See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331792413

The Issue of Power in George Orwell's Animal Farm and Michael Dobbs' House
of Cards

Thesis · March 2017

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19503.79525

CITATIONS READS

0 300

1 author:

Mamadou Moustapha Sanghare

Gaston Berger University, Saint-Louis
2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

COLLABORATIVE MOVIES-WATCHING IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF EFL STUDENTS’ SPEAKING AND LISTENING SKILLS View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mamadou Moustapha Sanghare on 16 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 UNIVERSITE GASTON BERGER DE SAINT-LOUIS

UFR DES LETTRES ET SCIENCES HUMAINES

SECTION DE LANGUE, LITTERATURES ET CIVILISATIONS DU MONDE

ANGLOPHONE

PARCOURS : LITTERATURES ET CIVILISATIONS

MEMOIRE DE MASTER 2

THE ISSUE OF POWER IN GEORGE

ORWELL’S ANIMAL FARM AND
MICHAEL DOBBS’ HOUSE OF CARDS

Présenté par: Sous la direction de:

Mamadou Moustapha SANGHARE Dr. Maurice GNING
Maître-assistant associé

Année Académique: 2015-2016

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION ................................................................................................................ ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................... iii

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER I: HUMAN NATURE: THE IMPULSE TO POWER .............................. 10

I.1.Human Need for Domination ............................................................................... 10

I.2: Methods to Conquest Authority .......................................................................... 21

CHAPTER II: METHODS TO PRESERVE POWER AND LEADERSHIP ISSUE . 31

II.1. Methods of Preservation .................................................................................... 31

II.2. Leadership Crisis and Abuse of Authority ........................................................ 43

CHAPTER III: LANGUAGE’S POWER AND CHARACTERIZATION ................. 56

III.1. Discursive Strategies in the Service of Power.................................................. 56

III.2.Techniques of Characterization ......................................................................... 64

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 75

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................... 78

i
 DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to:

- My beloved parents: my mother Rama Ndiaye and my father Mamadou

Sangaré. But special thanks to my mother; without her, this work would
never be done. Thanks for her sacrifices, patience and courage.

- To my Grandmother Diobé Ndiaye, my sister Ndèye Amy Sangaré and

my brother Papa Sangaré. To my friends Mamadou Diop, Mame Codou
Ndiaye, Maguette Kébé Niang and to those I have not mentioned the
names.

- To everyone that I ever met and who believed in me!

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I want to express my profound gratitude towards the persons without whom

this work could not have been done. Special mention to Dr Maurice Gning for
supervising this work, criticizing me and giving precious advice. It is also my
intention to thank my father and my mother Rama Ndiaye who has taught me
values that are still serving me.

I am really indebted to four persons who have increased my love of

literature and who are sources of inspiration to me, I mean Dr Khardiatou Diallo,
Pr Dieng, Pr Sougou and Pr. Camara. I am grateful to all my teachers at the
English Department: Dr Mamadou Ba, Dr Oumar Fall, Dr Albinou Ndecky and
Dr Astou Diop. Learning is like building, it requires the use of bricks and these
teachers constitute my brick makers. Without them and their teachings, I would
not have written this thesis.

Thanks to Yatma Thiaw who welcomed me when I came at the university

and who showed me the way to become a good student. Special thanks also to
Mame Codou Ndiaye for having read and criticized this work. Thanks also to
Mamadou Diop and my present and former roomates. I mean Samba Ba, Abdou
Dahim Diack, Abdou Khadre Diallo, Babacar Ndiaye, Boubacar Sakho,
Emmanuel André Gomis and Mohamed Ndiaye.

I cannot end without thanking all my classmates in The Master of

Documentary film direction. I mean: Oumar Ba, Yannick Glikou, Diane Kaneza,
Josephine Legeay, Mireille Niyonsaba, Ousmane Samassekou, and Olivier Teko.
Thanks for their encouragements, their friendship and their brotherhood.

iii
 INTRODUCTION

One of the core concepts in social sciences is that of power, “in the same
sense in which energy is a fundamental concept in physics” (Russell 10). Some
theorists consider it as the basis of human relations. The latter would be mainly
domination relation. In Michel Foucault’s opinion, “there are power relations.
They are multiple; they have different forms, they can be in play in family
relations, or within an institution, or an administration” (Foucault 1988, 38).

What does power refer to? Hannah Arendt defines it as “the human
aptitude not only to act but to act in concert. It is not an individual property; it
belongs to a group and keeps on belonging to it as long as this group is not set in
variance”1 (Billier 25). It is always conferred to someone and if the society that
gives it to individual disappears, it no longer exists because it has to be exercised
on someone. “Therefore power seems to exist only in relation, which would be a
way to say it is but a relation.”2 (Arendt, Qtd in Billier 16).

Foucault considers that power is not something possessed by people or

institutions. For him, it does not imply oppression or possession. It is not owned
by those in power and “must be analyzed as something which circulates, or as
something which only functions in the form of a chain […] Power is employed
and exercised through a netlike organization” (Foucault 1980, 98). Still according
to Foucault, individuals are not subjected to power, instead they convey it. Unlike
Marxists, he does not see power as a relation that ties oppressors and oppressed,
instead it is a network of complex relations that include the whole society. It is
everywhere, comes from everywhere and is exercised according to a set of
inegalitarian interchanges.

1
“Aptitude de l’homme à agir, et à agir de façon concertée. Le pouvoir n’est jamais une propriété
individuelle ; il appartient à un groupe et continue à lui appartenir aussi longtemps que ce groupe n’est pas
divisé” (Translation mine)
2
«Le pouvoir semble donc n’être qu’en relation, ce qui est une façon de dire qu’il ne serait qu’une
relation» (Translation mine)

1
 Friedberg defends that “in every sphere of activities, power can be defined
as the unbalanced distribution of possibilities of action”3 (Friedberg, Qtd in Billier
25). As for Russell, he defines it as “the production of intended effects. It is thus
a quantitative concept: given two men have similar desires, if one achieves all the
desires that the other achieves, and also others, he has more authority than the
other” (Russell 35). The basic idea that these definitions share is the idea of
unequal distribution of possibilities in the sphere of society.

Yet, the first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights outlines
that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” (Universal
Declaration of Human Right III). Similarly, the Bible argues “For you are all
God’s children through your faith in Jesus Christ. […] It no longer matters
whether one is Jew or not, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in
your communion with Jesus Christ”4 (The Bible 262). As for the Koran, it asserts
“O mankind, We have created you from a male and a female and have made you
into nations and tribes for you to know one another. Truly, the noblest of you with
God is the most pious” (Quran IX.13).

The fundamental idea these doctrines share is that men are equal. In theory,
this could be true. However, history has revealed the reality of domination in all
spheres. Slavery, colonization, dictatorship, class struggle, holocaust, genocide
and the like are before all motivated by domination issues. Some govern, others
are dominated. The distribution of power is not counterbalanced.

Weber distinguishes three types of power. The first is traditional authority

which derives from traditions; people accept the power of the individual because
it is considered to be a right. This type of power includes gerontocracy, patriarchy,
religious authority, etc. The second is authoritative charisma which rests “on

3
« Dans tout champs d’action, le pouvoir peut se définir comme l’échange déséquilibré de possibilités
d’actions » (Translation mine)
4
“Car vous êtes tous enfants de dieu par la foi qui vous lie à Jésus Christ […] Il n’importe donc plus que
l’on soit Juif ou Non Juif, esclave ou libre, homme ou femme. En effet, vous tous un da b ns la communion avec
Jésus Christ» (Translation mine)

2
devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an
individual person” (Weber 215). The dominated follows the individual because
of his charisma. The third is legal authority which Weber calls legitimate power.
It is given by political organization; it is for example the authority that a president
has to nominate a prime minister or to dismiss someone of their function.

Through centuries, many philosophers have questioned the issue of power

and how it should be exercised and distributed. They include Montesquieu with
his The Spirit of Laws. In this book, the author distinguishes three types of
governments: republic, monarchy and despotism. He advocates the separation of
powers to ensure everyone’s liberty since any man with influence is inclined to
abuse. Machiavelli’s The Prince is about how to become prince and how to
maintain one’s influence. The author exposes what is, now, known through the
name of Machiavellism: a set of immoral methods to conquer domination. But
these advice were before all motivated by a desire to preserve and unify the state.

In The Leviathan, Hobbes exposes his theory of the social contract which
consists of the alienation of some liberties to a superior authority: the Leviathan.
The latter is called mortal god because of his unlimited influence. Similarly,
Rousseau talks about this contract in his Social Contract in which he advocates a
fair social organization to ensure liberty and equality among citizens. Everyone
signs the agreement and natural freedom and powers are abandoned for a civil
liberty.

As for literature, it puts at our disposal many works that deal with the issue
of power. In Shakespeare’s eponymous play, the protagonist Macbeth commits
regicide and becomes the king with the complicity of his wife. He does everything
to keep his power and eventually experiences self-destruction. In Richard III by
the same author, the protagonist kills his brother, nephew, and wife to have access
to the throne.

3
 The American writer George R. R. Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire tells the
story of the terrible clash between members of noble families in the fictive
continent Westeros to accede to the Iron Throne which symbolizes the supreme
power. In the same vein, George Orwell and Michael Dobbs have created
characters who are greedy for power and who are ready to do anything to have it
and to keep it.

In our analysis of the issue of power in literature, we have chosen two

novels from two British authors: George Orwell’s Animal Farm and Michael
Dobbs’ House of Cards. The British writer Eric Arthur Blair, known through the
pen name George Orwell, has written many other novels: Down and Out in
London and Paris, Coming Up for Air, The Road to Wigan Pier, Burmese Days,
and 1984 which is about a totalitarian Great Britain run by a mysterious leader
Big Brother who spies on people to maintain his power.

Dystopian literature was born at the end of World War II with the rise of
leaders who misused the power they acquired and caused the death of many
thousands people. Published in 1945, Animal Farm is a short allegorical dystopian
novella written in the third person narration. It tells the story of animals who5 rebel
against humans and set up their own government with Snowball their leader. But
another pig undertakes a coup, manages to rise to power and turns the farm into a
totalitarian state.

House of Cards was written by Michael Dobbs, Lord of Wyle and member
of the British House of Lords. House of Cards is his first novel and because of its
success he wrote two sequels: To play the King and The Final Cut. In 2013, he
rewrote it and made some modifications. The novel is inspired by Shakespeare’s
Othello, Richard 3rd and Macbeth and tells the story of the villain Francis
Urquhart who wants to become Prime Minister by any means necessary.

5
We refer to animals in Animal Farm with “who”, “he”, and “she” because they are personified.

4
 The choice of these authors and works is inspired by three main reasons.
Firstly, both writers have experienced administration and power. Orwell served
in the Imperial Police of India in 1922 as a sergeant. Dobbs was a member of the
British Conservative Party and an advisor of Margaret Thatcher from 1977 to
1979. Later on, he became a special advisor of the government. He is currently a
member of the British House of Lords.

The second is that these authors are two committed political writers whose
novels are in line with their socio-historical contexts. The Soviet Revolution
inspired Animal Farm. As for House of Cards, Dobbs was inspired by the 1987
British general elections won by Marguerite Thatcher who eventually made
numerous enemies. He decided to write about the story of a politician who wants
to rid himself of a Prime Minister.

The third is that these two writers describe problems that people experience
at the top of the government. Among these problems are hunger and quest for
influence, state management method, leadership problems, manipulation, etc.
And the novels constitute a thematic continuity; House of Cards is mainly about
power thirst and quest while Animal Farm’s main concern is the methods to
maintain it.

An interesting amount of critical works have been produced about Animal

Farm. In his dissertation “Dystopia in George Orwell’s Animal Farm and 1984”,
Diagne analyzes the elements of dystopia in the novel. He argues that power is
hereditary and centralized in the hand of the elites. The individuals are oppressed
in every sphere of life and are dehumanized. Diagne’s dissertation is crucial to
our analysis as it helps us understand the dystopian features in Animal Farm.

But we do not share the scholar’s point of view when he argues that
Snowball and Napoleon become leaders not because they are competent but
because they were close to Major. Snowball and Napoleon are the only animals

5
that show interest in being leaders. They are leaders because they are more aware
and intelligent than the other animals and not because they are just pigs.

In “Strategies for preserving status quo in George Orwell’s 1984 and

Animal Farm”, Dubeck analyzes the means used by leaders to stay on power and
keep their totalitarian regime. The strategies he lists are the control of the memory
of the masses, the maintenance of class system and education. Dubeck’s
dissertation is of a paramount relevance to our work as it permits us to know how
the control of information is primordial for leaders to control their people and
maintain their influence. However, the analysis is not deep enough in some parts.
It does not fully question how Squealer manages, in his discourse, to convince the
animal to believe what he tells them and what techniques he uses in his speeches.
Neither does Dubeck mention the importance of ideology.

The latter is fully dealt with in Griet Vantieghem’s dissertation “ideology

in the works of George Orwell, a socio-cultural approach in the wake of Raymond
William’s cultural materialism”. The author defines ideology as the way in which
groups try to pass on their ideas to the rest of the community. He argues that in
Animal Farm, characters believe firmly in the ideology and are ready to do
everything to make its principles become reality. Vantieghem stresses the abuse
of ideology; the new regime, with the pigs at the head, rewrites history and
Squealer reshapes the ideology. In the author’s opinion, this is the defeat of
animalism and the birth of a new ideology. The thesis is fundamental because it
helps understand how ideology functions in a dictatorship.

Many scholars assert that Animal Farm was written in reference to Russian
revolution. Meghaouri shares this idea in her dissertation “the use of
personification in George Orwell’s novel Animal Farm”. She defends that the pigs
are personified: Old Major, the father of animalism, represents Karl Max and
Lenin the first communist leader. Napoleon epitomizes Stalin; the second leader
of the URSS. Meghaouri declares that through the use of personification, Orwell’s

6
objective is to emphasize one basic aspect of human nature which is the lust for
domination.

Her point of view is not shared by Sewlall who, in his article “George
Orwell’s Animal Farm: A metonymy for dictatorship”, indicates that the novel is
more than a beast fable referring to Russia; it is a satire of any corrupted state and
the animals represent tyrants and dictators. Both are right. Animal Farm was
written in reference to Russia but now it has gone over the sphere of Russia and
can be applied to all nations in the world.

These were some of the essential critical works related to the issue of power
in Animal Farm. Our analysis is different in the sense that it focuses on how
influence is gained and maintained through plot, manipulation, the use of rhetoric,
psychology, and how this causes leadership problems, etc. As for House of Cards,
we did not find any critical work produced about it during our research. The
reason is that the novel has been published and revised recently.

In his book Power: A New Social Analysis, Russell defends that among all
animals, humans are the only ones who are not satisfied with what they have at
their disposals. They can work more and more to obtain something they do not
necessary need. The Persian emperor Xerxes had everything he needed; he did
not lack food or riches. Yet he invaded other lands. Men want everything, even to
be God to have all powers at their disposals even if they are aware it is not
possible. (Russell 1-3)

For Russell, men have a natural need for domination; and “through times,
it has been experienced that every man who has power is inclined to abuse; he
does not stop unless he finds limits” (Montesquieu, Qtd in Starobinski 104). Hitler
massacred the Jews and Stalin ill-treated his people. This is at the basis of the
separation of powers Montesquieu advocated to prevent leaders from abusing
their authority.

7
 George Orwell’s Animal Farm is set in a grange ruled by Mr. Jones who
ill-treat the animals. Stirred up by a desire of freedom, the animals rebel and take
the control of the farm. Throughout the novel, power is at stake in the relation
between the animals and Jones and among the animals themselves. The novel
presents characters who desire power and are ready to do anything to have it. The
farm is turn into a totalitarian regime in which power is at the hands of a minority.

In Dobbs’ House of Cards the protagonist Francis Urquhart wants to

destroy the Prime Minister and become the country’s most powerful man.
Urquhart is a character who is lustful for domination and is ready to become Prime
Minister by any means necessary. The novel can be regarded as a quest for power
tale; the quest of an evil man.

What can be deduced from the presentation of these two novels is that
characters are in a constant fight for power. In the analysis, the dissertation
answers this following question: how is power obtained and maintained and which
leadership issue does lust for domination bring about at the top of the state?

Our main objective is to analyze the search for domination and its
preservation in Animal Farm and House of Cards; that is to say the tactics used
by people to conquer and keep power. Our analysis is based on the critical
examination of books and articles that are relevant to the topic and on a detailed
review of the two novels. We apply a comparative analysis of the two texts to
transcend their difference and identify what they tell us about power. We also
apply an interdisciplinary approach with the use of disciplines such as political
sciences, linguistics, psychoanalysis, discourse analysis, etc. The analysis is based
on two literary theories: Psychoanalytical criticism, and Marxism.

Psychoanalytical criticism was coined by Sigmund Freud. According to this

theory, the personality of characters has a great influence of the novel as a whole.
Characters are analyzed through the use of the Ego, Superego and Id. The

8
application of this theory is useful to our work because it allows us to analyze the
characters’ behavior and what motivates their actions.

Marxist literary theory is based on the works of Karl Marx and his socialist
and class struggle theories. Marxists analyze literary works by taking into account
its sociological context arguing that literature is the reflection of the society in
which it is produced. They analyze how the society is structured and how the
oppressed react in a given work of literature. The application of the theory is
useful as it helps us understand the class relation and the distribution of power in
the novels, particularly in Animal Farm.

This work is divided into three chapters. The first, entitled Human nature:
The impulse for imperium, scrutinizes man’s hunger for supremacy and methods
to gain it. It is divided into two sub-chapters. The first part deals with men’s desire
for domination and the second is about the tactics used in the quest for power. The
second chapter is entitled Power: methods to conserve power and leadership issue.
In this chapter, the main concern is to analyze how power is preserved once it is
obtained. Like the first, it is divided into two sub-chapters. The first one deals
with the preservation of the status quo and the second examines leadership
problems and abuse of power at the top of the government.

The third chapter discusses leaders’ discursive strategies. It also analyses

the characterization of leaders and followers. It is titled: Language’s power and
characterization. It is divided into two subchapters. The first is about the aesthetics
of the manipulative and persuasive discourse and the second scrutinizes the
psychology of the dominants and that of the dominated.

9
 CHAPTER I: HUMAN NATURE: THE IMPULSE TO POWER

I.1.Human Need for Domination

In Power: A New Social Analysis, Russell asserts that between animals and
human beings, there are many differences; they can be either intellectual or
emotional. But the most essential emotional difference is that unlike animals
which are satisfied with what they have at their disposal, humans are never
satisfied. They can work hard to obtain resources, may they not be essential. Even
if they manage to acquire them, they do not stop working. Russell argues:

The activities of animals, with few exceptions, are inspired by the

primary need of survival and reproduction, and do not exceed what
these needs make imperative. With men, the matter is different. A large
proportion of the human race, it is true is obliged to work so hard in
obtaining necessaries that little energy is left over for other purposes;
but those who livelihood is assured do not, on that account, cease to be
active. (Russell 7)
In other words, even if a man has an important position and is rich, he would
rather have a superior place. That is what may explain the coming into politics of
wealthy men who do not lack anything. The psychologist Jean-Pierre Friedman
affirms that humans’ need for domination finds its origins back to childhood. In
his opinion, babies are naturally narcissistic and want to control everything. These
desires are repulsed with age, but for some, the situation is totally different; they
do not change. Still, according to the psychologist, they are from family in which
the mother is loving and caring while the father is, most of the time, missing.

These children are most of the time very intelligent. When they grow up,
they have the tendency to look for domination. (Friedman) That is the case with
Urquhart, protagonist of House of Cards. Nothing is said about his father
throughout the novel. But, in the American adaptation, his character says

I never really knew him [his father] or what his dreams were. He was
quiet, timid, almost invisible. My mother didn't think much of him. My
mother's mother hated him. The man never scratched the surface of life.
Maybe it’s best he died so young. (House of card. Netflix, Los Gatos)

10
 Friedman argues that the more men have power, the more they want it. This
explains the fact that many politicians are never tired in their fight to rise to the
top. Some keep fighting even after numerous defeats. As an illustration, before
being elected, Senegalese former President Abdoulaye Wade lost many elections
but he would never stop running for presidency. And even when he manages to
come to office, he did not want to leave and looked for another term.

Hunger for power is thus natural in humans. The latter would even rather
become God, though they know it is impossible. The desire to become God is
motivated by a desire to have people act as one wishes. This lust for power is at
the basis of wars and violence around the world. The contract theorists such as
Hobbes talk about a hypothetic state of nature which is a period before the
instauration of State. That Hobbesian state of nature is characterized by violence,
absence of rules and abuse of power. The creation of rules and society’s main
purpose is the limitation of power. In Rousseau’s opinion,

This passage from the stature of nature to civil society create a very
noticeable change in man: the functions played by instinct in his
conduct is now substituted for a sense of justice, and his deeds have no
the moral aspect they lacked. It is only then that the voice of duty, giving
way to physical impulses and appetite, man, who until now only obeyed
himself, is obliged to act with other principles and to use his reason
instead of following his desires.1 (Rousseau 186)
The instauration of society’s main condition is the alienation of some
liberties in exchange for a protection. Some powers are taken from individuals,
merged into a greater power, transferred to someone considered to have the
required qualifications to run the community. Hobbes calls that person the
Leviathan. Hannah Arendt outlines that “power is not an individual property; it
belongs to a group and keeps on belonging to it as long as this group is not set in

1
« Ce passage de l’état de nature à l’état civil produit dans l’homme un changement très remarquable,
en substituant dans sa conduite la justice à l’instinct, et donnant à ses actions la moralité qui leur manquait
auparavant. C’est alors seulement que la voix du devoir succédant à l’impulsion physique et le droit à l’appétit,
l’homme, qui jusque-là n’avait regardé que lui-même, se voit forcé d’agir sur d’autres principes, et de consulter
sa raison avant d’écouter ses penchants » (Translation mine)

11
variance” (Arendt, Qtd in Billier 25). Power is always conferred to someone and
has to be exercised on someone.

Because they have abandoned their individual power for the good of civil
society, citizens expect leaders to redistribute it equitably. However, power is
never shared equitably. Some exercise it, others are subjected to it. Slavery, class
systems, aristocracy, bourgeoisie are or have been the rule almost everywhere
around the world. The instauration of society is the source of inequality and
unbalance distribution of power.

In Animal Farm, Jones’ rule can be considered as a Hobbesian state of

nature. There is no rule; Jones treats the animals as he wishes. In his article
“Rhetoric and the manipulation of language in George Orwell’s Animal Farm”,
Abadi claims that “Mr. Jones abuses and exploits other animals for his own
benefits” (Abadi 13). His rule is despotic and the life of the animals is
characterized by the absence of rules. There is no social contract since the animals
do not choose to live in the farm; instead they are forced to live in it miserably.
“He [Mr. Jones] and his four men were in the store-shed with whips in their hands,
lashing out in all directions” (Orwell 19).

The animals’ rebellion is inspired by a desire to sign a social contract that

will ensure their freedom and security. In his dissertation “Struggle for Survival
and the obsession of power in Lord of Flies by William Golding and Animal Farm
by George Orwell”, Diamanka holds the same point of view. He argues that “the
rebellion of the Animal Farm starts from a desire to be equal and to be free, a
society without state. The oppressing humans were considered as the bourgeoisie
and the animals were considered as the proletariat working class” (Diamanka 14).

This is why the animals further rebel and decide to run their own life by
creating their own society with the seven commandments as their constitution and
the pigs as their leaders. In his thesis “Pouvoir et politique dans quelques romans
de George Orwell et de Chinua Achebe, un essai de rapprochement", Gorgui

12
Dieng declares that “the adoption of this fundamental law shows that there is a
visible will, from the pigs, which are in charge of farm’s leadership, to conclude
a deal, a sort of treaty, with the rest of the animals who make up the society”2
(Dieng Gorgui 62).

When Old Major, the wisest animal in the farm, calls for a meeting, he tells
them “that is my message to you, comrades: Rebellion” (Orwell 9). Old Major’s
speech is so persuasive that the animals are convinced of an imminent rebellion,
which means the birth of a nation and the coming to power of new leaders. His
speech is intended to make the animals forget about their personal life and start
thinking as a community.

In “Ideology in the works of George Orwell, a socio-cultural approach in

the wake of Raymond Williams’ cultural materialism”, Vanteighem affirms that
“the appeal for unity will stick into the minds of the animals when they decide to
start their rebellion against Mr. Jones in an atmosphere of all-for-one and one-for-
all” (Vantieghem 36). That unity allows them to rebel against Jones and his
unlimited power and to install a republic where they enjoy their freedom.

Russell maintains that “where no social institution, such as aristocracy or

hereditary monarchy, exists to limit the number of men to whom power is
possible, those who most desire power are broadly speaking those most likely to
acquire it” (Russell 12). In other words, in non-democratic society, those who are
hungry for power are those who can have it. In a monarchy, a peasant would not
desire power since he is not likely to have it because of his social condition; but a
prince, queen or a member of the royal family may need for domination because
their status may allow them to become leaders.

2
«L’adoption de cette loi fondamentale montre qu’il y a une volonté manifeste de la part des cochons,
qui ont la direction de la ferme entre leurs mains, de conclure un marché, une sorte de pacte, avec le reste des
animaux qui forment le peuple.» (Translation mine)

13
 In Animal Farm, there is a monarchy and power is, at a certain point,
hereditary. Ibrahima Diagne, in his dissertation “Dystopia in George Orwell’s
Animal Farm and 1984”, holds the same opinion, he states:

Political leaders are not in office thanks to their competence. They hold
the power because they are kin to the previous leaders. Or they come
from the same social background […] Thus Napoleon and Snowball
inherit the power after Old Major’s death because they are all pigs
(Diagne 13).
The pigs are the only animals who show real need for domination. But we
do not share Diagne’s point of view. It may be true that Snowball and Napoleon
come to power because they inherit it from Old Major, but it is not less true that
they are leaders because they are the only ones to have the required competences.
The narrator explains: “the work of teaching and organizing the others fell
naturally upon the pigs, who were generally recognized as being the cleverest of
the animal” (Orwell 15).

The pigs’ desire to rule is motivated by the conscience of their skills; the
other animals such are the horses or sheep do not want to rule, for they know they
have no skills. In House of Cards, the same situation is valid. The characters that
show hunger for power are basically those who have the qualifications to run the
country. Francis Urquhart, the main character, despite his villainous nature and
bad intentions, has all the attributes to be Prime Minister. He has been the party’s
chief whip and “had spent years climbing the political ladder, from backbencher
through Junior Ministerial jobs” (Dobbs 11).

Urquhart has a huge political experience in the political field. A news article
describes him as “a leader who has maturity, a sense of discretion, and a proven
capacity for working with all his colleagues” (Dobbs 258). All other candidates
for Prime Minister have political experiences. Michael Samuel is the
“Environment Secretary” (Dobbs 229), Patrick Woolton the “Foreign Secretary”
(Dobbs 258). They are hungry for power and fulfill the conditions to be leaders.

14
 Russell stresses that “in a social system in which power is open to all, the
post which confers power will, as a rule, be occupied by men who differ from the
average in being exceptionally power-loving” (Russell 12). In Animal Farm, after
the installation of animalism, power is open but only two animals differentiate
themselves from the others: Napoleon and Snowball. After a long struggle,
Napoleon manages to chase Snowball and becomes the sole leader of the farm.

He proves to have a deeper need for domination than Snowball. The latter,
as Diagne claims it “fails to notice Napoleon’s greed for domination. He is not
perceptive enough to see that Napoleon is building up strategies in order to
become the most powerful animal in the farm” (Diagne 16). Since the revolution,
Napoleon has been demonstrating a leadership tendency and acting in order to
undermine his counterpart’s authority.

In House of Cards, Urquhart is the man who mostly desires power. To reach
his aim, he destroys anyone between him and the throne. He even kills Roger
O’Neil and Mattie Storin, two persons he uses to rise to the top but who finally
threaten his tranquility. Just like Snowball in Animal Farm, Urquhart’s opponents
do not notice his greed for power since he pretends not to want to be leader.

Orwell and Dobbs show us that people who are avid for influence are those
who have the dispositions to become leaders. They are mostly close to the former
leader, and have the prerequisite qualifications. They mostly show desire for
domination and manage to hide it. Napoleon and Urquhart greed for imperium is
beyond limits and they are ready to do anything to acquire it.

Their desire for dominion has different manifestations. The first one is their
entrepreneurship mind. People who are avid for power are the first to act when an
opportunity occurs. Consciously or unconsciously, they want to impose
themselves as leaders. In Animal Farm, the first character who shows lust for
power is Old Major. His name is very interesting. Actually, his true name is
Willingdon Beauty but he is called Old Major” (Orwell 4). The latter is composed

15
of two adjectives “Old” and “major”. “Old” implies the idea of experience, long
life and “Major” means “very important”. United, they may mean “the important
experienced one”.

It is common for leaders, particularly dictators, to give themselves names.

Mussolini named himself Il Duce which means guide, Adolf Hitler choose Fuhrer
which also stands for the guide, and Vladimir Illitch Oulianov who inspired the
character of Old Major named himself Lenin which translates as Lena’s man; the
latter being a river located next to his deportation place. Old Major’s nickname is
not fortuitous. It implies the desire to give himself much more importance and
esteem and seemingly that does pay off because he is “so highly regarded on the
farm that everyone was quite ready to lose an hour’s sleep in order to hear what
he had to say” (Orwell 4).

Major’s purpose is to mentally dominate the animals. When he gathers

them to tell them about their conditions, his speech contains proof of this. To
introduce himself he argues: “I have had a long life, I have had much time for
thought […] and I think I may say that I understand the nature of life on earth as
well as any animal now living” (Orwell 6). And his traces are still visible in the
mind of the animals even after his death. He exercises influence over them; the
farm political system is inspired by his teachings.

However, Major’s desire for domination is minim compared to that of

Napoleon. After the rebellion, he pre-empts everything and attempt to lead the
animals. He “led them [the animals] back to the store-shed and served out a double
ration of corn to everybody” (Orwell 21). This act proves his desire to rule. His
thirst for domination is so intense that even if he manages to become the sole
leader of the farm, he keeps wanting more and more.

Dobbs introduces in House of Cards a character similar to Napoleon in

terms of impulse for domination. Here again, his avidity shows in different ways.
Francis is a very ambitious man. He has started from the lowest office to climb to

16
the highest place. This attitude is the expression of a strong patience and ambition.
Introducing him, the narrator explains that “Urquhart had spent years climbing
the political ladder, from backbencher through Junior Ministerial jobs and now
attending Cabinet as Chief Whip, one of the two dozen most powerful posts in the
Government” (Dobbs 11).

As a good politician with experiences, Urquhart knows which way the wind
is going to blow. Consequently, he supports Henry Collingridge in his race for
Ten Downing Street. His support is not motivated by esteem or respect, but mostly
by a desire to be given a post after their victory. He believes he must have the
post. After Henry’s nomination and Francis’ suggesting a reshuffle in the
government, the narrator explains: “He [Urquhart] was demanding his place at the
top table, and by right rather than invitation” (Dobbs 45).

His idea of reshuffling the government is another proof of his thirst for
power. He hands Henry an envelope and tells him “I’ve been giving some thought
to the reshuffle” (Dobbs 45) and this just after the results have been announced.
He is so in a hurry to enter the government that he commits the act that condemns
him because Collingridge loses his temper and tells him: “This is scarcely the
time. Perhaps we should be thinking about securing our majority before we start
sacking our colleagues” (Dobbs 46).

The government majority after their victory is not great; they have lost
many seats in the House of Commons, but Urquhart’s main interest is not this, but
his post and a desire to organize the government at his image. This greed for
control makes him forget that leadership is not a right, but a duty. Because he
supports Henry, he expects an important post from him. What mostly triggers his
impulse to domination is the announcement that there will be no reshuffle.

From that moment, Urquhart’s main desire is to become Prime Minister,

the country’s most powerful man. He is ready to do anything to succeed in his
plan. To him, nothing is more important than that. In Shakespeare’s Othello, Iago

17
is very similar to Urquhart; he is even considered as a source of inspiration for
Dobbs in the elaboration of Urquhart’s character. Like Urquhart, Iago is ready to
destroy Othello because he does not have the post he has been promised.

In Urquhart’s mind, climbing the ladder to the top is more important than
everything and he is ready to do anything to destroy the Prime Minister. Morals
have no value any longer. Mortima, his own wife, suggests him to sleep with
Mattie Storin, a young ambitious journalist. She tells him: “You must bind her in,
Francis” (Dobbs 76). The idea is to use her to leak secret state information that
will incriminate Henry.

Before he kills Mattie, he tells her: “If you understand power, you will
know that sometimes sacrifice is necessary” (Dobbs 371). He kills her cold-
bloodily though they have an affair and are very familiar. This act reveals that no
one can stand between him and his ambition. Power is more important than
everything; even friends (Henry), lovers (Mattie), colleagues (Patrick, Samuel),
etc. His impulse to power is limitless.

The same situation occurs in Shakespeare’s Macbeth which is about the

story of the eponymous character who is too blindly ambitious, he manages to
seize power and little by little destructs himself. Macbeth is the cousin of the King
Duncan; when he returns from war, he meets three witches who tell him that he
will become king after being Thane of Cawdor.

Soon later, he is nominated Thane of Cawdor and this makes him believe
in the whole prophecy. And when he is informed that the king is going to pay him
a visit, he decides to kill him. Ducan’s sons Malcolm and Donalbain discover
about the murder and then decides to run away fearing for their lives. Macbeth
becomes king but, fearing to lose the throne, he kills Banquet to whom the witches
say his sons would become king. Thereafter, he orders that Macduff’s children
and wife be killed when he knows that he is joining Malcolm.

18
 The play resembles House of Cards in their protagonists’ lust for
supremacy. Both Macbeth and Urquhart kill to become leaders. But there are
differences. Unlike Macbeth, Francis does not kill the leader, he just manages to
get rid of him through plots. Another difference lies in their wife implication.
Lady Macbeth persuades his husband to kill the king and assists him during all
his actions while Mrs. Urquhart is rather inactive. However she is the one who
advises her husband to sleep with Mattie to better control her.

Richard III is another play by Shakespeare which is about the same issue.
Richard is jealous of his brother King Eduard IV. To become king, Richard
decides to kill all people that constitute lagging factor to his accession to the
throne. He marries a lady whom he intends to kill as soon as she becomes useless.
He also orders the assassination of the son of Queen Elisabeth and that of Lord
Hastings, a character who is loyal to Edward’s sons.

Throughout the play, he gets all his enemies killed. The point is that like
Urquhart, Richard is avid for power and is ready to do everything to have it. But
Francis is more discrete. No one knows he is behind the plot that overthrew
Collingridge. Instead, he manages to make everything consider him as a wise and
the right man at the right place. He is more careful and cunning in his actions. Yet,
both hunger for influence is limitless.

Dobbs and Orwell introduce characters who are very thirsty for imperium.
They want to be leaders whatever the costs. Yet, this is only one kind of need for
domination. According to Russell, “the power impulse has two forms: explicit, in
leaders; implicit, in their followers” (Russell 15). Any organizations or
community is organized through the binary opposition: leaders/followers. Hence
the Marxists’ distinction “haves”/ “have-nots”, bourgeoisie/proletariat.

Power is not distributed equitably; some exercise it, some undergo it.
Russell argues that those who undergo it, as well as those who have it, are greedy
for power but it is implicit. He argues “most men do not feel in themselves the

19
competence required for leading their group to victory, and therefore seek out a
captain who appears to possess the courage and sagacity necessary for the
achievement of supremacy” (Russell 15).

In his opinion, followers are leaders. They have authority and want to be
leaders but they are aware that they do not have the necessary capacities to rule.
That is why they look for someone who embodies the qualifications, and help
them to acquire power. They consider that their victory is theirs. That is why,
according to Russell, unequal distribution of power in society is current and well
accepted.

In Animal Farm, Boxer is a follower to Napoleon. According to Meghaouri,

he “represents the working class. Boxer is portrayed as being a dedicated worker,
but as possessing a less-than-average intelligence” (Meghaouri 40). He supports
Napoleon whatever his acts and keeps telling himself: “If Comrades Napoleon
says it, it must be right” (Orwell 82). He is totally obsessed by him and believes
him firmly. His impulse to power is implicit because he transfers his authority to
the leader and becomes submissive to him. But his need for control does not equal
that of Napoleon, otherwise he also would be leader since “the post which confers
power will, as a rule, be occupied by men who differ from the average in being
exceptionally power-loving” (Russell 12).

Contrary to Animal Farm, House of Cards does not present that implicit
and explicit impulse to domination opposition. Francis has a follower in Roger
O’Neil but the latter obeys because he is obliged to, since Urquhart blackmails
him. He promises him a post when he becomes Prime Minister. Roger is greedy
for power but he has no qualifications to be leader; instead he becomes Urquhart’s
pawn in his machinations.

The psychologist David Owen has coined, in his book In Sickness and In
Power, a term: the Hubris syndrome. The latter refers to the story of heroes who
come to consider themselves as God. In the field of political psychology, experts

20
talks about a mental state that pushes some persons to excessiveness. That state is
called Hubris Syndrome. According to Miro Jakovljević in his article “Hubris
syndrome and a new perspective on political psychiatry”,

The hubris syndrome includes the behavior seen in a person who: 1.

sees the world as a place for self-glorification through the use of power¸
2. Has a tendency to take action primarily to enhance personal image,
3. Shows disproportionate concern for image and presentation, 4.
Exhibits messianic zeal and exaltation in speech, 5. Conflates self with
nation or organization, 6. Uses the royal 'we' in conversations, 7. Shows
excessive self-confidence, […] Displays incompetence with disregard
for the nuts and bolts of policy-making. This syndrome is associated
with the possession of power, especially with power which has been
linked with exorbitant success. (Miro 137).
George Orwell and Michael Dobbs portray individuals who have these
symptoms and who apparently suffer from this mental disease. These individuals
want to rise to the top and are ready to do anything to succeed. For them,
everything is an opportunity. They even create chaos and profit from it to rise: it
is a ladder and only climbing to the top is important. Power is what drives their
actions. There is no more friendship; the only thing that interests them is their
limitless ambition.

I.2: Methods to Conquest Authority

Dobbs and Orwell portray people whose greed for power makes them
undertake any possible actions. They have many tactics, which, most of the time,
require the sacrifice of others. The representation of these characters’ quest is
different in the two novels. Throughout House of Cards, the protagonist Francis
Urquhart is in search of power and the novel ends when he realizes his goal while
in Animal Farm, the quest is only a stage since Napoleon reaches his aim in the
middle of the novel, the rest of which is about how to preserve it.

The first tactic Napoleon uses is to present and impose himself as the
rightful leader. After Major’s death, Napoleon and Snowball start leading the
others and giving orders. The reason is that they are considered as the most
intelligent animals. “The work of teaching and organizing the others fell naturally

21
upon the pigs, who were generally recognized as being the cleverest of the
animals” (Orwell 15). They seem to know the revolution would happen; they learn
to read and write perfectly and impose themselves as the rightful leaders.

Their reading ability allows them to install Animalism. The latter is a

political system that is inspired by Old Major’s teachings. The system is
summarized to become the Seven Commandments which constitute the farm’s
constitution. In his dissertation, “Ideology in the works of George Orwell, a socio-
cultural approach in the wake of Raymond Williams’ cultural materialism",
Vanteighem claims that:

If we compare it to Old Major’s speech, we must conclude that the

Seven Commandments are an elaborate system. In the speech Old
Major talked about nothing more than to free the animals from
mankind. Only commandments 1, 2 and 7 are directly related to what
Old Major proclaimed in his speech. All the directives remain in line
with what the old boar stood for, but strictly speaking the other
commandments are derivations which the other pigs made by
themselves. (Vanteighem 38-39)
The seven commandments mainly derive from Snowball and Napoleon’s
own ideas, even if some parts are inspired by Major’s thought. Gorgui Dieng
clearly states it in his thesis:

Old Major’s heirs, Snowball, Napoleon and Squealer, like Lenin, Leon
Trotsky and Stalin did with the ideology of Marx, have developed their
master’s thought by creating precise rules and principles. These rules,
known through the name of Commandments, although there are seven
of them, they can be summarized into two concepts: equality among
animals and assimilation of man to a common enemy.3 (Dieng, G. 58)
Basically, they say the same thing: animals should not behave like humans.
But the other animals are not intelligent and they cannot even memorize them.
Similarly, Vanteighem argues that:

Another problem with the Seven Commandments is that most of them

are only concerned with the distinction between man and animal, which

3
« Les héritiers de Old Major, Snowball, Napoleon, Squealer, ont comme Lénine, Léon Trotsky et Staline
l’ont fait avec l’idéologie de Marx, développé la pensée de leur maitre en lui trouvant des règles et des principes
bien précis. Ces règles connues sous le nom de commandements, bien qu’étant au nombre de sept, peuvent être
contenus dans les deux concepts d’égalité entre animaux et d’assimilation de l’espèce humaine à un ennemi
commun» (Translation mine)

22
 stays close to Old Major’s statement, but which can in itself easily be
reduced to “no-one shall behave like a human”. By rephrasing the same
idea several times the impression is given that all animals other than
pigs are too dumb to understand the difference between animals and
humans (Vanteighem 39).
The fact of separating the commandments makes them more complex and
gives more influence to the pigs. The latter becomes, in the eyes of the animals,
the elaborator of so complex a system. The idea behind the act is to perfect their
image and appear as the rightful and most skillful leaders.

In House of Cards, Urquhart uses the same tactic; after having got rid of
the Prime minister, his plan is to make people believe he is the right man that the
country needs. And to manage to do so, he has a very powerful weapon at his
disposal: the media. Urquhart has no press enterprise but he has an adjuvant:
Landless, a rich and powerful press tycoon who wants him elected. Because he
owns The Chronicle, Landless can control the information people receive, then
what they believe and how they perceive things.

He orders a survey to ask whom the MPs will vote for. The results are
modified to designate Michael Samuel, a young ambitious MP who is the
Environment Secretary. Urquhart is put far behind. This is a political strategy to
make Samuel become everyone’s enemy. Since he is the most likely to win, the
other candidates are going to try hard to destroy him. Urquhart is put behind so
that people think that he has no chance to win. The purpose is to make all
candidates fight one another while Urquhart emerges little by little.

Urquhart publicly pretends not to want to be candidate while Samuel is

shown preparing a rapid press conference. And the narrator emphasizes a
“contrast between Urquhart, the dignified and elder statesman declining to run,
and the apparently eager Samuel holding an impromptu press conference on the
street and launching himself as the first official candidate” (Dobbs 232-233).
When troubles occur between two other candidates McKenzie and Woolton,
Urquhart publishes a communiqué in which he asks for “a return to the good

23
manners and standards of personal conduct for which our part is renowned”
(Dobbs 247).

His plan works since he is so well perceived that “the following day’s news
was dominated by speculation about whether Urquhart would run. The media had
excited itself to the point where they would feel badly let down if he didn’t”
(Dobbs 265). At the same time, an article of The Chronicle criticizes the other
candidates and presents their defaults. Urquhart presents his candidature in a well
prepared press conference but, he pretends to do it just for the sake of duty. Like
Napoleon and Snowball, he manages to perfect his image and appear as the true
leader.

The second tactic used by the pigs in their conquest for domination is to
snatch the power. After Old Major’s death, the pigs become leaders but no vote is
organized. Diagne argues that “they hold the power because they are kin to the
previous leaders. Or they come from the same social background […] Thus
Napoleon and Snowball inherit the power after Old Major’s death because they
are all pigs” (Diagne 16). Then Animal Farm becomes a monarchy and power is
hereditary.

They install animalism and start leading the animals without being asked
to. Their enterprising nature and hunger for power are what make them gain more
influence. As mentioned above, Russell asserts that “in a social system in which
power is open to all, the post which confers power will, as a rule, be occupied by
men who differ from the average in being exceptionally power-loving” (Russell
12). In Animal Farm, the character that is exceptional in his greed for power is
Napoleon.

After Old Major’s death, three animals show leadership skills: Squealer,
Snowball and Napoleon. When the revolution occurs and the animals manage to
chase humans out of the farm, Napoleon demonstrates again a leadership
tendency. He “then led them (the animals) back to the store-shed and served out

24
a double ration of corn to everybody” (Russell 21). He is enterprising and acts
like a leader. But Snowball is the most visible leader. But he does not know that
Napoleon has something else in mind; he is planning strategies to seize it from his
companion. But he does not show it; he prefers to act in a smooth manner.

The first step is to prepare a coup, and “it happened that Jessie and Bluebell
[a couple of dogs] had both Whelped soon after the hay harvest, giving birth
between them to nine puppies” (Orwell 35). Napoleon takes it as a way to realize
his scheme. He takes the nine puppies and uses education as a pretext. The
construction of the windmill which is supposed to bring electricity to the farm is
paralyzed because Napoleon always sides against it.

The day of the vote, he advises everybody to vote against its building. But
with his natural eloquence, Snowball manages to persuade everybody. Napoleon
decides it is high time he undertook what he has been planning for too long. The
narrator explains

Napoleon uttered a high-pitched whimper of a kind no one had ever

heard him utter before. At this there was a terrible sound outside, and
nine enormous dogs wearing brass-studded collars came bounding into
the barn. They dashed straight for Snowball, who only sprang from his
place just in time to escape their snapping jaws (Orwell 52-53).
The nine dogs are those he took from their parents while they were still
puppies. Now they have grown up and he has conditioned them to obey him. They
chase Snowball out of the farm and now Napoleon rises to power and becomes
the sole leader. Vanteighem affirms that “by expelling Snowball, the equality
between the animals is damaged, leaving everybody behind in an immense
tremor” (Vanteighem 45). Napoleon’s reign announces the end of the privileges
the animals have. His action is a reference to Stalin expelling Trotsky from Russia.
Trotsky was a rival to Stalin who then decided to exile him when he came to
power. Snowball is a personification of Trotsky while Napoleon represents Stalin”
(Meghaouri 38-39).

25
 The same action is visible in African political scene. On the 17th of January
1961, Patrick Lumumba, then Congo’s Prime Minister, is kidnapped by a group
of men. That same day, he is assassinated. The person who ordered his
assassination is Mobutu, his former friend, who saw him as a rival. Like Napoleon
with Snowball, Mobutu incriminated Lumumba and he accused him of having
pro-communist idea.

The fact of chasing or assassinating his rival to rise to power seems to be

practiced everywhere around the world. In House of Cards, the same situation
occurs; Urquhart wants to get rid of the Prime Minister. But unlike Napoleon, he
cannot just chase him out because they are in a democracy. Rather, he wants to
destroy him and become the leader. His quest for domination can be divided into
two different steps: first getting rid of the Prime Minister and second running for
the post of Prime Minister and striking out the other candidates.

The first step is characterized by the use of different tactics. The first is to
slander the Prime Minister Henry Collingridge and make people hate him. And
rightly, he has found a way in Charles Collingridge, the alcoholic brother of
Henry. But before finalizing his plan, he obliges Roger O’Neil, the drug addicted
“Party’s Director of Publicity” (Dobbs 23) to help him in exchange of his silence
about his addiction and the money embezzlement he practices.

This emphasizes Urquhart’s thirst for influence as he is ready to use

everyone and blackmails anyone to reach his aim. He traps Henry and leaks the
false information that he gives secret information to Charles to bail him out. But
the Prime Minister cannot defend himself. That is the first step Urquhart
undertakes to ruin his reputation; an MP suggests that: “he [Henry] should resign.
He’s destroying our Party and now he’s got himself wrapped up in what looks like
a family scandal” (Dobbs 180). This way, Urquhart manages to raise the public’s
indignation and everyone hates the Prime Minister.

26
 Through this, Dobbs criticizes the media which are ready to spread
information without taking the time to fully check it. As Mattie claims it, “anyone
could have opened that accommodation address. I don’t believe Charles
Collingridge ever went anywhere near Paddington. Somebody else did it in his
name” (Dobbs 248). It is Urquhart who has opened the accommodation address
in the name of Charles to incriminate him. But nobody wants to listen to Mattie;
instead she is fired. The information is too sensational to be left out. Instead of
taking the time to check whether it is true or not, journalists prefer to prove that it
is true.

Urquhart’s second tactic is the leak of sensitive information and the use of
the media. He leaks information through Mattie Storin, a young ambitious
journalist from The Chronicle owned by the press magnate Benjamin Landless, a
man who does not like the Prime Minister. In Animal Farm, the press is used to
maintain the elite’s domination while in House of Cards it serves the quest for
power.

A secret survey ordered by the party shows that the Prime minister’s
popularity’s rank decreases considerably. The results are sent to Mattie who wants
to publish it, but her editor-in-chief rejects it. Through these facts, Dobbs criticizes
editors who are ready to publish any kind of information if it fits their interests.
They are even ready to create information to destroy a man and elect another.
Francis argues “truth lies in the hands of its editor” (Dobbs 245). And that is what
Benjamin Landless does; he and Urquhart decide it is high time the party got rid
of Henry. Later, Preston, the editor-in-chief of The Chronicle, publishes a highly
modified version of Mattie’s article which depicts Collingridge as “a catastrophe
threatening to engulf the Government” (Dobbs 168).

Collingridge is then obliged to resign though the information that accuses

him is false and fabricated. But Francis has not reached his objective yet: prime
ministership. This constitutes the second step in his quest for power. Like the first

27
one, two main tactics characterize it: the media and getting rid of the other
candidates. In his article “the impact of scandal on public opinion”, Pawelczyk
argues that: “Scandals sweep presidents, prime ministers and ministers off the
stage, destroy political careers, break ruling coalitions” (Pawelczyk 45).

Understanding the danger of scandals for a politician, Urquhart implicates

all other candidates in scandals. That is what he does with McKenzie and Earle
who are obliged to abandon. McKenzie is the Health Secretary who is hated by
the medical stuff for his budget cuts. For his campaign, he decides then not to visit
hospital but a laboratory. His plan is to do it in secret by warning the press just
three hours earlier. Unfortunately for him, Urquhart learns it and a crowd of
doctors and nurses awaits Mackenzie at the Laboratory. Overwhelmed, his
chauffeur accidently runs over a nurse.

McKenzie’s political career was left on the road alongside the ugly
burnt tyre marks. It didn’t matter that […] the woman was not badly
injured, or that she wasn’t in fact a nurse but a full time union convenor
and an experienced hand at turning a picket line drama into a
newsworthy crisis. No one bothered to enquire and why should they?
They already had their story (Dobbs 283).
Urquhart’s second victim is Harold Earl who prefers to go back to his Essex
village for his campaign. But years later, he had sexual relations with a young
man named Simon. Then the boy blackmailed him and Earle asked Urquhart for
help. The Chief Whip managed to get rid of the boy but took his identity before.
That is what he uses to get rid of Earl. The latter is forced to withdraw his
candidature to avoid a sexual scandal that would destroy him totally.

Elections are organized and Urquhart manages to make his way to the
second ballot with Paul Woolton and Michael Samuel whose authority he
manages to undermine. People have no other solution than to vote for the wise,
experienced and humbled Francis Ewan Urquhart who becomes the newly-elected
Prime Minister. But, as he tells Mattie Storin, with power “sacrifice is necessary”
(Dobbs 371). the sacrifice of Roger and Mattie. Roger, because he is

28
uncontrollable and Mattie because she conducts an investigation that incriminates
him.

Seemingly, what George Orwell and Michael Dobbs teach us in their novels
is that the road to power is paved with murders, plot, manipulation, and slanders.
Napoleon uses violence to snatch the power whereas Urquhart makes use of
manipulation, media, slanders and murder. Their impulse for domination makes
them undertake unspeakable acts to reach their aims.

29
CHAPTER II: METHODS TO PRESERVE POWER AND LEADERSHIP
ISSUE

II.1. Methods of Preservation

In Animal Farm and House of Cards, one encounters characters whose lust
for domination makes them do anything. Once power is acquired, leaders use
many tactics in order to maintain it. At this point, two types of power are at stake.
The first is authoritative charisma which rests “on devotion to the exceptional
sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person” (Weber 215).
The dominated follows the individuals because of his charisma. The second is
legal authority which Weber calls legitimate power; it is given by political
organization.

The first manoeuvre Napoleon uses once in power is the centralization of

decisions. During Snowball’s leadership, decisions were taken by vote and all
animals had their say, but Napoleon decides “that from now on the Sunday-
morning Meetings would come to an end” (Orwell 54). An assembly of Pigs will
take all decisions. Diagne argues that “the power detained by the pigs in Animal
Farm and the party in 1984 have in common their centralization. The regimes are
oligarchic. All decisions are made inside the same sphere. No other entity has a
say in the matter” (Diagne 30). In 1984, decisions are taken by one entity only:
the party.

In Animal Farm, Napoleon and Squealer take decisions and call the animals
only to inform them about their decisions and give them “their orders for the week,
but there would be no more debate” (Orwell 54). The pretext is that they are
useless. Dubeck asserts that “the pigs are the upper classes, as they are in a
position of power, which means that they have an interest in keeping the working
class outside the decision-making arena” (Dubeck 4). Days after his accession to
leadership, Napoleon abolishes Beast of England which is the song of the

31
revolution written by Old Major and sung frequently by the animals. He forbids
it because, as Squealer states it,

[It] was the song of the Rebellion. But the Rebellion is now completed.
[…] In Beasts of England we expressed our longing for a better society
in days to come. But that society has now been established. Clearly this
song has no longer any purpose (Orwell 88).
The point is that the decision has been taken without asking the others their
point of view. This is frequent in dictatorship in which decisions are centralized
to ensure that those on power stay there. This is mainly possible because of the
establishment of a system of elitism. Louis Tyson argues in his book Critical
Theory Today that:

From a Marxist perspective, differences in socioeconomic class divide

people in ways that are much more significant than differences in
religion, race, ethnicity, or gender. For the real battle lines are drawn,
to put the matter simply, between the “haves” and the “have-nots,”
between the bourgeoisie—those who control the world’s natural,
economic, and human resources—and the proletariat, the majority of
the global population who live in substandard conditions and who have
always performed the manual labor—the mining, the factory work, the
ditch digging, the railroad building—that fills the coffers of the rich.
Unfortunately, those in the proletariat are often the last to recognize this
fact (Tyson 54).
Marxists analyse society in terms of a division between classes. Their
analysis “focuses on relationships among socioeconomic classes, both within a
society and among societies, and it explains all human activities in terms of the
distribution and dynamics of economic power” (Tyson 54). The society in Animal
Farm is divided according to this dynamics of economic power. The “haves”
represented by the pigs who own and control all means of production and the
“have-nots” embodied by the other animals which only represent workers.

The bourgeoisie exploits the proletariat. The latter is more numerous since
the ruling class in the farm is only composed of a small number of pigs. Yet they
control them and make them work like slaves. The reason is that the animals are
not united. Tyson defends that:

32
 Were the proletariat of any given country to act as a group, regardless
of their differences (for example, were they all to vote for the same
political candidates, boycott the same companies, and go on strike until
their needs were met), the current power structure would be radically
altered (Tyson 54).
But the animals do not realise their power in number; then they cannot
revolt. This is the reason why Dubeck claims that:
Being forced into hard labour and suffering keeps them in line, since their
ability to resist is broken down through hard labour and low wages. The
ruling classes are aware of the power that the working class possesses if
they unite and realize their inner strength. By not giving the working
classes the possibility […] to develop intellectually, the masses are unable
to realize the power they have in numbers (Dubeck 6).
The animals are neither educated nor given the chance to develop some
intellectual abilities; education is reserved to the elite. The pigs learn to read and
write to maintain their dominance while the rest of the animals are put in total
ignorance. Most of them find it hard to read their names. This way, the system is
maintained and everyone remains in their place.

In his book On the Reproduction of Capitalism, Ideology and Ideological

State Apparatus, the Marxist theorist Louis Althusseur argues that:

The class (or class alliance) in power cannot lay down the law in the
ISAs [Ideological State Apparatus] as easily as it can in the (Repressive)
State Apparatus, not only because the former ruling classes are able to
retain strong positions there for a long time, but also because the
resistance of the exploited classes is able to find means and occasions
to express itself there, either by the utilization of their contradictions,
or by conquering combat positions in them in struggle. (Althusser 70)
School and education are means for the state to reinforce their domination,
either by giving the masses trainings that only make them workers or simple civil
servants or by propagating the state’s ideology. In the case of Animal Farm, it is
about giving to the elite the required trainings to remain dominant and to masses
insignificant teachings to stay proletarians. “All Ideological State Apparatuses
without exception contribute to the same end: the reproduction of the relations of
production, that is, of capitalist relations of exploitation” (Althusser 144).

33
 Another strategy the pigs use is the demonization of the enemy. Snowball
is considered as the enemy and described as a criminal. When the Windmill is
destroyed, Napoleon asks the animals “do you know who is the responsible for
this? Do you know the enemy who has come in the night and overthrow our
windmill? SNOWBALL!” (Orwell 69-70) Yet, Snowball is at the basis of its
creation and works a lot to make it built while Napoleon always sides against it.

Once in power, Napoleon’s discourse changes: the idea of the windmill was
his and he was just pretending not to like it. Its destruction becomes the occasion
to demonize Snowball. Abadi contends that “[W]henever the farm suffers a
setback or any trivial problem, Napoleon blames Snowball’s treachery, which the
reader, of course, knows is untrue” (Abadi 15). Dubeck confirms that:

Snowball is a convenient traitor, since Napoleon, the later leader on the

farm, does not only want him out of the picture. With Snowball being
branded traitor and accused of plotting against the farm, the animals
need protection against him. That protection they find with Napoleon,
so the more he accuses Snowball the more he can count on the loyalty
of the working animals on the farm. The traitor therefore helps the
leader to stay in power (Dubeck 10).
The demonization of Snowball has only one goal: making the masses seek
protection from the leader. His domination is then reinforced. In 1984, the same
thing can be noted. The party has created a national enemy named Emmanuel
Goldstein and like Napoleon he is said to be a threat to the peace of the community
and is accused of many misdemeanours. The party organizes minutes hate during
which people express their hate toward Goldstein. Big Brother needs to
consolidate his domination by making himself the saviour of the masses and
Goldstein is the perfect scapegoat.

The demonization of the Snowball and Goldstein is a reference to Leon

Trotsky, the rival of Stalin whose reputation was ruined after being chased. His
good actions were minimized and his visage was erased from the photographs of
the revolutionaries. He was considered as a traitor and assassinated by Stalin’s

34
agents. Not only was he exiled before being killed, but “he was also exiled from
the minds of the Russian people” (Meghaouri 39).

This leads to the next strategy used by leaders to stay in power which is
memory and mind control. In his dissertation “l’utilisation politique de la
mémoire dans le roman 1984 de George Orwell”, Bélanger-Marchand states that
“memory [is] an essential faculty as, standing security for the past and of what
was, it carries what is past for now, but that nevertheless constitutes a reference
to compare what is and what may possibly happen”1 (Bélanger-Marchand 2). It is
fundamental for a government that want to betray its own rules to control the
memory of its people. In Animal Farm, Snowball’s good actions and
accomplishments are erased from the mind of the animals. Dubeck affirms that
“the memory of the animals […] is not suppressed but unreliable. […] The pigs
take advantage of the memory problem when they make changes in the Seven
Commandments” (Dubeck 5).

Similarly, in 1984, the party controls the memory of people. The main job
of the protagonist Winston is to modify the past to make it match with Big
Brother’s speeches. Whenever he predicts something which does not occur, the
documents containing traces of that past are modified to create a new artificial
and false past that fits the interest of the party. The memories of the people are
erased. In Animal Farm, the animals cannot trust their own memories. In
Dubeck’s opinion,

The memory of the animals in Animal Farm is not suppressed but

unreliable, the animals not being the most intelligent creatures in the
world. The pigs take advantage of the memory problem when they
make changes in the seven commandments that had been established
when the animals took control over the farm. Since most animals cannot
learn the commandments by heart, they cannot prove that changes have
been made. Even if they did know the commandments by heart, there
would be no way for them to prove that a change had been made since

1
«La mémoire [est] une faculté essentielle dans la mesure où, garante du passé et de ce qui fut, elle est
porteuse de ce qui est désormais révolu, mais qui demeure néanmoins une référence pour comparer ce qui est
et ce qui pourrait éventuellement advenir. » (Translation mine)

35
 most of them cannot read anyway, and Squealer constantly tells them
that their memory is faulty. The farm animals’ short memory also
makes it possible for the pigs to persuade them that Snowball, an earlier
leader branded a traitor, was in fact a criminal to begin with, and that
he never wanted the farm to succeed on its own. Most of the animals
know that they have a bad memory, and that they cannot trust it (Dubeck
5).
They prefer to believe in what Squealer and Napoleon tell them. They
perform an “oblivion imposed by a totalitarian power” (Bélanger-Marchand 3).
The pigs modify everything and make the other animals believe that nothing is
changed for they are not able to memorize the commandments.

The elaboration of a system of mental slavery is another method used to

maintain power. Slavery can be defined as the fact of being submitted to the
domination of someone, or the fact of being controlled by another. Mental slavery
is the fact of having one’s mind and thought control by someone else. In Animal
Farm, the animals “worked like slaves, but they were happy in their work; they
grudged no effort or sacrifice, well aware that everything that they did was for the
benefit of themselves” (Orwell 59). They are mentally slaves but are not conscious
of it.

They cease to exist for themselves and only exist according to their utility.
Consequently, Napoleon gets rid of them when they start being useless. Boxer,
the horse who always works hard, is brought to a slaughterhouse after his injury.
He has been sold to “Alfred Simmonds, Horse Slaughterer and Glue Boiler”
(Orwell 122). An interesting point to note is that Boxer is the animal that mostly
supports Napoleon. One of his favourite sentences is “Napoleon is always right”
(Orwell 61); but he does not manage to become conscious of his state; his mind
is controlled as well as his memory. That is what makes Napoleon control him.

In House of Cards, Urquhart uses the same techniques with his two pawns
Mattie Storin and Roger O’Neil. They do not know that they are slaves. Like
Boxer and the animals in Orwell’s novel, Urquhart has promised Roger a post,
then he thinks that anything he does is for his own interest. Whenever Urquhart

36
needs something done, he uses Roger. The narrator explains: “O’Neil thought he
understood but still wasn’t absolutely sure. He was still struggling to figure out
whether he was Urquhart’s partner or prisoner” (Dobbs 140).

This quotation is expressive enough to render Roger’s situation with regard

to Urquhart. The sentence is located in a passage after Urquhart tells him to ask
his friend Penny to have sex with MP Patrick Woolton so that he can use it against
him. An interesting point is that, in order to serve his master, Roger gets her lover
have sex with another man, even though he does not want to. His wishes no longer
matter, what really matters is Urquhart’s ambition and desire.

With regards to Mattie Storin, their relation is interesting since Urquhart’s

domination over her is based on sex. The latter becomes then a source of power
and a means to maintain it. When they meet for the first time, sex is implying in
their discussion. The fact is that Mattie is a teaser and Urquhart knows about this.
And he uses this against her.

In order to maintain his domination over her, Urquhart seduces her and
finally sleeps with her. And Mattie is totally in love with him. She suffers from a
psychological trouble: the Oedipus complex. In their article “The Oedipus
complex in the contemporary psychoanalysis”, Borovecki-Jakovljev and Matacie
defend that:

Developing his theory of psychosexual development, Freud believed

that different elements of sexual drive converge at the age of 5–6 in the
genital organization, where the components of pre-genital instincts
(oral and anal) are subsumed under the genital domination. The aim of
all infantile wishes at that age is the sexual intercourse with a parent of
the opposite sex. (Borovecki-Jakovljev and al 351-352)
The Oedipus complex disappears with age, but it does not with regards to
Mattie. Because she cannot sleep with her father, she transfers her lust to
Urquhart. The latter is her father’s age; she confesses to him “My father was a
strong character. Clear eyes, clear mind. In some ways you remind me of him”
(Dobbs 216). Aware of her complex, Urquhart uses it again her and manages to

37
maintain his control over her. But like Boxer and Roger, she does not manage to
understand the nature of the relation. That is what leads them to their downfall
since all of them are killed at the end.

Two other means to maintain power are ideology and propaganda.

Britannica defines the latter as “dissemination of information—facts, arguments,
rumours, half-truths, or lies—to influence public opinion. Propaganda is the more
or less systematic effort to manipulate other people's beliefs, attitudes, or actions
by means of symbols” (Encyclopaedia Britannica). According to Tyson,

For Marxism, an ideology is a belief system, and all belief systems are
products of cultural conditioning. For example, capitalism,
communism, Marxism, patriotism, religion, ethical systems, humanism,
environmentalism, astrology, and karate are all ideologies. (Tyson 56).
In his dissertation, “George Orwell’s Animal Farm: A metonymy for
dictatorship”, Sewlall stresses that ideology operates in four levels. In the first
level, the leaders interpret the whole reality from one perspective; only one point
of view is accepted. In the fourth level, the government becomes totalitarian.
Animal Farm has a schema of an ideology; Old Major’s speech before the
revolution is made to convince the animals to rebel against Jones the despot; a
speech in which he suggests that men are the enemies and which the other animals
highly approve. Language functions as ideology. To Tyson’s mind,

Although Marxist theorists differ in their estimation of the degree to

which we are “programmed” by ideology, all agree that the most
successful ideologies are not recognized as ideologies but are thought
to be natural ways of seeing the world by the people who subscribe to
them (Tyson 57).
The animals do not see the ideology as ideology. They do not even know
about the word. Instead, they believe that its teachings are natural since they
derive from Old Major’s precepts. Then the aim of ideology is to resemble
ideology as little as possible. This way, it is easily consumable and assimilated by
the masses. It becomes moral for them, a way of life.

38
 Propaganda is performed to make the animals adhere to the principles of
Animalism which are summarized into the seven commandments. The latter
works like an ideology and everyone in the farm work to make its ideas come true.
Boxer is the animal that most believes in the ideology. He epitomizes the masses
whose minds are shaped by propaganda. The animals strongly believe in the
ideology and “worked like slaves, but they were happy in their work; they grudged
no effort or sacrifice, well aware that everything that they did was for the benefit
of themselves” (Orwell 59).

The song Beasts of England is used to galvanize the animals to work and
support the revolution. It is sung at the end of every meeting and all animals
believe in its teachings. This act of propaganda by inciting people to work harder
and harder was performed at a lesser extent by Senegalese former President Wade
who used to say to masses during the meetings he organized: “You must work,
work again; always work.”2

Many leaders want to modify the constitution of their states to stay on

power. The Senegalese constitution has been modified many times to fit the
interests of the rulers. In 2009, Senegalese President Wade wanted to propose a
bill to suppress the presidential election runoff. If the bill was passed, he would
have been re-elected in 2012. In many other African countries, presidents issue
bill to be able to run for other terms, which normally, they are not entitled to.

The seven commandments are the farm’s constitution and are supposed to
define the life of the animals but it is soon betrayed by Napoleon when he chases
Snowball from the farm and sets up a dictatorial regime; which is totally different
from the laws of the commandments. The Seven Commandments are even
problematic in their nature. In Vantieghem’s opinion,

The prospects of Animalism then seem very promising, but the Seven
Commandments are not as pure an embodiment of Old Major’s ideals
as we are inclined to believe. Only the seventh and last commandment

2
« Il faut travailler, encore travailler, toujours travailler » (Translation mine).

39
 states that all animals are equal, although this should be the core point
of their programme (Vantieghem 39).
The commandments are blurred and that makes them easily corruptible.
Napoleon betrays them by trading with humans while the seven commandments’
main idea is that animals should not behave like humans whereas trading is a
human activity. Later, the pigs betray the fourth commandment that states that “no
animal shall sleep in bed” (Orwell 24). But during the night, Squealer changes it.
Now the animals can read “No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets” (Orwell
67) and that makes it possible for the pigs to sleep in bed without betraying the
commandment.

Whenever the pigs need to justify their actions, they change the
commandments. Vanteighem maintains that “the stupidity of the animal mob
entangled with the cleverness of the pigs creates an atmosphere in which the pigs
have no trouble overthrowing the original features of Animalism” (Vanteighem
47). The seventh commandment which read “all animals are equal” (Orwell 25)
becomes now “all animals are equal but some are more equal than others” (Orwell
134).

It justifies any action the pigs undertake to maintain their power and the
farm’s hierarchical system with the pigs at the head and the other animals at the
bottom. The narrator explains “after that it did not seem strange when next day
the pigs who were supervising the work of the farm all carried whips in their
trotters. It did not seem strange to learn that the pigs had brought themselves a
wireless set” (Orwell 135). They take the control of the state and the animals
become their properties. As Althusseur claims it, “Marxists are well aware that
the state itself, despite all the articles of constitutional law defining it, […] is
always the state of the dominant class” (Althusser 80).

In her article “Fonction politique du religieux et fonction religieuse du

politique”, Razafindrabe contends that “If the dynamic of a given society is
explained through the domination of a class over another, the religious field
40
expresses also that domination. In other terms, religion can be used by the
dominant class to domination’s ends”3 (Razafindrabe 90). For long religion has
been used to legitimize the power of the dominants. Religion is exploited for
political ends. The idea of the chain of being which prevailed in Britain is an
illustration. It said that people owe respect to kings because their power derives
from God and not respecting his authority would result in catastrophes (Tiltyard
35-92)

Marxist theorists have a negative point of view about religion since they
consider it as a political instrument. Tyson stresses that “religion, which Karl
Marx called “the opiate of the masses,” is an ideology that helps to keep the
faithful poor satisfied with their lot in life, or at least tolerant of it, much as a
tranquilizer might do” (Tyson 59). In other words, religion is made to keep the
masses as faithful and obedient as possible. It is a source of comfort and illusion
for them.

Similarly, in his article “A Critical Evaluation of Marx’s Theory of

Religion”, Christian Uchegbue maintains that “religion arises to meet the need for
ideals that would sacralize and protect the falsified perception or false
consciousness and self-alienation created by the discrepancies in the social order”
(Uchegbue 58). The scholar continues “religion is the reflection of man’s misery
on earth, but at the same time it persuades people to accept this miserable present
social order by raising their hope of happiness from this world to heaven”
(Uchegbue 59).

In Animal Farm, Moses the Raven symbolizes religion; his name is a

reference to the prophet Moses. He keeps telling the animals about a place over
the sky named Sugercandy Mountain; that place is a reference to heaven. The
animals wonder “was it not right and just that a better world should exist

3
“Si la dynamique d’une société donnée s’explique à partir de la domination d’une classe sur une autre,
le champ religieux exprime également cette domination. En d’autres termes, la religion peut être utilisée par la
classe dominante à des fins de domination » (Translation mine)

41
somewhere else?” (Orwell 118) They believe him firmly because they are in need
of faith to remain alive. “That means that the fact that people turn to religion is an
expression of their being uncomfortable with the distressing condition of social
life and of their desire to find a solution to the miseries of life” (Uchegbue 59).

Napoleon and Squealer “allowed [Moses] to remain in the farm, not

working, with an allowance of a grill of beer a day” (Orwell 118). Believing in
the new religion makes the animals work harder since they consider it as a place
of relief to go to after their retirement, where they will be free and live without
fear. Uchegbue defends that:

In reflecting the harsh social conditions, religion, as Marx further

explains, both expresses the dehumanizing plight of the proletarians as
well as legitimizes these conditions. In his own words, religion tells the
story of man’s injustices to man, but tells it in such a way that it
legitimates the present order. (Uchegbue 50).
This is why Moses’ teachings are allowed in the farm; they keep the masses
docile. It makes the animals work harder by showing them illusions of a better
world full of rewards. This is the reason why Marx calls religion the opium of the
people. “It is the ideological tool of the dominant groups for sanctioning and
moralizing the social evils and exploitation inflicted or exerted on the oppressed
classes” (Uchegbue 60).

A commonplace method used by leaders to maintain their power is the cult

of personality. “The charismatic leader has to demonstrate his extraordinary
leadership qualities in the process of summoning people to join in a movement
for change and in leading such a movement” (Tucker 731-759). That explains the
fact that leaders tend to glorify themselves in the eyes of people. This is mostly
common in dictatorship, such as in Animal Farm.

Napoleon gives himself great names that praise him. “He had recently
awarded himself “Anima Hero, First Class, and Animal Hero, Second Class”
(Orwell 82). He orders the writing of a poem that glorifies him. The poem reads
“Friends of the fatherless/ […] /Thou are the giver of/All that thy creatures love”
42
(Orwell 94). After approval, the poem is “inscribed on the wall of the big barn, at
the opposite end from the seven commandments” (Orwell 95). Later on, he names
the windmill “Napoleon Mill”.

That cult of the personality is accompanied with a policy of fear. In the

farm, no one can speak freely. “They had come to a time when no one dared speak
his mind” (Orwell 87). Speech is the prerogative of leaders and the police silences
whoever wants to speak. Marxist theorists consider the police as a means for
repression. Althusseur talks about the police and the army as Repressive State
Apparatus. He defends that:

In 'Marxist theory', the government, administration, army, police, courts

and prisons, which together constitute what we shall henceforth call the
Repressive State Apparatus. 'Repressive' should be understood, at the
limit […] in the strong, precise sense of 'using physical violence'
(Althusser 75).
The dominants use the police and the army to control the masses.
Napoleon’s dogs which symbolize the police serve him as repressive apparatus to
silence the animals. The police become then “a repressive force of execution and
intervention at the service of the dominant classes in the class struggle waged by
the bourgeoisie and its allies against the proletariat” (Althusser 75). Fear in the
farm is intensified by public confessions and executions. Terror pervades and that
gives Napoleon the ability to act as he intends without risking a rebellion.

II.2. Leadership Crisis and Abuse of Authority

Today’s governments are mostly composed of people who are in a deep

need of domination. That explains the establishment of totalitarian regimes in
many states. The consequences are leadership problems and abuse at the top of
government. They also include the wrong use of the media, the promotion of
personal interest to the detriment of public interest, rivalries, breaking laws, etc.

There is a close relationship between power and media. The latter can
influence the opinion or even create it. Today’s means of communication have an

43
immense influence, hence their being named fourth power. This power of
influence makes it a predominant tools for politicians. The use of media becomes
problematic, it has been derived from its very aim which was to inform; now the
reality has a different complexion.

In their book Introduction à la science politique, Debbasch and Pontier

argue that “the political power attempts to intervene in the field of the media
anytime it can and uses them greatly. However, it can be victim of the media”
(Debbasch and Pontier 253). The media is totally subjected to power which
controls its instruments to its needs. That is exactly the case in post totalitarian
states where there is no freedom of press or expression. The media is only “the
echo of the ruling party’s politics and leaders” (Debbasch and Pontier 253).

In Animal Farm, the press loses its traditional function; it is at the service
of power. Moses the raven symbolizes the press. His main job is to spread
information that serves Napoleon. Yet, the character that mostly resembles a
journalist is Squealer whose role is similar to our today’s government’s Ministry
of Communication. Squealer is in total control of the information the animals
receive. Truth is fabricated and refabricated and information that do not go along
the government’s interest are simply erased.

This is possible because of two main reasons: the press is trusted and the
animals are too dumb to remember the past. The same situation occurs in the
author’s other novel 1984. The media’s main role is to shape and reshape people’s
thought. No liberty of press is possible; people’s critical mind is annihilated.
Likewise, people need not to read because all the information the government
think they require is transmitted in telescreens.

Truth is what the media and the Ministry of Truth say it is. Propaganda is
done through the press which releases false data, surveys, etc. In his thesis “la
société totalitaire dans le récit d’anticipation dystopique, de la première moitié du
vingtième siècle et sa représentation au cinéma”, François Rodriguez Nogueira

44
specifies that “the voice of the state leader is transmitted to citizens through mass
media, communication which has now become an instrument for the totalitarian
power is one-way; there is no dialogue between the government and its subjects”4
(Nogueira 237).

In Animal Farm, there is hardly any communication between Napoleon and

the other animals. When Napoleon needs to communicate, Squealer, his
spokesman, is in charge of passing on the information. At this point, talking about
communication is rather difficult because it requires an exchange of information
and ideas. That is to say, according to Jackson’s theory, a transmitter, a receiver,
a message, a code, and feedback. That diagram is unthinkable in the farm. The
leader transmits, the mass receives but do not send a feedback in their turn; the
laws of communication are broken. The feedback consists mainly in acting or
obeying the orders and not answering.

The decision has been taken “that from now on the Sunday-morning
Meetings would come to an end” (Orwell 54). This is the death of thought and
opinions in the farm. Then there is no more public opinion, the latter is created by
the leaders and transmitted to the masses. As Debbasch and Pontier assert it:

The advent of opinion is a democratic progress. Democracy is possible

only because there has been the formation of public opinion.
Democracy cannot be maintained if public opinion is put down and
muzzled, such as in totalitarian states5 (Debbasch and Pontier 261).
In the farm, there is no democracy, public opinion is muzzled and created
to serve the leaders. In House of Cards, the same situation occurs, but in a rather
different manifestation. The media is for and against power. It is a doubled-
barrelled knife, used to undermine the influence of some and to upgrade that of
others. Public opinion is created and people are manipulated. The latter becomes

4
« La voix du chef de l’État est transmise aux citoyens à l’aide des médias de masse, la communication,
devenue instrument du pouvoir totalitaire est à sens unique, il n’y a pas de dialogue entre le pouvoir et ses
sujets. » (Translation mine)
5
« L’avènement de l’opinion est un progrès de la démocratie. La démocratie n’a été rendue possible
que parce qu’une opinion publique s’est formée, elle ne peut se maintenir, comme le montre l’exemple des
régimes totalitaires, si cette opinion est étouffée, muselée.» (Translation mine)

45
what Aubier calls “creator of ready-to-think”6 (Debbasch and Pontier 268)
directly assimilated and incorporated.

Urquhart’s election is possible because he holds the support of the press.

Urquhart is portrayed as a maleficent man, a liar and a manipulator who wants the
power only for personal reasons. Throughout the novel, he does no act with the
good of the state in mind. The question that may arise is: how can such a man be
elected Prime Minister of Great Britain? The answer is very simple: he creates a
good image of himself with the complicity of the media.

In the beginning of the novel, before his association with Landless,

Urquhart reveals to Mattie the information that the party has conducted an opinion
pool that is unfavourable to Henry. Mattie who is very dynamic writes an article
about that and sends it to Preston, her editor. But the article is rejected. The reason
is that at that moment, Landless, the owner of The Chronicle, sides with
Collingridge. However, when the Prime Minister becomes a danger to his affairs,
he orders that the article be published, but the information be amplified and highly
“turned […] into the crucifixion of Collingridge” (Dobbs 162).

“Those who collect information main’s preoccupation is to falsify it and

those who receive it to evade it”7 (Debbasch and Pontier 264). This emphasizes
the press’ intention to modify information to manipulate the audience who,
because of their laziness or naivety, does not check the veracity. The point is that
“truth lies in the hand of the editor” (Dobbs 245) and the media is very influential
and trusted in society. That influence is called by some theorists “mediacracy”
(Debbasch and Pontier 268) which is a portmanteau word created from the union
of the term “media” and the Greek word “kratos” which means power. Some call

6
“Fabriquant de prêt-à-penser » (Translation mine)
7
“Ceux qui collectent l’information semblent avoir pour soucis dominant de la falsifier, et ceux qui la
reçoivent de l’éluder » (Translation mine)

46
it “a smooth dictatorship”8 (Debbasch and Pontier 268); the dictatorship of the
media which impose its thought to people smoothly.

Landless’ motivation in falsifying the opinion pool is double. The first is to

undermine Henry’s authority and destroy him and the second is the economic
reasons. That false information is a “brilliant bloody exclusive” (Dobbs 163) too
sensational to be left out. This point vindicates Debbasch and Pontier’s ideas that
“the ongoing fight for a large audience drives some journalists or newspapers to
amplify an event or fact, which, without that, would have been secondary”9
(Debbasch and Pontier 264).

The use of the media is motivated by two different reasons: perfect the
image of some and destroy others. The latter is a “victim of the media”10
(Debbasch and Pontier 253). That is the case of Henry who has against him a
whole newspaper whose owner’s main aim is to get rid of him. Any information
that could undermine his influence is leaked and altered. Three other victims show
in the novel: Michael Samuel, and Earle, Mackenzie, two candidates for Prime
Ministership who are obliged to resign.

What is more critical is that the media is used for personal reasons. Landless
is not driven by state reasons, but mainly by his personal motivations: his business
as a press tycoon. He tells Urquhart “He’s [Henry] dragging the whole Party
down, and my business with it” (Dobbs 154). Landless supports Urquhart because
he needs a licence to purchase other newspapers and as a commentator rightly
points it out on TV “he won’t be relying just on persuasive logic or passion. He’s
the sort of guy who’s already prepared the ground, every inch of it, even the
cracks. I think we’ll soon see just how many politicians owe him favours” (Dobbs
276). One of these many politicians who owe him favours is Francis Urquhart.

8
« Une dictature douce” (Translation mine)
9
«La lutte permanente pour l’audience conduit certains journalistes ou organes de presse à amplifier un
évènement ou un fait qui, sans cela, serait resté secondaire » (Translation mine)
10
“Victime de medias” (Translation mine)

47
The deal is simple: he helps him get rid of the current Prime Minister and be
elected and in exchange, he has his press license once he is elected. The methods
are: leak of sensitive information, slanders and this at any price.

Personal reasons drive many politicians. Urquhart’s desire to be Prime

Minister is motivated also by personal ambition and revenge. Urquhart is a
character that is only interested in his own good, nothing else interests him and
people are pawns for him. A proof is that he steals private information and leaks
them to create problem at the top of the government. And even when they are
down, these politicians still think of their interests. As a last act after being forced
to withdraw his candidature, Patrick Woolton says in public that he supports the
election of Urquhart.

However, he does not do that because he thinks Urquhart is the right man,
but because he just thinks of himself. He tells his wife:

Because I’m fifty-five and Michael Samuel [The other contender] is

forty-eight, which means that he could be in Downing Street for twenty
years until I’m dead and buried. Francis Urquhart, on the other hand, is
almost sixty-two. He’s not likely to be in office more than five years.
So with Urquhart, there’s a chance for another leadership race before
I’m reduced to dog meat (Dobbs 332).
What can be deduced from his words is that he expects Urquhart to die
before the end of his term so that he can replace him. He further adds “I’ve nothing
to gain from remaining neutral. […] I’ve handed the election to Urquhart on a
plate and he’ll have to show some public gratitude for that” (Dobbs 332). He
expects from him a nomination as “Chancellor of the Exchequer […] for the next
couple of years” (Dobbs 332). Urquhart’s support to Henry was also driven by the
same reason.

Like in House of Cards, in Animal Farm leaders are motivated by personal

reasons. No vision or political plan make Napoleon seize the power, instead he
“seeks power for its own sake” (Orwell 1984, 275). That is the reason why he
installs a totalitarian regime in the farm to better control it. He is the total opposite

48
of Snowball who has a vision and plans for the farm. Napoleon abolishes laws
that do not fit him and imposes his own rules and laws.

In House of Cards, because he expects a licence, Landless helps Urquhart.

The latter helps Collingridge because he expects a post. Woolton supports
Urquhart because he expects a nomination. Seemingly, what Dobbs and Orwell
teach us in their novel is that politicians are, most of the time driven, by their
personal motivations, the interest of the state does not matter for them. The main
consequence of this is disputes and troubles at the top.

In Animal Farm and House of Cards, there are always disputes at the
governmental level. Leaders are never in total agreement and they always argue,
forgetting that what bring them there is their duty to solve problems and not to
cause them. Their disputes cause lots of troubles. In Animal Farm, even in the
beginning, before the revolution, signs of the future troubles in the farm are
visible. Old Major gathers the animals and tells them about their conditions and
the necessity of being united to side against humans.

He tells them “man serves the interests of no creature except himself. And
among us animals let there be perfect unity, perfect comradeship in the struggle.
All men are enemies. All animals are comrades” (Orwell 10). The narrator
explains

At this moment there was a tremendous uproar. While major was

speaking four large rats had crept out of their holes and were sitting on
their hindquarters, listening to him. The dogs had suddenly caught sight
of them, and it was only by a swift dash for their holes that the rats
saved their lives (Orwell 10).
And this just after Major has finished his sentence about the necessity of
unity among animals. This fact presages that the system will not work for every
one and will always exclude others. The result is alarming because when Major
asks them to cast a vote to decide whether rats are enemies or friends, the results
show that everyone is in favour of considering them as friends, but “there were
[…] four dissentients, the three dogs and the cat” (Orwell 10). This is all the more
49
interesting since rats are preys to cats and dogs. The latter are then driven by
personal reasons.

Yet, this is not the sole issue since “the cat […] was afterwards discovered
to have voted on both sides” (Orwell 10). The law of democracy or any other
system is that, during a vote, everyone votes only once. The cat’s double vote is
another presage that people who think of themselves will always betray the
system. Through an event, Orwell manages to present us all the events that are
going to occur in the farm: the system will exclude many; others will always
betray the system.

While some betray it, others do not feel that they are included in the system.
That is the case of Mollie; the latter never feels that she is a part of the system.
She does not participate in the revolution that frees the animals, she prefers hiding.
“Mollie in fact was missing. For a moment there was great alarm: it was feared
that the men might have harmed her in some way, or even carried her off with
them. In the end, however, she was found hiding in her stall” (Orwell 43).

This is not the sole circumstance that proves Mollie’s lack of implication in
the system. She does not want to abandon her ribbons that is now considered as
human things and then forbidden. She does not cease her relationship with
humans. In no ways, does she respect the laws of Animalism. Vantieghem
contends that

This shows that Animalism must have some downsides to it. Orwell
never mentions them literally, but from Mollie’s reaction we cannot
interpret it otherwise. That these troubles are nowhere mentioned
proves that there is no space for discussing the ideology on the farm, let
alone to change it (Vantieghem 41).
There has been no discussion about Animalism in the farm. It is created,
instituted by pigs from Major’s teachings, and imposed to the others. The animals
cannot even memorize its basic principles. Then it is no wonder that she does not
adhere to animalism, a system that is neither discussed, nor understood. Then
there is visibly a problem of leadership.
50
 The greatest leadership trouble is the continuous disagreement between
Napoleon and Snowball. The two always disagree about everything and anything.
The narrator affirms “Snowball and Napoleon were by far the most active in the
debates. But it was noticed that these two were never is agreement: whatever
suggestion either of them made, the other would be counted on to oppose it”
(Orwell 31). Diagne argues “the struggle for power between Napoleon and
Snowball demonstrates how duels at the head of the executive can occasion a lot
of harm to the populations. The system is automatically paralyzed” (Diagne 16).

Their constant disputes help in no way the animals who do not know who
to side with; then the interests of the farm are forgotten. As the most intelligent
animals of the farm, their mission should be to unite themselves and work
together. Instead, they divide the farm into two entities. The most visible issue
that divide them is that of the windmill.

While Snowball’s desire is to build the windmill and to make the animals
“work three days a week” (Orwell 50), Napoleon argues “that the great need of
the moment was to increase food production, and that if they wasted time on the
windmill they would all starve to death” (Orwell 50). The consequences are
decisive. “The animals formed themselves into two factions under the slogans
‘Vote for Snowball and the three-day week’ and ‘Vote for Napoleon and the full
manger” (Orwell 50). Their dispute is one of the main causes of the installation
of a totalitarian regime in the farm.

In House of Cards, there are always disputes and disagreements in the

House of Commons. There is “a lot of rivalry and dissent within the Cabinet”
(Dobbs 63). Everyone wants everyone else’s office. This results in a Cabinet
composed of men who are ready to tear one another out to maintain their
influence. That is what Urquhart explains to Mattie. He says:

Let us try this, Mattie. A simple tale. Of a prime minister surrounded

by ambition, not his own but the ambition of others. Those ambitions
have grown since the election. He needs to keep them in check, to stifle

51
 them, otherwise they might escape and completely obliterate him.
(Dobbs 63)
This quotation is expressive enough. Even the Prime Minister is not exempt
of rivals. Urquhart is the first among them since his greatest ambition is to steal
his post and become Britain’s most powerful man. But the point is that the whole
government is composed by men who are greedy for influence and who no longer
care about state affairs but about their ambitions. Urquhart broadens his
explanations to Mattie:

Ministers are not simply doing their jobs but also promoting themselves
for a leadership race that must inevitably come. It’s a cancer.
Government thrown into chaos, everyone looking over their shoulders,
confusion, disharmony, accusations of lack of grip – and suddenly we
have a leadership crisis (Dobbs 64).
The parliament, which is supposed to be the place in which laws are voted,

becomes a theatrical scene dominated by disputes, humiliation, mockery, etc.

From the opposition to the government rank, Members of Parliament never focus
on the matter. As an illustration, the narrator states:

The questions from Opposition Members usually don’t even pretend to

seek information, they seek only to criticize, to inflict damage. […]
Similarly the answers given rarely seek to give information but are
intended to retaliate and to cause pain and humiliation (Dobbs 83).
Meetings in the parliament are the occasion to undermine everyone else’s
authority and humiliate them in front of everyone. In Animal Farm, one of the
most striking abuses of power is the betrayal of laws. The first sign that leaders
will break laws is the fact that Napoleon takes the cows’ milk which “was mixed
every day into the pigs’ mash” (Orwell 35). The pigs respect no rules, when they
need to do something that is forbidden, they change the commandments that
forbid it. All commandments are altered in their favour. Thus, the masses are
exploited and reduced to nothing.

Likewise, the pigs manage to free themselves from works and chores. All
other animals work like slaves while “the pigs did not actually work, but directed
and supervised the others” (Orwell 27). In his dissertation “Politics and social

52
injustice in George Orwell’s Burmese Days an Animal Farm”, Ba defends that
“the pigs, who consider themselves as brainworkers, impose their authority over
the animals. They do not take part in the work but guide and lead the other
animals” (Ba 15). Similarly, in no part in House of Cards, are leaders shown
working. Instead when they are shown, they are always plotting, discussing or
arguing.

53
CHAPTER III: LANGUAGE’S POWER AND CHARACTERIZATION

III.1. Discursive Strategies in the Service of Power

In Emile Benveniste’s opinion, “discourse must be understood in its widest

sense: every utterance assuming a speaker and a hearer, and in the speaker, the
intention of influencing the other in some way” (Benveniste, Qtd in Sara 5). In
their book Style in Fiction, Michael Short and Geoffrey Leech consider that
“discourse is linguistic communication seen as a transaction between speaker and
hearer, as an interpersonal activity whose form is determined by its social
purpose” (Short and Leech 168).

Discourse requires the use of some rhetorical devices to make the audience
support the speaker’s ideas. According to Diouf, “the purpose of rhetoric […] was
[…] the art of speaking before an audience in a persuasive way: therefore its
concern was the use of […] discourse in front of a crowd […] in order to make
them adhere to a theory”1 (Diouf 130).

The Encyclopedia Britannica defines strategy as “the science or art of

employing all the military, economic, political, and other resources of a country
to achieve the objects of war” (Encyclopedia Britannica). The encyclopedia
specifies that: “because strategy is about the relationship between means and ends,
the term has applications well beyond war: it has been used with reference to
business, the theory of games, and political campaigning, among other activities”
(Encyclopedia Britannica).

From these definitions, one can define discursive strategies as the use of
rhetoric to make the audience share the speaker’s point of view. It requires a good
argumentation and the use of certain figures of speech, but has to be easily coded

1
« L’objet de la rhétorique […] était […] l’art de parler en public de façon persuasive: elle concernait
donc […] du discours, devant une foule […] dans le but d’obtenir l’adhésion de celle-ci à une thèse qu’on lui
présentait. » (Translation mine)

56
so that the listener can easily decode the meaning of the speech. Is the meaning
difficult to decode, the message has no effect.

“It is in the nature of human beings to bring influence on others, to exercise

their power through words. […] Words can be a very powerful tool for those who
can manipulate it to reach their objectives”2 (Kafetzi 11). In the sphere of politics,
people have mainly two objectives: acquire influence or maintain it. That is where
the importance of discourse lies, it is mostly used to persuade and manipulate.

It derives from the Greek word “rhêtorikê” which may be translated by

“oratorical art”. The encyclopedia Britannica defines the science of rhetoric as
the “theory of argumentation that has as its object the study of discursive
techniques that aim to provoke or to increase the adherence of men's minds to the
theses that are presented for their assent” (Encyclopedia Britannica). This contains
the idea of a close relationship between words, discourse, language and
persuasion.

The use of rhetoric is guided by a desire to make others behave in a certain

way or share one’s idea. For example, if one wants to be elected president like
Urquhart, they may use some discursive strategies to achieve their goal. Rhetoric
is not about threatening; rather it is about convincing. As the world is mainly about
a “game of thrones” in which everyone tries to dominate others, rhetoric is used
in all domains: advertisement, politics, literature, education, everyday life etc.
Mastering the art of rhetoric gives power over others.

Rhetoric requires the use of certain devices. Aristotle talks about three
features a good argumentation must have to be fully efficient: ethos, pathos, and
logos. These three elements might be supported by figures of rhetoric. The latter
is a word or a sentence that are used figuratively to achieve some effects in the

2
«C’est dans la nature de l’être humain d’exercer une influence sur autrui, d’exercer son pouvoir à
travers la parole. […] La parole peut devenir un outil très puissant pour celui qui possède l’art de bien la
manipuler pour atteindre ses objectifs » (Translation mine)

57
mind of the reader/listener. The use of rhetorical devices makes the speech
different from ordinary language, which is mainly about the repetition of some
given structures, expressions, etc.

Rhetorical devices and argumentation are two notions that have a complex
relation. Figures are used to give opulence and scope to what is said. Therefore,
figures offer means to meaning and argumentation. The object of rhetorical
devices is to create some effects in the mind of the listener/reader. Therefore
analyzing the use of figures of rhetoric requires from the specialist in stylistics to
focus on to what the speaker or writer says, as well as to the effects produced in
the audience. Therefore, the audience is very important, as it is the receiver of the
message. It responds to what is said to him. The best figure of rhetoric would be
useless and meaningless if it has no effect.

In Animal Farm, the effect of Major’s speech in the mind of the animals is
easily noticeable. Their desire to fight is stirred by the speech, particularly the
song “Beast of England”. The word “beasts” is repeated seven times. When beast
is said, it is accompanied with the name of a place: “England”, “Ireland”, “and
every land” (Orwell 12-13). The repetition is intended to implement in the mind
of the animals that they are before all beasts. It is also intended to insist on the
idea of the necessity for all animals to unite whatever their origins.

Napoleon and Squealer make use of rhetoric whenever they need to prove
something. And even if that is not true, it is automatically taken for granted. In
House of Cards, Urquhart does not show the talent of the orator. The point is that
he does not speak, he is a man of the shadow who, most of the time, uses threats
to make people act as he wishes. Yet, the same thing is valid for Napoleon; he is
not an orator; instead, Squealer speaks in his place. As for Urquhart, he has The
Chronicle as a mouthpiece.

In our analysis of discursive strategies in relation to power in Animal Farm,

we mainly focus on Old Major’s speech, the aim of which is to persuade the

58
animals to rebel, whereas our concern in House of Cards is an article published
by The Chronicle to support Urquhart. The analysis is based on the use of ethos,
pathos and logos which are three modes used by orators for persuasion and which
was developed by Aristotle in his On Rhetoric.

The ethos can be defined as “an appeal to the authority or honesty of the
speaker. In other words, it is a speaker’s moral possession in the eyes of the
listeners, audience” (Haider 107). It is the self-image that the orator presents to
make himself credible in the eyes of the audience in order to convince or persuade
them. Through his discourse, the listener discovers the mind and the personality
of the speaker (Kafetzi 48-49).

Right at the beginning of Animal Farm, Old major gathers the animals to
tell them about the dream he has and to persuade them to rebel against the humans.
He starts the speech by attempting to present himself as trustworthy and wise. The
first thing he does is to persuade the animals that he has no reason to lie because
he is going to die. He tells them: “I do not think, comrades, that I shall be with
you for many months, and before I die, I shall pass on to you such wisdom as I
have acquired” (Orwell 6). Through this sentence, he presents himself as a wise
pig whose words should be listened to.

To make himself credible, he talks about his experience as a pig; he

explains: “I have had a long life, I have much time for thought” (Orwell 6), a
sentence that includes the idea that the other animals do not have a long life unlike
him; they have not acquired huge experience. Unlike them, he knows a lot of
things and “understand the nature of life” (Orwell 6). What he tells them is mainly
going to be teachings and wise words.

Old Major presents himself as a trustworthy, aware of his duty, honest, wise
and experienced pig. In House of Cards, the same technique is used in The
Chronicle’s article, the writing of which is ordered by the press magnate Benjamin

59
Landless in a context of electoral campaign. The aim is to promote Urquhart as
the best contender and to persuade readers to support him.

To convince the people that it has made the right choice, The Chronicle
presents itself as a patriotic newspaper, which is only interested in the nation’s
interests; it says, “this paper has consistently supported the government” (Dobbs
258). But not all kind of support, “not through blind prejudice but because we felt
they served the interests of the nation better than the alternative” (Dobbs 258).
History is here to prove it, the newspaper supported Margaret Thatcher and their
“convictions were supported by the progress which was made” (Dobbs 258) and
they support the resignation of Collingridge who is a bad leader. Then, The
Chronicle is reliable, patriotic and has instinct.

Both Old Major and The Chronicle make use of ethos to draw a good self-
image and convince their audience of their credulity. However, ethos only is not
enough for a good argumentation; a second element has to be present and it is
named pathos. The latter is “the appeal to the emotions of the listener” (Haider
114). The aim is to make the audience act, behave in a given way or convince
them through an emotional outburst (Kafetzi 54).

Old Major mostly uses pathos in his speech, as he wants the animals to
rebel because of their poor living conditions. He first makes them realize what
their life is like: “miserable, laborious and short” (Orwell 6). He tells them about
their miseries, as he says “no animal in England know the meaning of happiness”
(Orwell 7). The aim of this is to establish in their minds a feeling of indignation
by addressing their sufferings.

He goes on trying to inspire in their minds a feeling of revolt and hatred

towards men. The first step is to accuse men of all their troubles. He states “Man
is the only real enemy we have. Remove Man from the scene and the root cause
of hunger and overwork is abolished forever” (Orwell 7). His objective is to

60
persuade the animals to hate them and to rebel against them; he tells the animals
that men are not strong; however they are the masters of all animals.

According to Simmonet: “In politics, xenophobia can result from an appeal

to the fear of strangers, a scapegoat phenomenon and even from the demonization
of other” (Simmonet, Qtd in Kafetzi 56). That is exactly the intention of Major.
He tells the animals that they are in terrible conditions and establish in them a
feeling of hatred towards men. He overgeneralizes, appeals to the basic instinct of
the animals and repeats many times the animals’ miseries in order to hit their
spirits.

The use of pathos in Old Major’s discourse consists in installing a feeling

of indignation in the spirit of the animal, inspires hatred towards humans and a
desire of revolt. In The Chronicle’s article in House of Cards, it consists in mixing
feelings of fear, hope and despair in their spirits to make them hate the other
contenders and appreciate Urquhart. The article contends that the other candidates
show a “lack of judgment” (Dobbs 258). This way, they inspire fear to readers;
fear of “a return to the bad old way of weakness and indecisiveness” (Dobbs 258).
if these candidates are elected.

The article drives the readers to feel desperate: what is expected does not
occur since the contenders do not meet the country’s economic and social needs
because they do not have the required qualifications. The articles stands that
“instead of the steadying hand which we need to consolidate the economic and
social advances of recent years, we have been offered a choice between youthful
inexperience, environmental upheaval and injudicious outburst” (Dobbs 258).

The next step is to bring hope to the readers. Haider claims that in political
marketing, “it is about emphasizing the qualities and skills of the candidate for
president, the skills and qualities which fit the viewer and the elector’s

61
expectations”3 (Kafetzi 99). This same technic is used in the article by presenting
Francis Urquhart as the hope of the nation, a candidate “who enjoys all these
attributes” (Dobbs 258), that is to say “maturity, a sense of discretion, and a
proven capacity for working with all his colleagues” (Dobbs 258). He represents
what the country needs.

The article’s next step is to inspire love towards Urquhart by exposing his
qualities: “unique in upholding the dignity of Government, showing himself
capable of putting aside his own personal ambition for the wider interests of his
party” (Dobbs 258). He has the sense of sacrifice, is disinterested and humble and
“it is not his intention to seek election as Leader of the Party” (Dobbs 258). He is
the true leader for the country and people should vote for him.

The use of pathos in the article is about inspiring three feelings to the
readers: despair, hope and finally love. The logos is the third mode in
argumentation; it is “the logic and argument of the speech […] Logos is the logical
appeal and it is generally used for describing facts and figures that are helpful for
the speaker to support his/her topic” (Haider 117). According to Kafetzi, it is “the
rational process used to justify one’s stand”4 (Kafetzi 62). Contrary to the ethos
and pathos, the logos is rational and is about using arguments to convince and
persuade listeners or readers.

The first thing Old Major starts with in his speech is the presentation of the
miseries of the animals; he asks two questions: “Is this simply part of the order of
nature? Is it because this land of ours is so poor that it cannot afford a decent life
to those who dwell upon it?” (Orwell 7) He replies in the negative. He explains
why: the sole is fertile but if animals are miserable, it is because humans dominate

3
«Il s’agit de mettre l’accent sur les qualités et les compétences du candidat aux élections
présidentielles, qualités et compétences qui correspondent aux attentes de l’électeur» (Translation mine)
4
«Les procédés rationnels mis en œuvre pour arriver à justifier sa prise de position » (Translation
mine)

62
them. Logically, if men are suppressed, the animals will be free. He exposes the
defects of man and how they exploit the animals.

He asks another question to the animals. Considering that all their miseries
are caused by humans, “is it not crystal clear, comrades, that all the evils of this
life of ours spring from the tyranny of human beings” (Orwell 9). Following his
argumentation and logic, the answer is yes. His entire argumentation can be
reduced in a syllogism: the major premise would be: the animals are miserable,
the minor premise: their miseries are caused by the humans. The conclusion: if
the humans are suppressed, the animals will not be miserable any longer.

In House of Cards, the use of logos in the article is about proving that
Francis Urquhart is by far the best candidate. The first step is to expose the defects
of the other candidates to explain why they do not represent the requirements. The
next one is to tell what the requirements are and to list Urquhart as the one who
meets all these requirements. If one follows the article’s logic, they come at the
conclusion that Urquhart must become prime minister.

To argue that the other candidates are not what is required, the word relating
to them have negative connotations: “lack of judgement”, “threatens”, “bad old
way”, “weakness”, “indeciveness”, “inexperience”, “injudicious outburst”
(Dobbs 258). The parts which present Urquhart contain mainly words with
positive connotation: “enjoys”, “dignity”, “wider interest”, and “best interests”
(Dobbs 258). The article can be summarized in a four-step argumentation; three
propositions which result in one conclusion. First, there is a risk of returning “to
the bad old ways” (Dobbs 258) because the present candidates do not fit the needs
of the country; however there is someone who has the required skills. Considering
that, he must lead the country.

The relation between discourse and power is complex. Rhetoric is a very

powerful weapon to manifest one’s power and to guarantee his/her legitimacy.
Leaders use rhetoric and discursive strategies to galvanise their people and

63
persuade them to act in a given way. They can be used to exercise authority on
someone and control them. It serves the power. At the same time, one can say that
power serves discourse as it gives it its form and structure. Discourse uses power
to acquire its existence. To go beyond this mere ambivalence, one can argue that
discourse is power.

III.2.Techniques of Characterization

Characterization is the art of creating characters; it is meant to allow the

reader to guess the psychology of characters and their inner life. In the seventh
edition of his book A Glossary of Literary terms, M. H. Abrahams defines
characters as:

The persons represented in a dramatic or narrative work, who are

interpreted by the reader as being endowed with particular moral,
intellectual, and emotional qualities by inferences from what the
persons say and their distinctive ways of saying it—the dialogue— and
from what they do—the action. The grounds in the characters'
temperament, desires, and moral nature for their speech and actions are
called their motivation (Abrahams 32).
Authors usually make use of two main techniques in giving information
about their characters. The first is explicit characterization: information is given
explicitly either by the narrator or a character. The second technique is implicit
characterization: readers deduce the psychology of the characters through their
actions and choices. In his book, Abrahams explains:

A broad distinction is frequently made between alternative methods for

characterizing […] the persons in a narrative: showing and telling. In
showing (also called "the dramatic method"), the author simply presents
the characters talking and acting and leaves the reader to infer the
motives and dispositions that lie behind what they say and do. The
author may show not only external speech and actions, but also a
character's inner thoughts, feelings, and responsiveness to events; for a
highly developed mode of such inner showing, see stream of
consciousness. In telling, the author intervenes authoritatively in order
to describe, and often to evaluate, the motives and dispositional
qualities of the characters (Abrahams 33).
Characters are, too often, portrayed in line with the thematic concerns of
the novel. In other words, the way characters are presented is linked to the theme

64
developed in the story. This part is dedicated to the study of characters but our
analysis is not only limited in analyzing characterization, it also questions
characterization in correlation with power. It examines how leaders manage to
control others in relation to their psychology, that is to say by basing their actions
on their target’s psychology.

The analysis is done through Russell’s distinction between leaders and

followers. In Animal Farm, the focus is mainly put on Napoleon and Boxer while
in House of Cards it is put on Urquhart and his pawns Roger O’Neil and Mattie
Storin. Analysing characterization in relation to power is meant to deduce what is
in a characters’ psychology make them dominate other characters. It is also meant
to see what makes some characters be under the control of another. The kind of
power at stake is not merely political power; rather it is the power that Weber calls
authoritative charisma.

The individual follows the leader because of his charisma. The leader
exercises domination over him. In Animal Farm, Old Major, Snowball Squealer
and Napoleon are the characters that dominate others. Old Major is presented as
someone who is very charismatic. The narrator explains: “Old Major […] was so
highly regarded on the farm that everyone was quite ready to lose an hour’s sleep
in order to hear what he had to say” (Orwell 4). Charismatic leaders attract people
who always want to listen to them.

Major is portrayed as the wisest animal in the farm. The narrator explains:
“he was still a majestic-looking pig, with a wise and benevolent appearance”
(Orwell 4). Thus three main features characterize Major’s appearance: he is
majestic, wise and benevolent. He proves his wise nature during the meeting, after
the dogs attack the rats. He organizes a vote to decide whether rats are enemies or
friends.

He could have profited from the situation and decides that rats are friends.
Instead he decides to ask for a vote; contrary to what Napoleon would do at his

65
place. This demonstrates his desire to include everyone in the system. Even after
his death, traces of him and his ideas are still in the farm through his teachings,
the farm’s system and the tribute paid to him. He then exercises authoritative
charisma over the animals.

The other leader in the farm is Snowball. His most remarkable trait of
character is his leadership quality. He is portrayed as someone who is very
intelligent and very enterprising. He cares more about the wellbeing of the farm
than his own interests, contrary to Napoleon. He is said to be a “more vivacious
pig that Napoleon, quicker in speech and more inventive” (Orwell 16). He shows
a leadership tendency by leading the animals after Major’s death.

Snowball’s intelligence shows when he spends his time learning how to

improve life in the farm. He learns everything about odd jobs from the books he
has found in the farm. “Snowball had made a close study of some back numbers
of the Farmer and Stockbreeder which he had found in the farmhouse, and was
full of plans for innovations and improvements” (Orwell 48). His intelligence and
altruist nature is what makes him try to find solutions to the farm’s problem. But
he is somehow naïve since he cannot see Napoleon’s plan to overthrow him.

Next to him is Squealer the spokesperson of Napoleon. He is very

persuasive and masters the art of rhetoric. He is described as “a brilliant talker,
and when he was arguing some difficult point, he had a way of skipping from side
to side and whisking his tail which was somehow very persuasive” (Orwell 16).
Squealer manages to pass on any idea to the animals and make them believe in it
firmly through his master of argumentation and rhetoric. The animals even say
“he could turn black into white” (Orwell 16).

Yet Old Major, Snowball and Squealer are not the most remarkable leaders
of the farm and they do not have the same depth of character as Napoleon. The
narrator describes him as “a large, rather fierce-looking Berkshire boar” (Orwell
16). However, his appearance and his psychology are rather contradictory. The

66
narrator makes a contrast between him and Snowball who is “more vivacious pig
[…], quicker in speech and more inventive” (Orwell 16).

Napoleon is not vivacious enough; rather he is deep in character and very

difficult to figure out because he is intelligent, calculator and hypocrite. After the
rebellion he shows himself able of leading. After the burning of the objects related
to Jones by the animals, “he led them back to the store-shed and served out a
double ration of corn to everybody” (Orwell 21).

In The Prince, Machiavelli contends that there are two ways of fighting:
using the law or using force. While the first is mostly human, the second is bestial.
The leader who wants to act as a beast must have two kind of nature: be a fox and
a lion; a fox to see the trap of his enemies and lion to defend himself against
attackers. If he is only fox, he will not be able to defend himself and if he is only
lion he will not be able to avoid traps. Napoleon possesses these two kinds of
nature, he is fox because he is smart enough to see the animals who constitute a
danger and chase them and he is lion as he uses force to kill and inspire fear.

One of the most striking features in his character is his hypocrisy and his
manipulative mind. After the cows have been milked, he diverts the animals who
wonder what they will do with the milk, he tells them not to mind it because the
harvest is more important. Later, they discover “that the milk had disappeared”
(Orwell 26) because it has been used by the pigs to mix it with the mash, which is
a betrayal of the principles of Animalism.

Napoleon calls Snowball “Comrade Snowball” (Orwell 26) which is a

proof of his hypocrisy in view of the coup he is preparing against him. The fact is
that he hates him and is jealous of him. Snowball always looks for plans to
improve the life of the animals but on his side, “Napoleon produced no schemes
of his own, but said quickly that Snowball’s would come to nothing” (Orwell 48).
And later he intends to sap his authority. Whenever Snowball defends an idea, he
sides against it in public.

67
 He also has a calculating mind and is very patient. When he takes the nine
puppies from their mothers, no one understands because he uses the pretext of
education but he is preparing a plan against Snowball. He takes the time to rise
and educate the puppies until they grow up sufficiently to be used to chase
Snowball out of the farm. And he does all this in secret. This emphasizes his
ambition and lust for influence; he is ready to do anything to become leader.

In addition to these features, Napoleon is a manipulator, a liar and a very

cruel pig. Whenever the situation does not fit him, he changes his position. He
was against the construction of the windmill during the Snowball leadership but
when he becomes leader, he affirms it is all his ideas. He acts likewise whenever
he faces a problem and this way, he manages to manipulate all the animals.

He is cruel and does not hesitate to execute the animals whenever he has
the occasion. He is also full of himself and egocentric; he orders the writing of
poem that glorifies him. The poem reads “Friends of the fatherless/ […] /Thou are
the giver of/All that thy creatures love” (Orwell 94). After approval, the poem is
“inscribed on the wall of the big barn, at the opposite end from the seven
commandments.” (Orwell 95). Later on, he names the windmill “Napoleon Mill”
(Orwell 99).

Napoleon is portrayed as an intelligent, calculator, hypocrite, egocentric,

manipulative, liar, and cruel pig. In House of Cards, Francis Urquhart is portrayed
in a similar manner. He is described as an impatient person but the narrator
explains that his climbing to the top has lasted many years, “from backbencher
through Junior Ministerial jobs and now attending cabinet as Chief Whip” (Dobbs
11). Patiently he has managed to rise to the top of the government with the promise
to be given a post in the cabinet.

Another striking feature in his psychology is his calmness and his

vindictive nature; his actions are motivated by a desire of revenge against Henry
Collingridge. The latter has promised him a post in the Cabinet during the

68
elections but when he comes to power, he announces him that a shuffle will alter
the popularity of the party and they cannot afford it. In other words, he cannot
keep his promises. Urquhart feels betrayed but he does not show it; he pretends
he accepts Collingridge’s decisions.

He is very calm; he never betrays his feelings, which are always hidden.
When he is told that there will be no reshuffle, no feeling of anger can be read on
his visage; always in control of himself. He is also very proud and full of himself.
During the party organized to celebrate Henry’s victory, he is seemingly bored
and does not appreciate the company of others. “He was all these things [his
numerous titles] and this was his night, yet still he wasn’t enjoying himself”
(Dobbs 9).

When he manages to get rid of Henry and that the latter decides to have a
private meeting with the Queen to hand in his resignation to her, an important
point in Urquhart’s personality is revealed; he is ruled by passions. He leaks to
the press the information that Henry is going to resign even if this is senseless. He
could have given him a chance to have a dignified way-out. Rather he prefers to
humiliate him to take his revenge. His search for power is mostly dominated by
passions and a desire for revenge.

He is also hypocrite. He undertakes all possible actions to ruin the

reputation of Henry and destroy him, yet he pretends to support him. And when
he manages to get rid of him, he asks him for help as if he is not the one who
betrays him. Henry tells him: “thanks you for your loyalty, Francis” (Dobbs 191).
This because he acts with caution and indirectly to a point that he is viewed as a
good man with no bad intention.

Urquhart is also a manipulative and cruel person; he manipulates Roger

O’Neil and Mattie Storin to serve his interest. He even manipulates the public
opinion by pretending not to want to be prime minister. Subtlety, he has everyone
on his side. He is viewed as a wise man, the one who is needed to lead the country.

69
His cruelty resides in the fact that he does not hesitate to kill Roger and Mattie
when they start constituting a threat to him.

He likes destroying people. As an illustration, he says: “the dust of

exploded ambition makes for a fine sunset. And I love walking out in the evening”
(Dobbs 195). In other words, he likes seeing others suffering from the failure of
their projects. He is proud and satisfied after having destroyed the Prime Minister.
The narrator states:

He [Urquhart] gazed for a long time at the Prime Minister’s empty

chair. He had done this. Alone. Had destroyed the most powerful man
in the country. […] He gave an inner cry of joy while contriving
outwardly to look as shocked as those around him (Dobbs 208-209).
These sentences prove how he is proud of his evil acts and how hypocrite
he is; he pretends to be shocked while he enjoys the moment. What can be deduced
from the analysis of the characterization of Napoleon and Urquhart is that power-
hungry individuals are described as liars, manipulators, cruel, hypocrite,
intelligent and calculator. Their traits of character are mainly what make them rise
to power and exercise domination over others. In Animal Farm, the character that
is mostly under the domination of Napoleon is Boxer, the horse.

He is described as “an enormous beast, […] and as strong as any two

ordinary horses put together” (Orwell 5). He is also described as a stupid horse
and “not of first-rate intelligence” (Orwell 5) who works very hard. When the
Moses the Rave tells the animals about the story of Sugarland Mountain where
animals leave peacefully, he automatically believes him. The narrator even
explains: “The most faithful disciples were the two cart-horses, Boxer and
Clover” (Orwell 16). He is very naïve and cannot think for himself.

This trait of character makes of him easy to convince and manipulate. It is

visible that among the animals he is the one that mostly believes in the ideology
of Animalism. He keeps repeating to himself: “I will work harder” (Orwell 29), a
sentence that becomes “his personal motto” (Orwell 29). He keeps working very

70
hard. Russell maintains that the desire for power is the greatest of the infinites
desires of men. According to him, men’s impulse too power has two main
different forms: explicit in the leaders and implicit in the followers. That is to say
that followers support leaders in their quest because like them, they are avid for
power but cannot become leaders because they do not possess “the competence
required for leading their group to victory, and therefore seek out a captain who
appears to possess the courage and sagacity necessary for the achievement of
supremacy” (Russell 15).

This is visible in the character of Boxer as he is very supportive of

Napoleon. Whenever Napoleon changes the seven amendments and tries to
convince the animals that no change has been made, he automatically believes
him and does not even believe his own memory. He keeps telling himself: “If
Comrades Napoleon says it, it must be right” (Orwell 82). He is totally obsessed
by Napoleon whom he believes firmly. Unlike Nietzsche who contends that this
is a master/slave relation, Russell defends that followers are more like leaders than
slaves for they are followers because they do not think they have the needed skills
to lead and decide to delegate their power to someone who can exercise it at their
place.

In House of Cards, the character that mostly resembles Boxer is Roger

O’Neil, “the party Director of Publicity” (Dobbs 23). He is firstly described as
someone who is used to exaggerating and who wants “to be involved in
everything” (Dobbs 29). Added to that, he is a drug addict and a thief since he
embezzles the party’s money. That is what Urquhart uses to control him; he
threats to reveal the information unless he helps him. Fearing to be fired, he is
obliged to accept the deal.

His most visible trait of character is the fact that he cannot control himself;
he is incapable of hiding his feelings because of his tics. Urquhart who is only
testing him guesses easily that he is right about his drug addiction. He cries when

71
Urquhart threatens him. This lack of control is the reason why Francis kills him;
he knows that soon or late he will reveal their criminal activities.

Roger is also a naïve and simple-minded person as he does not understands

the reasons why Urquhart asks him to act in a given manner. When he asks him
to leak the information that the party will not respect their promise to rehabilitate
hospitals, he does it but “had no idea why Urquhart had told him” (Dobbs 81) to
do it. And he does not even ask questions; he only does what he is told. And
Urquhart promises to make of him a knight once he is elected; that is the reason
why he keeps helping him blindly.

Roger easily gets desperate because of his paranoiac nature and panics
rapidly. He is also said to feel “sexual insecurity” (Dobbs 136) and fear love
relationship. And like Boxer, when Urquhart intends to kill him, he is so dumb
that he does not manage to guess it. With Mattie Storin, they constitute Urquhart’s
tools to rise to power. But the case of Mattie is somehow different. She is an
intelligent and stubborn journalist used by Urquhart to leak information that may
destroy the Prime Minister. She is very ambitious and tenacious and “not to be
easily put off” (Dobbs 19). She is very intelligent as many of her forecasting come
true; she also uses her physical appeal to have what she wants. She does it with
her editor and Urquhart when she goes to his house to ask him for an interview.

She is portrayed as a very intelligent female journalist who has to face

sexism at work. Her ambition is to become “the best political correspondent in a
fiercely masculine world” (Dobbs 6). But she is courageous and determinate and
has “only herself to bother about, not even a cat” (Dobbs 6). This makes her visit
Urquhart for an interview. But this is also what seals her doom since Urquhart is
the very man that kills her because she is becoming a threat to him and his
ambition.

Mattie is “the youngest recruit to the paper’s political staff” (Dobbs 16) but
she trusts herself and intuition. The narrator explains: “despite her relative youth

72
and recent arrival, Mattie had a confidence about her judgements that inadequate
men mistook for stubbornness” (Dobbs 16). She never accepts easily to loosen
her grip once she has an idea or intuition. Even if her colleagues disagree, the
events prove that she is right. As a good journalist, she always foresees what is
going to occur in the political field but has always to face his editor.

But her most visible psychological feature that Urquhart uses to control her
is her Oedipus complex. Despite his old age, she falls in love with him. She even
tells him: “my father was a strong character. Clear blue eyes, clear mind. In some
ways, you remind me of him” (Dobbs 216). The fact is that she is obsessed with
him and she always wants to see him.

Knowing that, Urquhart models all his actions towards her in view of that
and they sleep together. But her inquisitive nature and intelligence cause her
downfall for she runs an investigation to prove that Charles and Henry
Collingridge have been trapped. She finds the right information but does not guess
the connection with Urquhart. When she finally does, he kills her least she reveals
what she has discovered.

Another Mattie’s trait of character is her promiscuity. She is a teaser and

does not hesitate to sleep with men to reach her aim. When she meets Urquhart
she is totally attracted by him. They sleep together many times. But Urquhart is
not Mattie’s sole sexual partner. She, most of the time, sleeps with politicians in
bars as implied by the following quotation. “She [Mattie] and her colleagues
deliberately stoked politicians with alcohol and there was a price to pay when the
furnace grew overheated” (Dobbs 126) and that price is sex but that is not a
problem for her since she “was not prudish about such matters” (Dobbs 126).

In Animal Farm and House of Cards, men of power are portrayed

negatively: they are obsessed with power, are liar, hypocrite, manipulator etc. And
they exercise power over other characters either through their charisma or
manipulation. And their followers are described as naïve and not much intelligent,

73
that is the case of Boxer and Roger O’Neil. The dominant use their naivety to
dominate and exploit them. Mattie Storin symbolizes the difference as she is not
naïve; instead she is rather intelligent and inquisitor. But she suffers from the
Oedipus complex and that is what Urquhart uses to control her.

What they all have in common is that they are all killed by the dominant
when they become a threat or useless. Boxer is brought to a slaughterhouse under
the prescription of Napoleon because he gets hurt and cannot work any longer.
Urquhart kills Roger and Mattie because they constitute threats to him for they
both possess information that may destroy him; killing them is a way to make sure
his criminal activities will remain secret forever.

74
 CONCLUSION

Power is an essential notion in the domain of social sciences, from

sociology to political science. The fact is that most human relations are somehow
domination relation. Power is present and at stake everywhere. Even the family,
“the most ancient of all societies and the only one natural” (Rousseau 174), is
subjected to it. People are subjected to power in their social life: some dominate,
others are dominated.

After analyzing the issue of power, numerous points can be remembered.

The first is that lust for domination is natural in human being. In Animal Farm,
Old Major, Snowball and Napoleon show it in their behaviors and acts. In House
of Cards, Francis Ewan Urquhart shows lust for imperium. Analyzing their thirst
and quest for domination has permitted us to understand that individuals can
undertake repressible actions to reach their aims. Napoleon patiently prepares his
plan to chase his comrades Snowball out of the farm and become the leader.

In House of Cards, the revengeful Francis Urquhart’s sole aim is to become

Prime Minister. And to do so, he is ready to use everyone and do everything. His
greatest desire is to destroy Prime Minister Henry Collingridge. These individuals
snitch the power or impose themselves as the rightful leaders. Napoleon chases
Snowball and takes up the leadership while Urquhart subtly makes Henry resign
and manipulate people to make them think he is the right man to run the state
affairs. The road to power is paved with lies, manipulation, corruption and crimes.

One other crucial point is that once power is conquered, it requires a lot of
tactics to be maintained. In Animal Farm, the most visible strategy is the
centralization of decisions making. The tactics also include the use of propaganda
to galvanize the public, religion, and cult of personality, manipulation,
demonization of the enemy to divert public and modification of the constitution
whenever a law does not fit the interest of the leader. In House of Cards,

75
preserving power consists mainly of a full mastery of people’s psychology and
basing one’s actions on that.

This desire to maintain power by any means necessary is the root cause of
leadership troubles and abuse. The role of the press that is supposed to inform
people is diverted to serve those on power. Manipulation of information, staining
one’s image, making the evil looks like an angel, these are the media’s main role
in both novels. Likewise, people at the top of government are motivated by
personal interests; resulting in disputes, clowning in the parliament, etc. The
interests of the state are forgotten.

Another point of paramount importance revealed by the analysis is the

importance rhetoric to manipulate the people. It has exposed the use of three
different techniques in the argumentation: the ethos, the pathos and the logos. The
ethos is “an appeal to the authority or honesty of the speaker. In other words, it is
a speaker’s moral possession in the eyes of the listeners, audience. The pathos is
“the appeal to the emotions of the listener”. The aim is to make the audience act,
behave in a given way or convince them through an emotional outburst.

The logos is “the rational process used to justify one’s stand.” Contrary to
the ethos and pathos, the logos is rational and is about using arguments to
convince listeners or readers. Old Major’s discourse has only one goal; galvanize
the animals and make them rebels while The Chronicle’s article is intended to
make the audience support the election of Urquhart. Therefore discourse is related
to power; handling it rightly allows the speaker to influence others.

The last point the study ends up is that men of power are portrayed
negatively: they are obsessed with power, are liar, hypocrite, manipulator etc. And
they exercise power over other characters either through their charisma or
manipulation. And their followers are described as naïve and not much intelligent,
that is the case of Boxer and Roger O’Neil. The dominant use their naivety to
dominate and exploit them. Mattie Storin symbolizes the difference as she is not

76
naïve; instead she is rather intelligent and inquisitor. But she suffers from the
Oedipus complex and that is what Urquhart uses to control her.

Orwell and Dobbs’ books warn against the danger of power. As committed
writers, they write to show us how power can drive people to do their utmost to
gain influence. No more friends, no more family, “Only the ladder is real”. Rise
at any price. And once power is acquired, that does not mean the end of the fight;
the individuals want to keep it whatever it takes. The corridors of power and
politics is then frequented by evil men who want to be taken as angels.

What Orwell and Dobbs seemingly tell us is that there is no hope. Our
governments are controlled by hypocrites, killers etc. Sewlall argues that:

Animal Farm remains a powerful satire even as the specific historical

events it mocked recede into the past, because the book’s major concern
is not with these incidents but with the essential horror of the human
condition. There have been, are, and always will be pigs in every
society, Orwell states, and they will always grab power (Sewlall 82).
The same thing is valid as for House of Cards. Both novels warn us against
the exercise of power. Russell outlines that thirst for power is natural in human
being. One could say it is deeply rooted in us and can be traced about from the
original sin, from a religious analysis. Adam and Eve were chased from Heaven
for having eaten the forbidden fruit: the apple, a symbol for knowledge. Eating
the apple then shows Adam and Eve’s desire to have knowledge.

However, for Nietzsche, there is no innate desire for knowledge. We could

add there in no natural love for power; but once man is conscious of the world
that surrounds him, there is a will to know. Man does not seek for knowledge for
the sake of knowledge but rather for the domination it confers to him. Knowledge
then implies power. Thus the eating of the apple by Adam and Eve refers to their
desire to have domination over the world. Chased from heaven as a punishment,
sent into a world in which their sons would fight and kill one another for
domination. World War I, World War II, cold war, wars of the Roses, slavery,
holocaust, genocide, and colonization; Man’s doom is his thirst for power.
77
 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

I- PRIMARY SOURCES:

Dobbs, M., House of Cards, London: Harper Collins, 2015.

Orwell, G., Animal Farm, Orlando: Signet classics, 1996.

II- SECONDARY SOURCES

1- Books

Abrams M. H., A Glossary of Literary Terms, Boston: Heinle and Heinle, 1999.

Althusser L., On the Reproduction of Capitalism – Ideology and ideological Sate

Apparatuses, Trad. M. Goshgarian, London: Verso, 2014.

Billier J., Le pouvoir, Paris: Armand Colin, 2000.

Debbasch, C. and Pontier, J.M., Introduction à la politique, 5e ed, Paris : Dallos,

2000.

Foucault, M., Critical theory/intellectual theory, interview with Gerard Raulet, in

Kritzman (ed.), Michel Foucault: Politics, Philosophy, Culture: Interviews
and Other Writings, 1977–1984, London: Routledge, 1988.

Foucault, M., Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–

1977, London: Harvester Press, 1980.

Marx, K. and Engels, F., On Religion, Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975.

Mills S., Discourse. New York: Routledge, 2011.

Orwell G., Nineteen Eighty-Four, London: Penguin Books, 2000.

Reboul O., Introduction à la rhétorique, Paris: Presse Universitaire de France,

1991.

Rousseau, J. J., Du contrat social, Paris : Gallimard, 1964.

78
Russell Bertrand, Power: A New Social Analysis, New York: Routledge 2004.

Selden R., A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory, New York:

Pearson Longman, 2005.

Short M. and Leech G., Style in Fiction. Edinburgh: Pearson Education, 2007.

Starobinski J., Montesquieu, Paris: Seuil, 1994.

Tillyard E. M. W., The Elizabethan World Picture, London: Penguin books, 1972.

Tyson, L., Critical Theory Today, New York: Routledge, 2e ed., 2006.

Weber M. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, New York,

Bedminster Press, 1968.

2- Articles

Abadi H., “Rhetoric and the manipulation of language in George Orwell’s Animal
Farm”, Journal of Comparative Literature and Culture (JCLC) Vol.1 no1
2012, pp.12-17.

Boroveki-Jakovljev and al: “Oedipus Complex in Contemporary Psychoanalysis”

Coll. Antropol. 29. 1, 2005 pp.351-360.

Diouf B., « Les parties extrêmes du discours dans Go Tell it on the Mountain et
The River Between », Sophia, No. 001, 2012, pp.130-162.

Dwivedi N., “Art, Politics and Language in George Orwell”, International

Journal of English language, Literature and humanities (IJELLH) Vol3,
Issue I, 2015, pp.284-298.

Friedman, J. P., « La vraie névrose des hommes de pouvoir » psy-luxeuil.com,

http://www.psy-luxeuil.fr/article-jean-pierre-friedman-la-vraie-nevrose-
des-hommes-de-pouvoir-123744489.html.

Haider G., “Analysis of Malala Yousaf Zai’s speech: application of Aristotle’s

ethos, pathos and logos”, International Journal of English and Education,
Vol.3, 2014, pp.105-119.
79
Miro J., “Hubris syndrome and a new perspective on political psychiatry: need to
protect prosocial behavior, public benefit and safety of our civilization”,
Psychiatria Dunabina, Vol. 23, No. 2, 2011, pp 136–138.

Mshvenieradze T., “Logos, Ethos and Pathos in political discourse”, Theory and
Practice in Language Studies, Vol.3, No.11, 2013, pp.1939-1945.

Parsons, T. “On the Concept of Political Power”, Proceedings of the American

Philosophical Society, vol. 107, No. 3, 1963, pp.232-262.

Pawelczyk P., “The impact of scandal on public opinion”, Central European

Political Studies, issue: 3, 2014, pp.45-55.

Razafindrabe, M., «Fonction politique du religieux et fonction religieuse du

politique », Cahier des sciences sociales, Vol 1. 1984, pp. 89-94.

Sewlall H., “George Orwell’s Animal Farm: A metonym for a dictatorship”,

Literator, No23, 2002, pp.81-96.

UN General Assembly, "Universal Declaration of Human Rights," 217 (III) A,

Paris, 1948.

Taha, A. and Al. “The Marxist Approach to Ideology: Marx and Hegel”, Tishreen
University Journal for Research and Scientific Studies - Arts and
Humanities Series Vol. (30) No. (2) 2008, pp.235-247.

Uchegbue, C., “A Critical Evaluation of Marx’s Theory of Religion”, American

Journal of Social Issues & Humanities, Vol.1 (2), 2011 pp.50.81.

3- Dissertations and thesis

Ahmed E., “Dictatorship and the rhetoric of power in novels by Chinua Achebe,
Ayi Kwei Armah, Ngugi Wa Thiong’o and George Orwell”, Thesis, UCAD
2004.

80
Ba, L. S., “Politics and social injustice in George Orwell’s Burmese Days an
Animal Farm”, UCAD, Diss., 2014.

Bélanger-Marchand F., “L’utilisation politique de la mémoire dans le roman 1984

de George Orwell” Diss. Université du Quebec à Montréal, 2009.

“Chapter 3”, House of Cards. Netflix, Los Gatos, 1st Feb. 2013. Television.

De Sousa Sampaio P., “Reading Literature today: A study of E. M. Forester’s and

George Orwell’s fiction”. Diss. Universidade de Lisboa. 2007.

Diagne I., “Dystopia in George Orwell’s Animal farm and 1984, M.A thesis.
Université Gaston Berger de Saint-Louis, 1999.

Diamanka, A., “Struggle for Survival and the obsession of power in Lord of Flies
(1954) by William Golding and Animal Farm (1945) by George Orwell”,
Diss. UCAD, 2013.

Dieng, G., «Pouvoir et politique dans quelques romans de George Orwell et de

Chinua Achebe, un essai de rapprochement », UCAD, Thesis, 1995.

Dieng I., “Les questions du leadership dans 1984 and Animal Farm de George
Orwell”, Diss. Ucad, 2007.

Dubeck H., “Strategies for preserving status quo in George Orwell’s Nineteen
Eighty-Four and Animal Farm”, thesis. Karlstads University 2008.

Greifeneder I., « Analyse du discours Sarkozien au sujet de l’immigration et de

l’identité nationale », Thesis. Unoversitat Wien. 2009.

Kafetzi E., « L’Ethos dans l’argumentation: Le cas du face à face Sarkozy/Royal

2007 », Diss. Université De Lorraine, 2012.

Meghaouri K., “The use of personification in George Orwell’s novel Animal

Farm”, Diss. Kasdi Merbah University, 2013.

Monica S., “Tyrannical control over the proletariat in George Orwell’s Animal
Farm” Thesis. Andalas University, 2011.

81
 Ndiaye B., “Oppression and alienation in Burmesse Days and Animal Farm By
George Orwell”, Diss. Ucad, 2011.

Nogueira F. R., « la société totalitaire dans le récit d’anticipation dystopique, de

la première moitié du vingtième siècle et sa représentation au cinéma »,
Diss, Université Nancy 2, ND.

Pelissioli M., “From allegory into symbol: revisiting George Orwell’s Animal
Farm and Nineteen Eight-Four in the light of 21st century views of
totalitarianism”, Thesis, Universidade federal de Rio Grande do Sul, 2008.

Tehrani A., “Alternative media: empowerment of individuals in totalitarian

societies”, Thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology, 2012.

Vantieghem G., “Ideology in the Works of George Orwell, a socio-cultural

approach in the wake of Raymond Williams’ cultural materialism” Diss.
University of Ghent 2009.

82

View publication stats