Introduction
George Orwell’s *Animal Farm*, published in 1945, remains a seminal work of political satire, offering a sharp critique of totalitarianism through the allegorical depiction of farm animals overthrowing their human oppressors. Central to this narrative are the swine, particularly Napoleon and Snowball, who emerge as the intellectual and political leaders after the rebellion. The phrase “more equal than others,” derived from the novel’s infamous final commandment, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others,” encapsulates the hypocrisy and corruption of power that the pigs embody (Orwell, 1945, p. 90). This essay explores the role of the swine in *Animal Farm*, focusing on their representation as both the architects of revolution and the ultimate betrayers of its ideals. Through an analysis of their intellectual dominance, manipulation of ideology, and eventual transformation into oppressors, this piece argues that the pigs serve as a damning reflection of corrupt leadership within revolutionary movements. The discussion also considers Orwell’s broader commentary on the fragility of egalitarian ideals in the face of human (or porcine) greed.
The Intellectual Dominance of the Swine
From the outset, Orwell establishes the pigs as the intellectual elite among the animals, a position that sets the stage for their eventual usurpation of power. Under the tutelage of Old Major, a boar whose vision of animal liberation draws heavily on Marxist principles, the pigs—namely Snowball and Napoleon—assume responsibility for translating revolutionary ideals into actionable doctrine. Their early role as educators, teaching the other animals the principles of Animalism, underscores their intellectual superiority, as they alone possess the ability to read and write proficiently (Orwell, 1945, pp. 15-16). This literacy becomes a tool of power, enabling them to draft the Seven Commandments and later manipulate them to suit their interests. As Beetz (1990) notes, the pigs’ control over knowledge reflects Orwell’s critique of how intellectual elites in revolutionary movements often exploit their education to dominate less enlightened masses.
Moreover, Snowball’s innovative ideas, such as the construction of the windmill, highlight the pigs’ capacity for forward-thinking, even if such initiatives are later undermined by internal power struggles. However, this intellectual dominance is not without flaws; the pigs’ assumption of leadership roles without democratic consent from the other animals hints at the inherent inequality in their revolutionary vision. Indeed, their claim to superiority—based on mental labour over physical toil—foreshadows the later justification of their privileges, revealing a critical limitation in their supposed commitment to equality.
Manipulation of Ideology and Rhetoric
The pigs’ manipulation of Animalist ideology forms a cornerstone of their ascent to unchecked power, illustrating Orwell’s warning about the perversion of revolutionary principles. Initially, the Seven Commandments serve as a unifying moral code, promising fairness and collective ownership. However, as the pigs consolidate power, they subtly alter these rules to justify their growing privileges. For instance, the commandment “No animal shall sleep in a bed” is amended to “No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets,” allowing the pigs to occupy the farmhouse in comfort (Orwell, 1945, p. 45). This linguistic sleight of hand, often unnoticed by the illiterate animals, demonstrates how rhetoric can be weaponised to maintain control, a theme explored by Bloom (2009), who argues that Orwell portrays language as a tool of oppression in political systems.
Squealer, Napoleon’s propagandist, plays a pivotal role in this ideological manipulation. Through persuasive speeches and fabricated statistics, he convinces the other animals that the pigs’ actions—however self-serving—are in their collective interest. For example, Squealer justifies the pigs’ exclusive consumption of milk and apples by claiming it is necessary for their brainwork, essential to the farm’s survival (Orwell, 1945, p. 23). Such distortions mirror real-world tactics used by totalitarian regimes to rationalise inequality, reflecting Orwell’s broader commentary on the fragility of truth under authoritarian rule. This manipulation, though clever, reveals a critical flaw in revolutionary movements: the ease with which founding ideals can be corrupted by those wielding rhetorical power.
The Transformation into Oppressors
Perhaps the most striking aspect of the swine’s role in *Animal Farm* is their transformation from liberators to oppressors, a process that culminates in their adoption of human behaviours and the erasure of revolutionary ideals. Napoleon’s gradual consolidation of power, marked by the violent expulsion of Snowball and the use of guard dogs as enforcers, mirrors the rise of Stalinist terror in the Soviet Union, a parallel widely acknowledged in literary criticism (Meyers, 1997). By the novel’s conclusion, the pigs not only live in the farmhouse but also engage in trade with humans, wear clothes, and walk on two legs—behaviours once deemed the epitome of oppression (Orwell, 1945, pp. 88-89). The final scene, where the other animals can no longer distinguish between pigs and humans, encapsulates the ultimate betrayal of the rebellion’s goals.
This transformation is not merely a plot device but a profound critique of how power corrupts. As Rodden (2007) suggests, Orwell uses the pigs to illustrate the cyclical nature of tyranny, where new rulers replicate the oppressive structures they once opposed. The phrase “more equal than others” becomes a chilling summation of this hypocrisy, exposing the pigs’ abandonment of equality in favour of self-interest. Furthermore, their exploitation of the other animals’ labour—reminiscent of the human farmer Mr. Jones—underscores the failure of the revolution to dismantle systemic inequality, a point that resonates with broader historical analyses of failed revolutionary movements.
Broader Implications of the Swine’s Role
The portrayal of the swine in *Animal Farm* extends beyond a critique of specific historical figures or events; it offers a timeless warning about the dangers of unchecked power and the erosion of ideals in any revolutionary context. While the novel explicitly draws on the Russian Revolution, with Napoleon and Snowball symbolising Stalin and Trotsky respectively, its relevance applies to any system where intellectual or political elites prioritise personal gain over collective good (Bloom, 2009). This universality is arguably one of Orwell’s greatest strengths as a writer, enabling *Animal Farm* to remain pertinent in discussions of modern political corruption and inequality.
Additionally, the pigs’ journey from revolutionaries to tyrants raises questions about the feasibility of true equality in hierarchical societies. Their actions suggest that power, once acquired, inevitably breeds privilege—a notion that challenges the very foundation of utopian ideologies. While some might argue that the pigs’ corruption stems from individual flaws rather than systemic issues, Orwell’s narrative implies that the structures of power themselves are inherently corrupting, a view supported by Meyers (1997), who highlights Orwell’s pessimism regarding human nature’s capacity for fairness.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the swine in George Orwell’s *Animal Farm* serve as a powerful allegory for the corruption of revolutionary ideals, embodying the transition from liberators to oppressors through their intellectual dominance, manipulation of ideology, and eventual adoption of oppressive behaviours. Their role illuminates the fragility of equality in the face of hierarchical power structures, as encapsulated by the paradoxical phrase “more equal than others.” This analysis not only highlights Orwell’s critique of specific historical events, such as the Soviet Union’s descent into totalitarianism, but also speaks to broader issues of political hypocrisy and human greed. Ultimately, the pigs’ transformation serves as a cautionary tale, reminding readers of the ease with which revolutionary promises can be subverted. The implications of this narrative remain profoundly relevant, urging vigilance against the subtle erosion of democratic and egalitarian principles in any political system.
References
- Beetz, K. H. (1990) *George Orwell: Animal Farm*. Lincoln: Cliffs Notes.
- Bloom, H. (Ed.) (2009) *George Orwell’s Animal Farm*. New York: Bloom’s Literary Criticism.
- Meyers, J. (1997) *George Orwell: The Critical Heritage*. London: Routledge.
- Orwell, G. (1945) *Animal Farm*. London: Secker and Warburg.
- Rodden, J. (2007) *The Cambridge Companion to George Orwell*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
