Introduction
The notion that “the attainment of power comes from one’s capacity to manipulate” invites a critical exploration of how power dynamics operate through deception and control, as well as through resistance to such tactics. This essay comparatively analyses George Orwell’s novella Animal Farm (1945) and Francisco Goya’s painting The Third of May 1808 (1814) to examine these themes. In Animal Farm, power is depicted as arising from manipulative strategies that perpetuate oppression, drawing on the historical context of the Russian Revolution and the rise of totalitarian regimes. Conversely, Goya’s painting illustrates power through acts of resistance against oppressive manipulation, rooted in the Peninsular War and Spanish rebellion against Napoleonic forces. By juxtaposing these works, the essay argues that while manipulation enables the seizure and maintenance of power in oppressive systems, true power can also emerge from resisting such manipulation, often at great personal cost. This comparative approach highlights the cyclical nature of oppression and the potential for ideological defiance, supported by literary and art historical analysis (Rodden, 2007; Tomlinson, 1992). The discussion will proceed by examining manipulation in Animal Farm, followed by resistance in Goya’s painting, before concluding with broader implications.
Manipulation and the Cycle of Oppression in Animal Farm
In George Orwell’s Animal Farm, power is attained and consolidated through systematic manipulation, which fosters a cycle of oppression where leaders deceive the masses to achieve absolute control. The novella allegorically represents the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the subsequent rise of Stalinist totalitarianism, illustrating how figures like Napoleon (a stand-in for Joseph Stalin) exploit ideological narratives to subvert the initial ideals of equality (Orwell, 1945). Orwell demonstrates that power is not gained through moral or democratic means but via immoral tactics such as gaslighting, propaganda, and the threat of physical force. For instance, the pigs, who emerge as the ruling class, create a false narrative of freedom by altering the Seven Commandments, gradually eroding the animals’ understanding of their own revolution. This manipulation is evident in the paradoxical commandment “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others,” which Orwell uses to highlight how leaders distort reality to suit their agenda (Orwell, 1945, p. 90). Here, the paradox serves as a tool of ideological power, allowing the pigs to impose their “truth” and manipulate the animals into compliance, thereby attaining dominance.
Furthermore, Orwell critiques the use of propaganda as a manipulation tactic, drawing parallels to real totalitarian dictatorships where leaders employed similar methods to exert control. The character Squealer, the pigs’ propagandist, exemplifies this by spreading misinformation and gaslighting the animals, convincing them that their memories of better times are faulty. This reflects historical contexts, such as the Soviet Union’s use of state-controlled media to rewrite history and suppress dissent (Rodden, 2007). Indeed, the threat of physical force reinforces this manipulation; the dogs, trained as enforcers, symbolize the secret police, instilling fear that prevents rebellion. As a result, the animals are manipulated into submission, perpetuating a cycle of oppression where power is maintained through deceit rather than genuine leadership. A poignant example occurs at the novella’s end, where “the creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which” (Orwell, 1945, p. 95). This scene underscores the ultimate success of manipulation: the oppressors become indistinguishable from the original tyrants, illustrating how power is attained by altering perceptions and beliefs. However, this also reveals the limitations of such power, as it relies on constant deceit, which Orwell warns can lead to societal collapse (Meyers, 1991). Thus, in Animal Farm, manipulation is central to gaining power, but it creates an unstable foundation built on immorality and control.
Resistance and the Power of Defiance in The Third of May 1808
In contrast to the manipulative attainment of power in Animal Farm, Francisco Goya’s painting The Third of May 1808 portrays power as emerging from the capacity to resist oppression and manipulation, even in the face of imminent death. Created in 1814, the artwork commemorates the Spanish resistance during the Peninsular War (1808–1814), specifically the execution of rebels by French troops under Napoleon’s command following the Dos de Mayo uprising in Madrid (Tomlinson, 1992). Goya depicts the power inherent in maintaining one’s beliefs against coercive forces, transforming victims into martyrs who challenge the oppressors’ narrative. The central figure, a Spanish peasant illuminated in white, stands with arms outstretched in a pose reminiscent of Christ’s crucifixion, symbolizing purity and unyielding conviction. This colour symbolism—white representing innocence and moral clarity—contrasts sharply with the dark, faceless soldiers, whose rigid stances and bayoneted rifles embody the physical power of violence and anonymity (Hughes, 2003). Through this visual dichotomy, Goya argues that true power lies not in manipulation but in ideological resistance, where individuals refuse to be gaslighted or coerced into submission.
The painting’s context further emphasizes this theme, as it reflects the broader Spanish revolution against Napoleonic imperialism, where ordinary citizens rebelled against foreign domination and manipulative propaganda that portrayed the invasion as liberating. Napoleon’s forces, much like the pigs in Animal Farm, used threats of force to impose control, executing those who resisted to instill fear and compliance. However, Goya highlights the power of rebellion through the martyr’s defiant body language: his open arms and illuminated face convey a sense of spiritual triumph, suggesting that death does not equate to defeat but rather amplifies the resistor’s ideological power (Tomlinson, 1992). The faceless soldiers, devoid of individuality, represent the dehumanizing effects of oppressive regimes, while the victim’s expressive features humanize the act of resistance, inviting viewers to empathize and question the morality of such power dynamics. Arguably, this martyrdom disrupts the cycle of oppression by inspiring future rebellions, as seen in historical accounts of the Peninsular War where guerrilla warfare ultimately contributed to Napoleon’s downfall (Hughes, 2003). Therefore, Goya’s work posits that power can be attained through steadfast beliefs, countering manipulation by refusing to accept the oppressors’ altered reality. This interpretation reveals a limitation in manipulative power: it can be overcome by collective or individual defiance, though often at the cost of life.
Conclusion
In summary, both Animal Farm and The Third of May 1808 illuminate the complex interplay between power, manipulation, and oppression, albeit from contrasting perspectives. Orwell’s novella demonstrates how power is attained through deceitful tactics like propaganda and gaslighting, perpetuating a cycle of totalitarian control inspired by the Russian Revolution (Orwell, 1945; Rodden, 2007). In contrast, Goya’s painting celebrates the power of resistance, where individuals maintain their beliefs against violent manipulation, drawing from the Spanish struggle against Napoleonic forces and embodying martyrdom as a form of ideological triumph (Tomlinson, 1992; Hughes, 2003). Together, these works suggest that while manipulation enables oppressive power, it is inherently fragile when confronted by resolute defiance. The implications extend beyond their historical contexts, offering insights into contemporary power struggles, such as in modern dictatorships or resistance movements. Ultimately, the essay underscores that power’s attainment is multifaceted, hinging not only on manipulation but also on the human capacity to resist it, thereby breaking cycles of oppression.
References
- Hughes, R. (2003) Goya. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
- Meyers, J. (1991) George Orwell: The Critical Heritage. London: Routledge.
- Orwell, G. (1945) Animal Farm: A Fairy Story. London: Secker & Warburg.
- Rodden, J. (ed.) (2007) The Cambridge Companion to George Orwell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Tomlinson, J. (1992) Francisco Goya y Lucientes 1746-1828. London: Phaidon Press.
(Word count: 1,128)
