Within George Orwell's simple allegory Animal Farm lie lessons about the complex links between leadership, brotherhood, and self-agency. The animals are initially subjugated by the humans into voiceless communal suffering, but Old Major inspires them to mobilize their powerful brotherhood for their own good. However, readers shudder as the originally successful revolution becomes increasingly stymied; intelligent pigs take over first; then, the government turns into a military dictatorship that destroys the original brotherhood, creating a schism between the pigs and the other animals. Although the working animals are separated from their leaders, they once again find comfort in being together in fear. Therefore, each stage of the revolution is a step in a cycle of unity and separation. However, the cycle is imperfect because when the story ends, the animals are stuck, unable to act on their own in the face of Squealer's rhetoric; the power in their frightened unity can only be exploited by pigs who, separated into a different category, do not have their interests at heart. The tragedy of the revolution is not simply that the pigs become even crueler oppressors than original man, but that with each step toward tyranny, it is the working animals themselves who are persuaded to give up their free will and acquiesce to leadership increasingly terrifying. no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Animals first find their power in a visceral sense of brotherhood against humanity inspired by Old Major. Old Major divides the world into men and animals: “All men are enemies. All animals are companions…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 mooed, the dogs yelped, the sheep bleated, the horses neighed, the ducks quacked” (34). Although each animal is irreconcilably different, they can all raise their voices to sing the same song of hope. Their power to overthrow men comes from this awareness of themselves as animals, anti-human. This collective sense also pushes animals through the initial stages of their self-government after the revolution, and is a version of what literary critic VC Letemendia calls “innate decency” (119). Their first harvest is the largest in history not only because every animal works honestly and hard, but also because “no 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 only a few exceptions such as Mollie the vain mare and the ever-present cat. The new government works wonders because, as Letemendia notes, the decency of the working animals “gave them an instinctive sense of what a just society might actually look like” (120). Most animals do not crave power “for any personal gain” (120), at least not yet. Fraternity is still the predominant 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 immense power. That same leadership creates a schism between leaders and those who are led. From the beginning, the “work of teaching and organizing others naturally fell to the pigs, who were generally recognized asthe most intelligent 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 tenets are summarized in seven commandments that oppose all human characteristics. Therefore, pigs constantly inflame animal anger and awareness of exploitation, which is essential overthrow of humans. However, pigs are “generally recognized” as more intelligent; from the beginning the distinction between pigs and the rest of the animals grows. 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 further. After Napoleon took power, the animals did not “sit all together as they did in the past. Napoleon, with Squealer and another pig called Minimus... sat on 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 in front of them in the main body of the stable” (70-71). Already pigs and dogs are separated from the rest of the animals; two groups sit opposite 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 to the farm, further separating themselves from the working animals who can only rely on rumors and rumors to tell if the pigs are sleeping in the beds. Time passes and Napoleon is even elevated to quasi-divinity. He is such a different leader from others that his food must be tasted and the dogs must guard him day and night. He is so separated that he almost never appears in public and makes Squealer speak for him. Therefore, from the original sense of brotherhood has grown a horrible gulf that divides the new leadership from the rest. It therefore seems that with this new schism we have returned to the miserable beginning. Once again, the oppressed find a brotherhood in oppression: a union that perhaps can lead to another revolution. Immediately after Napoleon's first violent executions, animals, “with the exception of pigs and dogs,” instinctively move away to brood “in one body” (93). While they are all “huddling together for warmth” (94), they tacitly share their shock and dismay at the bloodshed they have witnessed. This new communion has its roots in a psychological relationship without words, very similar to the original sense of brotherhood. It could be argued that because the animals are, at least physically speaking, in the same oppressive 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 the perfect position for another leader to emerge among them, inflame their emotions, and make them aware of their newfound oppression and its futility. True, once again the need for leadership could lead to another failed revolution; however, a revolution may still be possible. If we return to Letemendia's argument that animals possess “innate decency,” however, we can see that animals are not quite in the same position as before; furthermore, as long as that “innate decency” prevents them from understanding “the true nature of pigs” (120), they cannot harness their new potential power in the unit. After the massacre, Boxer still concludes that “It must be due to some fault of ours” (94); he cannot blame the pigs because his decency prevents him from recognizing that pigs do not fall within the circle of respectable creatures: a sort of paradox. WhileBoxer is widely respected and admired for his extraordinary working skills, not even he can lead the animals towards a perhaps better future. Even in Clover's mind there is still “no thought of rebellion or disobedience” (95); she however “would remain faithful, work hard, carry out the orders given to her, and accept Napoleon's leadership” (95). Even though he feels the disillusionment deeply, he cannot express his feelings because he simply cannot understand why the image is wrong. Hindered by their naïve “innate decency,” working animals are unable to translate their general disillusionment into action to correct their government's shortcomings. Not only does their “innate decency” prevent them from recognizing the evil in their leaders, it is actually 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 onto the farm, a hopeful murmur of protest is first heard. However, although “some of the other animals murmured, it did no good” (52); that glimmer of self-agency dies as soon as Squealer utters his rhetoric. For example, the animals happily swallow Squealer's statement that most pigs "don't really like milk and apples... Our only purpose in taking these things is to preserve our health" (52), because being altruistic themselves, they cannot imagine that others are selfish. Technically they consented to the injustice starting. When Napoleon wanted to start trade with humans, even though the animals wondered – “never have intercourse with humans, never engage in trade, never make use of money – were these not the first resolutions adopted? " (76)—Squealer exploits the lack of written records to dispel his doubts until all the animals are “satisfied” (77) and consenting. Every spark of self-agency mellows into satisfaction. In his most significant speech, Squealer addresses the issue of agency and autonomy. He convinces the animals that only Napoleon can make decisions, because “they might make the wrong decisions” on their own (69). ) rather than as a place of privilege and power. Once again, animals are tricked into believing the altruistic motivations described by Squealer because their naive decency prevents them from knowing better comrade Napoleon, it must be right” (70); they have consented to the hijacking of their ability to act for themselves. The pigs essentially manipulate the decency of animals to extort monstrous consent to their exploitation, thus robbing the animals of all autonomy and ability to improve oneself. Thus, although “innate decency” may have caused the animals' initial brotherly success, it also leads to their subsequent inability to act for themselves. It is tempting to speculate that if only animals had been less passive and more ambitious, their society might have failed less spectacularly. However, some pigs lack the problematic “innate decency” and have ambition that drives them to act alone. Ironically, there is more dangerous violence within homogeneous species of pigs than between different working animals. Of course we see that Napoleon kills ruthlessly to consolidate his power and lies shamelessly through Squealer to maintain his honored position. From the beginning there is conflict between Snowball and Napoleon. They can't agree on whether to export the., 1996.