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).

"The Two": How Lesbianism Challenges the Phallocentric Worldview

"The Two" an examination of a story from The Women of Brewster Place 

Women in our society are treated as objects with which to reaffirm the phallocentric male ego, so often that it’s hard to remember the deep vastness of women’s lives go beyond the men who define themselves by filling a hole that exists only in the intrigue of their own minds. Given the pervasiveness of the patriarchy, it’s rare to find even a single female character who isn’t defined in relation to the men in her life, much less a whole book filled with their stories, but that is exactly what Gloria Naylor gifts us with her debut novel The Women of Brewster Place. The stories of seven minority women defined by the healing bonds that form among them. I could and would happily discuss the ways in which the Lesbian Continuum defines each of these relationships, but in the interest of conciseness let’s focus our microscope upon Lorraine and her partner Theresa, the only ‘openly’ lesbian characters in the novel and the ways in which their relationship challenges the phallocentrism of the society in which the story is set.

Lorraine isn’t by any stretch of the imagination the ideal strong female character(™), who opposes masculine domination. Her life just isn’t about men. Since coming out and losing the support of her family in the process, her life has been geared toward her passions: being an educator and Theresa’s happiness. Unfortunately the two are at times at odds, due to the era (the 1970’s) she lives in and the conservative crusade, a witch-hunt against LGBT teachers in primary education, that began within it. She’s caught in the Epistemology of the closet, wanting to be out with Theresa (an advocate of unapologetically being who you are), but having to stay put behind the closet doors to avoid the social and financial ramifications of her orientation. She already lost a job to discrimination, once she simply can’t risk it again. Really that’s how they end up in Brewster. It was supposed to be a safe place to hide, from a disapproving society.

Clip of Lorraine and Theresa The Women of Brewster Place movie adaptation by Oprah

But even there in the outskirts, phallocentrism reigned in the image of one, C.C. Baker. A boy whose entire self worth rested between his legs.

"C.C. Baker was greatly disturbed by the thought of Lorraine. He knew of only one way to deal with women other than his mother. Before he had learned exactly how women gave birth, he knew how to please or punish or extract favors from them by the execution of what lay curled behind his fly. It was his lifeline to the part of his being that sheltered his self-respect. And the thought of any woman who lay beyond the length of its power was a threat."

"A threat" to the existing power structure, for how can a man assert his worth, his control over someone who doesn't fall prey to that which they have allowed to define their person-hood. I'd like to say that this quiet imbalance of C.C. Baker's world didn't have lasting ramifications on anyone beyond himself, but the system seeks to crush all those who defy it. Lorraine's life was not about men, but her society was a male dominated one. C.C. and his little crew hunted her down and raped her. She died from internal injuries. They had ripped her seam from seam, all to prove the power of their pathetic little penises.
          The world is an ugly place. The Patriarchy is ugly, it compresses men and women alike down to nothing more than their genitals and perpetuates a cycle of violence against women. That's why novels like The Women of Brewster Place and characters like Lorraine and Theresa matter so much, because they say we are more than a hole, we are people.

New Historicism and it's tackle on Uncle Tom's Cabin

New Historicism, according to Lois Tyson in her book: “critical theory today”, is the study of “The history of stories cultures tell themselves about themselves” (pg. 274) or even more cynically “the history of lies cultures tell themselves” (274). Furthermore, literary text of the past are “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.” (277) This is significantly evident in Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin.

Uncle Tom’s Cabin was written in 1852  America when slavery was still an unsavoury common practice. The book describes various sub plots, such as Eliza’s journey to freedom, which more often than not intertwine with other plots, such as Uncle Tom sacrificing himself for the greater progression of everyone else’s journey. However, the book can be analysed with a new historicist eye to see how black people were portrayed at the time.

The main character Uncle Tom, despite being a fully grown and strong man, is depicted as being very childlike. This is evident when Stowe describes him as: “Tom, who had the soft impressible nature of his kindly race, ever yearning toward the simple and childlike.” Therefore Stowe, as a white author, not only individually describes Tom, but also his “race”, as being simple and childlike. Which in turn, a new historicist can interpret as the general opinion of society at the time.

Furthermore, Stowe portrays the majority of black characters as childlike and uneducated through the way they talk; we can especially see this when the likes of Andy and Sam talk. For example, when following the scene where Haley’s horse has gone running off, Andy is talking to Sam and says ““Lor, I seed you… an’t you an old hoss, Sam?”” (51) Here we see “Lor” instead of Lord; “an’t” instead of “aren't” and “hoss” instead of horse. These words display rather broken English which could be described as something as simple as a Kentucky (where the book is set) accent, yet the white characters speak virtually perfect English. Therefore this reinforce the social and cultural opinions of the time.

Tyson explains discourse as “a social language created by particular cultural conditions at a particular time and place, and it expresses a particular way of understanding human experience” (270). Therefore this could mean that the way the black characters talk is of their own making, to help create their own “social language.” Or from the white author/ audience’s “culture” creating “conditions” to help them seem more superior to the black characters. The latter Tyson hints at as he says “The word discourse draws attention to the role of language as the vehicle of ideology,” (270) therefore the white ideology of the time would suggest their superiority over the black race and thus resulting in the black characters seeming more ‘dumbed’ down compared to the way the white characters tend to speak.

Another way black characters are displayed as childlike is through the dependency on their white masters. Uncle Tom has been told of his immediately selling and has been presented with the opportunity to run away but instead decides not to: “I an’t going.. Mas’r always found me on the spot- he always will.” (44) This could be interpreted by the community of the time as Tom’s submissive and childlike dependency on the white characters (his owner Mr. Shelby).