” US News and World Report. (2001). March 10, 2008 Hassani, Anna. “Animal Farm: George Orwell.” Book Reviews. Nabou.com. March 10, 2008 < http://bookreviews.nabou.com/reviews/animalfarm.html> Orwell, George. 1984. New York: Signet Classics, 1961. Orwell, George. Animal Farm. New York: Signet Classics, 2004. Orwell, Geroge. “Politics and the English Language.” (1946). A Collection of Essays. Orlando, FL: Harvest Books, 1981. “Pravda vs. Squealer.” Animal Farm. (August 1, 2001). March 10, 2008 Read More