plagiat merupakan tindakan tidak terpuji … · kegunaan mimikri telah beubah fungsi dari sebagai...

CORRELATION BETWEEN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MIMICRYAND INTERNAL COLONIZATION IN GEORGE ORWELL’S ANIMAL

FARM:A POSTCOLONIAL READING

A THESIS

Presented as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain theMagister Humaniora (M.Hum) Degree in English Language Studies

ByRuly Indra Darmawan

Student Number: 146332033

THE GRADUATE PROGRAM IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIESSANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA2018

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

CORRELATION BETWEEN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MIMICRYAND INTERNAL COLONIZATION IN GEORGE ORWELL’S ANIMAL

FARM:A POSTCOLONIAL READING

A THESIS

Presented as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain theMagister Humaniora (M.Hum) Degree in English Language Studies

ByRuly Indra Darmawan

Student Number: 146332033

THE GRADUATE PROGRAM IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIESSANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA2018


AdChaRya

Typewritten text

i

A TIIESIS

CORRELA,TION BETWEEN TEE IMPLEMENTATION OF MIFIICRYAI\[D INTERNAL COITONfiZATION IN GEORGE ORWELL,S ANIMAL

FARMT A POSTCOLOIIIAL READING

Approved by:t6 March 2018

1l

gi fi*f: lry::-, \ b

5 student

\er: 1463320315

@. lsI'.. r -.<CoGynKd

ptottufiluioreq

Mutiara Andalas. SJ.

Thesis Advisor


A THESIS

CORRELATION BETWEEN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MIMICRYA}iD INTERNAL COT,ONIZATION IN GEORGE ORWELL'$ANIMAL

FARMI A POSTCOLONIAL READING

Presented by

Ruly Indra DarmawanStudent Number: t 46332033

Defended before Thesis Commiffeeble

Chairpersq

*FFtSecretary

Member

\**^

Yogyakarta, 16 March 2018

The Graduate School Ilirector

ffi

Ilharma University

r. Gregorius Budi Subanar, S.J.

ul


iv

MOTTO

“Remember also that in fighting against Man,

we must not come to resemble him.”

(Old Major)


STATtrMONT T''r trOftI( ORIGINALITY

firis is to certiff that all idcaq Sraso*, seirtences unlees o&s.wise stated,

are the ideas, and sontences oftlte&qigffiit€r. Thewriterunderstands the fullconsequences including degw cancelhiqr if she took somfuy else's ideas,

phrases, or sentenc€s without prop€s rcferences

Yaryakarta, March 1 6, 201 I

Ruly Indra Darmalryan

v


LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAHUNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS

Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya matrasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma:

Nama : Ruly Indra Darmawan

NIM t 146332033

Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada perpustakaan

Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul:

CORRELATION BETWEEN TIIE IMPLEMENTATION OF MIMICRYANDTNTERNA'r"ff

;:Il'rtit"Jr'i'^fi Ifl lglf*XELL'SANTMAL

beserta perangkat yang diperlukan (bila ada). Dengan demikian saya memberikan

kepada Perpustakaan universitas sanata Dharma hak untuk menyimpan,

mengalihkan dalam bentuk media lain, mengelolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan

data, mendistribusikan secara terbatas, dan mempublikasikannya di internet atau

media lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu meminta ijin dari saya

maupun memberikan royalty kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya

sebagai penulis.

Dernikian pernyataan ini yang saya buat dengan sebenarnya.

Dibuat di Yogyakart

Pada tanggal: 16 Maret 2018

Ruly Indra Darmawan

vi


vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The completion of my thesis is one of the most rewarding achievements.

There were many difficulties I faced when dealing with this thesis so I cannot

finish it on the right time. At first, this thesis discusses about the implementation

of mimicry in Animal Farm. Later, there is similar article that shares almost

similar topic with my thesis. So, I changes my topic into the one that I use right

now and it spends many times and goes through many processes. I cannot

complete this thesis without helps from some people. I would like to express my

gratitude for Patrisius Mutiara Andalas, SJ., S.S., M.A, Ph.D. as my graduating

paper’s consultant, who has been very patient and the most helpful supervisor and

for the suggestions and revisions from the moment I start my thesis from zero

until complete. I would like to express my big gratitude to Paulus Sarwoto, Ph.D

and Dra. Novita Dewi, M.S., M.A. (Hons), Ph.D. for the reviews and inspiring

discussions also lectures during my study time in Sanata Dharma University.

I could not finish this graduating paper without the support from my

family. I want to thank my mom and my dad who always support me from afar.

Thank you for supporting me to finish my graduating paper. The best part of

dealing with graduating paper is having some friends who are supportive and can

be a place where I can share any hardness, sadness, and the happiness when

writing the paper. Therefore I would like to express my deepest gratitude to

everyone in English Language Studies 2014.

In spite of all the support from above people for this thesis, any omissions

and/or errors are solely my own.


viii

TABLE OF CONTENTSTITLE PAGE ......................................................................................................... i

APPROVAL PAGE .............................................................................................. ii

DEFENCE APPROVAL PAGE ......................................................................... iii

MOTTO ................................................................................................................ iv

STATEMENT OF WORK ORIGINALITY .......................................................v

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAHUNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS ........................................................... vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................ vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................... viii

ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................... ix

ABSTRAK ..............................................................................................................x

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION .........................................................................1

1. Background of the Study................................................................................. 1

2. Significance of the Study .............................................................................. 10

3. Scope of the Study......................................................................................... 11

4. Chapter Outline ............................................................................................. 11

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW..........................................................16

1. Review of Related Studies ............................................................................ 16

2. Review of Related Theories .......................................................................... 19

2.1. Mimicry .................................................................................................. 21

2.2. Internal Colonization .............................................................................. 28

CHAPTER III: MIMICRY AND RESISTANCE.............................................32

3.1. Injustice by Man ......................................................................................... 34

3.2. Mimicry as a Means of Resistance............................................................. 40

3.3. Conflict between Napoleon and Snowball ................................................. 45

CHAPTER IV: CORRELATION BETWEEN MIMICRY AND INTERNALCOLONIZATION................................................................................................55

4.1. The Colonization by Animal in the Animal Farm...................................... 56

4.2. The Peak of Mimicry Process .................................................................... 73

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION...........................................................................79

5.1. Concluding Remark.................................................................................... 79

5.2. Ideas for Further Research.......................................................................... 87

BIBLIOGRAPHY


ix

ABSTRACT

Darmawan, Ruly Indra, 2018, Correlation between the Implementation ofMimicry And Internal Colonization in George Orwell’s Animal Farm: APostcolonial Reading. Yogyakarta: The Graduate Program in English LanguageStudies, Sanata Dharma University.

This thesis puts forward the issue of mimicry by Bhabha in GeorgeOrwell’s Animal Farm. The animal characters in the novel use mimicry as ameans of resistance toward human beings. Furthermore, later in the novel, the useof mimicry has shifted from mean of resistance to that of internal colonization ofanimals to other animals. The focus of this thesis is exploring the process ofmimicry in the novel and how it shifts its purpose in the end.

This thesis uses two main theories to analyze the novel, mimicry andinternal colonization. Mimicry is used to discover the habit or act of Napoleon andhis pig family as the main data that depict mimicking a human. The animal isknown as the enemy of humanity in the farm that they live. Mimicry conceptsused are Bhabha’s both ambivalence and term same but not quite. Those conceptsare used to reveal the pig’s habit and act that symbolize postcolonial discourse.Secondly, the internal colonization concept is also used to show the response ofmimicry in the novel. This thesis shows that mimicry is not only representing theresponse of colonization but also revealing that mimicry can be a process ofinternal colonization as a response.

The mimicry in the Animal Farm starts with the speech of Old Major thatis infecting all animals on the farm with his own inferiority complex towards thehuman. Colonization also pictures that it can separate the colonized into twodifferent factions. One that thinks that colonizer’s culture is more superior to themand decides to embrace those cultures and do mimicry. The other side still holdstightly their own original cultures or values. Furthermore, if the faction thatdecides to do mimicry wins their internal battle the next colonization occurs andthere will be the second phase of colonization which is done by their kind orgroup which is called internal colonization. The mimicry is also a process oflearning that at one point it can become more and more perfect. Animal Farmshows the moment when the mimicry reaches its peak and the colonized becomealmost similar with the colonizer.

Keywords: mimicry, internal colonization, Animal Farm


x

ABSTRAK

Darmawan, Ruly Indra, 2018, Korelasi antara Penerapan Mimikri dan KolonisasiInternal pada Animal Farm yang ditulis oleh George Orwell: Bacaan Postkolonial.Yogyakarta: Program Pascasarjana Kajian Bahasa Inggris, Universitas SanataDharma.

Tesis ini mengangkat permasalahan mimikri oleh Bhabha di dalamAnimal Farm oleh George Orwell. Hewan-hewan di dalam novel menggunakanmimikri sebagai alat perlawanan terhadap manusia. Selanjutnya dalam novel,kegunaan mimikri telah beubah fungsi dari sebagai sarana untuk perlawananmenjadi cara untuk melakukan kolonisasi internal oleh hewan ke hewan lain.Tesis ini bertujuan menyelidiki proses mimikri di novel dan bagaimana mimikriberubah fungsi.

Tesis ini menerapkan dua teori utama untuk menganalisa novel, mimikridan kolonisasi internal. Mimikri digunakan untuk menemukan kebiasaan atautindakan Napoleon dan keluarga babi sebagai data utama yang menggambarkanpeniruan manusia. Manusia dikenal sebagai musuh hewan di peternakan tempatmereka tinggal. Tesis ini menggunakan beberapa istilah Bhabha dan konsepmimikri yaitu ambivalensi dan serupa tapi tak sama. Konsep-konsep tersebutdigunakan untuk mengungkapkan kebiasaan dan tindakan babi yangmelambangkan wacana postkolonial. Kedua, konsep kolonisasi internal jugadigunakan untuk menunjukkan hasil mimikri dalam novel. Tesis ini menunjukkanbahwa mimikri adalah hasil dari sebuah penjajahan dan juga proses dengankolonisasi internal sebagai hasilnya.

Mimikri di peternakan hewan dimulai melalui Pidato Mayor Tua. Pidatotersebut mempengaruhi semua hewan di peternakan dengan sifat rendah dirikepada manusia. Kolonisasi juga menggambarkan bahwa pihak yang terjajahterbagi menjadi dua sisi yang berbeda. Yang pertama, pihak yang berpikir bahwabudaya penjajah lebih unggul dari mereka dan memutuskan untuk merangkulbudaya tersebut dan melakukan mimikri. Di sisi lain, juga terdapat pihak yangmasih memegang erat budaya atau nilai asli mereka sendiri. Terlebih lagi, jikapihak yang memutuskan untuk melakukan mimikri memenangkan konflik tersebutpenjajahan berikutnya terjadi dan akan ada tahap kedua dari proses penjajahan.Dalam hal ini, kelompok mereka sendiri yang melakukan penjajahan itu dandisebut kolonisasi internal. Mimikri juga merupakan proses belajar bahwa padasatu titik hal itu bisa menjadi lebih sempurna. Animal Farm menunjukkan saatmimikri mencapai puncaknya dan pihak yang terjajah menjadi nyaris serupadengan penjajah.

Kata Kunci: mimikri, kolonisasi internal, Animal Farm


CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1. Background of the Study

In the past, some great countries showed their strength by expanding their

territory. Sometimes they needed to take over smaller country territory to do the

expansion. This act is called colonialism. Colonialism is an interesting issue since

long time ago until now that attracts many scholars and researchers to study on it.

Several notable issues are the unequal relation between two countries, the impact

of colonialism on both colonizer’s and the colonized and also the aftermath of

colonization process itself. One of the branches of colonialism study is how

decolonization happens or the after-effects of the colonization both to the

colonizer and the colonized sides.

Lois Tyson states that what is left behind by the colonizer is a deeply

embedded cultural colonization which covers the inculcation of colonizer’s

system of government and education as well as culture, values that denigrate the

colonized’s culture, and even the physical appearances of the formerly colonizer’s

people.1 Furthermore, the ex-colonizer often left the psychological “inheritance”

of negative self-image for the ex-colonized and also alienation from their own

native culture which had been prohibited or even devalued by the colonizer so

long that much pre-colonial culture or colonized original culture has been

completely lost. As Said states, partly because of empire, all cultures are involved

1 Lois Tyson, Critical Theory Today: A User Friendly Guide (New York: Routledge, 2006), 419.


2

in one another, none is single and pure, all are hybrid, heterogeneous,

extraordinarily differentiate and monolithic.2

In the colonialism state, colonizer does not only take control of territory,

material, and also human resources of the colonized country. They also take

control and interfere with the structure of political and cultural of the subjugated

one. Pennycook shares a related argument saying ‘The practice of colonialism

produced ways of thinking, saying and doing that permeated back into the cultures

and discourses of the colonial nations’3. Sometimes those practices of colonialism

result in the inferiority complex of the colonized since the colonizer is

successfully subjugating the colonized’s both territory and culture. This inferiority

can make the colonized people unconsciously act, behave or even copy the culture

of the colonized people. Memmi states that ‘the people who are within the

colonial spectrum can either consciously or unconsciously act according to the

rule that society has given to them.4 It means that by unconsciously doing or

acting based on the colonizer’s rule, the colonized creates an inferiority complex

to them and they think that their culture has lower quality compared to the

colonizer’s one. Nevertheless, by accepting that their culture’s quality is lower

than the colonizer, they start to copy or mimic the culture and way of life of those

who have higher quality than themselves. Mimicking becomes one of the ways for

the colonized to feel escaping their repressed situation.

2 Edward Said, Culture and Imperialism (New York: Knopf Doubleday, 1993), xxv.3 Alastair Pennycook, English and the Discourse of Colonialism (London: Routledge, 2002), 15.4 Albert Memmi, The Colonized and the Colonizer (Boston: Beacon Press, 1965), 39.


3

The act of mimicking or imitating can be researched in every field,

especially in politics. During the political elections in Indonesia in 2014, for

example, Jokowi and Prabowo as presidential candidates were mimicking the way

one particular historical figure’s way of governing who is ex-president Soekarno.

Joko Widodo who is the winner of the election showed a marhaenism which is

one belief that Soekarno adopted in his presidency era. Marhaenism is an

ideology from Soekarno era that challenges the slavery and class-based society.5

Jokowi adapts this ideology into his vision and mission that is called Nawa Cita.

One of the practices of those visions and missions is by visiting farmers and other

people who are considered have a low-class job. He says that it shows the

implementation of Marhaenism. Those visits are meant to avoid the gap between

the social distance between rich and poor people and this is the main purpose of

Soekarno’s Marhaenism.6

Conversely, Jokowi’s opposing side of the election, Prabowo Subianto,

was showing the way Sukarno’s clothing and lifestyle. By wearing a white safari

suit, black kopiah and riding a horse at his free time, Prabowo became a mirror of

how Soekarno in the past when he was a glamorous president filled with elegance

and prosperity. Even, on the advertisements of regional elections, the Soekarno’s

clothing style was famous. This phenomenon can be seen in banners on a side

street where most of the candidates wore a white safari suit and black k

5 Kuswono, "Marhaenism: Social Ideology Create by Sukarno." Jurnal HISTORIA 4 (2016) 119.6 Mochdar Soleman and Mohammad Noer, "Nawacita Sebagai Strategi Khusus Jokowi Periode

Oktober 2014-20 Oktober 2015." Jurnal Kajian Politik dan Masalah Pembangunan 13 (2015)

1961.


4

Although they are doing those mimicking, there are several limits of

mimicking so they cannot perfectly copy the charisma of Soekarno in the past.

The mission and vision of Jokowi in his Nawa Cita cannot perfectly copy

Soekarno’s marhaenism. Prabowo’s appearance also cannot perfectly copy the

way Soekarno’s appearance in the past. Although he wears kopiah and safari suit,

his body’s figure is different from Soekarno. So, both Jokowi and Prabowo that

copy Soekarno’s ideology and appearance cannot one hundred percent similar.

There are several limits that differ how they act or how their look.

Those limits are related to the keyword of mimicry derived from Bhabha

which is “same but not quite”. The writer believes that this mimicry’s

phenomenon in the political field is academically interesting. Therefore, the writer

decides to choose a political situation in Soviet which is shown in novel entitled

Animal Farm to become the main source. By rereading Animal Farm using post-

colonial theory especially Bhabha’s theory of mimicry, this thesis analyze the act

of mimicry and done by the pigs character in the Novel. This situation is actually

predicted by Said according to his reading on Joseph Conrad. Said states that

Conrad actually Several characters in the novel represent someone in the real

situation, for instance, Napoleon represents Stalin and Snowball represents Leon

Trotsky. Animal Farm is one of novel which is written by George Orwell.

George Orwell is one prominent figure who writes many books and stories

that become canonical works. Orwell is famous for his anti-imperialism point of

view that he projects into his works. Beside Animal Farm that contains ideology

about Orwell’s perception of colonialism in Soviet, one of his works entitled


5

“Shooting an Elephant” also embodies Orwell’s concept of colonialism in the

South-East Asia which is in Burma. This essay shows the background of Anglo-

Burmese colonialism and the intense hatred of Orwell about the imperialist

system in particular7. “Shooting an Elephant” tells the reader about the police

officer that has job taming a wild elephant that is going rampage in one village in

Burma. He becomes the symbol of repression because of his job as officer battles

his inner self to kill an elephant that is calm when he arrives in the village.

Although in the end, he is just wounding the elephant but unable to kill it, the

village’s people finish the elephant by strip it nearly to the bone.

In “Shooting an Elephant”, Orwell emphasizes the inferiority versus

superiority in this story. Although the police officer is the conqueror side, he is

hated by the conquered ones which are the village’s people. Orwell sees that

Asians which are represented by Burmese people are feeling inferior in front of

European people. The hostility of British Empire’s invasion of Burma leaves a

bad impression in Orwell’s mind and that hatred become the basic in writing the

“Shooting an Elephant” because it tells the reader how the imperialist can destroy

both the conqueror and conquered. In spite of that, it lacks the mimicry process as

well as the internal colonization that are emphasized more by Animal Farm. That

is why the writer does not choose “Shooting an Elephant” and choose Animal

Farm instead.

Although Orwell has many canonical works that are accepted by

academical world, there are groups that argue whether Orwell’s point of view is

7 Adriaan De Lange, Autobiography: An Analysis of Shooting an Elephant in Harold Bloom,

Bloom's Modern Critical Views: George Orwell, (New York: Chelsea Huse Publishers, 2007) 9.


6

suitable to be researched because of his intense hatred that makes his writings

become biased as well as an imbalanced. In spite of that, there are also people that

support Orwell’s and show enthusiasm for his style of writing. Anthony

Shuttleworth in his essay entitled The Real George Orwell: Dis-simulation in

Homage to Catalonia and Coming Up for Air argues that Orwell brings a

substantial literary intelligence to bear on the obsessions of the decade such as

poverty, social injustice, imperialism, fascism, while at the same time seeks to

develop an inclusive attention to the details which characterized his era.8 On the

other hand, the view that is brought by Orwell is affected by his origin as British

person, or in other word, he applies western view in writing Animal Farm. This

phenomenon is stated by Said when he writes about Joseph Conrad.

All Conrad can see is a world totally domihated by the A tlantic West, inwhich every opposition to the West only confirms the West's wickedpower. What Conrad cannot see is an alternative to this cruel tautology. Hecould neither understand that India, Africa, and South America also hadlives and cultures with integrities not totally controlled by the gringoimperialists and reformers of this world, nor allow himself to believe thatanti-imperialist...9

Based on the statement above, Orwell might be biased when he thinks that what

happens in the Russian is called colonization. What he misses may be the fact that

at the time of Tzar Nicholas’ regime, the political system in Russia is totalitarian

which becomes what Said states as lives and cultures with integrities.

8 Antony Shuttleworth, The Real George Orwell: Dis-simulation in Homafe to Catalonia and

Coming Up for Air in Harold Bloom. Bloom's Modern Critical Views: George Orwell, (New

York: Chelsea Huse Publishers, 2007) 97.9 Edward Said. Culture and Imperialism (New York: Knopf Doubleday, 1993) xviii.


7

Shuttleworth mentions that Orwell is a person or writer that is well-suited

becomes a mirror of the writer in his era. Orwell implements several problems of

his era into the writings so the person who reads them can see how the world is at

that time. Different from Shuttleworth, Patricia Rae has an opposite point of view

toward George Orwell and his works. She states that Orwell’s perception of the

analogy between British worker and colonial subject in some of his works was far

from the original one. That analogy is based only on Orwell’s hatred of

imperialism that does not reveal the truth. According to the writer’s opinion,

Orwell’s hatred toward imperialism shows how he regards humanity highly. He

hates any form of slavery and cruelty from human to human and he projects those

ideal to several of his works. His works still become a canon that pictures the

situation of the era where he lives. Animal Farm, for instance, shows the picture

of Russian Revolution event behind a fable story.

Animal Farm is one of canonical work which is written by George Orwell

and first published in England in 1945. Orwell says that Animal Farm is a

reflection which leads up to the Soviet Rebellion in 1917. Furthermore, Orwell

also states that this novel also depicts Soviet’s, or at that time was called the

Soviet Union, social life at Stalin era10. Orwell wrote Animal Farm as a protest or

critic of Stalin’s hostile dictatorship which he considered as brutal. Animal Farm

is considered as children’s bedtime story because it uses animals as major

characters. The animals there can speak, so it is one of the fable stories. In spite of

that, Animal Farm is not suitable for kids. It contains many elements that are very

10 "BBC - GCSE English Literature - 'AF' - historical context (pt 1/3)". bbc.co.uk.


8

heavily constructed by Orwell and they are not suitable for kids. For instance,

there are many bad aspects that can give bad influence to kid. The bad people win

in the end. The main protagonist, Napoleon, justifies all kinds of way to get all

that he wants. In the writer perspective, the story that has that element is not

suitable to be read to children before they go to sleep. Furthermore, Animal Farm

also has deeper meaning by mentioning that this novel is an allegory. This novel

is not as simple as it seems; a story book with animals as most characters. On the

other hand, this novel becomes a mirror how Orwell sees Russian Revolution so it

has several aspects that kids will not understand.

The story starts when Old Major, an old boar which is one of Manor Farm

cattle calls other animals for a meeting and tells them that human are parasites.

After spreading its belief, the boar is dying and there are two little pigs which will

become the prominent actors in the Rebellion. The Rebellion is targeted to the

owner of Manor Farm. All of the cattle in Manor Farm think that Mr. Jones as the

owner of Manor Farm is irresponsible. Furthermore, because of farmer’s habit

which makes him a heavy drunkard, he never takes care of all animals on his farm

and only works them till they are dead. After the revolt, they successfully take

over the farm and change its name to Animal Farm. Also, they adopt the new

principle which they call Seven Commandment of Animalism. The most

important phrase in that commandment is “All animals are equal”.11

Actually, there are two stages of colonialism in Manor Farm which is later

changed its name to Animal Farm. For the first stage, the colonizer is Mr. Jones as

11 George Orwell, Animal Farm, (England: Penguin Books, 1979), 4; All subsequent references to

this work abbreviated AF, will be used in this thesis without pagination only.


9

the farmer and also the owner of Manor Farm and the colonized is all of animals

or cattle which Mr. Jones owned. The second stage happens when pigs change the

commandment from “All animals are equal” into “All animals are equal but some

animals are more equal than others”(AF, 52). Pigs start to act high and mighty so

they even start to resemble human. They start to walk with their two back feet and

even they wear clothes. Furthermore, they bring whips to send other animals in

the farm into a slavery hole. From this stage, pigs start to act as the colonizer and

other animals play their role as the colonized.

One of the famous characters in the novel is Napoleon. This character is

pictured as a large, rather fierce-looking Berkshire boar, the only Berkshire on the

farm, not much of a talker, but with a reputation for getting his own way (AF, 15).

Napoleon is the main protagonist of the story although it can be seen as a villain.

Napoleon here is an allegory of Joseph Stalin. Napoleon’s governing era in the

Farm depicts how communism works in the Soviet Union.

As an allegory, Animal Farm can be seen as the mirror of the society

especially at Soviet Rebellion and Stalin era. Thus, the writer wants to find the

process of mimicry found especially in Napoleon as the main character of the

novel. Furthermore, by finding the mimicry and make a link to the concept of

allegory applied in the novel, the writer believes that this mimicry found in

Napoleon’s experience can reveal the greater form of mimicry found in Stalin’s

governing time.

The main reason for choosing the Animal Farm as the source of research is

the fact that the novel is a canon which is considered as world literature. Despite


10

that, the writer has not found any researcher or scholar who uses postcolonial

reading on this novel yet. Most of them are researching Animal Farm either for its

allegory, the concept of satyr utopia which is applied by George Orwell, or the

character representation studies. The other reason is how Animal Farm is related

to the condition in real life especially in the political era of Soviet Union in 1917

and also in Stalin’s era. This fact of allegory or character representation which

embodies in the novel can make the research easier to answer the greater mimicry

which represented by Napoleon’s mimicry.

The aim of this thesis is to find out the process of mimicry experienced by

Napoleon in the novel written by George Orwell entitled Animal Farm.

Furthermore, this thesis will try to reveal that mimicry can be not only a response

of colonization but also can response in another form of colonization which is, in

this case, internal colonization. The mimicry shown by Napoleon and his

comrades can be seen as the contribution of George Orwell to the Post-Colonial

studies. To explore mimicry’s application in Animal Farm and also find limits of

mimicry shown by a particular character, several questions are formulated as

follows:

a. How is mimicry done as a resistance to the human domination?

b. How does mimicry as a means of resistance switch its purpose to

internal colonization?

2. Significance of the Study

There are many researchers who explored Animal Farm as their main data.

In spite of that, there is not any research or thesis that is conducted which explores


11

the implementation of Bhabha’s mimicry in Animal Farm and also its correlation

with internal colonization which appear in the novel. This thesis hopefully will be

able to enrich and contribute to all academic discussions of literature especially in

the literature which takes Russian Rebellion as its theme, just like Orwell’s.

Furthermore, this thesis can also increase our knowledge about Russian

Revolution at Stalin’s era and its relationship with one particular novel entitled

Animal Farm and the role of mimicry in the development of internal colonization

both in the novel and Russian Revolution.

3. Scope of the Study

This study focuses on George Orwell’s novel entitled Animal Farm. The

analysis of the study focuses on the mimicry process from the Napoleon.

Napoleon’s mimicry goes through some steps from becoming the colonized until

transforming into colonizer for its own people. The data is collected through

several interactions and dialogues in the novel between the protagonist with

another character. Animal Farm, the selected novel in this study pictures Soviet

political condition. This novel also reflects the concept of mimicry. Furthermore,

this study should reveal mimicry concept to the Soviet political condition.

4. Chapter Outline

This study is thematically divided into five chapters to make the

discussion easier. Chapter One is the introduction. This chapter will discuss the

background of the study, research questions, an also urgency of the study.


12

Furthermore, this chapter will present research method and also the planning of

the chapter outline.

Chapter Two consists of literature review and overview of mimicry also its

connection with the concept of internal colonization. In the literature review, the

writer will discuss several related studies that have been conducted by researchers

that have a similar literary base. In the overview, the theoretical framework will

discuss the theory of mimicry and internal colonization thoroughly.

In the Chapters Three and Four, the writer discusses the answers to the

research questions. Each answer will have one chapter of discussion. Thus, the

Chapter Three will discuss the mimicry which is reflected in attitudes and acts

from Napoleon seen from the dialogues and interactions with other characters and

how they are related to the Soviet political condition at the specific time. This

chapter also will discuss the effect of mimicry in the society where the protagonist

lives.

Chapter Four discusses the implementation of Napoleon’s mimicry in

form of internal colonization also its impact on the society in the novel. This

chapter will focus on the how mimicry can create another form of colonization

which is internal colonization and how those two phenomena can overlap and

affect each other. Furthermore, this chapter will reveal the peak of mimicry

process that happens in the novel and how this event can affect all the characters

on the farm where they live.


13

The last chapter will conclude the work by presenting the implications and

findings of the study. There are also suggestions that are hopefully can be used to

conduct some researches in the future which have a similar topic with this thesis.


CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

In the first chapter, the writer elaborates the concept of mimicry and how it

is connected to the internal colonization. This thesis explores those two concepts

through postcolonial criticism. This section is the continuation of the first chapter

where the writer will discuss two main ideas. The first is review of related studies

where several articles have of researchers Animal Farm. Furthermore, the writer

will find similarities and differences between the works which are reviewed and

the current research which is conducted by the writer. On the second part, the

writer will find theories and methods of both mimicry and internal colonization.

This thesis uses those theories to elaborate how mimicry can lead to internal

colonization.

1. Review of Related Studies

This section elaborates several articles that have analyzed Animal Farm

using either several criticisms, mainly Marxism and postcolonial. The first is

Donald E. Morse that writes an article entitled “A Blatancy of Untruth: George

Orwell's Uses of the Fantastic in Animal Farm". Morse focuses on the textual

aspects such as plot and metamorphosis of character. So, he only does formalist

reading on the text itself. In his journal, Morse mentions the plot which Animal

Farm uses which resembles the oral tales composition proposed by Apuleius.12

12 Donald E. Morse, ""A Blatancy of Untruth": George Orwell's Uses of the Fantastic in "Animal

Farm"." Hungarian Journal of English and American Studies 1 (1995) 86.


15

The story always starts with a victim (animal) does something rash and

foolish, in this case rashly surrender power to the pigs who transformed into

tyrants and the truth is blatancy revealed through ordinary accident. Animals in

Animal Farm realize that they are being thrown into slavery when they see pigs

and neighboring farmers play cards. Furthermore, this research focuses more on

the metamorphosis of characters in the Animal Farm, from slave becomes a

colonizer. The writer hopes that through the reading of Animal Farm through

postcolonial reading can uncover more about Napoleon and other pigs’ change.

Also, the research can draw a line and describe both similarities and differences

between metamorphosis proposed by Morse and mimicry by Bhabha.

Different from Donald E. Morse who focuses on the metamorphosis

process in the characterization, V.C. Letemendia focuses more on the social

movement which is depicted in the novel. Her journal is entitled “Rebellion on

“Animal Farm: Orwell’s Neglected Commentary” and it applies Marxist reading.

The article is a representation of proletariat movement which has been canalized

and betrayed by people at the top or the totalitarian.

Letemendia is also trying to draw and reveal Orwell’s consistent belief and

its connection with the novel. One thing that is important is Letemendia’s

argument which portrayed the situation of Soviet Union communism in the

political era. The one thing that never arrives there is equality. The mass of the

people never gets the chance to bring their innate decency into the control of

affairs, so that one is almost driven to the cynical thought that men are only decent


16

when they are powerless13. It means that although Stalin promises them equality,

he becomes a different person when he gets the power. Stalin becomes “indecent”

because of his power and does a tyranny to the country. This statement supports

one of the writer’s hypotheses that both Tzar Nicholas feudal and Stalin

communist belief have similarities. The base similarity is that both Tzar Nicholas

and Stalin adopt a feudal governing system which is hierarchical although

hierarchy system is far different from communism belief which states that “all is

equal”.

Similarly with Letemendia, Paul Kirschner also applies Marxist reading.

He focuses more on the function of the novel aside from its main purpose as

entertainment book. In his essay, “The Dual Purpose of Animal Farm“, Kirschner

argues that Animal Farm has hidden agenda which is as propaganda media. This

novel is seen as a mirror of Orwell point of view toward Soviet’s Rebellion.

English communists even thought Animal Farm as anti-Soviet propaganda

media14. This research is trying to deliberately show the fusion of both political

and artistic purposes into one whole inside Animal Farm.

Kirschner also implies that Orwell’s artistic aim inside Animal Farm was

seen as giving England people a remedy for what their country was lacked. He

mentions that England needs ‘a literature of disillusionment about the Soviet

Union’. Orwell critizes Soviet’s failure to achieve what English Conservatives

13 V. C. Letemendia, "Rebellion on AF: Orwell's Neglected Commentary." Journal of Modern

Literature 18 (1992) 127.14 Paul Kirschner, "The Dual Purpose of "Animal Farm"." The Review of English Studies

55.November 2004 (2004) 759.


17

vehemently dislikes which is social equality. Kirschner gives a lot of attention to

one of Animal Farm’s character which is the Major. He becomes the symbol of

totalitarian as it mentions about the life of an animal as miserable, laborious and

short which refer to Hobbes’ famous verdict about human life which is solitary,

poor, nasty, brutish, and short15.

Kirschner’s essay strengthens the writer’s argument about the use of

allegory as the main concept of Animal Farm which is brought by George Orwell

as the symbol of Soviet’s Rebellion condition. Although the main target of

research is different because Kirschner chose Major as the research target while

the writer uses Napoleon, this essay is useful to increase writer’s knowledge about

how for example the Major in Animal Farm resembles Marx and Saint-Simon

from of its policies and attitude toward the human.

Different from other scholars, the last researchers that are discussed

employ postcolonial reading. Anulal S. and Dhanya Khrisna write an article with

“Mimicry, Reversals without Differences, and Satire in Animal Farm” as a title.

This article has a similar main object as this thesis which is George Orwell’s

Animal Farm. Furthermore, it also uses Homi Bhabha concept of mimicry to

reread the novel.16 Anulal and Dhanya firstly focus on the Socialism concept

which is brought by Orwell to the novel. This Socialism is brought by the pigs

which model the government and social structure in the farm based on human

society. The one concept that digs those two researchers is the concept of

15 Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Chicago, 1952, I. XIII 85.16 Anulal. S. Krishna and Dhanya, "Mimicry, Reversals without Differences, and Satire in AF."

The Criterion: An International Journal in Eglish 6.V (2015) 193.


18

Bhabhanian ‘interdictory space’. There are two places which can be inputted as

interdictory space in the novel. The first is the subtle dissimilarity between human

and animal. The second one is the alteration of seven commandments of

Animalism.

According to Bhabha, the interdictory space or the site of interdiction is a

crossroad of what is known and permissible and that which though known must

be kept concealed.17 The reading of Animal Farm by Anulal and Dhanya asserts

that interdictory space can be found in how Napoleon mimics human. Napoleon

creates a parallel narrative that subverts the concept of justice and inequality.18

The colonized, in spite of his way to show his mimics to the other, there is

something that should be kept concealed, still possesses the desire to hide or

conceal their feeling of being inferior and does not consider themselves as a

complete presence of the colonizer.

This research by Anulal Khrisna and Dhanya is very helpful for this thesis

becaus it has a similar motive in which revealing the implementation of mimicry

concept inside Animal Farm. In spite of that, the research does not include the

impact of mimicry on the society of the colonized. Thus, this thesis will conceal

the after effect of mimicry toward the animals as the colonized in the Animal

Farm which is first the segregation between the internal colonization.

Almost all of the previous studies which are presented give more attention

to the symbols, allegory, and social studies which are depicted in the George

17 Homi K. Bhabha, Location of Culture (New York: Routledge, 1994) 89.18 Anulal. S. Krishna and Dhanya, "Mimicry, Reversals without Differences, and Satire in Animal

Farm” 193.


19

Orwell’s Animal Farm. George Orwell is seen as a social novelist who takes

Soviet Rebellion into his main theme of Animal Farm in spite of shallow looked

surface of the novel which only gives child literature expression in fable form. In

this thesis’ perspective, several studies reviewed above still give few attentions

towards the issue of colonialism and mimicry in Animal Farm. On the contrary,

this thesis proposes that the act of mimicry in Animal Farm by Napoleon and

Snowball actually reflects real life situation in the Soviet Union. Furthermore,

their mimicry leads to the continuation of colonialism in the form of internal

colonialism.

2. Review of Related Theories

This section elaborates more on the theoretical concepts as the main

framework of the analysis. To answer the research questions regarding the

correlation between mimicry and internal colonialism, the main theoretical

framework is post colonialism. Post-colonial cultures are the historical

phenomena of colonialism, with its range of material practices and effects, such as

transportation, slavery, displacement, emigration, and racial and cultural

discrimination 19 Postcolonial reading on literary works mainly explores the

profound and inescapable effects of colonization on literary production and also

how the text contradicts its underlying assumptions and reveals its colonialist

ideologies and processes.20

19 Bill Ashcrift, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin. The Post-Colonial: Studies Reader (London:

Routledge, 1995) 7.20 Bill Ashcrift, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin. The Post-Colonial: Studies Reader. 173.


20

Postcolonial theory is used because it deals with human’s connections

either as a singular human being or as groups. Those connections can cover all

aspects of human’s life such as political, economic, psychological, and other

aspects. Furthermore, critical reading on human’s contact and interaction with

others can reveal the unequal relationship which favors one particular ethnicity.

Animal Farm is written by George Orwell to picture the condition of

political polemics in Russia. In the novel, the fragmentation of colonizer and

colonized is pictured clear and neat. The role of colonizer and colonizer is

separated by a thick boundary. On the other hand, most of the previous studies

which give attention to Animal Farm are focused on how that novel becomes the

symbol or allegory of political condition at Russian Rebellion. Their study tends

to give more attention to how each character inside the novel depicts the real

person or character in the Rebellion.

In this postcolonial study, Animal Farm is read as postcolonial literature

under the consideration that the novel represents the life of colonized party which

evolves to the colonizer one and how the connection between the allegory and

mimicry by a particular character in the novel. As Boehmer states that

postcolonial literature is generally defined as a literature which critically or

subversively scrutinizes the colonial relation between colonizer and colonized21.

Bhabha’s theory of mimicry is very helpful to determine the position of each

colonized and colonizer. Furthermore, the theory is also used to research the

implication of mimicry as well as the connection with the acts themselves.

21 Elleke Boehmer. Colonial & Postcolonial Literature (New York: Oxford University Press,

2005) 4 .


21

As a representation of reality, the problematic and hierarchical

relationship is also reflected in Animal Farm. There are two key postcolonial

concepts that illustrate the action of the pigs, Napoleon and Snowball particularly.

The first terminology is mimicry, as defined by Bhabha, this concept illustrates

how in the story, Napoleon and Snowball mimic human’s thoughts, behavior,

ideology, and political structure in order to defeat the human. Yet after the

human’s domination ends, colonialism still occurs; interestingly it is the pigs who

continue the oppression. This thesis argues that there exists a correlation between

mimicry and internal colonialism (colonialism within a country itself). These

aforementioned concepts are the main theories used.

2.1. Mimicry

The aim of this subtitle is to explain the definition of mimicry in relation

to the study of criticism especially in postcolonialism study as well as the mimicry

theory which is explained by Homi K. Bhabha’s book entitled “The Location of

Culture”. In postcolonial theory’s field, Bhabha is considered as one of the

prominent figures in the postcolonial study because he has contributions to the

development of this theory. One of Bhabha’s well-known theories is the theory of

mimicry. The focus of Bhabha’s study is the ambivalence of the colonial

discourse. Bhabha describes the term ambivalence as a kind of indecidability, or

in Saidian term vacillation, indecision in speech or action.22 Ambivalence is an act

that happens both in colonizer and colonized’s speech or action when they are

22 Wendy Brown, States of Injury: Power and Freedom in Late Modernity (New Jersey: Princeton

University Press, 1995) p. 52.


22

exposed to different kind of cultures. In colonizers side, they face different culture

from the colonizer and vice versa.

In postcolonial studies, the concept of mimicry is explained in Bhabha’s

book entitled Location of Culture. Bhabha argues that mimicry is a colonized way

to mimic the colonizer, either it is from their culture, way to dress, or everything

which is owned by the colonized that they have naturally. In one of Bhabha’s

book which is in the chapter Of Mimicry and a Man: the Ambivalence of Colonial

Discourse, he starts this chapter from famous theorists. One of them is Jacque

Lacan that is famous for his Psychoanalysis theory. Bhabha quoted Lacan’s

concept of mimicry because he is indebted to Lacan with the term camouflage. In

one of his statement, he mentions about colonial ambivalence as the main trigger

for mimicry in post-colonial discourse.

Mimicry reveals something in so far as it is distinct from what might becalled itself that is behind. The effect of mimicry is camouflage . . . . It isnot a question of harmonizing with the background, but against a mottledbackground, of becoming mottled – exactly like the technique ofcamouflage practiced in human warfare23.

Mimicry does not simply copy the colonizer’s culture. It also does not merely

harmonize both cultures of colonized’s and colonizer’s. Sometimes it is used as a

tool of war. A strategy of the colonized to win the war sometimes needs the help

from the colonizer. In another word, they try to absorb the colonizer’s culture. In

spite of that, the colonized is not blending both of them. They just copy the

culture with other agenda which is to mock the colonizer. They prove that they

also can do what colonizer can do. For example, a human who lives in Indonesia

23 Homi K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture, 85.


23

who was ever colonized by Netherland is trying hard to dress as well as speak like

Netherland person. That is what Bhabha means as mottled background, a white

spot on a black background.

At first, mimicry seems very appealing to the colonizer who promotes all

of culture and appearance to the colonized because they think that by mimicking

them, they have a superior level more than the mimicker which is the natives. On

the contrary, Bhabha argues:

Mimicry is the desire for a reformed recognizable Other, as a subject of adifference that is almost the same, but not quite […] Mimicry also posesan imminent threat to both ‘normalized’ knowledge and disciplinarypowers.24

According to Bhabha, one of the reasons why someone does mimicry is to be

recognized both to his alliance and also the colonizer. For the colonized, the

human will be well known for his achievement in copying the culture of the

colonizer, so he is considered as a high-leveled human in that area. On the other

hand, for the colonizer, he can be considered as allies or someone at their level for

the act of mimicking their culture. He can be called recognized Other. Other here

means non-colonizer people. So the person who is doing mimicry is recognized as

different by both colonizers and colonized. He can be a threat for both of them.

For the colonized, he can act like colonizer and oppress them as one who adopts

colonizer’s way of thinking. As for the colonizer, he can be considered a threat to

them because he gains their knowledge and someday it can be used to fight them

in similar strength.

24 Homi K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture, 86.


24

Bhabha argues that the effect of mimicry is somehow disturbing for the

authority of colonial discourse. It means that although it has good sides to the

colonizer, as a coin, it also possesses a threat to them. The mimicking, in spite of

its praiseworthy characteristic for the colonizer, also contains a mockery and also

a certain menace. In spite of holding the mirror of power by the colonizer, it also

has limitations of authority as well as the weakness inside colonizer body.

Mimicry threatens the authority because the colonized alienates its own language

and creating a new kind of language or knowledge. This phenomenon is the

reflection of Bhabha’s statement almost the same but not quite. Mimicry is

threatening the colonizer mission to civilizing the target culture itself. It happens

because mimicry creates a double standard or in Bhabha’s term “the forked

tongue”. The characterization of mimicry is shown by the double articulation and

indeterminacy of the colonized. One related colonial discourse is the concept of

self and Other. In his book, Bhabha states that mimicry is considered as Other

because power is reflected in Other.

One of Bhabha’s famous phrases about mimicry is same but not quite. It

relates to how the colonized effort to copy or to mimic the colonizer has a limit.

They might copy what the entire original have such as their appearance, their

look, their way of thinking, or anything else. But in the end, they are not original.

The colonized forever will be the colonized regardless all of their attempts to copy

the original one. For example, African people who in the past were colonized by

European countries are trying to mimic European person’s appearances. They dye

their hair blonde, wear black sunglasses, or whiten their skin as white as possible.


25

It is same but not quite. They have their appearance similar to European, but, they

will still be treated as African or the colonized. They will not be treated as the

colonizer ever.

Bhabha states that actually mimicry is either conscious or unconscious

habit or act that shows that colonized person has the desire to be recognized both

by the colonized and colonizer as the different Other. In spite of that, they also do

not want to discard their own culture. So, the mimic cannot make the colonized

person completely similar to the colonizer’s appearance. That is why Bhabha uses

term almost the same, but not quite which is very famous for the study of

postcolonial, especially mimicry. Furthermore, the study of mimicry revolves

around the differences in the similarity that is done by the colonized. Those

differences are called ambivalence. To be effective, the ambivalence must show

its existence in each of the mimic action. As Bhabha mentions:

If I may adapt Samuel Weber’s formulation of the marginalizing vision ofcastration, then colonial mimicry is the desire for a reformed, recognizableOther, as a subject of a difference that is almost the same, but not quite,which is to say, that the discourse of mimicry is constructed around anambivalence; in order to be effective, mimicry must continually produceits slippage, its excess, its difference.25

According to Bhabha, the main purpose of colonizer which is to civilize

the colonized people is being disrupted by their own texts. Mimicry, in spite of its

elusive and effective way to promote the culture of the colonizer, is also

problematic.26 As the center of colonial discourse, mimicry is expected to make

the colonized looks identical to the colonizer. The perfect equivalence which is

25 Homi K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture, 86.26 Homi K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture, 89.


26

depicted by Bhabha as same and the mark of the colonial rule may fail at one

point and the colonizer belief about how mimicry can make the position of

colonizer highlighted will be crumbled. Bhabha then proposes the term

ambivalence. 27 Ambivalence here means ‘a movement between fixity of

signification and its division which demonstrates that colonial authority is never

total or complete. Furthermore, the vacant space between those movements is a

chance that allows the intervention of native. 28 Because of this new concept,

mimicry will not be seen as a beneficial aspect of both colonized and colonizer

again. The final response of mimicry will be formed in the shape of the spoiled

image of the colonizer.

Another issue is how mimicry continually produces as a partial presence

of the colonizer. The idea of Bhabha confronts the concept of authenticity. That

partial presence which is the basis of mimicry disturbs the difference of culture,

race, and historical difference between colonizers and colonized which menace

the narcissistic demand for colonial authority. 29 Huddart, on the other hand,

argues that mimicry is not merely a slavish imitation and the colonized is not

simply assimilated into the supposedly superior or dominant culture in which

owned by the colonizer.30 He explains that Bhabha’s concept of mimicry has a

definition like this, ‘an exaggerated copying of language, culture, manners, and

ideas’. The exaggeration concept here means that mimicry is some kind of

27 Homi K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture, 86.28 Jenny Sharpee, “Figures of Colonial Resistance” in Bill Ashcrift, Gareth Griffiths and Helen

Tiffin. The Post-Colonial: Studies Reader (London: Routledge, 1995) 97.29 Jenny Sharpee, “Figures of Colonial Resistance” 88.30 David Huddart, Homi K. Bhabha (London: Routledge, 2006) 86.


27

repetition that does not resemble the original, but have some differences. So, it is

clear that mimicry is not one of the symbols of colonized servitude, consciously or

not. In general, mimicry is seen as a response to the stereotypes circulation which

is brought to the colonized country by the colonizer.

The term mimicry which is derived by Bhabha actually has several

similarities with Aime Cesaire’s concept of assimilation. Both of them explain

how the collision between two different cultures occurs in the colonization. They

also state that inferiority complex is the starting point how mimicry and

assimilation happen. Bhabha states from Fanon’s idea that The Negro enslaved by

his inferiority, the white man enslaved by his superiority alike behave in

accordance with a neurotic orientation. 31 Cesaire also defines the start of

assimilation starts with similar complexity which embodied in colonized’s mind.

I am talking about millions of men in whom fear has been cunninglyinstilled, who have been taught to have an inferiority complex, to tremble,kneel, despair, and behave like flunkeys.32

In spite of that, Bhabha directly writes that he does not in similar opinion in one

aspect. Bhabha refuses the concept of thingification which is written by Cesaire.

According to him, colonizer does not merely refuse the colonized’s culture. That

is how Bhabha proposes the term presence Africaine. By example of African’s

colonization, Bhabha says that even colonizer is giving partial presence to the

colonized. On the other word, colonizer does not merely see colonization as a

31 Homi K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture, 43.32 Aime Cesaire. "Discourse on Colonialism." (Monthly Review Press , 1972) 7.


28

thing as mentioned by Cesaire. He argues that colonizer also does mimicry to the

colonized’s culture, in this case double directions of mimicry.

This thesis is strengthening the idea of mimicry by Huddart. Mimicry in

the novel Animal Farm does not show how animal services human as the colonial

subject. Mimicry shows that animals can resist human’s colonization. In fact, it is

animal’s weapon that they use to Revolt. The animals study human’s knowledge

to use it against them, although in the end, the mimicry is shown as the tool of

exploitation of their own friend. It becomes a tool of internal colonization.

2.2. Internal Colonization

The second theory that will be used in this thesis is the concept of internal

colonization. Historically, this concept was born from the traditional notion of

colonialism in which “with the disappearance of the direct domination of

foreigners over natives, the notion of domination and exploitation of natives by

natives emerged.”33 This theory which is brought by Norma Beatriz Chaloult and

Yves Chaloult explains that internal colonization always occurs after the

colonization by foreigners. Foreigners here do not always mean foreign country or

region. They can be people from the similar region but with the different point of

view or ideology. For instance, the colonization in the Soviet Union that is done

by Stalin does not started from the colonization of foreign country, but right after

Tsar Nicholas II regime in which he is the previous leader of that country.

33 Norma Beatriz Chaloult and Yves. "The Internal Colonialism Concept: Methodological

Considerations." (Social and Economic Studies 28.4, 1979) 85.


29

Although the term internal colonization is not a new term, Calvert on his

thesis explains that in academic circle, this theory has never been clearly given

definition. As a response, he proposes four possible definitions of internal

colonization. Below are definitions which Calvert’s proposes as the meaning of

internal colonization:

1. The first definition is inspired by Lenin in 1986. It refers to the

physical conquest within and not across the boundaries of the political

region. In this case, Lenin describes the creation of Tsarist autocracy

which was done by the force of the Russian empire as an internal and

personal market. This internal market was centered politically in St.

Petersburg and also Moscow.

2. The second one is the depiction of internal colonization that refers to

the dominance of one race over another. This definition is

contextualized by Adolf Hitler. In his golden era, Hitler declared

Lebensraum or Living Space. Calvert argues that in this case, German

people below Hitler’s governance was creating external empire inside

their own country by establishing their power or dominance over the

neighboring lands especially in the area of Eastern Europe. This policy

of colonization usually targets ‘unoccupied’ lands within the territory

of their own country. Although it is being masked by some sort of

‘development’ program, it also has been termed as internal

colonization since the main objective is the subjection of minorities

which has been done by dominant culture. This definition is also


30

supported by Charles V. Hamilton and Stokely Carmichael by

describing the situation in particular countries in Africa which mostly

affected by minorities’ subjection especially in Rwanda and Burundi

as the implementation of internal colonization.

3. Internal colonization can refer to set of meanings which are derived

from dependency thesis, also describes the way of within single set

inside both political institutions and unitary market, some limits can be

subjected by the most dominant core to the more inferior economic

status of personal or groups. Calvert states that global market makes a

distinguished line between economy power in global north and global

south. So the economical growth in the global south, especially third

world countries depends on the global market which is dominated by

global north. Global south becomes inferior if it is seen from

economical aspect. So, the countries in global south are more likely to

be colonized within one circle of global market with economical

motive.

4. The last definition occurs in response to events which happen in the

United States. Calvert defines the internal colonization as a process in

which some parts of the United States are still in effect of being

colonized by their own elites which rule over inferior classes. The


31

motives of the colonization are both political and economical aspects

since both of them are irreplaceable.34

From those definitions, one of the differences in the place of that internal

colonizations occurs. Besides, there is the motive of the colonization. The motives

can be political or economical. The one that makes that compilation of definitions

different is the third one which is more general and unclear. The third point states

that the definition of internal colonization can be different from one research to

another. In spite of that from those four points by Calvert, it can be said that

internal colonization is the colonization that happens in one region or even one

group which is caused by racial, political, and/or economic conflict.

Beside those complex yet indefinite definitions of internal colonization,

this term also creates various arguments about its scope. There are two different

arguments that make the definition of this internal colonization is debatable. The

first argument is stated by S.W. Williams. She says that internal colonization

always takes place within a country’s constitutes to show the expansion of the

peripheral or core in economic section. However, that expansion’s processes do

not serve as an effect of inevitable price on the progress of economic but as an

internal colonization socially35.

Different from S.W. Williams, C.W. Mitchell states that William’s

arguments reveal their weaknesses because the progress of the expansion will

34 Peter Calvert. "Internal Colonisation, Development and Environment." Third World Quarterly

22.February 2001 (2001) 63.35 Williams, C.W. Mitchell and Stephen Wyn. "Internal Colonialism." Area 10 (1978) 125.


32

cause inter-group grievance that will continue to the same inter-group hostility. It

means that the limit of internal colonization that is presented by William is always

a single country. C.W. Mitchell argues that even his family can be a subject and

object of internal colonization. He gives an example of job sharing between

parents and their children in the family –gardening and washing - is a form of

small internal colonization since most of the family asks the children to do the

most of the household chores, although the children do not want to. Therefore,

Mitchell argues that internal colonization does not cover only a big scale such as

country.

Colonization also manifests on a small scale, for instance in the family.

From that argument, it can be concluded that colonialism does not only happen in

the interaction between two or more countries. Even there is a form of

colonization that happens on the much smaller scale, for example, family. The

definition of internal colonization, in spite of its vagueness, has one point. It

happens inside the circle which is covering one country.


CHAPTER III

MIMICRY AND RESISTANCE

This chapter focuses on analyzing how the process of mimicry occurs in

George Orwell’s Animal Farm. Bhabha’s concept of mimicry describes mimicry

as an act of continuation which is producing its slippage, its excess, its difference

in order to maintain the ambivalence in order to be effective36. Moreover, Bhabha

states that the colonized in the mimicry process acts as a subject of a difference

that is almost the same but not quite. Taking cues from those concepts of mimicry,

this thesis examines processes, acts, and dialogues of animals in Manor Farm

which projects the mimicry of Napoleon and Snowball. Therefore, Bhabha’s

concept of mimicry will be helpful in finding those points stated above.

As Donald E. Morse states, Animal Farm is a book about the fantastic

convention of transformation from human to pig and also its reversible process

from pig to human.37Animal Farm has fable as its surface because it tells the

reader about animals which speak like human and has its qualities on them.

Furthermore, this novel is also seen as an allegory because each character

corresponds or mirrors personalities that exist in the real world. Especially at the

end of the novel, those pigs which represent human wear human attire and walk

36Homi K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture (New York: Routledge, 1994) 86.37Donald E. Morse "A Blatancy of Untruth": George Orwell's Uses of the Fantastic in "Animal

Farm"." Hungarian Journal of English and American Studies 1 (1995) 89.


34

on two legs so that the other animals cannot recognize them as pig anymore

because of the perfect transformation.

Animal Farms is an allegory in which events and characters that appear

there correspond and mirror the events of the Russian Rebellion. Orwell uses this

novel as an allegory to speak out his hatred toward the dictatorship, imperialism,

and global fascism, especially in Russia at that particular time38. Although most

studies have explored how Animal Farm is an allegory of the Russian Rebellion

and its aftermath, this thesis puts forward the issue of colonialism and

exploitation. The stance of this thesis is how the colonialism which occurs in

Russia is internal colonialism with the government is the colonizer through their

oppressive policy. Similarly with how colonization in Animal Farm eventually

caused by the pigs, both Russian Empire before the Rebellion and the Soviet

Union are both the colonizer of the Russian people.

3.1. Injustice by Man

Orwell’s Animal Farm shows that mimicry can be done by any kind of

colonization process, especially the interaction between the colonizer and the

colonized. The social order which is shown in the novel resembles or even mimics

an original system which refers to European Socialism. As an allegory to Russian

Revolution, the animals in the beginning which are colonized by human mirrors

how the colonized are exploited for the benefits of the colonizers. On the point of

38Kirschner, Paul. Dual Purpose of AF in Harold Bloom. Bloom's Modern Critical Views: George

Orwell (New York: Chelsea Huse Publishers, 2007) 31.


35

view of animals that live there, the owner of Manor Farm, Mr. Jones embodies a

dictatorships as well as the representative of the old order in which is parallel with

Czar Nicholas II. Interestingly, during a speech by Old Major, he reflects how the

situation in which animals are oppressed and exploited by human to be one-way

relationship which heavily favor the colonizer. Not only the physical attributes of

the animals such as plowing the soil by the cows or the use of horses for

transportation is exploited but also the produce such as eggs, milk, and wool. The

distribution of labor and wealth from the colony –Animal Farm- into the center or

civilization –Mr Jones’ houses- symbolizes colonial relationship.

The unjust colonization raises the ire of Old Major, the prominent early

leader of the revolution. This issues is particularly highlighted during his

inflammatory speech,

`Now, comrades, what is the nature of this life of ours? Let us face it: ourlives are miserable, laborious, and short. We are born, we are given just somuch food as will keep the breath in our bodies, and those of us who arecapable of it are forced to work to the last atom of our strength, and thevery instant that our usefulness has come to an end we are slaughteredwith hideous cruelty. No animal in England knows the meaning ofhappiness or leisure after he is a year old. No animal in England is free.The life of an animal is misery and slavery that is the plain truth. (AF, 2)

There are several interpretations from the aforementioned quotation. One of them

is how the animals have been treated badly by Mr. Jones as the owner of the farm.

Said states that colonial discourse can always show the unequal relationship

between the colonized and the colonizer, also the oppressed and the oppressing.39

39Geng Yang, Qixue Zhang and Qi Wang. "The Essence, Characteristics and Limitation of Post-

Colonialism: From Karl Marx's Point of View." Frontiers of Philosophy in China 1 (2006)

287.


36

Through the Old Major speech, Animal Farm reveals the inequality between

human and animal especially how the animals on the farm actually see Mr. Jones

as the colonizer. Old Major as the representative of the animal in the farm

considers that the owner’s treatment is far from what they call justified. The other

purpose of the speech is to ask the rest of animals on the farm to do a radical

movement to take the ownership of the farm from the human. It illustrates the

view that colonization can only be overthrown by the means of revolution.

Old Major is the first animal in the novel which is aware of human’s

injustice to the animals. As an allegory Animal Farm is similar to the condition of

Soviet Union in its Rebellion time. Old Major who gives the speech resembles

combination of the philosopher Karl Marx and the implementer of Rebellion,

Vladimir Lenin.40 On that speech, Old Major explains that the role of animals in

the Manor Farm is the colonized one by emphasizing the cruelty of the owner, Mr.

Jones and also the misery of the animals who live on the farm. According to Old

Major, the cruelty is shown in how Mr. Jones only gives those animals that he

exploits a bare minimum that is only enough to prevent them from starving while

the rest of the resources that animals produce will be kept for himself.

Furthermore, for the rest of animals which is unable to do their job, they will

receive crueler fate in which will end their life. For example, those animals will

end as a food for human, or they will be sold to the knackers or even drowned in

the pond by human.

40Robert W. Menchhofer, Animal Farm: The Teacher's Companion (Ohio: Millke Publishing

Company, 1990) 14.


37

Old Major’s speech and premonitions result in a positive feedback from all

of the animals in the Manor Farm. Most importantly, they begin to be aware of

their position in a colonial relationship. This awareness of the injustice of human

as the colonizer raises one big idea to fight back. Other important aspect to note is

the importance of education. As the majority of the animals are uneducated, hence

unaware of their exact situation, Old Major as the intellectual one, and eventually

Napoleon and Snowball are able to convey their idea of revolution towards the

other animals. Propagated by Old Major, the animals are planning a Rebellion

toward Mr. Jones. The word Rebellion which appears in the novel has capital ‘R’.

It shows that Rebellion which will be held by all animals in Animal Farm there

becomes the grand narrative, a thing that is considered sacred by the animals in

the Manor Farm in order to achieve their idea of equality or a utopia. To assert the

importance of Rebellion, Old Major states that it is important to use a capital letter

at the start of this word. He proclaims the sentence that becomes a symbol of

communism in the Manor Farm, ‘All men are enemies. All animals are

comrades’. Old Major says that all animals are comrades in arms. They have an

equal position in front of each other.

It is interesting to note that through his speech, Old Major asserts the

hierarchy system on the farm, in which human is considered superior to animal.

By this view, the animals keep on thinking that human’s position is always above

them. Interestingly, Orwell also employs a capital letter to start the word Man

only in every animal speech other than the word Rebellion.

“I have little more to say. I merely repeat, remember always your duty ofenmity towards Man and all his ways. Whatever goes upon two legs is an


38

enemy. Whatever goes on four legs, or has wings, is a friend. Andremember also that in fighting against Man, we must not come to resemblehim.” (AF, 4)

The preceding utterance illustrates how although the animals think badly about

every aspect of human and their cruelty, they still see human as a being that is

more superior. Old Major is unsure when the Rebellion will take place at Manor

Farm because he realizes the human strength and capability. It also thinks that the

Rebellion is still a dream when he utters the speech. Compared to how entrenched

and powerful the position of human, especially Mr. Jones in his farm, the animals

seem powerless with no mean to strike back at the colonizer.

The conception that humans are superior compared to animals lead to the

formulation of mimicry as an idea. The animals realize that every human’s

actions, appearances, and attitudes are way superior as a colonizer than what they

have as a colonized. Hence, one of Old Major’s reasons to encourage the animal

to fight the human is that he actually possesses an inferiority complex toward

humans, especially Mr. Jones as the owner of the Farm. This way of thinking is

not immediately accepted by the animals, as some of them do not think that they

are being colonized by humans. One of them is Mollie which still wants to wear

every accessory that Mr. Jones gives to him, for example, a ribbon in his mare.

The inferiority complex which is asserted by Old Major is further

strengthened by his hate of human. In the end of his speech, Old Major states that

every animal is prohibited to behave like human in every aspect. They cannot

adopt human vices and their acts, for example, they cannot live inside a house,

sleep in a bed wearing clothes, drink alcohol and smoke tobacco. Human’s acts


39

are also forbidden just like trading. Old Major argues that humans are evil so their

habits are also evil. Moreover, the dictatorship is forbidden among animals

because they think that dictatorship is human’s characteristic. Therefore from

those arguments, Old Major actually forbids every animal in the Farm to do

mimicry on human because they cannot act like a human at any aspects which to

say, mimicry is a line in which no animals should not cross.

Old Major’s conducts illustrate how the animals should avoid any acts of

mimicry and they must act like an animal. In spite of that, as briefly explored

before, the animals start to form a hierarchy system in their community’s body.

The beginning of a hierarchical society changes one dominant group (the humans)

into another (the pigs), as illustrated here:

“This was early in March. During the next three months, there was muchsecret activity. Major's speech had given to the more intelligent animals onthe farm a completely new outlook on life. They did not know when theRebellion predicted by Major would take place, they had no reason forthinking that it would be within their own lifetime, but they saw clearlythat it was their duty to prepare for it. The work of teaching and organizingthe others fell naturally upon the pigs, who were generally recognized asbeing the cleverest of the animals.” (AF, 6)

The passage above illustrates how true equality is only a utopia, in truth power

and education remain prevalent in forming a dominant position. Other animals

consider that the pigs are the cleverest animal in the Manor Farm so they left the

pigs with teaching and organizing other animals. The cleverest here means that

the pigs are animals that have the capability to think nearest to human level

compared to other animals. In turn, by teaching and organizing the animals, the

pigs are able to enlighten other animals in their way of live and perceiving the

world around them.


40

The reason so that the pigs are intelligent and wise is they secretly even

before the Revolution read many books and treaties of human from Mr. Jones’

library. In short, the pigs are the earliest animal to conduct mimicry, an act which

is explicitly forbidden by Old Major’s speech. Yet in the earliest form of mimicry,

it is considered as a necessity in order to overthrow the unjust colonial system. It

is only in the later formulation that mimicry is employed by Napoleon to justify

his ongoing oppression of other animals. This will be further explored in the next

section.

3.2. Mimicry as a Means of Resistance

As previously mentioned, pigs which are introduced in the early Chapter 2

have qualities that make them able to do mimicry compared to other animals on

the farm. They can be considered the figures that more resemble human than other

animals. Several important personages among the pigs are Napoleon, Snowball,

and Squealer; all are modeled from famous Bolshevik revolutionaries. Napoleon,

a large, rather fierce-looking Berkshire boar, is a representative of Joseph Stalin.

He is a symbol of new revolutionary order that resents the old and previous

political system and wants to change it. Snowball (Trotsky) at first helps

Napoleon (Joseph Stalin) in the Rebellion to roll over the dictatorship of the

government although, in the end, both of them become an opposition party to the

other because they have different perspective about politics and ideals. A small fat

pig, Squealer is the representative of official newspaper at the time of Soviet

Rebellion whose name is Pravda.41 Both of them spread Napoleon and Joseph

41Robert W. Menchhofer, Animal Farm: The Teacher's Companion, 17.


41

Stalin’s propaganda to all sides of Manor Farm and Soviet. Squealer influences

the whole Manor Farm animals with Napoleon’s way of thinking. Those animals

are the pioneer of mimicry in the Manor Farm as the leader of the Rebellion.

This thesis illustrates how mimicry at this stage is still regarded as a mean

of resistance toward the colonial regime. The Rebellion can happen because one

of the leaders of pigs, Snowball studies the art and conduct of war from Mr.

Jones’ house. In spite of his appearance as a pig, Snowball has human’s way of

thinking. He uses his brain’s capabilities which almost as perfect as human to

overthrow Mr. Jones’ leadership. He fights like human, not like an animal which

uses pure brute strength to defeat its enemies. Snowball can successfully get rid of

Mr. Jones with all of his knowledge from the books. He employs strategies, tricks,

and deceits. In short, Snowball uses human’s habit and act to win the battle with

human.

In line with what Lacan said in the opening of Bhabha’s notion about

mimicry, the effect of mimicry is camouflage, like human’s technique used in the

warfare42. Snowball camouflages himself with human’s knowledge to beat them.

Snowball proves that by doing mimicry, which is a study of human and reading

the book, he does not show the servitude of colonized side. Instead, he uses that

opportunity to learn about human and use it to destroy them. In the six months

after the speech by Old Major, the animals do the Rebellion which everyone

thinks that it is done much earlier and more easily than they expect. They can do

42Homi K. Bhabha, Location of Culture, 85.


42

the action because, at the time, Mr. Jones had fallen to the evil days since he

becomes a drunkard. Aside from that, some of his henchmen are dishonestly and

silently betray him by abandoning the farm. The farm is full of weeds and all of

the properties are nearly destroyed. Also, they do not feed the animals. The pigs

see this as a big chance to move the heart of all animals in the farm to the

Rebellion. In one day in June, Mr. Jones and four of his henchmen are driven out

from the farm by the mass of animals who want to own the farm by themselves.

So, the Rebellion ends with big success. The humans are running.

The success of the Rebellion to replace the old colonial system results in a

vacuum of power. The animals, led by the pigs begin to formulate a new model of

government. After the pigs drive human away from the farm, they reveal to

another animal that they learn to write and read before the Rebellion. The pigs

start to do mimicry long time before the Rebellion is held so they can write in

human language right after the Rebellion is successful, although it is not perfect.

They do that to emphasize their position as a perfect human on the farm. They feel

proud of changing the word Manor Farm to Animal Farm in the gate. It illustrates

how instead of creating their own animal language, the pigs continue to use

human language in the belief that human language is a sign of civilization and

knowledge. By employing human language, the pigs assert that they are the

closest animals which can mimics human culture in the form of language. It is

contrasted with how no other animals as the colonized can do what the human as

colonizer do. This situation illustrates what Huddart states that mimicry is also a


43

form of mockery.43 Mimicry here becomes mockery because pigs as ex-colonized

mocks human as their ex-colonizer by shows that they can do exactly what the

colonizer do, even better.

As explained before, the pigs capabilites as human-like is exemplified in

their creation of the Seven Commandment of Animalism. The irony of the Seven

Commandments of Animalism is the fact that they are written in the human

language.

It was very neatly written, and except that `friend' was written `freind'andone of the `S's' was the wrong way round, the spelling was correct allthe way through. Snowball read it aloud for the benefit of the others. Allthe animals nodded in complete agreement, and the cleverer ones at oncebegan to learn the Commandments by heart. (AF, 9)

This commandment illustrates one of the hypocrisies of the pigs. Although they

forbid the act of human by prohibit wearing a cloth and sleeping in a bed, they

study other human things, such as writing and reading even far before the

Rebellion occurs. According to Byrne, mimicry happens as a response to

stereotyping.44 Stereotyping human can be one of the causes of mimicry that

happens on the farm. From animal’s perspectives, especially pigs, human’s habits,

for instance writing and wearing clothes, are very tempting to be copied. This act

illustrates the mesmerizing power owned by the colonizer’s culture. As mentioned

by Said,

By declaring and writing commandment, the animals are actually

stereotyping human by the accessories and habits. Moreover, they are stereotyping

43 David Huddart. Homi K. Bhabha, (London: Routledge, 2006) 39.44Eleanor Byrne, Homi K. Bhabha (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009) 88.


44

human by the way they write as human is characterized by their shape of writing.

It means that by doing the stereotype of human, in this case writing a human’s

letter, the animals already violate the commandment. Actually, the act of

stereotyping subtly appears long before this one. Old Major in his speech was

stereotyping human as a creature that is cruel.

At this stage, the act of animals can be classified as an early point of

mimicry because the animals cannot perfectly copy human’s writing. They still

cannot write ‘friend’ and the shape of the letter ‘S’ is one way around. This

slippage is the example of early mimicry that is done by the pigs as the cleverest

animal in the farm. It reveals one of Bhabha concepts of theory about the

ambivalence of mimicry which states that the practice of mimicry is almost the

same, but not quite.45As previously stated, the animals are trying to mimic human

from how they write although they cannot perfectly be the same. Yet, this simple

and incomplete form of mimicry becomes the successful strategy that can make

Mr. Jones runs from the farm. Furthermore, this mimicry is a perfect strategy to

show that the pig is the most superior animal among all animals on the farm.

The manifestation of mimicry in the novel continues after the

implementation of several policies. All of the pigs, especially the three prominent

figures, Napoleon, Snowball, and Squealer, are planting the concept of ‘do not

copy human’ to the animals in the Manor Farm. While they start to forbid any

kind of mimicry, there are animals that still are happy wearing human accessories.

45Homi K. Bhabha, Location of Culture 86.


45

Molly, the cart horse and the rest of horses becomes the examples of how the pigs

apply their rules to other animals. Snowball takes offence towards this violation.

He takes away ribbons from their manes and burns them to a crisp. Snowball

considers that every ribbon is considered as human clothes and can be seen as a

mark of human being. He also states that all animals should go naked instead as a

form of rejection to human. Snowball also emphasizes the ribbons as a badge of

slavery.

These debates about wearing human attire can be seen as a slippage in the

mimicry which later is done by the pigs. Although unconsciously by adopting

human language and writing the pigs already done mimicry, there is still

uncertainty about mimicking human even further, in the form of clothing. This

conflict between the follower of mimicry and the side who oppose mimicry

continues to grow and splits the farm into two different parties. The further

explanation will be elaborated in the following section.

3.3. Conflict between Napoleon and Snowball

As mentioned, the reception of human’s knowledge is different from one

animal to other. On one hand, there are animals which accept the knowledge and

apply it in their daily life such as Snowball. There are also animals that strongly

refuse anything that smells human. Napoleon, as the most fierce-looking animal

there, leads them despite his change of mind later. Both of them are the most

influential animals even among the pigs themselves. They also hold Old Major’s

belief about equality and utopia tightly. Those two prominent figures become the

symbol of one important conflict that happens in the novel. Snowball who


46

practices mimicry receives two different sides: one that supports and the other one

denies him. The opposite party is led by Napoleon. This conflict reflects the early

impact of mimicry that separates the animals into two fractions. First is the side

that thinks that colonizer culture is more beneficial than theirs, so they decide to

embrace the culture and apply mimicry. The other one keeps their original culture

tightly and denies the colonizer’s culture. This conflict happens in the early part of

Animal Farm.

The line between mimicry and animal’s original self is clearly visible after

the Rebellion. After this event, the animal starts to change their culture to the

culture that helps them win the battle against Mr. Jones. In another word, the

animals have to act similarly to human as the success of their Rebellion is due to

human’s strategies, tactics, and perceptions. After the Rebellion, debates then

occur about the ongoing necessity of mimicry. The conflict between Napoleon

and Snowball can be read as their differing interpretation regarding the degree of

mimicry. They start to gather forces to hold a campaign and defeat the other side.

Right after the campaign, mimicry practices become farther from subtlety as the

mimicking acts by animals –pigs especially- more and more resemble human

instead of an animal.

Manor Farm is going through huge changes after the end of the human

regime lead by Mr. Jones. The overreaching changes are the penetration of human

culture, not only language but also customs and traditions in the animals’ daily

life. In the middle of such far-ranging upheaval in society, the concept of equality


47

begins to crumble. Started at chapter 3, the pigs actually do not work at all on the

farm, but they use their cleverness to supervise and direct other animals.

The pigs did not actually work but directed and supervised the others.With their superior knowledge, it was natural that they should assume theleadership. Boxer and Clover would harness themselves to the cutter or thehorse-rake (no bits or reins were needed in these days,) and tramp steadilyround and round the field with a pig walking behind and calling out `Geeup, comrade!' or `Whoa back, comrade!' as the case might be. And everyanimal down to the humblest worked at turning the hay and gathering it.(AF, 11)

It can be noted that the pigs start to act like the former master of Manor Farm, Mr.

Jones. They refuse to work directly but, instead, they order other animals to do

their works. In spite of that, they do what pigs say without any hesitation and do it

happily. This situation is far from what Old Major has predicted in the earlier

chapter when he states the equality of animals in Manor Farm. The other animals

besides pigs return to their previous life, a full day laboring. The difference is the

state of colonizer holder where the previous one is Mr. Jones while later taken by

the pigs as the leader of the animals there. As the other animals consider the pigs

as their fellow animals, they willingly do whatever the pigs ask them.

Although in truth the other animals are kept colonized though a different

agency, the animals in the Manor Farm feel a significant distinctness. They do not

feel pressured at all, or on the other word, they do not feel being colonized. That

happens because pigs inject the animal with Animalism belief, what they produce

is what they consume. The animals are happy as they had never conceived it

possible to be. Besides that, it is true that the amount of production that they have

is more than when Mr. Jones owned them. They have plenty of production

whether they are food or other harvest product to be allotted.


48

Through their position as the new leader of Manor Farm, the pigs begin to

implement many policies. These policies are actually an act of mimicry what the

humans have done previously, and it is done to encourage the other animals.

While at first both Napoleon and Snowball promote similar programs, the later

difference in opinion manifest in their contrasting policies regarding how far

mimicry should be conducted. It is narrated as:

The pigs had set aside the harness-room as a headquarters for themselves.Here, in the evenings, they studied blacksmithing, carpentering, and othernecessary arts from books which they had brought out of the farmhouse.Snowball also busied himself with organizing the other animals into whathe called Animal Committees. He was indefatigable at this. He formed theEgg Production Committee for the hens, the Clean Tails League for thecows, the Wild Comrades' Re-education Committee (the object of this wasto tame the rats and rabbits), the Whiter Wool Movement for the sheep,and various others, (AF, 11)

Pigs, as the cleverest animal make themselves busy with various human activities.

Furthermore, they learn those activities from books which are found in the Mr.

Jones house. As the cleverest animal, they become a role model to the other

animals that is considered an inferior one. Hence, the hierarchical situation of the

farm keeps occurring in which the pigs replace the humans as the superior race.

Moreover, the pigs become more and more obsessed with human knowledge.

They even decide to make some committees to watch over animal’s daily

productions, for example, Egg Production Committee to watch over the hens,

Clean Tails League for the cows, the Whiter Wool Movement for the sheep.

Those committees seem like an implementation of human governance. Pigs use

knowledge from books that they found in Mr. Jones house to apply

politicalsystems based on human world.


49

Moreover, mimicry also begins to be implemented to all other animals on

the Farm through human culture such as funeral. After the battle of retaliating in

which Mr. Jones tried to take his farm back from the grasp of his ex-owned

animal, the animals conduct some kind of funeral to commemorate their dying

comrade.

The animals had now reassembled in the wildest excitement, eachrecounting his own exploits in the battle at the top of his voice. Animpromptu celebration of the victory was held immediately. The flag wasrun up and Beasts of England was sung a number of times, then the Sheepwho had been killed was given a solemn funeral, a hawthorn bush beingplanted on her grave. At the graveside Snowball made a little speech,emphasizing the need for all animals to be ready to die for Animal Farm ifneed be. (AF, 17)

The animals are doing some kind of ceremony in which usually done by human.

Even at the end part of the ceremony, there is someone who is doing a speech in

this case Squealer as the representative of the Pigs who encourages the other

animals so they can die willingly for the sake of the farm. This kind of culture is

not familiar with the animals when they are still owned by Mr. Jones. This

ceremony is adopted from human’s or soldier’s ritual when their comrade has

fallen on the battlefield. Not only commemorating their fallen comrade on the

battlefield as stated before, they also hold ceremonies after the battle of defending

the farm. For example, they set the gun up at the foot of Flagstaff and fire them

twice in a year, October the twelfth as the anniversary of the Battle of the

Cowshed and also once in a Midsummer day as the anniversary of their win at the

Rebellion toward Mr. Jones. (AF, 17)

Besides cultures, mimicry also taught in a more formal way which in

through education. The prominent figures of the Rebellion decide to make a


50

school to teach literature to all animals in Manor Farm. The reading and writing

classes are great success, by the autumn almost every animal on the farm are

literate to some degree.(AF, 13) Relating it with Bhabha’s view of colonial

education, it can be stated that the education in Animal Farm is also intended to

benefit the colonizer. Bhabha once quotes Macaulay’s study about colonization in

India. Macaulay states that colonialism in that country responses in ‘a class of

persons Indian in blood and color, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals,

and in intellect.’46 Macaulay also mentions ‘mimic human raised through our

English school’ as the response of colonization in India.

This passage by Bhabha asserts that colonizer has to give their knowledge

and cultures to the colonized to show their power as the ruler. Educational system

and institution is intended to make the colonized studies the colonizer’s

knowledge and cultures. That institution can be in shape of school. In Animal

Farm, Napoleon also does similar things by building a school for the animal to

learn what the pigs learned from human in which mimicry is taught.The pigs not

only keep the benefit of doing mimicry of human by themselves. They build a

school for animals on the farm. This school teaches little pigs and another animal

to read and write. Despite the seemingly noble purposes, this agenda is based on

self-interest only. This school, as well as the committee that is proposed by

Snowball, are an attempt to tame the wild inhabitants of the farm. It means that

the school is treated only as a fence to make the disposition under pigs control

46Homi K.Bhabha, Location of Culture 87.


51

easier to watch. Besides, Napoleon itself as the leader of the pigs sometimes does

terrible things in justification of knowledge.

The pigs enforce the mimicry to all animals on the farm to make their job

on the farm easier by implementing human knowledge in all of the daily lives.

Consciously or not, they feel that they need human’s skill so they can go

advanced forward. This knowledge enforcement is actually a form of submission

to the higher level of power. Pigs as an animal do not feel strong enough to

cultivate the land and progressing the farm’s product by the skill of mere animals

although in some case, some animals are more capable than human for example in

term of brute strength, like a horse or an ox. Pigs, as the kind of animal who is

praised for the highest level of intelligence in the farm, cannot do their job alone,

so they need to balance the level of intelligence in a whole farm.

The abilities of animals which before shown by how strong they are

cultivating the soil, or producing food now is moved to how they are able to read

and write. The pigs as the most superior animals there can perfectly read and

write. As for others just like dogs and goats, they can properly follow the lesson

although they are dissimilar to pigs. On the contrary, the others who used to

employ strength like Clover and Boxer the horses are falling behind. They cannot

understand letters. From this point onward, the animals can be divided into two

factions: the ones who use brain and the other who use muscle. The writer,

George Orwell even uses the term ‘stupider animal’ to emphasize the animals who

cannot read, or even to understand the Seven Commandments of Animalism.

Viewed from this perspective, the equality becomes more and more unseen as the


52

concept of togetherness that Old Major proposes at the start of the novel

disappears. Not only that, but also the promises of pigs that they say when the

animals’ revolting is almost completely lost because they stray far from the

concept of Animalism that they propose at first.

To enforce their power, Snowball as the main talker of the pig side, often

promotes the benefit of mimicry by showing the greatness of human creation

The animals had never heard of anything of this kind before (for the farmwas an old-fashioned one and had only the most primitive machinery), andthey listened in astonishment while Snowball conjured up pictures offantastic machines which would do their work for them while they grazedat their ease in the fields or improved their minds with reading andconversation. (AF, 19)

As a response of Snowball’s reading books in the library which is placed in the

Mr. Jones house, he becomes more knowledgeable about human’s inventions and

technologies. He often promotes how those things can be a huge benefit for the

life of animals in the farm. Snowball also encourages all animals to do what he

does, in other words, he asks other animals to do mimicry with the purpose for the

prosperity of the farm. This intention becomes the fire that ignites the conflict

between Snowball and Napoleon to become more and more complicated because

at that time Napoleon is on the side that disagrees most with the idea of adopting

human knowledge into the animal’s life.

The conflict of Napoleon, as the animal who grasps the old traditions

strongly, with Snowball, who applies a new tradition of combining human’s

knowledge with animal’s daily life grows stronger day by day and it develops into

a political war. Napoleon focuses his campaign on maximizing food production.

He also exploits animal’s resource as the main defense of the farm by procuring


53

firearms and training themselves to be ready for the moment when human invades

their farm. Napoleon’s fraction uses food as their main slogan and it sounds “Vote

for Napoleon and the full manger”. (AF, 20) On the other side, Snowball fully

uses his brain to win the farm’s heart. He proposes the windmill as a tool to make

every work in the farm become much easier. Snowball gets this idea from books

about buildings in the Mr. Jones library. Different from Napoleon who uses

strength as a defense method, Snowball proposes to use pigeons to stir out

rebellions in other farm and they do not need to defend themselves. Those pigeons

would make animals in the neighboring farms of Manor Farm do a revolt. So they

do not need to strengthen themselves because the other human owner of the

neighboring farm will be busy with revolting animals on their own farm and do

not have time to pay any attention on the Animal Farm. Snowball himself has a

program that if he becomes the leader of the farm they only need to work three

days in a week because he thinks that three days are enough to cultivate the farm

as long as the work is efficient enough. Therefore, his slogan is “Vote Snowball

and the Three-day week”. (AF, 20)

This conflict shows how those animals apply human style politics by

doing campaigns and future program if they become the leader. Furthermore,

malicious intention and acts which we usually see in human’s campaign also

manifest in the novel in which it is done by the animal. They also use promises

and prosperity agenda as the weapon to attract other animals to join their fraction.

Although only Snowball who reads the book of human from Mr. Jones’ library,

Napoleon as the side who oppose human’s knowledge also applies those ways to


54

do his campaign because at first, Snowball gains a lot of attention from other

animals because he convinces them that by applying human knowledge to their

life they can make daily works become much easier and more efficient.

The conflict between Napoleon and Snowball ends with the banishment of

Snowball from the Farm by Napoleon. As the party that opposing human’s act,

Napoleon wins the political battle. Later, he applies the mimicry more radically

than Snowball because he sees the profits of doing mimicry. Furthermore, the act

of mimicry also triggers something else. Napoleon’s victory in his battle against

Snowball in the political election is not the end of the colonization process. It

becomes a continuing and ongoing process. On the other word, mimicry becomes

a cause for one new colonization process which is internal colonization. The

difference between internal colonization and previous colonization is that the pigs

have become the oppressor of the other animals. This will be further explained in

the next chapter.


CHAPTER IV

CORRELATION BETWEEN MIMICRY AND INTERNALCOLONIZATION

As explored in previous chapter, mimicry is the result of colonization of

the supposedly greater culture. This process affects the colonized people, and

they consider that their culture is inferior compared to the colonizer one. That

feeling of inferiority can disrupt the balance of the colonized culture and think

that other people who apply that culture is also having lower power qualities.

After the indigenous are assimilated and mimic the colonizer's culture, there is a

tendency to spread their new culture to the people who does not adopt it yet. In

another word, the target of that colonization is their own race, their own people

who refuse to embrace the new culture that is injected into their colonized society.

In this case, internal colonialism begins to take place. This condition is

represented in Orwell’s Animal Farm with pigs as the new colonizers and other

animals as the colonized side.

This chapter focuses on the how mimicry can create another form of

colonization which is internal colonization and how those two phenomena can

overlap and affect each other. Based on the previous chapter, mimicry that is

conducted by the pigs, especially Napoleon can be stated as another form of the

colonization process. The colonization is performed by animals while the target is

another animal. On the other word, one group is trying to colonize or subjugate

their own kind. According to Lenin quoted from S. W. Williams (2001), internal


56

colonization is physical conquest within and not across the boundaries of the

political region.47 This physical conquest is done within one political region, in

this case, Manor Farm or Animal Farm. In the following sub-chapter, this thesis

analyzes the colonization by the pigs as a form of internal colonization.

4.1. The Colonization by Animal in the Animal Farm

Deriving from Williams’ concept, this thesis argues that the colonization

by pigs in Animal Farm is a form of internal colonization. Moreover, internal

colonialism is also linked with mimicry. It is especially highlighted by how the

pigs adapt to human thinking as well as their ideology, and this perspective leads

them to try to civilize other animals. As S. W. Williams illustrates, the internal

colonial model is developed to illustrate the fact that colonialism is not necessarily

an external phenomenon but that the same process is operating within certain

countries. Therefore the conceptual domain of the model is clearly specified.48 It

is important to underline Williams’ assertion that colonialism as a process is not

necessarily an external phenomenon but also “operating within”. In Animal Farm,

although the external colonialism by other race, human, is gone by the removal of

Mr. Jones, the process of colonialism persists in form of animal domination.

It can be stated that, the colonization process in the Animal Farm is

internal because it happens in one region which is Manor Farm, or later changes

into Animal Farm. As an allegory, it also happens in one country’s borderline,

Soviet Union in which the Communist Party continues the oppressive politics of

47 Peter Calvert. "Internal Colonisation, Development and Environment." 63.48 C.W. Mitchell Williams and Stephen Wyn. "Internal Colonialism." Area 10 (1978) 125.


57

the Tsarist Regime. Therefore, the domain is already specified as colonization

inside one country. Also, according to Lenin, Tsarist autocracy which is done by

force inside the Soviet Union can be categorized as Internal Colonization.49 In this

case, the times of Mr. Jones’ leadership, in which used as a representative of Tsar

Nicholas II, is also categorized as internal colonization. After the Rebellion, while

the pigs proclaim equality towards all species, their actions indicate that internal

colonialism in the farm still occurs.

Napoleon achieves complete authority to implement his policies after the

defeat of Snowball enables him to implement policies that benefit the pigs more

than another animal. Since Napoleon has no resistance after Snowball’s exile, he

has the means to establish a dictatorship. Napoleon as the new leader of the farm

gives his first policy about the limitation of voice which is applied to all of the

animals there except pigs and dogs. For other daily activities, such as daily

ceremony, singing the anthem of Beast of England, are still done by all animals

there, but there are not any debates anymore. All of decisions and responses of

everything in the area are decided by a single voice. This is one example of

colonization that is done by Napoleon and the pigs after they win the voting.

In future, all questions relating to the working of the farm would be settledby a special committee of pigs, presided over by him. These would meet inprivate and afterward communicate their decisions to the others. Theanimals would still assemble on Sunday mornings to salute the flag, singBeasts of England, and receive their orders for the week; but there wouldbe no more debates. (AF, 21)

49 Peter Calvert, "Internal Colonisation, Development and Environment." Third World Quarterly

22.February 2001 (2001) 63.


58

Napoleon creates a special committee that has ajob to answer all of the questions

on the farm in which the committee members are all pigs. This event marks the

shifting values from the equality among all species into the dominance from the

pigs. One example, previously the animals always hold discussions before

deciding something important for instance, they hold a big discussion before

doing the Rebellion toward Mr. Jones. But now under the leadership of Napoleon,

those discussions are considered useless and wasting time. If there is a question

relating to the works at the farm, the special committee will meet in private and

decide the answer to the question.

It is important to note that while at first Napoleon at first disavows

human’s culture which was brought to the farm by Snowball, he later embraces

the cultures which he despises at first, Napoleon considers that by doing mimicry,

he can gain complete authority over the farm. He can control all animals there

because he is the one who closest to a human on the farm. Hence, mimicry can be

a tool to get power or authority. In line with that, Bhabha states that mimicry

emerges as the representation of a difference that is itself a process of

disavowal. 50 Despite his unwillingness to accept human culture at first, after

Snowball expulsion, Napoleon commands all of the animals to build the windmill

that is proposed by Snowball. Napoleon does not give any explanation of how he

finally wants the construction of a windmill. It can be implied that Napoleon starts

to consider the benefit of applying human culture as well as knowledge of

animal’s life and slowly discard animal’s old culture that is considered as less



59

beneficial. Napoleon is starting to leave animal’s culture that accompanies him

from his birth and embracing human’s culture which he thinks more efficient and

lucrative. It is in line with what Bhabha says; mimicry alienates its own language

(or culture) liberty and produces knowledge of its norms.51

The increasing oppression faced by other animals is related with how

Napoleon continues to adopting many human ways of living and attitudes. In this

case, the farther Napoleon conducts mimicry, the more detrimental it is to the

well-being of his fellow animals. The pigs, led by Napoleon start to think and act

more like human.

The animals watched his coming and going with a kind of dread, andavoided him as much as possible. Nevertheless, the sight of Napoleon, onall fours, delivering orders to Whymper, who stood on two legs, rousedtheir pride and partly reconciled them to the new arrangement. Theirrelations with the human race were now not quite the same as they hadbeen before. (AF, 26)

The passage above narrates how Napoleon and his family of pigs start to walk

with two feet. Not only trying to walk same as human but they also do that with

rousing pride regardless of what they think about human before. Their pride while

walking in two feet makes everyone who sees that act forget that they were in hate

with human. Other animals are deceived by the false pretense that the pigs act for

their well-being while in truth the pigs continue the old human ways as their

colonizer.



60

The act of walking with two legs symbolizes the ongoing process of the

pigs’ mimicry. Furthermore, they start to eat in the kitchen and sleep in the bed

inside the house.

Nevertheless, some of the animals were disturbed when they heard that thepigs not only took their meals in the kitchen and used the drawing-room asa recreation room but also slept in the beds. (AF, 27)

Those acts reveal that there is major shifting in the balance of power on the farm.

The pigs that refuse to sleep in the hard straws in the barn choose to sleep in the

soft and comfortable bed inside the house. Not only shows the imbalance in the

way of life but it also reveals the sign of dictatorship by pigs which become

fiercer. The pigs who act more like human repress another animal by forbidding

them doing human act because they know that it is way more comfortable than

life as an animal. Those acts also become a symbol of the death of equality in the

Animal Farm since most of the animals there think that the pigs only using them

for their benefit.

Several events illustrate the abuse other animals’ experienced under the

dominance of the pigs. Napoleon creates a special committee for the construction

of windmill in which the members are pigs again. Similar to the answering

committee that has only pigs as the members, this windmill committee is also

dominated by pigs to give instruction to everything. This policy which is applied

by Napoleon can be classified as nepotism. He as the figure who held a power and

influence is giving special treatment in form of jobs inside government body to

his relatives or family, in this case, pigs’ family.


61

Other action to insure the dominance of the pigs is in the form of birth

control. That limitation of birth control is one of the forms of colonization by the

pigs’ government. This is also supported by how they do not limit their own

kind’s birth rate

Somehow it seemed as though the farm had grown richer without makingthe animals themselves any richer | except, for the pigs and the dogs.Perhaps this was partly because there were so many pigs and so manydogs. It was not that these creatures did not work, after their fashion. Therewas, as Squealer was never tired of explaining, endless work under thesupervision. (AF, 50)

From the novel, we know that pigs and dogs population implodes on the farm.

That kind of birth limitation attracts the Rebellion from the animals. But, once

again, Squealer tries to justify that phenomenon. Despite that explanation by

Squealer, the animals seem do not believe that pig’s explanation anymore because

they realize that neither pig not dog produce any kind of food. They even do not

do any kind of productive labor in spite of their appetite which is humongous. The

reality of how the pig laboring other animals is emphasized more.

As for the others, their life, so far as they knew, was as it had always been.They were generally hungry, they slept on straw, they drank from the pool,they labored in the fields; in winter they were troubled by the cold, and insummer by the flies. Sometimes the older ones among them racked theirdim memories and tried to determine whether, in the early days of theRebellion, when Jones's expulsion was still recent, things had been betteror worse than now. (AF, 50)

The mimicry which is done by the pigs becomes bolder from chapter to

chapter. While hiding themselves in the false truth spread by Squealer, they act

more like human. After slaughtering many animals to the death because they do

not obey Napoleon’s policies, they drink wine that they take from Mr. Jones wine

cellar. Napoleon is wearing a bowler hat when drinking the wine which was


62

owned by Mr. Jones. He tries to look more like human by copying what Mr. Jones

does when he still owns the farm. Napoleon is not only the pig that is drinking

wine, but Squealer is also doing so. Squealer who is still under alcohol’s influence

gathers animals and makes an announcement that Napoleon is dying. In truth,

Squealer conceals that Napoleon is getting a hangover from drinking too much

alcohol. Also while having a bad hangover, Napoleon gives a new policy that

every animal that is drinking an alcohol will be punished by death. This policy

implies that the pigs want the alcohol for themselves while any non-pig animal

that touches the alcohol will be punished. It reveals how the dictatorship works

and the hierarchical position of animals in the Animal Farm governance. The

upper-class animals such as pigs and dogs are allowed to drink alcohol while the

others are forbidden even to touch it.

Napoleon and pig family are not only changing one content of

Commandment of Animalism. Later in the chapter VIII, they are also changing

another point of this decree that becomes the base point of the rule on the farm.

The pigs are changing the rule of “No animal shall drink alcohol” to “No animal

shall drink alcohol to excess”. That change in the rule is made because Napoleon

is addicted to alcohol. Napoleon is seen as studying the art of cultivating the wine.

Before changing the rule, Clover spots Napoleon asking his subordinates to take

some booklets about distilling and brewing from the library of Mr. Jones house.

Also, he prepares and cultivates some fields in the farm to be planted with barley.

Napoleon’s mimicry does not stop from the point when he copies Mr.

Jones’ habit of drinking. The use of human’s properties becomes more and more


63

usual in the animal’s way of living on the Animal Farm. After the incident of

wine, the pigs start to wear a green ribbon on Sundays to mark their high position

which refuses the spirit of Animalism that forbids them to wear human property

as stated in the Commandment which clearly does not allow them to wear

human’s clothes. Ironically, in the early chapter, Napoleon scolds Molly because

she wears a ribbon in her tail. It can be seen that the policies and acts of the pigs

start to stray from their starting point. Not only they become more like human, but

they also do not grasp their starting commitment. They have the rule to act far

from human by prohibiting what human’s wear and what human’s habit. In the

Bhabhanian concept of ambivalence world of not white/not quite, the margins

which differentiate normal colonized and colonized who is doing mimicry is the

part-objects of the colonizer.52 That part-object becomes the metonymy or partial

presence which represents the colonizer in the area of colonized. The human

clothes that are used by the pigs, as well as other accessories, are that part-objects

that become the metonymy of human’s presence on the farm.

After a year of Napoleon’s regime, all of the animals in Animal Farm are

already thinking that they work like a slave. Instead of protesting to Napoleon and

pigs, they remain work happier than when they work for Mr. Jones. It means that

internal colonization is not seen as the process of repression at first because it is

done by their own class or race so they think that what the colonizer have done at

first based on the prosperity and benefit of their kind. Also, the feeling of

togetherness that they create when revolting against human holds a big role in the



64

way of thinking. They still think that they have a common enemy, a human and

whatever the pigs do, they will still think that is based on the spirit of Animalism,

and whatever pig’s policies have apurpose for animal’s prosperity.

With all that cruelty and self-proclaimed justice by Napoleon, many

animals become terrified and shaken. In the middle of confusion, Squealer

appears again as the messenger of peace to the farm. He states that those who are

slaughtered are considered as the enemy of the nation. So, the internal and

external enemies have been defeated.

`It's no longer needed, comrade,' said Squealer. `Beasts of England was thesong of the Rebellion. But the Rebellion is now completed. The executionof the traitors this afternoon was the final act. The enemy both externaland internal has been defeated. In Beasts of England, we expressed ourlonging for a better society in days to come. But that society has now beenestablished. Clearly, this song has no longer any purpose.' (AF, 34)

The external enemy is for sure Mr. Jones; the human who as Old Major says

oppresses animals on the farm and never gives something as payment for their

hard works. On the other hand, internal enemies are Snowball and the animals

who think that Napoleon is not suitable to become the leader of the farm so they

are doing mini-Rebellion in places on the farm. Those internal enemies can bring

imbalance to the social structure of Animal Farm because they do not see

Napoleon’s policies as the peace bringer. In the end of his speech, Squealer states

that the song Beast of England is not needed anymore because it is the symbol of

hope, the song that is suitable for oppressed times. He defines that time as the

moment of peace. The perfect society has established at the Animal Farm. That

Squealer’s statement is the symbol of utopia. He states that everyone should be

happy because the farm does not have an enemy.


65

Though the concept of internal and external enemy, it can be stated that

any pigs who opposed Napoleon and his crony are considered public enemy.

Napoleon puts all the blame of his mistakes, such as the destroyed family into

Snowball which led to his exile.

...Comrades, here and now I pronounce the death sentence upon Snowball.'Animal Hero, Second Class,' and half a bushel of apples to any animalwho brings him to justice. A full bushel to anyone who captures himalive!' (AF, 28)

With the demolished windmill, Napoleon and his family do not want to take full

responsibility for it. On the other hand, the real reason why the windmill

destroyed is that the building process is far from how Snowball proposed.

Furthermore, Napoleon avoids all of blames toward him and directs them to

Snowball who at that time is already exiled from the farm. He even provides a

prize for anyone who can catch Snowball. This conflict shows the representation

of Stalin and Trotsky in the Russia at Communism era when Stalin became the

leader and Trotsky was his opposite party. 53

A comparison can be made between Napoleon and Snowball in the novel

with Stalin and Trotsky in Soviet Union. At that time Stalin exiled Trotsky

because simply both of them did not share a same vision. Napoleon does the same

thing with his power as a ruler. He gets rid all of opposite parties who hold an

imminent power who can threaten his position as a leader, even with doing all

kind of nasty things. All animals are shocked at first because they think Snowball

as a hero who fought bravely at the Rebellion versus Mr. Jones. But all they can

53 Robert W. Menchhofer,.Animal Farm: The Teacher's Companion, 23.


66

do is accepting Napoleon’s commands because they know that if they deny those

commands they will have severe punishments.

All of those dictatorship policies by Napoleon stir problems inside Animal

Farm. There are Rebellions appear on the farm which is intended to take down

Napoleon's regime. This Rebellion starts when the hens smash their own eggs to

the floor as a symbol of refuse for Napoleon’s policy that they must surrender the

eggs willingly for trading with human’s farms.

For the first time since the expulsion of Jones, there was somethingresembling a rebellion. Led by three young Black Minorca pullets, thehens made a determined effort to thwart Napoleon's wishes. Their methodwas to way up to the rafters and there lay their eggs, which smashed topieces on the floor. Napoleon acted swiftly and ruthlessly. He ordered thehens' rations to be stopped… (AF, 30)

Again, all of those Rebellions are crushed with Napoleon’s hammer of justice

violently. Although the Rebellion this time is not as big as the first one which

purposed to take down Mr. Jones, this incident clearly splits the farm into two

fractions: pro-Napoleon and the one who oppose him. The sides who oppose

Napoleon usually are the victims that their belongings are forcefully taken by the

pigs to be trading items. In spite of that, there are so little opposite sides that

appear because Napoleon punishes the rebel with a final verdict of death, the hens

are some of them. Also, Squealer as the propaganda item for Napoleon

successfully hides the oppose sides’ death and fabricates them with fake truth, for

instance, they die because of diseases.

In the turmoil of the animals which is caused by their awareness that they

have been deceived by the pigs, Squealer as the speaker as well as the brain of the

pig family justifies everything that is done by the pigs. He insists that the


67

commandment says that there is not any animal sleep in bed with asheet and the

pig sleep in the bed with not any sheet on it because the sheet is considered as

theman invention. Also, Squealer emphasizes pig’s responsibilities that are very

heavy in which they need to look after the farm. So it is suitable that they deserve

some kind of comfort and the bed is one of it. Squealer’s assertions strengthen the

hierarchies between the pigs as the privileged race and other animals as below the

pigs in status.

Those lies and fabricated truths which are spread by Squealer creates a

blind belief for animals in the farm, one of them is Boxer as the most diligent

animal there. Boxer considers that everything that is Napoleon said is right. As the

one of the well-known animal on the farm, Boxer has big influence there. So,

there are a lot of animals that follow him to believe everything Napoleon says no

matter how wrong it is.

Àh, that is different!' said Boxer. Ìf Comrade Napoleon says it, it must beright.'`That is the true spirit, comrade!' cried Squealer, but it was noticed he casta very ugly look at Boxer with his little twinkling eyes. He turned to go,then paused and added impressively: Ì warn every animal on this farm tokeep his eyes very wide open. For we have reason to think that some ofSnowball's secret agents are lurking among us at this moment!' (AF, 32)

Boxer here reveals the irony which happened at the Soviet Rebellion. He is the

symbol of a worker at that time. 54 In spite of their strength, they are easily

influenced. Boxer is easily influenced by Squealer, the main speaker of the pigs.

That is how George Orwell interprets the condition of the workers who mostly use

their brute strength purely and use minimum brain capacity.

54 Robert W. Menchhofer, Animal Farm: The Teacher's Companion, 23.


68

In spite of how loyal Boxer to the pigs, they do not show similar interest to

a good relationship with the other animals. Squealer, although he speaks with

Boxer sweetly, sees him with ugly looks to emphasize his despise. This can reveal

how Squealer as the pig agent spread false propaganda to the rest of animal

without good intention at all. The role of Squealer here is very important to

maintain peace on the farm because if he does not spread good face of pigs to the

other animals, there will be chaos on the farm. The pigs as the leader that keep

doing selfish policies that benefit their own will raise the Rebellion of animals

below them. But, Squealer moves smoothly in the farm to maintain the peaceful

situation.

The treatment done by the pigs toward the non-animals is also a proof of

Bhabha concept about mimicry in which ‘mimicry repeats rather than re-

presents’.55 Napoleon and the pigs do not re-present human in their colonization

process, they do what Mr. Jones did in the past. Napoleon and his pig family

mimic the Old Major description of human’s cruelty. Yet, in spite of the hardness

that they face when the pigs rule, all residents of Animal Farm still believe in

what the pigs say, especially Squealer’s words. The condition in the farm becomes

worse in each chapter. In Chapter IX, Squealer almost cannot explain why the

rations to the animals are an imbalance. The pigs and dogs always get their

enough rations, even more than what they should receive. On the other hand, the

other animals, although they work harder day by day, their rations go less than

ever. In spite of that, because of the hunger situation and harsh treatment by the



69

pigs, all animals forget what Mr. Jones did with their lives in the past. What they

remember is their lives starts when Mr. Jones runs from the farm because of the

Rebellion. They forget how they live under human’s touch. This indicates that

pig’s leadership is more brutal and crueler than what Mr. Jones did in the past. In

the end, they have forced to believe that the pigs treat them better than human.

The animal in the farm feels disoriented about their fright toward human and pig

because what pigs do is only repeating what human did to them.

The pigs’ complete authority resulted in their ability to even change the

Animal Commandments. The commandment which is seen as the basic norms

becomes changeable in the hand of the pigs. In the beginning of Chapter VIII, the

pigs change the commandments to justify what they do in the first place.

A few days later, when the terror caused by the executions had died down,some of the animals remembered | or thought they remembered | that theSixth Commandment decreed `No animal shall kill any other animal.' Andthough no one cared to mention it in the hearing of the pigs or the dogs, itwas felt that the killings which had taken place did not square with this.Clover asked Benjamin to read her the Sixth Commandment, and whenBenjamin, as usual, said that he refused to meddle in such matters, shefetched Muriel. Muriel read the Commandment for her.... (AF, 35)

The justification is that the killing to eliminate the traitor’s seed inside the farm.

Napoleon even changes the commandment to decrease the casualty that is caused

by distrust. He increases the sentence with ‘without cause’ so every violation

which he did in the past is rightful. In spite of that, it is questionable that the

reason to get rid Snowball’s influence is true. In the hen’s incident, it is clear that

Napoleon kills them because they refuse to cooperate with Napoleon’s policies to

give their belongings and products willingly to be traded to the other farm. It is

not because they related to Snowball at all. This incident illustrates how Napoleon


70

makes all the animals in the farm believe him with tampering truth and fabricated

propaganda.

Napoleon is not satisfied with farm’s condition, so he upgrades the farm

and proclaims it as a Republic. Therefore, it is signed as the birth of Republic

Animal Farm., every Republic has its own President. On the other hand, there is

only one candidate, Napoleon, and there is not an animal who brave enough to

elect him or herself to challenge Napoleon in the Presidential election. Under its

new name as Republic, the animals work harder than before. George Orwell even

uses the sentence ‘indeed, all the animals work like slaves that year.’ Orwell tries

to emphasize the poor life that the animals have the pigs rule the farm. Boxer, the

most loyal animal dies in the poor condition after work too hard. The pigs cast

him away without remembering all of his hard work.

The response of dictatorship by Napoleon is clearly visible in the last

chapter. The farm is looked more prosperous than before. It happens because

Napoleon adds more fields which he buys from the neighbor farmer, Mr.

Pilkington. Later it was revealed that the purpose is only money. Napoleon does

not care about the residents of the farm at all. It is proven when Napoleon

commands them to make a new windmill despite the old one is still useful.

However, the windmill is not used to generate electric power. It is used to plant

some corns to gain more profit. The dream of animals which was talked by

Snowball on which to build the windmill to create electric light, also hot and cold

water is now only a dream and there is not any animal ever talking about it.


71

Moreover, in Chapter VII, Napoleon starts to slaughter any animal that is

accused guilty of a trivial matter. Three hens are slaughtered by Napoleon because

Snowball appears in their dream.

The three hens who had been the ringleaders in the attempted rebellionover the eggs now came forward and stated that Snowball had appeared tothem in a dream and incited them to disobey Napoleon's orders. They, too,were slaughtered. ... They were all slain on the spot. (AF, 33)

Those acts of Napoleon violate the decree of Animalism. On the sixth point of

that decree, it is stated that “No animal shall kill any other animal”. The farm is

filled with the scent of blood and they remember that scent from before the

expulsion of Mr. Jones. The term “cruel” is also stated by George Orwell to

emphasize Napoleon’s act to describe how he treats every animal that is

suspicious by being leagued themselves with Snowball the traitor. It can be

concluded that Napoleon is still afraid of Snowball when he comes back and ruins

everything that Napoleon builds. Also, it can be seen as one-way now Napoleon

does the segregation on those who do not have the same perspective as him, even

as simple as thinking another figure as a leader, such as Snowball.

In the last chapter, the true idea of Animalism has been misled by

Napoleon. This idea is proposed to the animal by Squealer, the representative of

the pigs. He says that the true comfort does not appear on the facilities that they

enjoy such as light and so on, but on the hard work. It is only Napoleon way to

exert the animals. Orwell mentions the irony that although the farm grows richer

day by day, the animals, except for the pigs and their allies, do not seem rich at

all. They look poor inside the rich farm.


72

Equality becomes the most important point that completely disappears in

Chapter IX. The pigs below Napoleon as the supreme commander demand more

stock of rations to be reserved for them, especially barley. Barley is used to make

wines. Furthermore, every pig and the only pig is receiving a pint of wine daily

while Napoleon gets half of the galloon each day. Those wine rations are given in

the Crown Derby soup tureen. In spite of those inequalities, the animals still have

a positive way of view that their lives are far greater and they have more dignity

than ever since Napoleon holds more events to celebrate their winning moment of

defending the farm. Moreover, Napoleon also takes all of the animals on a long

march with pigs in the front to show that they have more pride while chanting

“Long Live Napoleon” in which the event ends with Napoleon speech.

As mentioned before, that they have already forgotten about how Mr.

Jones treated them as the previous owner. In reality, they live more miserably than

how they are in the first two chapters. In this part, the animals in the farm are

starting to feel the pain of being colonized again, but by different colonizer which

are the pigs. This internal colonization also brings another level to the mimicry

that is done by them. The mimicry becomes near perfect and reaches its peak. On

the following section, the peak of mimicry process in the novel is elaborated.


73

4.2. The Peak of Mimicry Process

The ending of the novel in which the pigs have become undifferentiated

from human highlights the peak or final phase of mimicry. In this part, mimicry

has penetrated all aspects of animals’ culture, not just from habits, traditions, but

also their attires and how the pigs now walk on two-legs, just as human. This sub-

chapter elaborates the processes which makes this phenomenon possible, on how

the pigs become closer to human form and reach the peak of mimicry from the

points of manners, attitudes, and dressings.

It was a pig walking on his hind legs.Yes, it was Squealer. A little awkwardly, as though not quite used tosupporting his considerable bulk in that position, but with perfect balance,he was strolling across the yard. And a moment later, out from the door ofthe farmhouse came a long file of pigs, all walking on their hind legs. (AF,51)

It is very surprising for the other animals about how the pigs walk like that. They

violate one of the Commandments which says that “whatever goes upon four legs,

or has wings, is a friend”. Furthermore, they also infringe the agreement that

“every being that walks on two legs should be considered an enemy”. Which to

say, at this point the mimicry has become so obvious that even all animals

recognize that the pigs have resemble human in all aspects. The authority of the

pigs as the new colonizer does not only result in breaking the law but the pigs

even start to change the law itself.

For once Benjamin consented to break his rule, and he read out to her whatwas written on the wall. There was nothing there now except a singleCommandment. It ran:ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUALBUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS (AF, 51)


74

That change in the Animal commandment emphasizes the authority and

dominance of the pigs as the leader who even can change the basic rule of the

farm. At this stage, Napoleon fully reveals himself as the totalitarian leader who

does not need any pretense of mimicking human. He does not cover himself

anymore in animal’s habit. Right after changing the rules as he pleases, he also

walks on two legs proudly with a pipe of tobacco in his mouth in the middle of

farmhouse garden. His action actually stresses that he remains a slave. The

animals in farm are treated as a slave by the pigs, especially Napoleon. Bhabha

quotes Locke’s definition of a slave in his book. He says that slave is the form of

an intolerable, illegitimate exercise of power56 Napoleon expresses his intolerable

and illegitimate use of power to the animals on the farm. He is intolerable to every

animal who does not abide his authority. He even kills them just to show his

ability to cut off every head of the rebel. Furthermore, he displays his power by

changing the commandment which is considered sacred from when Old Major

lives.

The dictatorship of Napoleon and the pigs, in the end, creates tyranny

which terrorizes the inhabitants inside the farm. The animals which are happy

before start to feel frightened.

They were shown all over the farm and expressed great admiration foreverything they saw, especially the windmill. The animals were weedingthe turnip field. They worked diligently, hardly raising their faces from theground, and not knowing whether to be more frightened of the pigs or ofthe human visitors. (AF, 52)

56 Homi K. Bhabha, Location of Culture, 86.


75

Here, the animals realize that they become the prisoners of the pig. In other word,

they are the colonized side of the prosperous farm. Before, they feel happy

because there are many justifications both from themselves and from Squealer’s

explanation. The prosperity of the farm makes them believe that Napoleon brings

happiness to the farm. In spite of that, in the end, they realize that Napoleon is

similar to human, both are colonizer, and Napoleon is even worse.

As Bhabha asserts, mimicry forms a partial presence of the colonizer,

furthermore he mentions that partial here means ‘incomplete’ and ‘virtual’. 57 In

this part of the novel, animals in the farm see Napoleon as partial presence of a

human. His presence becomes more and more frightening so other animals cannot

decide which one is more frightening between pig’s or human’s presence in which

comes to the farm as a guest of Napoleon. In this sense, Napoleon becomes

indistinguishable from human. Human is well-known as the colonizer which

enforcing slavery to the animals in the farm as stated by Old Major in the first

chapter. On the other hand, Napoleon also evolves from normal pig to the pig who

acts like a human. He also enforces slavery to the animals on the farm. He does

not merely become human, but only as the virtual one, the figure which by other

animals is pictured that he has the act of colonization near to human by far.

Although the relationship between pigs and other animals worsen, the pigs

receive high praise by the humans, their old enemy. The relationship between

human and pigs becomes much better. They have many meetings which are not

only secretly held but even publicly announced.



76

He would end his remarks, he said, by emphasizing once again the friendlyfeelings that subsisted, and ought to subsist, between Animal Farm and itsneighbors. Between pigs and human beings there was not, and there neednot be, any clash of interests whatever. Their struggles and theirdifficulties were one. Was not the labor problem the same everywhere?Here it became apparent that Mr. Pilkington was about to spring somecarefully prepared (AF, 53)

By strengthening the bond with the human neighbors, Napoleon can gain much

more profit than before. It also means they do not have any conflict anymore, so

the farm can focus more on cultivating their resources. Napoleon and the pigs also

gain some side effects along with their companionship with a human. Not only

their habit that changes but also their faces become more and more like a human.

Even the animals which spend so many times with them are unable to contrast the

pig’s and human’s appearance. It shows that the purpose of Napoleon mimicry is

completed as Bhabha says that colonial mimicry has a desire for a reformed,

recognizable Other, as a subject of a difference that is almost same, but not

quite.58 The pigs who do mimicry actually have a desire to be recognized by a

human as their previous owner, who they think as a colonizer. So, they keep doing

what human does but in their capabilities as a pig, although in the end, they have

won every battle against a human.

In the last chapter of the novel, the pig becomes almost completely similar

to a human. It means that the mimicry is nearly complete for them and the

ambivalence as stated by Bhabha is roughly visible. It is emphasized by the

statement of other animals which are witnessing the meeting between the pigs and

a human. They state that between the pigs and the human, there is no difference so



77

that they are confused. This situation is not clearly explored by Bhabha. He claims

that mimicry will result in ambivalence, less or more. Mimicry is also a process.

The being which is doing the mimicry also learns everything from the colonizer

and he tends to copy every movement and strategy of the colonizer. What if at

some point, the mimicry is reaching the peak of its process. Some of them stopped

halfway because of reasons. For instance, the colonizer thinks that the mimic

human is a dangerous threat to them and he must be eliminated because of his

presence as the colonized that is almost similar to them. Animal Farm explains

what will happen is the mimicry reaches its peak. The ambivalence will disappear

and the colonizer will warmly welcome the person who is doing the mimicry in

their circle. In the Animal Farm, Napoleon is welcomed warmly in the meeting

with his neighbors. In spite of their fights in the past, after witnessing how

Napoleon cultivates the farm in good human way, the neighboring farmers decide

to embrace Napoleon to their circle. In this state, Bhabha’s concept of presence

Africane is revealed in how the ex-colonizer or human is trying to be friendly with

ex-colonizer which is animal. They try to learn the culture of the animal in how

they cultivate and organize the farm.

Huddart states that if there are an absolute equivalence between the two

(colonizer and colonized), then the ideologies justifying colonial rule would be

unable to operate.59 The colonial rule can operate because there is a significant

difference between superior and inferior in which one side can dominate the other

59 David.Huddart, Homi K. Bhabha, 40.


78

side. In the Animal Farm especially the last chapter, there is not a structural non-

equivalence between human as the colonizer and pigs as the colonized anymore.

The pigs who claim themselves as the ruler of the farm have leveled up their

position as the colonized into one new status which is a colonizer. Here, in this

state, the colonial rule cannot apply that mentions the pigs as the colonizer. On the

other side, other animals stay as the oppressed and the new colonizer is the pig. In

this pig-other animal's relationship, the colonial rule still applies. The line

between colonizer and colonized here is still clearly visible.

To summarize, mimicry which starts as a mean of resistance can switch its

purpose to be the mean of colonization. Napoleon, Snowball and the pigs starts

the act of mimicry by using it to absorb human knowledge of war and make it to

be their main weapon to fight against human. In spite of that, in the end Napoleon

becomes accustomed in doing mimicry and represses other animals in the farm.

He becomes a resemblance of human in term of appearances and habits. Napoleon

even reaches the peak of mimicry when he becomes indistinguishable from

human in other animals’ perspectives. Hence, when mimicry has reached its peak

and does not consider its limit, the subject which is the colonized becomes

completely resembles the colonizer in which they cannot be differentiated.


CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

5.1. Concluding Remark

The mimicry, as analyzed in chapter 4, can cause another form of

colonization. This form is called internal colonization. Internal colonization

happens when the side that embrace mimicry wins the conflict of colonized

between mimicry’s holders and original values’ holders. Furthermore, the peak of

mimicry is also shown in the novel where the clear line between colonized and

colonizer disappears. This chapter will end the thesis. It will conclude the

response of each chapter in the thesis. Also, the suggestion for further researches

is written in the second sub-chapter.

Orwell does not only pinpoint the policies which were applied by Stalin

but also criticizes the belief that the country applied. Communism, the main belief

that Stalin promoted to the country at that time was actually successful to

overthrow the previous leader, Tsar Nicholas II. Stalin proposed Communism

because it has equality as the advertisement sign. There is not any class

segregation inside this belief. Everyone is equal with no limits. But, in the end,

what makes Orwell’s anxious becomes a reality. The equality was only a thin

skin. Stalin was applying stricter policies than Tsar Nicholas. Those policies make

the people more suffer than before. Orwell satirizes the twentieth-century belief of

totalitarianism that was applied to every Stalin’s choices of policies. What he

proposed is utopia was impossible to gain. At that time, Russia is both colonizers


80

and colonized at the same time.60 They are colonized by their own people. Thus,

they become suffer in their own homeland.

The writer chooses Animal Farm as the source of research because this

novel is a canon which is considered as world literature. Furthermore, the writer

has not found any researcher or scholar who uses postcolonial reading on this

novel yet. Most of them are researching Animal Farm either for its allegory, the

concept of satyr utopia which applied by George Orwell or the character

representation analysis. In spite of that, the concept of mimicry by Bhabha is

appeared. Moreover, mimicry responses in other form of colonization which is

internal colonization. Two research questions are prepared to explore the

connection between mimicry and internal colonization in the novel. The first is

how mimicry is done as a resistance to the human domination and the second

question is how mimicry as a means of resistance switches its purpose to internal

colonization.

It is hard to draw the different line of mimicry which is done by the animal

and the true act of animal that is pictured as a human as it is one characteristic of

fable. Furthermore, as Letemendia says, George Orwell cleverly writes the Animal

Farm to play the two-sided game with his reader.61 In some parts, he is clearly

emphasizing qualities of a human in the real world that is owned by beast

characters on the farm. For instance, they hold a meeting like a human in a barn in

which Old Major injects all animals there with his belief. The way Old Major

60 Jon Kyst, "Russia and the Problem of Internal Colonization." Ulbandus Review 7 (2003). p. 2961 V. C. Letemendia, "Rebellion on AF: Orwell's Neglected Commentary." 128.


81

speech can also show that quality of human. On the other time, Orwell also

provides pathos and humor to show the differences that separate human from

beast. By doing so, Orwell forces the reader to draw a distinction between conduct

and personalities that makes human and beast different. This way to draw a

distinction between subtle differences in the similarities between human and beast

is described as finding the interdictory space.62 Thus, by knowing the place of

interdictory space, we can know when the animal is doing mimicry and when they

are just doing animal personalities which are humanized.

Animal Farm reveals how the mimicry is done with inferiority complex as

its background. The mimicry is started with Old Major’s speech as the self-

proclaimed luckiest pig on the farm as well as the oldest one. He encourages the

young animals to regain their pride and retake what they should own. What

visible here is how the Old Major reveals the tyranny that is brought to them by

one human named Mr. Jones, the legal owner of the farm. The less visible one is

how Old Major describes his version of utopia that every animal in the farm

should live in the equal term. He also plants the inferiority complex which he

owns to the rest of animals so they also think that human is far more superior than

them. Therefore without any external help, it is impossible for them as inferior

being to defeat the superior one. There is not any fear of their life beyond the

human’s dictatorship. Also, Old Major hopes that it will energize and burn the

spirit of animals there in spite of the flawed foundation that will cost them doom

fall in the middle until the end of the novel.

62 Anulal. S. Krishna and Dhanya, "Mimicry, Reversals without Differences, and Satire in AF.",

194.


82

Mimicry as the response of colonization actually starts to manifest right

after the Old Major finishes his event of encouragement. Snowball who is the

smartest pig breaks in Mr. Jones library. In that place, he finds many books that

show human’s knowledge of the way they do a war to the system of life such as

farming, gardening and so on. From the inferiority complex that is planted to him,

Snowball studies more and more in the library so he gains much knowledge from

the library that no animal ever has.

Bhabha mentions that mimicry is built around ambivalence, almost the

same but not quite.63 This ambivalence is important to show the resistance of the

colonized because it shows that the colonized actually mocks the colonizer. On

the other hand, this ambivalence also can be seen as a process, in this case, the

process of mimicry. As time progresses, the mimicry which is done by the

colonized becomes more complete. The process of mimicry is also the process of

learning. If someone tries to mimic something or someone he or she cannot be

perfectly same at first. There are processes to get the highest phase of mimic. That

is what happens to the novel Animal Farm. Napoleon and his pig family are not

doing perfect mimic at first. They keep doing mistake for example by writing S in

reverse shape. But, in flow with the story, they become accustomed to doing the

mimicry. They start to walk like a human, drink and eat like a human, also smoke

a tobacco like a human. In the end part of the novel, they even have a similar

status as a human in the meeting between animals and mans.



83

Mimicry also has other effects in a society of the colonized. It splits the

society into two different factions. One which believes that colonizer’s cultures

are far more superior to them and decides to embrace those cultures and also

discards the old one. The other is faction which thinks that the old and original

cultures are the one that they should hold tighter than any other cultures that come

from outside. In the novel Animal Farm, that conflict is firstly depicted by

Napoleon and Snowball. In spite of many advantages of doing mimicry that is

proposed by Snowball, Napoleon does not merely believe him. At that time,

Napoleon is still applying Old Major’s teaching to think that animals can be better

than human. Snowball proposes that by mimicry is the main reason they can win

against human in the Rebellion. Napoleon strongly disagrees. After the campaign

which he won, Napoleon slowly begins to accept human’s cultures and learns

them. He even builds a special school for animals to learn about the human.

Despite his previous hatred toward human, Napoleon becomes the one who

applies them the most and creates new cultures that combine animal and men.

Napoleon who embraces human’s culture becomes obsessed. He becomes

the one fraction that decides to discard the animal’s culture. The difference

between this situation and the previous one is that he does not create a collision

between animals which holds animal’s cultures or the other one. He uses the

power that he has the trust of his comrades as a leader to repress other. That

repression in form of policies does not reveal itself as the thing that colonizers do.

On the other hand, with the help of Squealer as the propaganda tool, Napoleon

successfully makes other animals believe that his tyranny is far better than human.


84

That creates the conflict between the one who follows him or decides to rebel

against his tyranny.

The mimicry that is done by the pigs in Animal Farm is an embodiment of

how Bhabha’s concept of mimicry can have two different purposes. At first, led

by Snowball, the mimicry can be the mean of resistance. Snowball uses his ability

to mimic human to learn from Mr. Jones library. He learns about the art of war

and war strategies. The second, by Napoleon, mimicry is used as a tool of power.

He uses mimicry to gain complete authority over the farm.

As S. W. Williams says that in the first instance the internal colonial

model was developed to illustrate the fact that colonialism was not necessarily an

external phenomenon but that the same process was operating within certain

countries, therefore the conceptual domain of the model was clearly specified.64

The colonization process in the Animal Farm is called internal because it happens

in one region which is Manor Farm. As an allegory, it also happens in one

country’s borderline, Soviet Union. Therefore, the domain is already specified as

colonization inside one country. Also, according to Lenin, Tsarist autocracy

which is done by force inside the Soviet Union can be categorized as Internal

Colonization65. In this case, the times of Mr. Jones Leadership, in which used as a

representative of Tsar Nicholas II, is also categorized as internal colonization.

The colonization of the Animal Farm, although it is already seen as

internal colonization from Mr. Jones’s regime, becomes more prominent in

64 C.W. Mitchell Williams and Stephen Wyn, "Internal Colonialism."125.65 Peter Calvert, "Internal Colonisation, Development and Environment." Third World Quarterly

22.February 2001 (2001). 51-63.


85

Napoleon’s leadership. At first, Mr. Jones’s dictatorship is only described by Old

Major speech. Napoleon is otherwise. He manipulates the rule and tortures every

animal on the farm with his cold fist. Napoleon’s leadership can be said much

worse than Mr. Jones’s time. Worse here means that the animals which reside on

the farm go through worse suffering. They become much poorer than before. It is

ironic because the farm that they live in is also more prosperous than when human

handles.

Bhabha’s theory of mimicry is covering the research question enough to

correlate with the implementation of mimicry and internal colonization in the

Animal Farm. As a process, mimicry also has a peak. This peak of mimicry

appears in the novel as the blur limit between the colonizer and colonized party.

In the last chapter of Animal Farm, George Orwell mentions meetings which

appear both in the Animal Farm and also neighboring farms owned by a human.

Those meetings indicate that human thinks the pigs have similar status with them

and vice versa because they have similar interest and power in the economic

issues. Those events also indicate that the colonial theory which is contextualized

by the word colonizer and colonized disappears from the novel at that moment.

So, the peak of mimicry is signed by the line between colonized and colonizer that

was omitted so the third side, in this case, another animal than a pig in the farm,

does not spot any difference between human as their ex-colonizer and pig as their

current colonizer.

Another point that is very important to emphasize is the use of

Commandment as the parameter of doing the mimicry. Anulal S. and Dhanya


86

Khrisna state that the Commandment’s alteration is important in mimicry process

because it creates an interdictory space. The process of alteration suggests that the

pigs are mimicking the dominant strategies or attitudes of the imagined locale of

the ideal animal society.66 It means that the ideal animal society here which is

proposed by Napoleon is the society that freed them (the pigs) doing whatever

they want with justification to stabilize the order of society. Unfortunately, Anulal

S. and Dhanya do not elaborate further on the point of colonization by the pigs

which are caused by the implementation of those dominant strategies and

attitudes.

In this thesis point of view, the implementation of that idealism creates

more than mimicry. It also creates two additional things. First is the clash between

the one who implements the idealism and seeks ideal society and the one side that

denies the new ideal and holds to the old value. Second, if the one who

implements new idealism win, there will be a new form of colonization in which

try to force the new ideal to the one side who denies it. Animal Farm reveals those

process and response as one whole.

Furthermore, the alteration also exhibits the concept of difference in

Bhabha’s almost the same but not quite. It is obvious by changing the maxim of

Commandment, the pigs reveal their capability to have the qualities of a human.

Orwell also emphasizes the similarities by writing: “Between pigs and human

beings there was not, and there need not be, any clash of interests whatever. Their

struggles and their difficulties were one”(AF, 53). Orwell states that there is not

66 Anulal. S. Krishna and Dhanya. "Mimicry, Reversals without Differences, and Satire in AF.",

197.


87

any conflict between the pigs and human anymore. They live in harmony while

other animals on the farm still live inside tyranny by pigs and in the future maybe

human too.

5.2. Ideas for Further Research

This thesis is focused on the mimicry and its implications primarily in the

novel Animal Farm. In this thesis perspective, the theory devised by Bhabha still

has not completely explored the implication of mimicry to the colonized’s society.

Furthermore, Bhabha also has not connected mimicry and internal colonization as

one of its implication. Those aspects become the main focus of this thesis and the

writer hopes there will be several researches that are conducted with same aspects

as main focus. This thesis also researches Animal Farm in realization that the

novel is 100% allegory. So, the theory that is used by Bhabha might be suitable

with the condition of the novel but, it does not represent the correlation between

mimicry with Russian Revolution. So, the research about the connection between

Bhabha’s theory of mimicry and Russian Revolution is recommended since it will

link the theory with real condition pictured by Animal Farm as allegory.

As the emphasis is more on the literature, one of the aspects which are not

covered in this thesis is the embodiment of mimicry in the real Russian Rebellion.

As Animal Farm is an allegory to the Russian Rebellion, how Napoleon and

Snowball mimic Mr. Jones is actually a satire on how in real life, both Stalin and

Trotsky mimic the policies, actions, and behavior of the previous regime – Tsar

Nikolas II. All policies that are implemented by Stalin which is pictured as


88

Napoleon which copies Tsar Nicholas are an interesting topic to be discussed with

the future researchers.

Another interesting possible avenue for next studies is how another

postcolonial concept such as subaltern can also be analyzed in Animal Farm. In

the story, the pigs are the absolute ruler, with the justification that they act for the

other animals’ benefit. Yet as it is later seen, they become the oppressor instead

while other animals such as horse and chicken are subjugated. As the

aforementioned animals are unable to voice their dissent, due to the lack of power

and knowledge, they can be stated as the subaltern who is unable to speak.

There is interesting topic that can be discussed in how the correlation

between the implementation of mimicry and internal colonization is projected in

Indonesian political life. As we already know that Indonesian was colonized by

several countries such as Netherlands and Japan. It is interesting to conduct a

research in how those two different countries affect the political life of Indonesia

that can be explored nowadays. The process of mimicry can be seen from the

affection and whether it has been developed into internal colonization or not also

why it develops or not. There are many novels that can be used to explore those

two theories, for instance, Pramoedya Ananata Toer’s Footsteps. Minke is the

main character of the novel and he is affected much by European’s way of

thinking and appearances. He is similar with Napoleon in Animal Farm. In spite

of that, Minke does not have similar power with Napoleon. He becomes the

defeated side in the conflict between colonized that does mimicry versus the side

that holds their original value highly. Different from Napoleon, Minke then


89

becomes confused with his own self. This issue is interesting to be researched

because the output is different from what this thesis results.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

"BBC - GCSE English Literature - 'AF' - historical context (pt 1/3)". bbc.co.uk.

Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin. The Post-Colonial: Studies

Reader (London: Routledge, 1995).

Bhabha, Homi K. Location of Culture (New York: Routledge, 1994).

Boehmer, Elleke. Colonial & Postcolonial Literature (New York: Oxford

University Press, 2005).

Brown, Wendy, States of Injury: Power and Freedom in Late Modernity (New

Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1995)

Byrne, Eleanor. Homi K. Bhabha (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009).

Calvert, Peter "Internal Colonisation, Development and Environment." Third

World Quarterly 22.February 2001 (2001) p. 51-63. 1

Cesaire, Aime. "Discourse on Colonialism." (Monthly Review Press , 1972) p. 7.

Chaloult, Norma Beatriz and Yves. "The Internal Colonialism Concept:

Methodological Considerations." (Social and Economic Studies 28.4,

1979) p. 85.

De Lange, Adrian. Autobiography: An Analysis of Shooting an Elephant In

Harold Bloom, Bloom's Modern Critical Views: George Orwell, (New

York: Chelsea Huse Publishers, 2007) p. 9.

Hobbes , Thomas. Leviathan, Chicago, 1952, I. XIII.

Huddart, David. Homi K. Bhabha, (London: Routledge, 2006).

Kirschner, Paul "The Dual Purpose of Animal Farm." The Review of English

Studies 55.November 2004 (2004) p. 759.

Krishna, Anulal. S. and Dhanya, "Mimicry, Reversals without Differences, and

Satire in AF." The Criterion: An International Journal in Eglish 6.V

(2015) p. 193.

Kuswono, "Marhaenism: Social Ideology Create by Sukarno." Jurnal HISTORIA

4 (2016) p. 119.

Kyst, Jon. "Russia and the Problem of Internal Colonization." Ulbandus Review 7

(2003). p. 29.


Letemendia, V. C. "Rebellion on AF: Orwell's Neglected Commentary." Journal

of Modern Literature 18 (1992) p. 127.

Memmi, Albert. The Colonized and the Colonizer (Boston: Beacon Press, 1965).

Menchhofer, Robert W. Animal Farm: The Teacher's Companion (Ohio: Millke

Publishing Company, 1990).

Morse, Donald E. "A Blatancy of Untruth": George Orwell's Uses of the Fantastic

in Animal Farm." Hungarian Journal of English and American Studies 1

(1995) p. 86-89.

Orwell, George. Animal Farm (England: Penguin Books, 1979).

Pennycook, Alastair. English and the Discourse of Colonialism (London:

Routledge, 2002).

Sharpee, Jenny. “Figures of Colonial Resistance” In Bill Ashcrift, Gareth Griffiths

and Helen Tiffin. The Post-Colonial: Studies Reader (London: Routledge,

1995). p. 97.

Shuttleworth, Antony. “The Real George Orwell: Dis-simulation In Homafe to

Catalonia and Coming Up for Air” in Harold Bloom. Bloom's Modern

Critical Views: George Orwell, (New York: Chelsea Huse Publishers,

2007). p. 97.

Soleman, Mochdar and Mohammad Noer. "Nawacita Sebagai Strategi Khusus

Jokowi Periode Oktober 2014-20 Oktober 2015." Jurnal Kajian Politik

dan Masalah Pembangunan 13 (2015) p. 1961.

Said, Edward. Culture and Imperialism (New York: Knopf Doubleday, 1993).

Tyson, Lois. Critical Theory Today: A User Friendly Guide (New York:

Routledge, 2006).

Williams, C.W. Mitchell and Stephen Wyn. "Internal Colonialism." Area 10

(1978).

Yang, Geng, Qixue Zhang and Qi Wang. "The Essence, Characteristics and

Limitation of Post-Colonialism: From Karl Marx's Point of View."

Frontiers of Philosophy in China 1 (2006) p. 287.


plagiat merupakan tindakan tidak terpuji … · kegunaan mimikri telah beubah fungsi dari sebagai...

Documents