Within George Orwell's simple allegory Animal Farm are lessons about the complex connections between leadership, brotherhood, and self-reliance. The animals are first subjugated by humans into voiceless communal suffering, but Old Major inspires them to mobilize their powerful brotherhood for their own good. However, readers grit their teeth as the initially successful revolution is increasingly thwarted; first, intelligent pigs take over; then, the government evolves into a military dictatorship which destroys the original fraternity by creating a schism between the pigs and the other animals. Although the draft animals are separated from their leaders, they once again find comfort in a frightened unity. Thus, each phase of the revolution is a step in a cycle of unity and separation. However, the cycle is imperfect since at the end of the story, the animals are stuck, unable to act for themselves in the face of Squealer's rhetoric; the power in their frightened unity can only be harnessed by the pigs who, separated into a different category, do not have their best interests at heart. The tragedy of the revolution is not simply that pigs become even crueler oppressors than original man, but that with each step toward tyranny, it is the draft animals themselves who are persuaded to abandon their free will and to consent to increasingly terrorizing leadership. no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get Original Essay Animals first find their power in a visceral feeling of brotherhood against humanity inspired by Old Major. Old Major divides the world between men and animals: “All men are enemies. All animals are comrades… Weak or strong, intelligent or simple, we are all brothers” (31). Despite their physical differences, all the animals find something moving in their anthem, Beasts of England. “The cows lowed him, the dogs moaned him, the sheep bleated him, the horses neighed him, the ducks quacked him” (34). Although each animal is irrevocably different, they can all raise their voices to sing the same song of hope. Their power to overthrow men arises from this awareness of themselves as animals, antihumans. This collective sense also propels animals through the first stages of self-governance after the revolution, and it is a version of what literary critic VC Letemendia calls "innate decency" (119). Their first harvest was the largest in history, not only because every animal worked honestly and hard, but also because "not a single animal on the farm stole even a morsel" during the harvest (46). The new government is stable because "no one stole, no one complained about their rations..." (47) and the "decency" of the animals is generally reliable, with a few exceptions like Mollie the vain mare and the cat omnipresent. The new government works wonderfully because, as Letemendia notes, the decency of draft animals “gave them an instinctive sense of what a just society might actually look like” (120). The majority of animals do not crave power “for any personal gain” (120) – at least not yet. Fraternity remains the dominant social force. However, their revolution and their difficulties contain the genesis of a new conflict. In addition to unity, concrete animal leadership is also needed to benefit from their own immense power. This very leadership generates a schism between the leaders and the led. From the start, “the work“teaching and organizing others fell naturally to pigs, generally recognized as being the most intelligent of animals” (35). They expand Old Major's ideas into a comprehensive system of thought called Animalism, which emphasizes freedom from human oppressors and whose central principles are summarized in seven commandments that oppose all human characteristics. Thus, pigs constantly stir up animal anger and awareness of exploitation, which is essential to the overthrow of humans. However, pigs are “generally recognized” as more intelligent; a distinction is established from the start between pigs and the rest of the animals. There is no competition; pigs are “naturally” more intelligent; they simply take control and the unity of all animals begins to fragment. Indeed, as the regime progresses, the original animal brotherhood deteriorates even further. After the arrival of Napoleon, the animals no longer “sit together as they used to do.” Napoleon, along with Squealer and another pig named Minimus… sat at the front of the raised platform, with the nine young dogs forming a semi-circle around them, and the other pigs sitting behind. The rest of the animals sat facing them in the main body of the barn” (70-71). Already, pigs and dogs are separated from the rest of the animals; two groups face each other in a strong aura of opposition. After a while, the division is so severe that only the pigs themselves really know what they are doing. They move onto the farm, further separating themselves from the draft animals who can only rely on rumor and hearsay to know if the pigs sleep in beds. Time passes and Napoleon is even elevated to the rank of quasi-deity. He is such a leader, so different from the others, that you have to taste his food and the dogs have to guard him day and night. He is so estranged that he almost never appears in public and asks Squealer to speak for him. Thus, from the original feeling of fraternity a horrible gulf has opened up which separates the new leaders from the rest. It seems then that we are back to the miserable beginning with this new schism. Once again, the oppressed find brotherhood in oppression: a union that could perhaps lead to another revolution. Just after Napoleon's first violent executions, the animals, “with the exception of pigs and dogs,” instinctively move away to brood “in bodies” (93). As they are all “huddled together for warmth” (94), they tacitly share their shock and dismay at the bloodshed they have witnessed. This new camaraderie is rooted in a silent psychological relationship, like the original meaning of fraternity. Perhaps one could argue that since the animals are, at least physically speaking, in the same oppressed situation they were in at the beginning of the book, another revolution could occur and the cycle could begin again. After all, they are in an ideal position for another leader to come among them, inflame their emotions and make them aware of their new oppression and its uselessness. It is true that once again the need for leadership could lead to another failed revolution; Yet a revolution could nevertheless be possible. If we return to Letemendia's argument that animals possess "innate decency", we can see that animals are no longer in quite the same situation as before; furthermore, as long as this “innate decency” prevents them from understanding “the true nature of pigs” (120), they cannot harness their new potential power in unity. After themassacre, Boxer further concludes that “it must be due to some fault in us” (94); he cannot blame the pigs because his decency prevents him from recognizing that pigs are not part of the community of decent creatures: a kind of paradox. Although Boxer is widely respected and admired for his formidable working abilities, even he cannot lead the animals to a possibly better future. In Clover's mind as well, there is still "no thought of rebellion or disobedience" (95); she would “remain loyal, work hard, carry out the orders given to her, and accept Napoleon’s leadership” (95). Although she feels the disillusionment keenly, she cannot express her feelings because she simply does not understand why the painting is wrong. Hampered by their naive "innate decency", draft animals are unable to translate their general disillusionment into actions to correct the deficiencies of their government. Not only does their “innate decency” prevent them from recognizing evil in their leaders, but it is even exploited by Squealer until their oppression becomes consensual. Every time the pigs do something questionable, whether it's taking milk and apples, deciding to trade with humans, or moving into the farm, there is first a promising murmur of protest. However, even if “some of the other animals murmured, it was no use” (52); this glimmer of autonomy disappears as soon as Squealer delivers his rhetoric. For example, the animals gleefully swallow Squealer's statement that most pigs "do not like milk and apples...Our only purpose in taking these things is to preserve our health" (52), because being themselves altruistic, they cannot imagine others being altruistic. They technically consented to the beginnings of the injustice. When Napoleon wants to initiate trade with humans, even if the animals ask themselves: "never have relations with human beings, never do trade, never use money", were these resolutions not not among the first adopted? » (76) — Squealer exploits the lack of written records to quell their doubts until all the animals are "satisfied" (77) and consenting. Any spark of empowerment turns into satisfaction. In his most significant speech, Squealer addresses the issue of agency and autonomy. He convinces the animals that only Napoleon can make the decisions, because they “might make bad decisions” for themselves (69). He describes leadership as “a deep and heavy responsibility” (69) rather than a place of privilege and power. Once again, animals are fooled into believing the selfless motivations described by Squealer because their naive decency prevents them from knowing better. Thus, the “general feeling” becomes “If Comrade Napoleon says it, it must be true” (70); they consented to the misappropriation of their ability to act for themselves. Pigs essentially manipulate the decency of animals to extract monstrous consent to their exploitation, thereby depriving the animals of any autonomy and ability to improve themselves. Thus, while “innate decency” may have been responsible for the animals' initial fraternal success, it also results in their later inability to act for themselves. One is tempted to assume that if only animals were less passive and more ambitious, their society might have failed less spectacularly. However, some pigs do not have the problematic “innate decency” and have the ambition that pushes them to act for themselves. Ironically, within homogeneous species of pigs, violence is more dangerous than between diverse animals of., 1996.