George Orwell wrote Animal Farm to warn of the dangers of a totalitarian regime in the practical application of communist ideology. His novella reflects his experience of, and response to, momentous events occurring in Europe in the first half of the twentieth century. It is a acknowledgement of the extent to which totalitarian leaders rely on the manipulation of thoughts and actions in order to maintain power across the class boundaries. In this essay, Orwell’s political and personal standpoints are examined and the book is analysed from a Marxist and socialist perspective. Whereas Animal Farm was written to reflect the terrible experience of Orwell and many of his contemporaries, its message is in many ways limited by his efforts to adhere to a parody of the events in Soviet Russia. Attention is given to the role of propaganda and Squealer, the chief propagandist in Animal Farm. Although Squealer does not wield power overtly in the way that Napoleon does, he is pivotal in the maintenance of a cowed population. Further, and more importantly from the point of view of the Marxist criticism of Orwell's novella, the Author is found wanting in his depiction of the working classes and his ability to champion those upon whom he in actual fact looked down.

<p>In George Orwell's two most famous novels Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm we find a totalitarian state, and in each case there are strategies that enable these societies to stay totalitarian. The reader of today not only sees the Soviet Union when reading Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four, but a large number of other totalitarian societies with similar structures and systems that exist throughout the world. A close reading of the novels shows that the strategies for the leaders in Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm to preserve the status quo include the control of media and flow of information, maintaining the class system, controlling education, creating distractions from issues that matter, being able to put the blame on a traitor, and enforcing control of people’s memory. Media is used to make the inhabitants believe that they are better off now than before, so that they will be content with what they have. Traitors and enemies are used to silence resistance and make sure that people stay in line. People’s memory is something that the leaders manipulate, even if it works in different ways in the two stories. In Animal Farm the animals just have a bad memory, and in Nineteen Eighty-Four it might be that the people have lost their ability to think critically and thus their ability to remember. Maintaining the class system and controlling education is to remain in control and minimizing the risks of another uprising. The reason why the Animal Farm becomes totalitarian is because the animals themselves looked the other way as the pigs started to take more than their fair share, which means that the responsibility of this situation is just as much the leaders as it is the peoples. The totalitarian societies in these books remain at status quo, but the message of these novels is that it can be different in real life. If we do not let things get out of hand, and if we keep on being aware of what is happening around us, we can stop this from happening.</p>

In George Orwell's two most famous novels Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm we find a totalitarian state, and in each case there are strategies that enable these societies to stay totalitarian. The reader of today not only sees the Soviet Union when reading Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four, but a large number of other totalitarian societies with similar structures and systems that exist throughout the world. A close reading of the novels shows that the strategies for the leaders in Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm to preserve the status quo include the control of media and flow of information, maintaining the class system, controlling education, creating distractions from issues that matter, being able to put the blame on a traitor, and enforcing control of people’s memory. Media is used to make the inhabitants believe that they are better off now than before, so that they will be content with what they have. Traitors and enemies are used to silence resistance and make sure that people stay in line. People’s memory is something that the leaders manipulate, even if it works in different ways in the two stories. In Animal Farm the animals just have a bad memory, and in Nineteen Eighty-Four it might be that the people have lost their ability to think critically and thus their ability to remember. Maintaining the class system and controlling education is to remain in control and minimizing the risks of another uprising. The reason why the Animal Farm becomes totalitarian is because the animals themselves looked the other way as the pigs started to take more than their fair share, which means that the responsibility of this situation is just as much the leaders as it is the peoples. The totalitarian societies in these books remain at status quo, but the message of these novels is that it can be different in real life. If we do not let things get out of hand, and if we keep on being aware of what is happening around us, we can stop this from happening.

The novel Animal Farm was primarily written as a satire on the Russian revolution, with the underlying intention to actively warn readers what happens when a totalitarian regime takes power. Manipulation and propaganda play a central role in the novella, but the ways in which the regime abuses its people psychologically appears to be of even greater importance. This essay examines and analyzes, from a psychoanalytical perspective, how Orwell portrays the characters that take part in the revolution and the psychology behind their behavior and the choices they make. The aim of the essay is to examine what the underlying factors are that enable a totalitarian leader to take hold of a community as this can be analyzed in Animal Farm. The character of Boxer the horse is central in the novel and of immediate interest, and is therefore analyzed in greater depth. The defense mechanisms denial and sublimation are examined closely in order to see what role they play in a totalitarian regime. Orwell delivers a serious message in Animal Farm, even though it is written as a satire with comic elements. By choosing to write it that way the novel is accessible to a wider audience than it would have been otherwise.

The aim of this thesis is to characterize the way George Orwell viewed the totalitarianism and how he portrayed this phenomenon in his works. The fundamental part is an analysis of the characteristics of totalitarian regimes in Orwell's most important works 1984 and Animal Farm. For a deeper understanding of Orwell's view of totalitarian regimes, his life and the events that shaped his political thinking were also discussed in more detail. In addition to the aforementioned, the work also includes a general characteristic of the typical features of totalitarianism and general principles of totalitarian regimes, referring to the historical and political context of the twentieth century of selected states, such as the USSR, Germany or Czechoslovakia. This section is followed by an analysis of selected works by authors who dealt with totalitarianism from the view of political theory, such as Hannah Arendt, F.A. Hayek, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Ernst Jünger. Though George Orwell described himself as a leftist and a socialist, he strictly rejected any form of totalitarian rule, and, as he wrote in one of his essays, much of his work was anti- totalitarian. His attitude towards totalitarianism began to emerge during the Spanish Civil War, in which he actively participated. There he also met for the first...

This essay argues that the patriarchy is pervasive throughout George Orwell’s novella Animal Farm. By providing examples of narrative events and character actions, the essay aims to make evident the ways in which the patriarchy is represented throughout the novella. The concept of patriarchy is defined, and characters and events that take place within the narrative of Animal Farm are analyzed through the lens of traditional gender roles and toxic masculinity. Both male and female characters are included to present the ways in which society in Animal Farm is patriarchal and the essay argues that the presence of the patriarchy pervades the narrative. The presence of patriarchal structures can be seen throughout the narrative, including characters, character’s actions and how events are portrayed. To conclude, discussing the novella from a feminist theoretical perspective is good for understanding the work in a way that is different from most other analyses in academia and this essay argues that the patriarchy indeed is present throughout the narrative of Animal Farm.

This essay focuses on exploring power structures within George Orwell's narratives 1984 andAnimal Farm, through the theoretical lens of Panopticism and the discourse of language andpower. By adding Steven Lukes' multidimensional view of power it digs deep into thecomplexity of power relations and further enriches our understanding of the subject. Whenreflecting on power as a phenomenon rooted in privileged access to social resources, theshaping of language use, and the exercise of power through language strategies Foucault'sPanopticism clarifies the layers of societal intricacies and offers a fresh perspective on thetimeless themes embedded in these literary works.

Os primeiros textos do escritor inglês George Orwell consideram o apelo do ideário comunista, ao passo que seus dois últimos romances, A Revolução dos Bichos (publicado em 1946) e 1984 (publicado em 1949) se contrapõem radicalmente a esse regime. Ao longo da segunda metade do século XX, foi-se estabelecendo a mística de uma forte ligação entre a obra de Orwell e o histórico do regime comunista, de modo que, com a queda do Comunismo, o desinteresse pelo assunto parece haver provocado uma diminuição no conceito dos méritos do escritor. O argumento da presente dissertação é que estamos frente a um momento nevrálgico no desenrolar da fortuna crítica de George Orwell, no qual a leitura alegórica feita até aqui deve ser substituída pela leitura simbólica, para que os textos do autor possam transcender à derrocada do movimento Comunista, sustentando-se na estética de sua literariedade e na atemporalidade de seu apelo ético. Em outras palavras, não é o texto de Orwell que precisa ser mudado, e sim, o ângulo de abordagem daqueles que constroem a fortuna crítica do autor, pois as referências temporais desgastadas diminuem a potencialidade interpretativa das obras. Um ponto comum que permanece, e que transpassa a obra literária de Orwell, é a opressão exercida por quaisquer sistemas políticos que possam ter atitudes consideradas totalitárias. Esta observação não remete apenas ao sistema comunista, mas também ao imperialista, ao autocrático, e até mesmo ao democrático. Orwell demonstra que um sistema não é totalitário por si só, mas através de suas atitudes em relação ao povo. Se, na época de seus lançamentos, a temática totalitária foi relacionada ao comunismo, tomando-se os textos como alegorias irreversíveis do discurso anti-comunista, a queda daquele regime, ou sua gradual abertura a práticas capitalistas, não basta para condenar as obras de Orwell ao anacronismo, descartando maiores possibilidades interpretativas. Ao propor uma releitura de A Revolução dos Bichos e 1984 substituindo as referências ao comunismo por qualquer tipo de prática totalitária — e concentrar o foco das observações no que é simbólico, ao invés de alegórico — acredito estar cumprindo minha parte neste processo de resgate da fortuna crítica de um escritor que considero ser um dos mais honestos e competentes de seu tempo. / The first texts of the English writer George Orwell approach the appeal of Communist views; however, his two last novels, Animal Farm (published in 1946) and Nineteen Eighty-Four (published in 1949) radically oppose this regime. Along the second half of the 20th century , strong bonds were established between Orwell’s works and the history of the Communist regime, however, with the fall of Communism, the lack of interest for the subject seems to have generated a diminution in the merits and recognition of the writer. The argumentation of this thesis is that we have been facing a central moment in the unfolding of George Orwell’s critical heritage, in which the allegorical reading done so far must be replaced by the symbolical reading, so that the texts of the author can transcend the fall of the Communist movement, supported by the esthetic of the literariety and atemporality of their ethic appeal. In other words, it is not the text of Orwell which must be changed, but the angle of the approach of those who build the author’s critical heritage, because outdated temporal references impair the interpretative possibility of the works. A remaining point that seems to cross all Orwell’s literary works is the oppression exerted by any political systems that can have attitudes considered totalitarian ones. This remark does not address only the Communist system, but also the Imperialist, the autocratic and even the Democratic ones. Orwell demonstrates that a system is not totalitarian on its own, but through its manifestations towards people. If, at the age of their launchings, the totalitarian theme was connected to Communism, taking the texts as irreversible allegories of the anti-Communist discourse, the fall of that regime, or its gradual opening to Capitalist practices, is not enough to condemn Orwell’s works to anachronism, discharging more comprehensive interpretative possibilities. I believe that, by proposing a new reading of Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four, replacing the references to Communism for references to any kind of totalitarian practice--, and concentrating the focus of the observation on what is symbolical – I will be doing my part in this process of rescuing the critical heritage of a writer who I consider one of the most honest and competent authors of his time.

Os primeiros textos do escritor inglês George Orwell consideram o apelo do ideário comunista, ao passo que seus dois últimos romances, A Revolução dos Bichos (publicado em 1946) e 1984 (publicado em 1949) se contrapõem radicalmente a esse regime. Ao longo da segunda metade do século XX, foi-se estabelecendo a mística de uma forte ligação entre a obra de Orwell e o histórico do regime comunista, de modo que, com a queda do Comunismo, o desinteresse pelo assunto parece haver provocado uma diminuição no conceito dos méritos do escritor. O argumento da presente dissertação é que estamos frente a um momento nevrálgico no desenrolar da fortuna crítica de George Orwell, no qual a leitura alegórica feita até aqui deve ser substituída pela leitura simbólica, para que os textos do autor possam transcender à derrocada do movimento Comunista, sustentando-se na estética de sua literariedade e na atemporalidade de seu apelo ético. Em outras palavras, não é o texto de Orwell que precisa ser mudado, e sim, o ângulo de abordagem daqueles que constroem a fortuna crítica do autor, pois as referências temporais desgastadas diminuem a potencialidade interpretativa das obras. Um ponto comum que permanece, e que transpassa a obra literária de Orwell, é a opressão exercida por quaisquer sistemas políticos que possam ter atitudes consideradas totalitárias. Esta observação não remete apenas ao sistema comunista, mas também ao imperialista, ao autocrático, e até mesmo ao democrático. Orwell demonstra que um sistema não é totalitário por si só, mas através de suas atitudes em relação ao povo. Se, na época de seus lançamentos, a temática totalitária foi relacionada ao comunismo, tomando-se os textos como alegorias irreversíveis do discurso anti-comunista, a queda daquele regime, ou sua gradual abertura a práticas capitalistas, não basta para condenar as obras de Orwell ao anacronismo, descartando maiores possibilidades interpretativas. Ao propor uma releitura de A Revolução dos Bichos e 1984 substituindo as referências ao comunismo por qualquer tipo de prática totalitária — e concentrar o foco das observações no que é simbólico, ao invés de alegórico — acredito estar cumprindo minha parte neste processo de resgate da fortuna crítica de um escritor que considero ser um dos mais honestos e competentes de seu tempo. / The first texts of the English writer George Orwell approach the appeal of Communist views; however, his two last novels, Animal Farm (published in 1946) and Nineteen Eighty-Four (published in 1949) radically oppose this regime. Along the second half of the 20th century , strong bonds were established between Orwell’s works and the history of the Communist regime, however, with the fall of Communism, the lack of interest for the subject seems to have generated a diminution in the merits and recognition of the writer. The argumentation of this thesis is that we have been facing a central moment in the unfolding of George Orwell’s critical heritage, in which the allegorical reading done so far must be replaced by the symbolical reading, so that the texts of the author can transcend the fall of the Communist movement, supported by the esthetic of the literariety and atemporality of their ethic appeal. In other words, it is not the text of Orwell which must be changed, but the angle of the approach of those who build the author’s critical heritage, because outdated temporal references impair the interpretative possibility of the works. A remaining point that seems to cross all Orwell’s literary works is the oppression exerted by any political systems that can have attitudes considered totalitarian ones. This remark does not address only the Communist system, but also the Imperialist, the autocratic and even the Democratic ones. Orwell demonstrates that a system is not totalitarian on its own, but through its manifestations towards people. If, at the age of their launchings, the totalitarian theme was connected to Communism, taking the texts as irreversible allegories of the anti-Communist discourse, the fall of that regime, or its gradual opening to Capitalist practices, is not enough to condemn Orwell’s works to anachronism, discharging more comprehensive interpretative possibilities. I believe that, by proposing a new reading of Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four, replacing the references to Communism for references to any kind of totalitarian practice--, and concentrating the focus of the observation on what is symbolical – I will be doing my part in this process of rescuing the critical heritage of a writer who I consider one of the most honest and competent authors of his time.

Os primeiros textos do escritor inglês George Orwell consideram o apelo do ideário comunista, ao passo que seus dois últimos romances, A Revolução dos Bichos (publicado em 1946) e 1984 (publicado em 1949) se contrapõem radicalmente a esse regime. Ao longo da segunda metade do século XX, foi-se estabelecendo a mística de uma forte ligação entre a obra de Orwell e o histórico do regime comunista, de modo que, com a queda do Comunismo, o desinteresse pelo assunto parece haver provocado uma diminuição no conceito dos méritos do escritor. O argumento da presente dissertação é que estamos frente a um momento nevrálgico no desenrolar da fortuna crítica de George Orwell, no qual a leitura alegórica feita até aqui deve ser substituída pela leitura simbólica, para que os textos do autor possam transcender à derrocada do movimento Comunista, sustentando-se na estética de sua literariedade e na atemporalidade de seu apelo ético. Em outras palavras, não é o texto de Orwell que precisa ser mudado, e sim, o ângulo de abordagem daqueles que constroem a fortuna crítica do autor, pois as referências temporais desgastadas diminuem a potencialidade interpretativa das obras. Um ponto comum que permanece, e que transpassa a obra literária de Orwell, é a opressão exercida por quaisquer sistemas políticos que possam ter atitudes consideradas totalitárias. Esta observação não remete apenas ao sistema comunista, mas também ao imperialista, ao autocrático, e até mesmo ao democrático. Orwell demonstra que um sistema não é totalitário por si só, mas através de suas atitudes em relação ao povo. Se, na época de seus lançamentos, a temática totalitária foi relacionada ao comunismo, tomando-se os textos como alegorias irreversíveis do discurso anti-comunista, a queda daquele regime, ou sua gradual abertura a práticas capitalistas, não basta para condenar as obras de Orwell ao anacronismo, descartando maiores possibilidades interpretativas. Ao propor uma releitura de A Revolução dos Bichos e 1984 substituindo as referências ao comunismo por qualquer tipo de prática totalitária — e concentrar o foco das observações no que é simbólico, ao invés de alegórico — acredito estar cumprindo minha parte neste processo de resgate da fortuna crítica de um escritor que considero ser um dos mais honestos e competentes de seu tempo. / The first texts of the English writer George Orwell approach the appeal of Communist views; however, his two last novels, Animal Farm (published in 1946) and Nineteen Eighty-Four (published in 1949) radically oppose this regime. Along the second half of the 20th century , strong bonds were established between Orwell’s works and the history of the Communist regime, however, with the fall of Communism, the lack of interest for the subject seems to have generated a diminution in the merits and recognition of the writer. The argumentation of this thesis is that we have been facing a central moment in the unfolding of George Orwell’s critical heritage, in which the allegorical reading done so far must be replaced by the symbolical reading, so that the texts of the author can transcend the fall of the Communist movement, supported by the esthetic of the literariety and atemporality of their ethic appeal. In other words, it is not the text of Orwell which must be changed, but the angle of the approach of those who build the author’s critical heritage, because outdated temporal references impair the interpretative possibility of the works. A remaining point that seems to cross all Orwell’s literary works is the oppression exerted by any political systems that can have attitudes considered totalitarian ones. This remark does not address only the Communist system, but also the Imperialist, the autocratic and even the Democratic ones. Orwell demonstrates that a system is not totalitarian on its own, but through its manifestations towards people. If, at the age of their launchings, the totalitarian theme was connected to Communism, taking the texts as irreversible allegories of the anti-Communist discourse, the fall of that regime, or its gradual opening to Capitalist practices, is not enough to condemn Orwell’s works to anachronism, discharging more comprehensive interpretative possibilities. I believe that, by proposing a new reading of Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four, replacing the references to Communism for references to any kind of totalitarian practice--, and concentrating the focus of the observation on what is symbolical – I will be doing my part in this process of rescuing the critical heritage of a writer who I consider one of the most honest and competent authors of his time.