Communist Pigs: New Historicism in Animal Farm.

Tyson interprets New Historicism as what happens when we read a historical account and ask ourselves: “what does thus account tell us about the political and ideological conflicts of the culture that produced and read the account?” (Tyson 268). When New Historicism is applied to literary texts Tyson states that these texts are often viewed as “cultural artifacts that can tell us something about the interplay of discourses, the web of social meanings, operating in the time and place in which the text was written” (Tyson 277). When pondering both of these topics, the first example that came to my mind was George Orwell’s famous novel: Animal Farm. At first glance, Orwell’s novel seems to be about a bunch of animals who overthrow their farmer, fight for control, and ultimately just end up in a situation worse than what they came from. In a nutshell, that’s it; but if you do a deeper reading of the novel and apply New Historicist thought to it, traces of communism come out from the framework.

When we read the novel while keeping in mind “the political and ideological conflicts of the culture that produced” it and asking what the “interplay of discourses” within it might be we see the plucky pig leaders, Napoleon and Snowball in a different light. Written in 1945, a time when communism was striking fear in the hearts of many people throughout the world, Animal farm perfectly fits into the social discourse of post WWII/Cold war era Russia. The overthrow that the animals partake in against the humans is often seen as parallel to the communist revolution, and the pig that starts the revolution, Old Major, is often compared to Vladimir Lenin, the leader of the revolution in Russia. We also see reflections of other communist Russian leaders such as Joseph Stalin (Napoleon) and Leon Trovsky (Snowball) in the pig leaders who take over after Old Major’s death. We slowly start to see the discourse of communist Russia and the communist revolution play out through the characters of the animals, something that was heavy on many people’s hearts at the time of Animal Farm’s publication.

Thus, when reading Animal Farm with a new historicist point of view, we view it as a reflection of the political conflicts of communism in Russia in the 1940s. We see the “web of social meanings” in the way the pigs lead the animals in revolt, the way Napoleon overthrows his partner snowball, and in the way he changes the “Principles of Animalism” from their original purposes to a more sinister interpretation. By the end of the book, one pig has taken over the whole farm, (kind of like Stalin took over, but let’s not name names….) and the animals can’t see any difference in their post revolution farm from the pre-revolution version. This strikes a lot of similarities with communism at the time, because it certainly was nothing like anyone expected it to be. Just like communism spread and overtook several countries through one leader, the corruption of the pig Napoleon spread throughout the farm and he banished anyone who tired to stop him. Talk about a thirst for power. Overall, Animal Farm can be read in a new historicist light by the way in which it reflects the communist discourse of the time in which it was written (and takes the term "communist pigs" to a whole different level).