The Animal Farm paradox, or how we are all more equal than others

Orwell's Animal Farm was probably mistaken when declaring that some are more equal than others....


In the well-known and much repeated Animal Farm by George Orwell [sidenote: should I really say who wrote the Animal Farm], the sentence "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" are part of the cardinal rules set up by the (capitalist?) pigs. Certainly, this statement logically does not make any sense. And even more certainly, Orwell's point was to point out an 'evident truth' - a political statement on dictatorial/totalitarian regimes which function through similar (even identical) espousals on equality. Some have noted that Orwell may have been pointing towards the subjective perspective of individuals on equality, though this is somewhat doubtful.

Nevertheless, there remains a dangerous paradox in Orwell, one that requires serious considerations.

Let us first examine what Orwell is about. A very brief synopsis of Animal Farm:

The animals unite themselves - they come to power - pigs and dogs take start organising the farm - other animals slowly shift lower and lower in the possibilities of expressing their 'newly acquired freedom' - pigs resemble the humans

The problem Orwell makes sure we try to understand, is the problem of power in the traditional sense of a means of oppression. He seems to follow a well-known maxim: "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" (attributed to Lord Acton, though earlier references exist in different forms) - and it is in this sense that the power seizure of power by the pigs slowly develops into a corruption of their initial vision. Through possession of minimal power and the ensuing corruption, they tend to maximise their power which inevitably will lead to more corruption. So far, there is not much paradoxical about the matter.

Orwell's view or vision of the future becomes problematic once we contrast his writings with Aldus Huxley's Brave New World. Specifically, let us look at certain themes that have the same aim, but come from a different causal fear:
- Censorship: Orwell feared censorship; while Huxley feared that there would be no need for one as nobody would be interested in serious matter anyway as we would seek easily accessible entertainment
- Transparency: Orwell feared we would be deprived of information; Huxley feared would be overwhelmed/mesmerised by too much information

- Ultimately, Orwell feared we would not know political truths because they would be hidden from us; while Huxley feared that it would be accessible, but become irrelevant in the vast sea of all kinds of information.

In other words, what Huxley observed was that it was not the whip - that the pigs start using in the Animal Farm - that is the problem. Instead, it is the drug that makes one passive to his interests - soma (literally meaning body in Greek). In other words, Huxley identified pleasure with the decline of culture/civilization; and ultimately also freedom in the sense of being able to do that which we were meant to do without the obstruction into our interests. Nietzsche calls this becoming who you are! Interestingly, he calls the passive attitude the last man (or Heidegger simply calls him Das Man).
Now to the really troubling part. If Orwell was right about the totalitarian regimes' restriction of freedom by use of force; is it well-founded to say that Huxley was right about the liberal-democratic regimes' restriction of freedom by use of entertainment (he calls it "distraction" at some point, but entertainment seems to take the general attitude)? And if that is the case, can we safely posit that the problem in the liberal-democratic regimes is not the restricting whip, but equality? Here, it should be noted that equality does not simply mean equal among others, but more equal than the others applied to each one of us. We are all in the process of espousal of some truth through which our ruin is made possible by not developing things of importance. And this article surely falls under the same rubric.
In order not to be misunderstood, it is not the intention to promote anarchy, or some form of authoritarianism over liberal-democracy - but to think what liberal-democracy results to given the possibility of passivity as a culture/civilization.

You can find the complete Animal Farm pdf at msxnet.org.