Tyranny of the Animals

But constant experience shows us that every [human] invested with power, is apt to abuse it, and to carry [their] authority as far as it will go.

-Montesquieu

In both "In the Penal Colony" and Animal Farm, the intoxicating effects of authority on the human condition is portrayed through characters who can sense neither their own accelerating thirst for power nor the slow degradation of their souls. Instead of accepting the traditional fallacy that some humans are inherently bad, Kafka and Orwell challenge their readers to a conception of evil that exists on a linear scale — opposite to good, and limitless in potentiality. For the main characters in each story, Napoleon and the officer, their evilness is primarily a manifestation of their own faithful adherence to unjust principles and unchecked positions of power that enable them carry out some of the most cold-blooded crimes against humanity. With no equals moderating their passions and no superiors inhibiting their actions, these characters proceed to take their authority as far as it will go, eventually resulting in their own loss of humanity and demise. Pushed by principles and pulled by power, these characters show us that evilness is not an inherent trait, but rather, something that occurs incrementally over time, and reached quickest by those who exploit the naivety of animals and the dutiful and industrious nature inherent to them.

In Kafka’s "In the Penal Colony", the officer’s perceived evilness is, in fact, the result of his own exploitation by the former commandant who had, at one time, made use of his industrious and conforming nature. As the officer is presenting the torture apparatus to the traveller he remarks with pride:

This apparatus…'is an invention of our old commandant. I was involved from the start in the very first trials and took part in the work until it was completed. However, the credit of the invention belongs solely to him. Have you heard of our old commandant? No? Well, I am not putting it too strongly when I say that the organization of the entire penal colony was his work. (Kafka 76)

Without even realizing it, the officer has revealed details regarding his own level of discipline in this passage when he recalls the “work” he put into building the torture apparatus under the orders of a commandant who was, at one time, in charge of “the entire penal colony”. This suggests that the former commandant held absolute power in the colony at one time, which likely means that he demanded the obedience of everyone “under” him to gain and maintain his control. As readers, we are also struck by the officer’s extensive knowledge in mechanics and his fascination with the different parts of the machine. After the officer has finished examining its upper and lower parts one last time before the execution, the narrator notes that “these were tasks that really could have been left to a mechanic, but the officer carried them out with great zeal, whether it was because he was a devotee of the apparatus, or whether it was for other reasons that the work could not be entrusted to anyone else” (75).  This suggests that the officer has an uncommonly high level of knowledge in mechanics and has been entrusted to his present position based primarily on those merits. Evidently, he is much more interested in its particulars than the machine as whole, and thus, cannot easily recognize the terror of “the apparatus” on a larger scale. Disillusioned by his entire experience on the island, the officer still idolizes his deceased superior and even refers to him as “his friend” (76). By honouring his superior in such a manner, we can assume that the former commandant either demanded obedience to his ideas and inventions, or inspired deep devotion in his recruits, who still loyally conform to his implementations. Lacking sentimentality and unable to see the injustice in either the sentencing procedure or the torture machine itself, the officer is solely concerned with the principle that has not been adhered to by the prisoner, which in this case, is “Honour thy superior!” (79). For the officer, strict obedience to such a principle helps to justify his own involvement with the killing machine, and thus, cannot see the evilness of his actions until it is far too late.

In the Animal Farm, we see a similar example of compliance from the dutiful “lower ranking” animals whose survival is made dependent on the central committee’s intelligence. Like the officer, they too, live in accordance with a strict set of principles instigated by their “highly regarded” (1) superior, Major, who is also soon deceased. And although these “lesser” animals, at first, seem to desire freedom and equality after seizing Manor Farm, the negligent and authoritarian rule of their previous master, Mr. Jones, “could only lead them to a change of masters” (vii) sadly, which is why the pigs are able to assume a dominant role so easily after the rebellion. What is most tragic perhaps, is that their followers have been coerced into believing that their intelligence is inferior to the pigs which is reinforced by statements such as “we pigs are brainworkers. The whole management and organisation of this farm depend on us. Day and night we are watching over your welfare” (23). By establishing themselves as “the brainworkers” of the operation, not only are the pigs indirectly compromising the intelligence of every other species of animal on the farm, but it also makes their follower’s survival dependent on someone else’s intelligence rather than their own, which is even more demoralising for grown animals. Furthermore, because their value rests primarily in their physical capabilities under this assumption, they are left with no choice but to take on the more laborious tasks on the farm. Like the former commandant, Napoleon is eager to take advantage of these physical capabilities and soon puts forth the idea of an invention that will require their usefulness.   

Suspiciously, the one leader who is committed to liberating the minds of the grown-up animals, is the one pig that Napoleon expels the quickest, but is careful to do this after Snowball has finished designing the plans for the windmill. Napoleon, by contrast, is far more interested in “the education of the young” (22) and even takes it upon himself to “educate” two litters of puppies since it was previously observed that the dogs, after having learned to read, “were not interested in reading anything except the Seven Commandments’’ (21), and were therefore, considered to be the most obedient followers. And while this secluded rearing allows these dogs to reach their maximum physical potential via a smooth maturation, to our horror, it also results in the dogs developing a dangerously strong attachment to their “master”, Napoleon, who later uses their physical strength and protective and obedient nature to serve his own self interests. Snowball, on the other hand, has no intention of giving up on his “mature” students who are given an education in reading and writing, and is determined to maximize their resourcefulness. When Snowball is proposing the windmill plan to his followers “they listened in astonishment while Snowball conjured up pictures of fantastic machines which would do their work for them while they grazed at their ease in the fields or improved their minds with reading and conversation” (32). This suggests that Snowball did indeed hope to improve the lives and minds of the animals on the farm which is likely why Napoleon exiled him as soon as he had used Snowball’s industrious nature to design the plans. In Napoleon’s view, not only was a less educated group of workers less likely to complain about the grunt work yet to be done on the farm, but intellectual liberation could potentially lead to greater social equality between the central committee and their followers, or worse, motivate one of the other animals to seize power if they were able to gain the support of the majority. Napoleon and the other pigs seem to stand outside the principle that “all animals are equal” (15), which suggests that they either believe themselves to be above the law or have been de-animalized to the point that they do not even identify as “animal”, and therefore, do not align themselves with “animal law” either.

Curiously, there are some characters who do not object to the central authority’s expanding power and, at times, enable the unjust actions of the pigs even when these actions seem to infringe upon their animal laws. Among these characters, are two elderly animals, Benjamin, and Boxer who “usually spent their Sundays together in a small paddock beyond the orchard, grazing side by side and never speaking” (2), which implies that these animals have a firsthand connection with their god and engage in prayer on a regular basis. It is also noted that Muriel would “sometimes read to the others in the evenings’’ (21) which suggest that she is also a “senior” at Animal Farm and embraces her parental role there. After the central committee violates the law that “no animal shall kill any another animal” (15), their legislation is suspiciously altered in a way that deems the executions lawful by adding the words “without cause” to the end of it. When some of the animals notice their leader’s transgression, Benjamin and Muriel both play a role* in convincing them that the altered version of the commandment was, in fact, the original law, which causes these animals to believe that it was they who are mistaken in their memory of it, leaving Napoleon “innocent” in the matter (61). Since most of the animals willingly support Napoleon’s escalating rule despite the suspicious events that accumulate, it becomes evident that Major’s vision has dissolved into a tyranny of the majority, who seem to be in an unspoken alliance with both the central committee and each other. But what kind of alliance? Do they all share a similar world view? And if so, is it this shared perspective that causes them to trust their leaders and each other so implicitly?

Because the roles of the officer and Napoleon go unchecked and unbalanced for so long, these characters are thus free to carry their authority to the limit while violating principles they initially subscribed to. Since Napoleon treats his followers as mere means to an end, not even those closest to him are willing to stop him from destroying himself. Similarly, the officer is alone in his authoritarianism as well by the end of his life for the same reason likely. And although these character’s elevation to power may have originally been the result of loyal devotion to their superiors and strict adherence to principles, because they were unjust principles, they too end up compromising the liberty of everybody “under” them whom they eventually rule with propaganda and scare-tactics. Like the officer, Napoleon asserts his power through the execution of “disloyal” followers, forcing the other animals to watch as they are “torn to pieces” (58) to instill a harmful level of fear in them. Tragically, the officer and Napoleon are the only ones who cannot recognize their own escalating addiction to power or their decaying souls, which, for Napoleon, is fast-tracked once he begins taking advantage of the industrious and dutiful natures of his so-called “comrades.”

Sincerely,

Heather

*Benjamin's role is rooted in non-action since, according to the text, he "refused to meddle in such matters" (61).

Note: This post has been inspired by seminar discussion on these texts with my brilliant LBST112 classmates, an enlightening lecture on Franz Kafka's "In the Penal Colony" presented by Dr. Kaia Scott, and a thought-provoking lecture on George Orwell's Animal Farm given by Dr. David Livingstone. Also, it should be noted that my views are not necessarily shared by all the professors or students in the Liberal Studies classes.

Works Cited

Kafka, Franz. “In the Penal Colony.” Course pack for Liberal Studies 112: 112 Knowledge, Good and Evil, compiled by Dr. Kaia Scott and Dr. David Livingstone, Spring 2024, Vancouver Island University.

Kaia Scott and Dr. David Livingstone, Vancouver Island University, 2024, pp.75-99.

Orwell, George. Animal Farm. London, Penguin Books, 1987.

Scott, Kaia. “Scott lecture on Kafka.” VIUlearn, 16 January 2024, online.