Dissertation (PhD)--Stellenbosch University, 2000. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This thesis uses Mikhail Bakhtin's theory of dialogism, as well as postmodernism, to open up faultlines in satire, and to explore and challenge various perceptions and discourses surrounding and related to it. Both dialogism and postmodernism are used to suggest fresh approaches to satire, by repositioning it in relation to other discourses and reframing it as a complex dynamic, rather than a closed and inflexible system. Chapter 1 of the thesis opens with an historical survey of the beginnings and subsequent development of satire. It also contains a general discussion of the nature of satiric strategies and opens the door for the incorporation of postmodern perspectives into the argument. Chapter 2 contrasts the issues of morality and re-presentation in satire, arguing that satirists do not simply invite their audience to condemn, but offer them an opportunity to discover alternative worlds. The affinity between satire and postmodernism is emphasised by the postmodern predilection for modes highly favoured by satire: allegory, parody and fantasy. In Chapter 3 the issue of language and its referents is explored, starting with Saussure's theory of how the signifier and the signified function. It is argued that satire has never respected this fixed relationship, and that it is in this respect similar to deconstruction. The last part of the chapter is devoted to examining four key socio-political discourses - psychoanalysis, ideology, propaganda and political myth - in relation to satire. These four discourses are, like satire, intent on influencing the perceptions which people have of the world. The intention in juxtaposing these discourses is to create a dialogic process which will throw a fresh light on all of them, including satire itself. The four socio-political discourses named above play an important part in Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four, and are relevant to the subsequent discussion of these novels. Chapter 4 consists of a detailed discussion of Animal Farm, in which the various layers comprising the work are examined. The satirical aspects of the novel are closely related to the fabular and fairy tale elements which are an important part of its constitution. These elements or levels are juxtaposed with the historical details alluded to continuously in Animal Farm and indicate its close concern with the world outside the novel. Chapter 5 consists of a detailed exploration of Nineteen Eighty-Four, which is illuminated by a process of dialogism between the modernist ideology from which the novel springs and the postmodern perspective introduced into the thesis, as well as the four socio-political discourses mentioned earlier. The main postmodern theories used in this chapter are those of Foucault. The last section of the thesis demonstrates how Orwell's personal experience drives his satire, and relates this specifically to a discussion of utopia / dystopia in satire. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die Dialogiek van Satire: Fokuspunte en Breuke in Orwell se Animal Farm en Nineteen Eighty-Four: Hierdie proefskrif maak gebruik van Mikhail Bakhtin se teorie van dialogisme, sowel as die postmodernisme, om die breuke in satire bloot te le, en om die verskillende persepsies en diskoerse wat verband hou met die satire te ondersoek en te bevraagteken. Beide die dialogisme en die postmodernisme word gebruik om nuwe perspektiewe op satire te open, deur dit te herposisioneer in verhouding tot ander diskoerse en dit voor te stel in terme van 'n komplekse dinamika eerder as 'n geslote en onbuigsame sisteem. Die eerste hoofstuk van die proefskrif begin met 'n historiese oorsig van die oorspronge en daaropvolgende ontwikkeling van satire. Dit omvat ook 'n algemene bespreking van die aard van satiriese strateqiee en open die moontlikheid om postmodernistiese perspektiewe in die argument te integreer. Hoofstuk 2 kontrasteer die kwessies van moraliteit en representasie in satire met mekaar; daar word geargumenteer dat satirici nie net hulle gehore uitnooi om te veroordeel nie, maar hulle die geleentheid gee om alternatiewe werelde te ontdek. Die verwantskap tussen satire en postmodernisme word benadruk deur die postmodernisme se voorliefde vir die modi waaraan die satire so dikwels voorkeur gee: allegorie, parodie en fantasie. In hoofstuk 3 word die kwessie van taal en referensialiteit ondersoek, beginnende by Saussure se teorie oor die funksionering van die betekenaar en die betekende. Daar word geargumenteer dat satire nog nooit die vaste verhouding tussen betekenaar en betekende eerbiedig het nie, en dat dit in hierdie opsig verwant is aan die dekonstruksie. Die laaste gedeelte van die hoofstuk word gewy aan 'n ondersoek van vier sentrale sosio-politiese diskoerse - psigoanalise, ideologie, propaganda en politieke mitologie - in verhouding met satire. Hierdie vier diskoerse is, soos satire, daarop ingestel om mense se persepsies/opvattings van die. wereld te verander. Die doelstelling met die jukstaposisie van hierdie diskoerse is die skep van 'n dialogiese proses wat al vier hierdie diskoerse, insluitende satire, in 'n nuwe lig sal stel. Die genoemde sosio-politiese diskoerse speel 'n belangrike rol in Animal Farm en Nineteen Eighty-Four, en is relevant vir die daaropvolgende bespreking van die romans. Hoofstuk 4 bestaan uit 'n gedetailleerde bespreking van Animal Farm, waarin daar ondersoek ingestel word na die verskillende lae waaruit die roman bestaan. Die satiriese aspekte van die roman word in noue verband gebring met die fabulere en die feeverhaalelemente wat so 'n belangrike deel uitmaak van die roman se samestelling. Hierdie elemente of vlakke word gejukstaponeer met die historiese detail waarna daar deurlopend in Animal Farm verwys word en wat die noue bemoeienis met die wereld buite die roman aandui. Hoofstuk 5 bestaan uit 'n intensiewe ondersoek van Nineteen Eighty-Four, wat belig word deur 'n proses van dialogisme tussen die modernistiese ideologie waaruit die roman spruit en die postmodernistiese perspektiewe wat in die proefskrif ingevoer word. Die belangrikste postmodernistiese teoriee wat in hierdie hoofstuk gebruik word, is die van Foucault. Die laaste afdeling van die proefskrif demonstreer hoedat Orwell se persoonlike ervaring bepalend is vir sy satire en bring dit spesifiek in verband met 'n bespreking van utopie/distopie in satire.

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.