Introduction

George Orwell, an English novelist, essayist, poet and journalist, was born in 1903 in Bihar, British
India, to a Civil Servant. Later on, Orwell also joined the Indian Imperial Police and served in the
colonized state of Burma. There Orwell developed a strong sense of contempt for the British
Imperialist project in India. He ultimately quit his police service and returned to England in 1927.
After his brief stay in London, he moved to Paris where he explored his writing potentials by
writing novels and critical essays. Some of his best works include Homage to Catalonia (1938),
Animal Farm (1945), Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949).
Animal Farm is a fable, starting with a meeting at a barn summoned by a twelve-year old boar—
Old Major, who is the only pig of his breed and is believed to be the wisest of all other animals
on the farm. Haranguing about the miserable condition of the animals, and blaming that because
of Man ‘no animal in England is free’ and that Man should be whipped off, for the hunger and
overwork in the world are due to him (11), Old Major ignites the spirit of rebellion in animals and
excites the animals’ leaders, Snowball and Napoleon to break into the store-shed. Mr. Jones and
his men try to whip the animals, but are defeated instead. Old Major, like an old wise man,
changes the name MANOR FARM into ANIMAL FARM through his philosophy of ‘Animalism’,
painting The Seven Commandments of Animalism on the barn, of which the famous
commandment reads: ‘All animals are equal’ (15). All other remnants of the Manor Farm are
either burnt or thrown down into a well except the main building which is turned into a museum.
The farm’s activities are led by Snowball and Napoleon. First, the pigs establish themselves as a
distinct class with particular privileges: education, extra food and almost no physical work. The
other animals are aware of the inequality, and they protest, whereas any such protest and/or
question are quelled by Squealer, the pigs’ sole spokesperson threatening the other animals of
Mr. Jones’ return. The pigs’ rule on the farm continues with a tug of war between Snowball and
Napoleon, wherein the former runs away from the farm and the later becomes the sole ruler
abandoning all the communal meetings, declaring that future decisions will be the pigs’
prerogative. Napoleon’s despotic rule continues to threaten the animals’ life and peace on the
farm, whereas the animals helplessly mourn the loss of their fellows and the miserable life they
live. The animals are overwhelmed by the despair and start chanting the revolutionary song,
Beasts of England. Squealer, after noticing the animals’ rebellion, gives them another song,
reflective of conformity: ‘Animal Farm, Animal Farm, / Never through me shalt thou come to
harm’ (92). Napoleon ultimately becomes totalitarian, declaring the farm a Republic and claiming
himself as President, whereas the animals such as Boxer, under Napoleon’s rule continue to work
feverishly. One day, Boxer collapses by overstraining himself, and Napoleon promises him to send
him to the veterinarian, but sells him to knackers instead. Years pass and the population of the
Animal Farm increases with the arrival of new animals, but there is hardly any improvement in
the lives of animals. If there is any, it is in the life of pigs. One day, Squealer takes sheep to an
isolated place and teaches them a new maxim: ‘Four legs good, two legs better’ (91), which
startles the animals. The animals go to the barn and read the commandments. To their surprise,
they find that all the commandments are replaced with a single maxim which reads: ‘All animals
are equal but some are more equal than others’ (136), disregarding their initial revolutionary
philosophy of Animalism, turning the Animal Farm again into the Manor Farm, abolishing all the
signs of Animal Farm, prohibiting to use the word ‘Comrade’, abandoning the ceremonial
marching round Major’s skull, replacing the flag with another one having no symbol of rebellion,
and disconnecting the pigs from other animals. The pigs, ultimately start wearing Mr. Jones’
clothes, start reading magazines, use telephones, avoid interaction with other animals, start
interacting with humans, and adopt all the characteristics of humans, whereas all the other
animals watching the pigs play with humans are unable to distinguish between the humans and
the pigs.
Aristotle’s Model of Rhetoric
Just as Socrates is regarded as the father of Western philosophy, Aristotle is considered the father
of rhetoric. He is generally acknowledged for laying the foundation of rhetoric, influencing the
development of subsequent rhetorical theories from ancient through modern times, in his
famous book Rhetoric (Greek: Ῥητορική; Latin: Rhetorica). Like his other works that have survived
from antiquity, Rhetoric seems not to have been intended for publication; rather, it is a collection
of his students' notes. Rhetoric was developed by Aristotle during two periods when he was in
Athens: the first, from 367 to 347 BC (when he was seconded to Plato in the Academy), and the
second, from 335 to 322 BC (when he was running his own school, the Lyceum). One of the most
important contributions of Aristotle's approach was that he identified rhetoric as one of the three
key elements, along with logic and dialectic, of philosophy. Indeed, the very first line of the book
says that ‘Rhetoric is a counterpart of dialectic’ (3) wherein Aristotle considers rhetoric a tool for
practical debate and a means for persuading a general audience using probable knowledge to
resolve practical issues (Aristotle 13).
Aristotle defines rhetoric as ‘the faculty of discovering the possible means of persuasion in
reference to any subject whatever’ (15). In the light of this definition, a rhetorician is someone
who is able to see what is persuasive. Provided that he discovers the available means of
persuasion, he attains a complete mastery over his method. The aforementioned definition of
rhetoric implies manipulation of words aimed at persuasion and dissuasion as reflected in the
etymology of the word ‘rhetoric’ ‘(Greek: rhema), meaning the art of oratory (Corbell 1971).
Every speech is composed of three parts: the speaker, the subject matter and the person to
whom the speech is addressed. It is however the hearer who decides the end of the speech for
he is either the judge of the past or future, or he is a mere spectator. Therefore, there are
necessarily the following three kinds of rhetorical speeches: Deliberative Forensic Epideictic.
First, Deliberative rhetoric, also called legislative rhetoric, is either persuasive or dissuasive; the
ultimate purpose of those speakers, who give advice in private or in public, is to persuade or
dissuade’ (Aristotle 33). Originally deliberative rhetoric had a political orientation; it was designed
as a form of political speaking suitable to a parliamentary situation and, consequently, concerning
the benefits or harm of a proposal and what should be chosen or what should be avoided.
Second, Forensic rhetoric, as opposed to Deliberative rhetoric, is based on past actions, bringing
truth to the forefront of the audience’s mind. ‘The forensic kind’, Aristotle asserts, ‘is either
accusatory or defensive; for the litigants necessarily either accuse or defend’ (33). It means that
the purpose of forensic rhetoric is twofold: accusation on one hand and defense on the other.
Some scholars refer to this type of rhetoric as ‘judicial rhetoric’ because of the manner in which
it engages the audience. In a courtroom setting for instance, forensic rhetoric is demonstrating a
kind of speech usually known as appeal. Third, Epideictic rhetoric is a kind of speech that “has its
subject praise or blame” such as graduation speeches, obituaries, funeral orations, letters of
recommendation and nominating speeches at political conventions (Aristotle 33). As the end of
epideictic rhetoric is praise or blame, the speaker must possess the knowledge of the virtues and
the vices of the person. Aristotle includes the following traits in virtue: wisdom, self-control,
generosity, gentleness, justice, courage, self-control and liberality (91). The ‘praise’ side of
epideictic rhetoric is easily imaginable because it is practiced relatively often on the occasion of
obituaries, wedding toasts, ceremonial introductions and dedications. On the other hand, the
blame speeches, for Aristotle, focus on the opposites of those virtues. Instead of talking about
bravery and gentleness of the departed, a blame-based obituary would talk about a tyrant’s
cowardice and cruelty. So, the first key element to remember about epideictic rhetoric is that it
engages with praise and blame according to some criteria, some list of virtues that are deemed
important by that community.
The Aristotelian model of rhetoric is based on three technical means of persuasion. The term
‘technical’ refers to those means which rest on a method and can be learnt. Contrary to other
means of persuasion like witness, oaths, testimonies which are non-technical as they cannot be
learnt, technical means depend upon the linguistic skills of the speaker. Aristotle asserts that the
technical means are accomplished by manipulating the three integral elements of
communication: the communicator’s personality (ethos), the audience’s emotional state
(pathos) and the message itself (logos). The three means are elaborated as under:
Ethos, a kind of persuasion, rests on the speaker’s moral character and social credibility. The
speaker’s proposition receiving immediate acceptance from the audience and his/her personal
credibility, playing a key role in the circumstances where exact knowledge of the subject is not
available, make the speaker the only source of knowledge. To the question of the speaker’s
credibility in such circumstances, Aristotle asserts that the former must be a notable person
having a virtuous character, selfless attitude, good will and practical intelligence. Without the
mentioned traits, the audience might doubt the speaker’s credibility in solving the practical
issues. Thus practical wisdom coupled with credibility and good will constitute ‘the most effective
means of proof’ (17).
Whereas in Pathos, persuasion depends upon the audience’s emotional disposition and the
speaker learns to manipulate the audience’s emotion. Emotions play a crucial role in accepting
or rejecting a proposal because we do not judge the same when we rejoice or grieve, we do not
respond to the situation in the same manner when we are hostile or friendly. The speaker
possessing the quality of understanding and manipulating human emotion, arouses a specific
emotion corresponding to the nature and purpose of the argument, particularly, when he wishes
to win the audience's mind. This technique, Aristotle asserts, depends upon the speaker’s
knowledge regarding each kind of emotion, for example, anger be defined as ‘desire,
accompanied with pain, for conspicuous revenge for a conspicuous slight that was directed
against oneself or those near to one, when such a slight is undeserved’ (173). Having understood
the nature of and associations with anger, the speaker arouses anger in the audience by referring
to the accused and highlights the details that are likely to invoke anger in the listener. This is a
more efficient technique, wherein the speaker does not rely on the element of persuasion
outside the subject matter and he has to manipulate the element of the subject matter that
corresponds to the intended emotion (pp 171-173).
Aristotle defines logos as ‘persuasion by speech itself (not by character or by audience) intended
to prove a certain case’ (17). For the effective use of proofs, the speaker must be capable of
logical reasoning and must possess a sound knowledge of various kinds of reasoning. For
Aristotle, there are two kinds of reasoning: inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning.
Whereas induction is from particular to universal, for instance, ‘man is a rational animal’ and
‘man is human being’, therefore, ‘all human beings are rational animals’, deduction is the
proceeding from universal to particular, for instance, ‘all human beings are rational animals’,
‘man is a human being’, hence, ‘man is a rational animal’(17).
Moreover, logical appeal to a speech or a thesis is not only rendered by the particular order of
an argument, but also by clarity and evidence. The speaker must propose in the clearest possible
manner. It means that the speaker must not deviate from the subject under discussion and must
remain consistent in the message. Furthermore, the speaker must support the argument with
credible evidence. The evidence can be drawn from the present and past. A precise, clear and
reasoned speech or writing, supported with credible evidence, puts the audience and readers in
a particular state of mind that can be easily manipulated by the speaker.
Grounding on the aforementioned theoretical implications and the novel’s overview, this study
attempts to explore how language is used as a tool of manipulation and exploitation to grab
power and dominance. Highlighting the pigs’ power of language to exploit other animals,
foregrounding the Old Major’s irresistible speech that has instigated rebelliousness among the
animals, and emphasizing the manipulative tactics of other exploitative pigs, Snowball and
Squealer, the study maintains that how the aforementioned rhetorical, exploitative, and political
use of language can ‘turn black into white’ (20) as Orwell has rightly remarked. The study further
argues that language has, by and large, been employed for persuasion and dissuasion to play the
politics, as it will be explored in the present study in case of the pigs using the controlling tool of
language. In view of the aforementioned hypothesis, the paper attempts to explore the nature,
significance, and manipulation of language by the pigs for acquiring despotic power.
Methodology
Using Aristotle’s classical model of rhetorics and techniques of persuasion as tools of analysis,
the study will critically evaluate the speech and act in Animal Farm to explicate the main
argument of politics of language. Highlighting the pigs’ use of ingenious and coherent use of
various stylistic devices to persuade and dissuade other animals on the farm, this paper attempts
to reveal the underlying logic of pigs’ discourse by employing textual analysis as the research
method.
Objectives
There is a common misconception about rhetoric: it is usually thought of as a means of deception
aimed at tricking and outwitting the audience, wherein the speaker conceals the real objectives
for the truth could be spoken without relying on any rhetorical techniques. This however is not
the case. Rhetoric pertains only to the technical aspects of language that render speech
irrefutable. The purpose of the speech per se, either good or evil, pertains to the ethical principles
of the speaker and lies outside the domain of rhetoric. In the same vein, this study aims to explain
how ingeniously pigs use language to control other animals on the farm, what rhetorical
techniques they employ for exhortation and how ultimately language appears as the sole
foundation of pigs’ authoritative regime. Thus by highlighting the importance of language in the
affairs of daily life by emphasizing on the fundamental principles of rhetoric, such as the rhetoric
of the novel, the study will enable the readers to communicate effectively with the audience.
Also, they will be able to understand and influence contemporary political discourse.
Literature Review
Animal Farm is a ‘satirical animal fable about the progress—or backsliding—of the Russian
Revolution’ (Wilson 51). It is a story in which ‘a group of cows, horses, pigs, sheep, and poultry
which decide to expel their master and run his farm for themselves’; however, gradually the farm
turns into ‘something almost indistinguishable from human beings, with the pigs as a superior
caste exploiting the other animals very much as the farmer did’ (51). The novel was chosen by
Time Magazine as one of the 100 best English-language novels winning a Retrospective Hugo
Award in 1996. Adopting the form of a fable, it investigates the role of language in human affairs.
Based on a series of revolutions by the animals, Orwell attempts to criticize the totalitarianism of
the Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union before World War II. Revealing the scathing dictatorship,
the author also satirizes England, France and other countries having diplomatic ties with the
Soviets.
Considering Orwell’s stylistic magnificence, Robert Pierce asserts that Tolstoy had a marked
impact on Orwell’s work. For instance ‘the character of Boxer in Animal Farm [might] have been
influenced by the longsuffering talking horse who was carried off to the knacker at the end of
Tolstoy’s short story ‘Strider: The Story of a Horse’ (56).
Baysoy in his thesis, George Orwell’s Animal Farm as a Political Satire, attempts to analyze the
author’s ingenious criticism of Communism. Baysoy maintains that a complete society was under
the threat of Communism, exploring the implied meanings of the story and how an innocent
revolution turns into dictatorship and betrayal (31). The thesis highlights the true oppressive face
of the communist leaders, the failure of the revolution, the terror and deception of the despotic
regime. Baysoy highlights the similarities among all revolutions and their tyrannical despotic
nature, crediting the novel as an allegory of the 1917 Russian Revolution, but that can deal with
any kind of revolution, its consequences and criticize totalitarianism of any kind (31).
Hazel K. Davis, in his ‘Introduction’ to Animal Farm, submits that the novel is a brilliant story for
children and high school students that can be taught collaboratively with the history department
as an allegory of the Russian Revolution, allowing students to draw parallels between actual
events and people imaginatively created by Orwell. Davis asserts that while examining the work
as a satirical comment on the corrupting influence of power, students should be able to trace the
pigs’ corruption and perhaps relate their findings to individuals in their own governments
succumbing to the lure of power at any cost and by any means (2). Davis universalizes the scope
of Animal Farm, considering it a remarkable example of contemporary world politics.
Louis M. Ridenour in his article, ‘Allegory with Goose Pimples’ published in The Saturday Review,
(1946) propounds that the novel is “a splendid technical job, whose easy and diverting style never
once lags from beginning to end”, showing how Orwell has uses a fable which so coherently runs
over a hundred pages to entertain the readers, especially children through animal story—a
tradition very famous since Aesop. Ridenour refutes the view that Orwell wrote the novel for
children, mentioning an incident when a bookshop in England kept Animal Farm on the shelf of
stories for children, and Orwell requested for it to be removed from the particular shelf, and to
be kept on the shelf of political works (10).
Isaac Rosenfelda, a young anti-Stalinist Jewish intellectual, claims that Animal Farm has utterly
failed to depict the particular Russian history genuinely, however, admiring Orwell’s voice for
individual liberty and freedom of expression. Isaac observes that the novel lacks creative
imagination, asserting that ‘Animal Farm is a shallow and disappointing novel’ (139), inadequate
in facts about the Russian Revolution and is more politically significant than real. Likewise, Milton
Blau, an American communist, proclaims that ‘Animal Farm has misrepresented the product of a
warped fascist-trotskyist mind that seethed with hatred for men’ (140) and the novel as a fable
is directed against all of mankind and against any possible vision that a Man may have for a better
world.
George Orwell’s Animal Farm is greatly influenced by Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels. The fable
technique in Animal Farm is an adaptation of ‘Part IV—A Voyage to the Country of Houyhnhnms’
of Gulliver’s Travels where Swift depicts a society using horse-like animals, the Houynhnhms, and
the yahoos—the ape-like humans. Orwell’s Animal Farm attempts to satirize totalitarianism as a
political concept, and thereby highlights the defects inherent in it. Tom Hopkins, quoted by
Rodden, pronounces it a classic that can stand beside Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels. He
asserts that it is as delightful a children's story as Gulliver’s Travels or the best of Aesop. It is
manifestly an attack on Stalinism. It can be read as a lament on the fate of revolutions.
The above discussions clearly suggest that the previous studies have chiefly focused on the
political significance of the novel, particularly on the comparison between the narrative and the
character and events of the Russian Revolution. The linguistic aspect of the novel has hitherto
remained unexplored. Highlighting the linguistic splendor of the novel, this paper focuses on
explicating the technical uniqueness of linguistic foundations on which the entire edifice of power
stands.
Politics of Rhetoric in Animal Farm
Animal Farm is not merely a story about farm animals, but is an allegory of Stalin’s USSR,
criticizing communist dictatorship in particular and totalitarian regimes in general. This despotic
story can be read at two levels: first, as a fable and second, as an allegory. Approaching the novel
as an allegory, the researcher is confronted with the problem of establishing a connection
between the novel’s animal characters and the ones in the real-life symbolized by the animals.
Such an approach results in digression from the main objective of the present study, i.e. to
highlight the significance of rhetoric in the novel. Hence, the novel is treated merely as a fable
and through the language of animals, the power of persuasive language is foregrounded.
Language is exclusively a human endowment working amazingly in shaping our thoughts and
deeds, helping us grasp new realities, and widening our ideas about things around us. Contrarily,
if the development of language is restricted, our ideas and communication are confined. Orwell
has lucidly illustrated the blossoming as well as the limiting power of language in his dystopian
novels, Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four. These novels have portrayed the absolute ability
of language to do and undo human thoughts, showing that the effective use of words can
manipulate psychological functions supreme-handedly, thereby leading popular thought to a
certain target to attain complete control over people’s mind and action.
Animal Farm starts with the stirring speech of Major drawing the attention of animals towards
their ‘miserable, laborious and short’ (pp 10-11) life to which they were hitherto ignorant,
convincing them that the root cause of their miserable life is Man and that it is because of Man
that their lives are reduced to ‘bare ration and a stall’; it is because of Man that they ‘own nothing
more than bare skins’ (12). Major adds that the animals can regain their happy natural life only if
they remove Man from the scene, convincing them to become rebellious and the animals are
overwhelmed and subdued by the wonderful rhetorical play cunningly devised. This amazingly
elaborate piece of speech is an example of Aristotle's classic model of rhetoric, loaded with the
devices like the introduction of the matter, appeal to ethos, appeal to pathos, rhetorical
questions and efficient conclusion.
In Aristotle's model of rhetoric, exordium provides a sample of the subject wherein the hearers
may know beforehand what it is about, and that the mind may not be kept in suspense, Major
replicates the same model in his speech. Prior to presenting the actual argument, he introduces
the subject of his speech to the animals. In the novel, all the animals on the farm in particular
and those of England in general are absolutely ignorant of their miserable life. Major shrewdly
draws their attention towards their ‘miserable, laborious and short’ lives on the farm, deprived
of the true reward of their labor by Man who gives them little food to keep their bodies merely
breath to be alive. Major warns them of the harsh consequences of their labor, the way they are
made to work till the last atom of their strength, and the miserable state when any of them, such
as Boxer who loses its strength will meet the cruel knife of the butcher at the end.
Exordium also evokes the audience's excitement, subsides their prejudices, and awakens their
indignation, wherein the speaker defends himself and accuses the opponents, unveiling their
evils. Highlighting Man’s evil, Major improvises exordium, claiming that Man is their only enemy
and that he is the only creature that ‘consumes without producing’, ‘does not give milk’, ‘does
not lay eggs’, and is ‘too weak to pull the plough, and who ‘cannot run fast enough to catch
rabbits’, ‘[y]et he is lord of all the animals’ and ‘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 one of us that owns more than his bare skin’
(12). Major reiterates the accusations and reinforces the atrocities that Man has committed upon
the poor animals, including the young porkers screaming their lives at the slaughtering-block, the
horses being sold to knacker when they lose their strength, the dogs being thrown into the
nearest pond when they grow old and toothless.
Whereas ethos, i.e. personal credibility is an important component of Aristotle’s model of
rhetoric, Major has been regarded as the most credible animal on the farm. His credibility is
manifested by the fact when he summons the animals to a meeting, ‘everyone was quite ready
to lose an hour’s sleep in order to hear what he had to say’ (10) and animals are convinced that
his wisdom and benevolence is the result of his ‘long life’, that he has had ‘much time for thought’
and that he ‘understands the nature of life on the earth and of the animals now living’ (10).
In addition to ethos, Major also employs the rhetorical device of questions to further the effect
of his speech. He implores the cows as ‘how many thousands of gallons of milk have’ they ‘given
during this last year? And what has happened to that milk which should have been breeding up
sturdy calves?’(12). To hens, he asks, ‘how many eggs have they ‘laid in this last year, and how
many of those eggs ever hatch into chickens? And from Clover, he enquires, where those four
foals are that he bore, ‘who should have been the support and pleasure’ of his ‘old age?’ (12).
Through such questions, Major highlights the injustices the animals have suffered for long at the
hand of Man. Invoking every single species of animal, Major strikes their resentment and
indignation to defy and resist Man’s oppression.
Major’s speech is elaborated with heavily connoted words and imagery. His diction is appropriate
to arouse the desired effects in animals’ minds to which intense emotional response is natural.
For instance, he arouses the feeling of being oppressed by asserting that ‘no animal escapes the
cruel knife in the end’ and that every one of us will scream our ‘love out at the block…to that
horror we all must come’ (13). The subtle use of pictorial vocabulary also creates horrific imagery
in the minds of animals, generating strong hatred and resentment against Jones. He expounds
on the many grievances the animals have suffered, even listing the gruesome fates of individual
animals, stating that Boxer will be sold to the knacker, who will cut his ‘throat’ and will boil him
and that Jones will tie ‘a brick round the dogs’ necks and drowns them’ (13), thereby, turning the
animals against Man by exposing the latter’s oppressive treatment. Major’s use of illustrative
words makes his speech compelling and irresistible, utilizing hyperbole in appealing to the pathos
of animals. He claims that no ‘animal in England knows the meaning of happiness or leisure after
he is a year old and no ‘animal in England is free’ (11) even though the case is otherwise. Major
manipulates exaggerated discourse in order to provoke fury in animals and to arouse their sense
of injustice, so that they follow any direction proposed to them.
The song, ‘Beasts of England’, is the conclusion of Major’s argument, summarizing the objectives
of the speech and offering means to achieve them, emphasizing upon the idea of hope for the
fields of England ‘to be trod by beasts alone’ and ‘riches more than mind can picture’ (17). The
last stanza offers the means to materialize that hope, i.e. ‘to toil for freedom’s sake’ (17). The
song is so effective that it ‘threw the animals into wild excitement’ to the degree that ‘the uproar
awoke Mr. Jones’ (17). Overall, the speech is effective because, 1) Major manipulates the setting
and the content in such a manner that he establishes himself an irrefutable authority and 2) the
content of his speech is aimed at arousing the desired emotions in the audience, which he easily
accomplishes. The speech epitomizes Aristotle’s deliberative and epideictic rhetoric appealing to
both reason and emotion.
Major’s speech also ignites the spirit of rebellion in animals and one day, spurred by hunger, the
animals attack Jones, making him run off the farm. Animals win over Man and the dream of
rebellion— foreshadowed by Major—is realized. Now MANOR FARM is renamed as ANIMAL
FARM and Major’s dream of the philosophy of Animalism is realized. The Seven Commandments
of Animalism are painted on the barn, of which the famous commandment reads: ‘All animals
are equal’ (28).
After the animals have established their rule in the farm, the responsibility of running the
activities of the farm falls upon Snowball and Napoleon. Napoleon, however, yearns for power
and always disagrees with Snowball. As the story progresses, the pigs establish themselves as a
distinct class with particular privileges: the right to education, the access to extra food and
abstinence from labor, and the most striking of the privileges is language. The pigs understand
the importance of language, knowing that they can dominate and exploit the other animals
through language, the early manifestation of which is Major’s speech and its influence upon the
animals. To empower themselves, the pigs secretly educate ‘themselves to read and write’ from
Mr. Jones’ children’s old spelling book (27). In three months, the pigs have enabled themselves
to reduce the principles of Animalism to seven unalterable commandments. The commandments
are written on the wall. Snowball reads them aloud to other animals and they nod in complete
agreement.
The pigs’ seven commandments are the seven ways to condition the thoughts and behaviors of
other animals on the farm. After a few more months’ reading and writing, the pigs undergo
enormous mental growth. The knowledge of language makes them superior to other animals,
enabling them to dominate animals practically. Orwell asserts that ‘with their (pig’s) superior
knowledge [of language], it was natural that they should assume the leadership’ (31). The pigs
make every possible use of language to control the animals’ thoughts and actions. Snowball
makes a green flag on which are painted a hoof and a horn in white, a symbolic representation
of the animal’s rule in a fertile green farm, persuading the animals that the rule is theirs and the
food is in abundance, which is an explicit example of dramatic irony.
The farm’s other animals are aware of the inequality and sometimes they protest, but protests
and questions are quelled by Squealer who intimidates the animals with Mr. Jones’ return.
Squealer is an outstanding rhetorician who ‘could turn black into white’ with the power of his
language (20). For instance, the animals assume that milk, apples and orchard-grass will be
shared equally among the animals and one day, it is ordered that these items shall be brought to
harness-room for the use of pigs. Some of the animals murmur, but Squealer attempts to
convince the other animals the pigs use Man’s food to preserve their health and that it is not due
to any ‘selfishness and privilege’. Actually they ‘dislike milk and apples’, but Science has proved
that such things contain ‘substances absolutely necessary to the well-being of a pig’ who ‘are
brainworkers’ solely busy in the ‘management and organization’ of the farm, working day and
night, taking care of the animal; therefore, the pigs have to drink milk and eat apples for the
welfare of the other animal. Squealer warns them that if the pigs failed in their duty, ‘Jones would
come back! Yes, Jones would come back!’ and no one wants to see Jones come back (40).
Squealer’s speech is another outstanding example of pig’s rhetorical manipulation. Mark his use
of the word ‘comrade’ which gives the animals a sense of equality and they no longer feel inferior
to the pigs. Furthermore, the use of rhetorical questions renders credibility to Squealer’s
argument. The animals accept the fact that pigs are their friends who work for their welfare.
Squealer not only persuades the animals emotionally, but also convinces them logically by
manipulating their ignorance, telling them that according to science, milk and apples are rich in
substances which are useful for the health of pigs. Thus such an indirect implication of the logic
manifests that if the pigs are in good health, they could work more efficiently for the welfare of
the rest of the animals. Besides emotional and logical persuasion, Squealer also exploits their
apprehension and the animals who do not want Jones to come back, accept Squealer’s
explanation willy-nilly.
Another incident reinforces the power of rhetoric in the novel. After Snowball has been expelled
from the farm, Napoleon announces the construction of a windmill. All the animals are shocked
at hearing this because Napoleon has hitherto opposed the idea of windmill. They find the
sudden volte-face of Napoleon incomprehensible. Napoleon asks Squealer to convince the
animals and the latter exploits ceremonial rhetoric to win the animals’ minds in favor of
Napoleon. He argues that the idea of windmill was initially devised by Napoleon which Snowball
stole from him and Napoleon, therefore, ‘opposed the windmill simply as a maneuver to get rid
of Snowball’ (62). Squealer calls it tactics and the term is hitherto unintelligible to the animals
who have no choice but to agree with Squealer.
With the power of rhetoric, the pigs occupy Mr. Jones’ house where Napoleon raises himself to
the status of a dictator, rarely appearing before the other animals and instead sends his orders
through Squealer or the other pigs. Squealer is detailed to keep persuading the animals with
logos and pathos, convincing them that it is absolutely necessary for the pigs to work in a peaceful
environment as pigs ‘are the brains of the farm’ (70) and that is also befitting for the dignity of
Leader Comrade Napoleon who leads all the animal and who works for their interest.
At this point of the story a remarkable and astonishing thing happens. The pigs start altering the
seven commandments one after another. The principles of Animalism are altered by the pigs for
the sake of luxurious living like that of Man. The very first commandment says that ‘whatever
goes upon two legs is an enemy’(28) and ‘all men are enemies’ (14), and therefore animals should
never engage in friendship and any sort of trade with Man, whereas Napoleon decides to sell
hay-stock and timber to Man through Mr. Whymper. Since the animals have a vague
remembrance of not having ‘any deal with human beings’ not engaging in trade with them and
never making any ‘use of money’ (67), therefore Squealer attempts to deceive the animals that
it was only an imagination and a lie crafted and circulated by Snowball. He further asks them if
they have ‘any record of such resolution?’ and if it has been ‘written down anywhere?’ (68).
Surely, there is no written principle which says that animals should abstain from trading with
Man and therefore, the animals are convinced that there exists no such principle which prohibits
interaction with Man.
In Mr. Jones’ house, the pigs use beds for sleeping. Of other animals, Clover and Muriel go to the
barn and see the fourth commandment that reads ‘No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets’
(28), but Squealer, who is passing by, puts the matter in order telling Clover and Muriel that a
bed is merely ‘a place to sleep in’; a ‘pile of straw in a stall is also a bed’, whereas the rule was
actually ‘against sheets which is human invention’ (71). Squealer further says that, following the
spirit of Animalism, they have replaced the sheets with blankets and the pigs need a more
comfortable place to accomplish all the brainwork. Thus the animals accept the privilege and say
no more of it.
Exploiting ceremonial rhetoric, Napoleon and Squealer keep the animals terrified and under
control. When a storm brings down the windmill, Napoleon holds Snowball responsible for the
destruction of the windmill, exclaiming that ‘the traitor, Snowball, crept here under the cover of
night and destroyed our work of nearly a year’ (74). Moreover, when the animals are terrified by
the secret activities of Snowball, Squealer exploits the opportunity and labels Snowball a secret
agent of Jones. This, he says, is written in secret documents found at the farmhouse. He further
states that Snowball is hiding in the neighboring farms, and has been conspiring to attack Animal
Farm.
Napoleon not only utilizes rhetoric to direct the thoughts of animals, but also uses terror to
deprive the animals of their speech. He executes only those animals who speak against the
decisions of Napoleon. These animals, in fact, possess comparatively higher linguistic abilities.
The four pigs executed are those ‘who had protested when Napoleon abolished the Sundays
Meetings’ (86). The animals’ execution is justified through alteration in the sixth commandment,
the altered version of which reads: ‘No animal shall kill another animal without cause’ (93) and
the same justifies the execution of animals, who were ‘the traitors’ leaguing ‘themselves with
Snowball’ (93). Moreover, Napoleon wishes to wipe out the thoughts of rebellion from the minds
of animals. To achieve this end, he abolishes the song of rebellion which baffles others animals,
but Squealer puts their minds to ease, exclaiming that in the song, “Beasts of England” the pigs
expressed their ‘longing for a better society in days to come’, but such a ‘society has now been
established’; hence, the ‘song has no longer any purpose’ (91). Instead, Napoleon introduces
another song, which is actually another desired thought: promise of devotion. The song goes,
‘Animal Farm, Animal Farm/ Never through me shalt thou come to harm!’ (92).
The pigs continue to enjoy the luxuries of life at Mr. Jones’ house. One day, they find a huge stock
of beer in one of the cellars. They start drinking and soon become addicted to it. As the stock is
limited, Napoleon decides to start brewing in the farmhouse and he issues a decree that no other
animal shall drink. Those who are found guilty of drinking shall be punished to death. The pigs,
however, continue drinking. One morning, the animals wake up to read the commandment: ‘No
animal shall drink alcohol to excess’ (111).
In the summer Moses, the raven, suddenly appears on the farm. talking to animals about
Sugarcandy Mountain, painting the picture of the magical place, pointing to the sky with his large
beak — ‘up there, just on the other side of that dark cloud that you can see — there it lies,
Sugarcandy Mountain, that happy country where we poor animals shall rest for ever from our
labors!’ (118). Moses is a tactic applied by Napoleon in the times of extreme distress and misery
when the animals are in dire need of some hope for a better life. Through Moses, Napoleon
creates a hyper reality which is magically beautiful giving the animals’ false hopes to tolerate the
miseries which will take them to Sugarcandy Mountain.
Boxer, the strongest animal on the farm, gets weakened in the summer. His appearance gradually
alters, his hide grows less shiny and his great hunches shrink. Despite his deteriorating health,
Boxer’s courage does not falter and he does not complain of his weakness and pain. However,
one evening in the summer, a rumor runs that Boxer has fallen off the slope and cannot get up.
Napoleon tells the animals that he is sending Boxer for treatment to Willingdon, but instead, sells
him to knackers. Boxer is being sent away in a van on which these words are written: ‘Alfred
Simmonds, Horse Slaughterer and Glue Boiler, Willingdon. Dealer in Hides and Bone-Meal.
Kennel Supplier’ (123). Benjamin, on seeing the label of knacker, suddenly realizes the whole
situation, but it is too late to stop the van. Later, Squealer convinces the animals that 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. That was how the mistake had arisen’ (126) and the
animals got relieved to hear this, whereas Squealer continues to give them further graphic details
of Boxer’s death-bed, the care he received and the expensive medicines he was given, and all
their doubts disappear and they are relieved by the thought that Boxer died happily.
Years pass. A time comes when all the animals, which have knowledge of the old days before the
rebellion, die. The newborn animals are absolutely ignorant of the rebellion and Animalism. They
accept what is taught to them by the pigs. The philosophy of Animalism is reduced to merely one
commandment which reads: ‘ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL
THAN OTHERS’ (136). The only commandment left on the wall of the barn reflects the
distinguished status of the pigs. Through continuous distortion of Animalism, promising equality
among the animals, Napoleon acquires dictatorial powers and privileges and the pigs even
become friends with humans, and it is impossible for the animals to distinguish between the pigs
and human beings.
Conclusion
The power of language has overwhelmed the situation on the Animal Farm, making the pigs the
ultimate rulers of the farm. This exclusively language-focused enterprise is the result of the
working of rhetoric, which effectively controls the notion of reality throughout the story.
Whereas the animals, other than the pigs, possess no linguistic skills, they cannot read and cannot
think and decide. Moreover, Animals are incapable of comprehending the manipulative discourse
of the pigs. On the account of linguistic impotence and deficient semantic memory, the animals
are completely subdued by the linguistic skills of the pigs. The primacy of rhetoric is established
in the very beginning of the story when Major prophesied a fantastic animal kingdom through his
emotive language and extorts the animals to rebel against the tyranny of Man. Through
ingeniously crafted discourse, Major creates two contrasting worlds: a dystopian human world
and a utopian animal world. After the rebellion is accomplished, the tyrannical power is sustained
through the pigs’ manipulation of the power of language manifested by the linguistic devices of
Aristotle’s classic model of rhetoric. Pigs, through Napoleon, Snowball, and Squealer are the
uncontested owners of language, using their word skills to form narratives and construct
ideologies, projecting their linguistic images onto the innocent minds of the other animals,
making facts of fiction, thereby directing all other animals on the pigs’ desired course. The pigs
continue corrupting the philosophy of Animalism, but Squealer assures the animals that
everything is done in the spirit of Animalism. Using the three modes of persuasion i.e. ethos,
pathos and logos as means of acquiring despotic power, deception and coercion, the pigs craft
language that appeals to emotion and reason of the uneducated animals, which renders them
command over the psyche of other animals. Once the pigs control the thoughts of the animals,
they direct the animals on the desired course of rebellion against Man. After the rebellion is
accomplished, the pigs exploit rhetoric to defend their own privileges and rule over the farm.