MIMICRY IN GEORGE ORWELL’S ANIMAL

FARM AND CHINUA ACHEBE’S THINGS FALL

APART: A POSTCOLONIAL READING

2021
MASTER THESIS
Department of English Language and Literature

Abdulqader YASEEN

Supervisor

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Harith TURKI

MIMICRY IN GEORGE ORWELL’S ANIMAL FARM AND CHINUA
ACHEBE’S THINGS FALL APART: A POSTCOLONIAL READING

Abdulqader YASEEN

T.C
Karabuk University
Institute of Graduate Programs
Department of English Language and
Literature Prepared as
Master Thesis

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Harith TURKI

KARABUK
June 2021
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS..................................................................................1

THESIS APPROVAL PAGE...........................................................................2

DECLARATION...............................................................................................3

ACKNOWLEDGMENT...................................................................................4

ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................5

ÖZET..................................................................................................................6

ARCHIVE RECORD INFORMATION.........................................................7

ARŞİV KAYIT BİLGİLERİ............................................................................8

ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................9

SUBJECT OF THE RESEARCH..................................................................10

PURPOSE AND IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY....................................10

METHOD OF THE RESEARCH..................................................................10

HYPOTHESİS OF THE RESEARCH..........................................................10

SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS / DIFFICULTIES........................................10

CHAPTER ONE: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK.................................11

POST-COLONIALISM..................................................................................11

1.1. Postcolonialism......................................................................................11

1.2 Ambivalence and Mimicry....................................................................30

CHAPTER TWO: MIMICRY IN ORWELL’S ANIMAL FARM..............34

A POSTCOLONIAL READING...................................................................34

CHAPTER THREE: THINGS FALL A PART.............................................59

CONCLUSION................................................................................................77

REFERENCES................................................................................................81

RESUME..........................................................................................................84

1
 THESIS APPROVAL PAGE

I certify that, in my opinion, the thesis submitted by Abdulqader Yaseen titled

―MIMICRY IN GEORGE ORWELL‘S ANIMAL FARM AND CHINUA ACHEBE‘S
THINGS FALL APART: A POSTCOLONIAL READING ‖ is fully adequate in scope and
in quality as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts.

Assoc.Prof.Dr. Harith TURKI ..........................

Thesis Advisor, Department of English Language and Literature

This thesis is accepted by the examining committee with a unanimous vote in the
Department of English Language and Literature as a Master‘s thesis. June 18, 2021

Examining Committee Members (Institutions) Signature

Chairman: Assoc. Prof. Dr Harith TURKI (KBU) ..........................

Member: Assoc. Prof. Dr Tavgah Ghulam SAEED (KBU) ..........................

Member : Dr. Öğr. Üyesi Derya BİDERLİ DİNÇ (IAU) ..........................

The degree of Master of Arts by the thesis submitted is approved by the Administrative
Board of the Institute of Graduate Programs, Karabuk University.

Prof. Dr Hasan SOLMAZ ..........................

Director of the Institute of Graduate Programs

2
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this thesis is the result of my own work, and all
information included has been obtained and expounded in accordance with the
academic rules and ethical policy specified by the institute. Besides, I declare that all
the statements, results, materials not original to this thesis have been cited and
referenced literally.

Without being bound by a particular time, I accept all moral and legal
consequences of any detection contrary to the aforementioned statement.

Name Surname: Abdulqader Yaseen

Signature :

3
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to take this opportunity to first and foremost thank god for being my
and guide in the writing of this thesis. Without him, I would not have the wisdom or
the physical ability to do so.

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my thesis supervisor

Assoc.Prof.Dr. Harith Ismail Turki for his constant guidance and encouragement,
without which this work would not have been possible. For his unwavering support, I
am truly grateful.

I also would love to thank all the academic staff, in particular, those who taught
me at the Faculty of Arts of Karabuk, especially Dr Muayad, who imbued us with the
love of research. Thanks are also extended to the Head of English Department, Prof.
Dr Abdul Serdar and Prof. Nazila, who taught me during the Drama course for their
support and encouragement.

I thank my parents for always being supportive of my education. I also take this
opportunity to acknowledge everyone in my family.

My final thanks to all my friends who encouraged and supported me.

Last but not least, I would love to thank someone who is in my heart for her
constant encouragement for me.

4
 ABSTRACT

The word "mimicry" is a metonym for "presence." Mimicry occurs as

inhabitants of a colonized population emulate and adopt the colonizers' ideology.
Camouflage is the effect of mimicry. It is not a matter of blending in with the context
but of standing out to a mottled background. Colonial mimicry is motivated by the
colonist's need for a transformed, easily recognizable Other, as a subject of a
distinction that is almost identical but not exactly. Thus, imitation is indicative of a
dual articulation, a technique that appropriates the Other when visualizing force.

Additionally, mimicry is a symptom of the inappropriate discrepancy or

reluctance that reinforces imperial power's overriding strategic role, increases
monitoring, and presents an immediate challenge to all 'normalized' intelligence and
punitive powers.

The current thesis represents an attempt to highlight mimicry in Orwell‘s

Animal Farm and Achebe‘s Things Fall a Part. The study is divided into three
chapters; in the first chapter, the research highlights the term of mimicry within the
framework of postcolonialism. Chapters two and three are dedicated to exploring how
Orwell and Achebe depict mimicry in their aforementioned novels.

Keywords: Mimicry, colonial, postcolonialism, colonialist.

5
 ÖZET

Taklitçilik kelimesi "mimicry" mevcudiyet "presence" anlamına gelmektedir.

Taklit, sömürgeleştirilmiş bir nüfusun sakinleri sömürgecilerin ideolojisini taklit edip
benimsedikçe ortaya çıkmaktadır. Kamuflaj, taklitçiliğin etkisidir. Bu, bağlamla
harmanlama meselesi değil, önemli olan benekli bir arka plana dikkat çekmektir.
Sömürgeci taklitçilik, sömürgecinin dönüştürülmüş, kolayca tanınabilir bir Öteki'ye
neredeyse özdeş ama tam olarak değil bir ayrımın konusu olarak motive edilir. Böylece
taklitçilik, ikili eklemlenmenin göstergesidir, göçü tasvir ederken değerlere el koyan
bir yöntemdir.

Üstelik taklitçilik, sömürgeci gücün öncelikli stratejik rolünü güçlendiren, izlemeyi

artıran ve tüm (normalleştirilmiş) istihbarat ve cezalandırıcı güçlere acil bir meydan
okuma sunan uygunsuzluk, tutarsızlık veya isteksizliğin bir belirtisidir.

Bu çalışmada Orwell' in Animal Farm ve Achebe' in Things Fall Part'taki

taklitçiliğe odaklanmıştır. Çalışma üç ana bölümden oluşmakladır. Birini bölümde
sömürgecilik sonrası çerçevesinde taklit terimi üzerinde durulmuştur. İkinci bölümde
ve üçüncü bölümde ise Orwell ve Achebe'nin yukarıda yer alan romanlarında
taklitçiliği nasıl tasvir ettikleri ele alınmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeleri: Taklitçilik, Sömürge, Sömürgecilik Sonrası, Sömürgeci.

6
 ARCHIVE RECORD INFORMATION

Title of the Thesis Mimicry in George Orwell’s Animal Farm and Chinua
Achebe’s Things Fall Apart: A Postcolonial Reading

Author of the Thesis Abdulqader YASEEN

Supervisor of the Thesis Assoc. Pro. Dr Harith TURKI
Status of the Thesis Master’s Degree
Date of the Thesis 2021
Field of the Thesis English Literature
Place of the Thesis KBU – LEE
Total Page Number 84
Keywords Mimicry, colonial, postcolonialism, colonialist.

7
 ARŞİV KAYIT BİLGİLERİ

Tezin Adı George Orwell’in Hayvan Çiftliği adlı ve Chinua

Achebe’nin Parçalanma adlı eserindeki Taklitçilik:
Poskolonyal Bir İnceleme
Tezin Yazarı Abdulqader YASEEN
Tezin Danışmanı Doç. Dr. Harith TURKI
Tezin Derecesi Yüksek Lisans
Tezin Tarihi 2021
Tezin Alanı İngiliz Edebiyatı
Tezin Yeri KBÜ – LEE
Tezin Sayfa Sayısı 84
Anahtar Kelimeler Taklitçilik, Sömürge, Sömürgecilik Sonrası,
Sömürgeci.

8
 ABBREVIATIONS

Etc. : Ve benzeri gibi

ed. : Baskı

Ed. by : Editör

p./pp. : Sayfa/sayfalar

Vol. : Sayı

Vs. : Karşı

9
 SUBJECT OF THE RESEARCH

This thesis aims at tracing Mimicry in Orwell's Animal Farm, and Chinua
Achebe's Things Fall Apart.

PURPOSE AND IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study is to investigate mimicry in the aforementioned

novels. This thesis also reveals how mimicry affects the life of the characters in the
two novels. The importance of this study is that it is the first study to combine these
two novels in one research.

METHOD OF THE RESEARCH

The term Mimicry refers to those individuals in the colonized land after
colonization who are influenced by the colonizer's lifestyle. This study endeavour to
apply this term to Achebe's Things Fall Apart and Orwell's Animal Farm.

HYPOTHESIS OF THE RESEARCH

Orwell and Achebe's novels are very different novels that come from different
cultures and different places. Also, the two novels employ different kinds of characters.

SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS / DIFFICULTIES

The limitation of the study is that it focuses only on the term of Mimicry
among other terms of postcolonialism and among the different terms that Bhabha
referred to.

10
 CHAPTER ONE: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

POST-COLONIALISM

1.1. Postcolonialism

At the beginning of the twentieth century, Great Britain covered immense parts
of the world that involved parts of Australia, Canada, Ireland, Asia, Africa, and the
Caribbean islands. At the turn of the twenty-first century, Britain lost most of its
colonies. Nowadays, the term ―British Empire‖ is only used in historical perspectives;
it is used to signify an era that no longer exists. To put it in another way, the 20th
century was the period of colonial decease, of decolonization for lots of people around
the globe. These individuals were subjected to the power of Great Britain. However, at
the beginning of the 21st century, Britain remained a colonial power, with several
possessions in the South Atlantic and the Caribbean. Moreover, the imaginative and
material legacies of both decolonization and colonialism remained fundamentally
significant constitutive components in a diversity of contemporary domains, such as
art, economics, anthropology, global politics, the mass media, international capitalism,
and literature (McLeod, 2000, p.6).

Colonialism had taken various shapes and has engendered different impacts
around the globe, but one should be as accurate as one may when delineating its
connotation. This might be gauged, firstly by considering the relationship between two
extra terms, ―imperialism and capitalism‖. Denis Judd (1996) states that ―one
may doubt that the craving for profitable trade, enrichment and plunder has been the
primary force that led the formation of the imperial structures‖ (p.3). Judd maintains
that colonialism is the primary part of the ―commercial venture of the Western
countries (although others date its origin to the European voyages of discovery in the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, for instance, those of Christopher Columbus)‖ (p.3).
The seizing of the foreign soils for settlement and government was motivated by the

11
need to control and create marketplaces in a foreign country for Western goods, also
guaranteeing the natural labour-power and resources of different people and lands at
the lowest probable price. Colonialism had been a profitable commercial process,
transporting riches and wealth to Western countries through the
―economic exploitation of others‖ (McLeod, p.8). It was chased for reward and riches,
economic advantage. Hence, capitalism and colonialism disclose a mutually
accommodating relationship with each other.

Sometimes, ―colonialism‖ is used interchangeably with ―imperialism‖;

however, the two expressions indicate dissimilar things. As Patrick Williams and Peter
Childs argue, imperialism ―is an ideological‖ notion which sustains the ―legitimacy‖ of
military and economic regulator of one country by another (McLeod, p.8). However,
colonialism is ―only one form of practice‖ that resulted from ―the ideology of
imperialism‖ and precisely involves the ―settlement of one group of people in a
new location‖ (McLeod, p.9). In this regard, British colonialism had not been all the
times fruitful in attaining its goals, and come across some acts of confrontation from
the outset by native residents of colonized countries, as well as peoples of the
European societies who had settled abroad and no longer desired to submit authority
and power to the imperial motherland.

After colonialism and decolonization, a critical theory that focuses on the

analysis of history, literature, culture, and discourse of European imperial power
appeared, this theory is known as Postcolonialism. McLeod maintains that ―we need to
look at two areas of intellectual study that have come to influence the emergence of
postcolonialism: ‗Commonwealth literature‘ and ‗theories of colonial discourses‘‖
(p.10). One significant antecedent for postcolonialism was the expansion of the
investigation of Commonwealth literature. The term has been used from the fifties of
the previous century to define literature in English, evolving from a collection of
countries with a history of colonialism. It combined the study of literary authors from
the predominantly European settler communities, also authors who belong to those
nations which were in the course of obtaining freedom from British canons, such as
those from South Asian, Caribbean, African nations. Literary reviewers started to
characterize a fast-developing body of literature written in English, which involved
works by literary writers like Katherine Mansfield (New Zealand), George Lamming

12
(Barbados), R. K. Narayan (India) and Chinua Achebe (Nigeria). The formation of the
classification of ‗Commonwealth literature‘ as a distinctive area of study was an effort
to locate and identify this energetic literary movement and to reflect through a
comparative method the common attributes and concerns that these multifarious
literary voices might have reflected (Young, 2001, p.154). Most importantly, neither
Irish nor American literature was involved in the early formulation of the subject.
―Commonwealth literature‖, then, was related exclusively to particular nations with
a history of colonialism.

The concept ―Commonwealth literature‖ is significant in the relations it

beckons, and these relations have a historical origin. One significant result of the
decline of British colonialism in the 20th century was the formation of the British
―Commonwealth of Nations‖. At first, the notion indicated the distinct position of the
territories within the Domain and their enduring adherence to Britain (Young, 2001,
p.123). However, as the relationship between the dominions and Britain altered at the
beginning of the twentieth century, a different meaning of ‗Commonwealth‘ emerged.
At the beginning of the century, Britain hosted recurrent ‗colonial conferences‘ that
collected the Governors of the colonies and heads of the territories. These meetings
were renamed in 1907 ‗imperial conferences‘ in respect of the fact that the territories
were no longer strictly belong to Britain (Young, 2001, p.124). After the Great War,
the meetings turn into ―Commonwealth conferences‖ and presented the ―Heads
of State‖ of the recently independent countries. The British sovereign was accepted as
the leader of the ―Commonwealth‖; however, Britain helps no political authority over
the Commonwealth countries, and the word ‗British‘ was completely abandoned
(McLeod, p.11). Therefore, ‗Commonwealth‘ became redefined after the Second
World War in more reasonable standings, as meaning an association of independent
countries without respect to a lone authority. Nowadays, the ―Commonwealth‖ of the
countries as a body exists in name only, no legal authority or constitution is needed,
and its membership— although built on the previous map of Great Britain—―is
not obligatory for the independent countries‖ (McLeod, p.11).

This move from ―colonial‖ to ―Commonwealth‖ maybe recommends a specific

account of history in which the position of the colonized nations alters from
―subservience‖ to ―equality‖. McLeod argues that ―we must avoid subscribing to this

13
selective view, not least because the political and economic relations between the
Commonwealth nations and Britain have stayed far from equal‖ (p.14). This study and
identification of ―Commonwealth literature‖ definitely mirrored the tenor of the
specifically benign use of ‗Commonwealth‘, but it also had its own problem. Generally
speaking, the term suggested a valuable, shared literary inheritance between variable
and disparate countries. It clearly promoted harmony in diversity—significantly, the
plural concept ―Commonwealth literature‖ was rarely used (p.14). However,
the general inheritance questionably helped to strengthen the preeminence of Britain
among the ―Commonwealth countries‖. Addressing the first conference
of Commonwealth literature, Norman Jeffers (1965) maintains that ―one
reads (Commonwealth writers) because they bring new interpretations, new ideas of
life to us‖ (p. xiv). Postcolonial or ―Commonwealth literature‖ could have been
formed as an attempt to gather literature from around the domain on an equal footing;
however, the supposition stayed that the literary texts were referred principally to
as a ―Western English-speaking readership‖. In ‗Commonwealth literature‘, the
Commonwealth was not free from the more impetuous, older implications of the notion
(p. xiv).

One of the essential assumptions held by the first Western scholars of

Commonwealth literature involved the relationship between the nation and literature.
Cornell (1961) proposed that the beginning of ―local‖ Commonwealth writings in the
Commonwealth nations has been concurrent with the advancement of a
―nationalist sentiment‖: the larger among British colonies like Malta, Hong Kong, Fiji,
where there are quite large English-speaking populations, have produced no literature,
even in the widest sense of the term (p. 8). Several critics approved that the new
interpretations and ideas of life in ―Commonwealth literature‖ owed much to the
ways which the literary authors used to forge their view of cultural and national
identity.

However, the emphasis on the supposed nationalist drives of much

―Commonwealth literature‖ played second fiddle to more theoretical interests,
which took attention away from particular contexts. Many scholars devoted themselves
to recognizing a shared aim among writers from various countries that went beyond
more
―local matters‖. Just like the idea of a ―Commonwealth‖ of countries proposed a varied

14
community with a general group of concerns, ―Commonwealth literature‖
was produced in the Caribbean, Australia, or India was expected to achieve
national

15
limitations and deal with universal concerns. ―Commonwealth literature‖
definitely dealt with cultural and national matters, but the best writing influenced the
furtive force to transcend them too. Norman Jeffers maintains that:

A Commonwealth writer wants ultimately to be judged not because he gives us

a picture of life in a particular place, in a particular situation, but by the lasting,
universal quality of his writings, judged by neither local yet national standards. Good
writing is something that transcends borders, whether national or local, whether of the
spirit or of the mind (p. xviii).

Commonwealth literature, then, was really a sub-set of English colonial

literature, valued in terms resultant from ―conventional investigation‖ of English that
emphasized the values of universality and timelessness. For Walsh (1973),
Commonwealth literature dealt basically with the same obsessions with the human
conditions as did George Eliot or Jane Austin (p.134). National diversities were
certainly significant, adding to the novelty of ‗personality‘, ―light‖, and ―colour‖,; but
eventually, these ―national specifies‖ were secondary to the essential general
meaning of the work (p.134).

One of the most important ―differences that many postcolonial critics

today have from their Commonwealth predecessors is their insistence‖ that
geographical, cultural, historical specifies are vital to both the reading and the writing
of a text and cannot be so simply considered as secondary background or colouring
(McLeod, p.14). But for many scholars of ―Commonwealth literature‖, these
―texts conformed to a critical status quo‖ (McLeod, p.14). They were not regarded
especially oppositional or radical; ―nor were they seen to challenge the Western
criteria of excellence used to read them‖. Their experimental rudiments, their local
and novelty concentration made them thrilling for reading and helped in depicting the
nation with which they were related. But ―their potential differences were
contained by the identification within them of universal themes that they bound texts
safely inside the aesthetic criteria of the West‖ (McLeod, p.14). Scholars in the field
of postcolonialism scholars believe that the dissimilar contexts and preoccupation
of texts ―were to become more significant than their alleged similar abstract
qualities‖ (McLeod, p.14).

In spite of this, it would be a kind of mockery to dismiss or condemn the work

16
of the preceding group of criticizers of Commonwealth literature because it is not

17
proper for the current critical climate. Indeed, reviewers like Walsh and Jeffares belong
to a former phase of literary criticism, which was to be fundamentally challenged at the
close of the twentieth century. However, these critics and others were instrumental in
securing ―Commonwealth literature‖ as a significant group of artistic endeavours
and as a practical field of academic study. In separating the liberal conventions of these
scholar‘s interpretation practices, it might be ―too easily forgotten that the
attention they gave to Commonwealth literature, and the space they cleared for it on
university English courses in the West‖ established an essentially significant political
act. These researchers helped in confirming that these writings were never a trivial part
of interest but the main area that deserved serious attention on the same footings as
the ―classics‖ of English literature. Today, what might seem like a liberal humanist
initiative was at the time also a significant ―political investment‖ in this new
literature as important, despite the restrictions we have regarded. The enduring,
enthusiastic and detailed interpretations of ―Commonwealth literature‖ laid the
basics for the numerous postcolonial reproach that were to follow and to
which much postcolonial ―critical activity stays indebted‖ (McLeod, p.16).

Shirley Chew explains, ―a paradox sits at the heart of the

Commonwealth: described as a free association as a mutually and equal cooperating
countries, it is nevertheless drawn together by a shared history of colonial exploitation,
interchange and dependence‖ (p.32). If the study of the ―Commonwealth literature‖
was followed in the charitable essence of the first side of this contradiction, the critical
activity of postcolonialism was to ―focus more on the other, darker side of
dependence‖ and exploitation. In the beginning of the 1980s and the before that late
1970s, many critics endeavoured to discard the ―liberal humanist bias
perceived‖ in critics of Commonwealth literature, and to ―read the literature in
new ways‖ (p.32). In order to understand why and how this occurred one needs to
look concisely at the second main precursor to postcolonialism: theories of ―colonial
discourse‖.

Theories of colonial discourses have been enormously important in the

expansion of postcolonialism. Generally speaking, they discover the ways that
―modes of perceptions‖ and representations are used as important ―weapons of
colonial power to keep colonized peoples subservient to colonial authority‖ (McLeod,
p.17). Colonialism continued by explaining to those in the colonizing nations the

18
indication

19
that it is right and proper to control the lives of other peoples, by forcing colonized
people to admit their lower position in the colonial categorization of things- a
procedure might be called ‗‗colonizing the mind‘‘(McLeod, p.20). It functions by
convincing people to adopt its logic and speak its language; to continue the
assumptions and values of the colonies regarding the ways they represent and perceive
the world. Even though the notion was usually used in the singular, it is more precise
to speak about ―colonial discourses‖ rather than mere ―colonial discourse‖ due to its
multifarious operations and varieties which vary in space and time (McLeod, p.20).

Colonial discourses shape the connections where power and language meet. It
is more than means of communication; it institutes our worldview, ordering and cutting
up reality into meaningful units. As Ngugi (1986) maintains, language never inertly
mirrors reality; it goes far towards producing an individual‘s understanding of their
world, and it contains the standards by which people live their lives (p.16).
Colonialism was definitely reliant on the use of physical coercion and force, but it
couldn‘t take place without the presence of a group of convictions that are alleged to
explain the continuing and possession occupation of other people‘s properties. These
convictions are programmed into the language which the colonizers utter and to which
the colonized individuals are exposed (McLeod, p.36). This produces the distribution
of a diversity of commonly held conventions regarding the relative variations of
peoples of supposedly different cultures. As Alan Lawson and Chris Tiffin argue,
―Colonialism (like racism) is an operation of discourse, and as an operation of
discourse, it interpellates colonial subjects by integrating them in a system of
representation‖ (1994, p. 3). The term ―interpellates‖ that they used is actually taken
from Althusser‘s book on the significant function of the interpellation in the operative
ideology. Interpellation ―means calling; the idea is that ideology calls peoples and
they turn and recognize who they are‖ (McLeod, p.37).

Colonized individuals (under colonialism) are made submissive to ways of

considering the world which support and reflect colonialist standards. A specific
―value system‖ is instructed as to the finest, rightest worldview. The cultural standards
of the people under colonization are believed as ―lacking in value, or even as
being
‗uncivilized‘, from that they should be saved‖ (McLeod, p.22). Great Britain did not
govern by physical and military power alone. It continued by forcing both colonized

20
people and colonizers to look at themselves and their world in a specific way,
internalizing the language of Empire as representing the true, natural arrangement of
life. Selvon discusses how far-reaching the unenviable impact of internalizing colonial
conventions about the ―inferiority‖ of particular people might be (p.16).

If the internalization of colonial groups of standards was to a degree. Selvon

referred to an efficient ―way of disempowering‖ people; also, it was ―the source
of trauma‖ for colonized people who were instructed ―to look negatively upon
their people‖,, themselves and their culture (p.21). In the fifties of the previous
century, there appeared much significant work that endeavoured ―to record the
psychological damage suffered by colonized peoples who internalized these colonial
discourses‖ (p.21). The psychologist Fanon wrote passionately and widely ―about
the damage French colonialism had wrecked upon millions of people‖ (p.21). In a
narrative both distressing and inspiring, Fanon observed the cost to the person who
―lives in a world where because of the colour of her of his skin‖, she or he is
―rendered peculiar‖, an
―object of derision‖, and an abbreviation. In his writings, Fanon narrates the way
he felt when he was in France, and a white man pointed out his blackness. Fanon was
called with expressions such as ― Look, a Negro‖ or ―dirty nigger‖ (Fanon, 1952, p.56).
In his Black Skin, White Masks, Fanon says:

On that day, completely dislocated, unable to be abroad with the other, the
white man, who unmercifully imprisoned me, I took myself far off from my own
presence, far indeed, and made myself an object. What else could be for me but an
amputation, an excision, a haemorrhage that spattered my whole body with black
blood? But did not want this revision, this thematization. All I wanted was to be a man
among other men. I wanted to come lithe and young into a world that was ours and
help to build it together (Fanon, 1952, pp.112-13).

Therefore, his identity is described in undesirable expressions by those who

held a higher rank of power. He is obliged to ―see himself not as a human subject‖,
with his own needs and wants as shown in the quotation, but as ―an object,‖
an individuality at the ―mercy of a group‖ that labels him as an ―inferior‖, less
than a human, place at the ―mercy of their representations and definitions‖
(McLeod, p.25). The ferocity of this review of his identity is taken strongly in the
image of subtraction. Fanon feels violated, imprisoned, abbreviated; they give him an
21
identity depending on

22
his appearance. Therefore, Fanon‘s identity was a mere description of his outlook, and
in doing that, the French commit fierceness that ruptures Fanon‘s very sense of self.
The supremacy of naming, of description, was never to be undervalued. The
connection between power and language is fundamental and far-reaching.

In his book, Black Skin, White Masks, Fanon clarifies the outcomes of identity
construction for the ―colonized subject‖ who is compelled into the internationalization
of the self as an ―other‖. The ―Nigro‖ is thought to characterize anything that
―the colonizing French are not‖. The colonizers are intelligent, civilized, and
rational: the
―Nigro‖ stays ―other‖ to all such ―qualities against which colonizing peoples
derive their sense of normality and superiority‖ (p.24). Black Skins, White Masks
portrays
―those colonized by French imperialism‖ destined to ―hold a traumatic belief in their
own inferiority‖ (p.24). One reply to such traumas is to struggle to escape it through
the acceptance of the ―civilized‖ standards of the French motherland.
Furthermore, although the colonized try to accept the language, values, and
education of France—
―to don the white mask of civilization that will cover up the uncivilized‖ nature
indexed by their blackness—they were not accepted on equal terms. Fanon writes, ―the
white world, is the only honourable one, barred me from all contribution. A man was
never expected to act like a man. I was likely to act like a black man‖ (p.114). That
imaginative division that distinguishes black (man) ―other‖ and ―man‖ (self) is a
significant, shocking part of the armoury of colonial power, one who detains the mind
as secularly as handcuffs imprison the hands. Fanon maintains that the end of
colonialism meant not economic and political alteration but psychological alteration as
well (p.112). Colonialism is demolished just once this way of thinking about identity is
successfully challenged (McLeod, p.23).

Fanon was called by others, and this makes him regard himself in terms of the
racist ideology that tells how others see him. Ideology assigns him an identity and role
which he was made to recognize as his own. In other words, ―the ideology of racism is
calling to him through the lips of the white French who tell him who he is‖ (Fanon,
1952, p.59). Although such examples highlight the pain of being subjected by other
people; maybe, interpellation works through pleasure as well. This can be done by

23
inviting people to consider themselves in fluttering ways. Some would maintain that it
would be easier to make an individual act bestowing to someone‘s needs by making

24
the individual feel special or valuable, rather than contemptuous and bereft, as this
fulfils a person‘s feeling of worth and makes him pleased with the identity that was
given to him (McLeod, p.39). In fact, one could regard that ―colonial discourses‖ have
been successful due to the fact that they give the colonizers the feeling that they are
valuable, superior, and significant to others; furthermore, gaining the participation of
the colonized by allowing them to grow a new sense of ―self-worth‖ through
their contribution in the advancing the ―progress‖ of the ―civilization‖ (McLeod,
p.39). Therefore, the key point to the hold from the beginning is that philosophies of
―colonial discourses‖ are established upon the significant mutually
accommodating relationship between the ―material practice of colonialism and the
representations it fashions in order to work‖ (McLeod, p.39).

Reading literary works in the light of colonial discourses serves numerous

aims. First, this reading method, called ―colonial discourse analysis‖, rejects the
humanist hypothesis, which says that literary texts be existent beyond and above their
historical context. It locates writings in history by revealing the way that historical
contexts impact the production of meaning within literary texts and how literary
demonstrations have the power to impact their historical moments. Second, criticism of
colonial discourses ventures to point out the context to which the ―best of high Western
culture—be it literature, opera, art, classical music—is caught up in the sordid history
of colonial dispossession and exploitation‖ (McLeod, p.39). Third, the concern with
the machinery of colonial discourses in the past may operate as a tool of resisting the
persistence of the current of colonial demonstrations that endure after colonization has
come to an end: a state frequently referred to as ―neo-colonialism‖.

The time of 1978 was the year in which Edward Said published his book
Orientalism. This book is regarded by many critics as the most influential book of the
late twentieth century (McLeod, p.20). Said also paid attention to the decisive
relationship between the colonized and the colonizer, but from a different perspective.
Said discovered the extent to which colonial nations generated a manner of seeing the
world, ―an order of things that were to be proper and true,‖; but Said focused more on
the colonizers than the colonized. Said‘s book refers to the developments in ―Marxist
theories of power‖, particularly the political philosophy of Antonio Gramsci and
Michel Foucault. Said inspected ―how the knowledge that the Western imperial
powers

25
shaped about their colonies frequently helped to explain their subjugation‖. Western
countries like Britain and France, Said argues, invested some of their power and time
in producing information about the places they dominated (p.111). Looking in specific
at representations of the Middle East and Egypt in a diversity of written resources, Said
argued that seldom did Western travellers in these areas tried to learn much about,
propagated, or form the native people they encountered. Instead, they recorded their
comments ―based upon commonly-held assumptions about the ‗Orient‘ as a
mythic place of moral laxity, exoticism, sexual degeneracy and so forth‖ (p.111). These
comments were offered as scientific facts that, in their turn, operated to clarify the very
propriety of colonial domination. Therefore, colonialism incessantly continued.
Colonial authority was supported by the fabrication of knowledge about colonized
cultures which boundlessly formed a deteriorate picture of the Orient for Western
people, or Occident.

Said‘s book of Orientalism explains how the Western colonial power of France
and Britain denoted Middle Eastern and North African domains at the close of the
ninetieth century and the beginning of the twentieth century, although he draws upon
other historical moments too. The ―Orient‖ is the shared noun that Said employed to
signify to these areas. Orientalism then signifies the sum of the West‘s representations
of the Orient. In the concluding chapters of his book, Said studies the reason behind
Orientalism‘s survival in Western media narratives of Eastern, particularly Arab, lands,
in spite of formal decolonization for many nations. This supports the point that says the
machinery of colonialism does not simply disappear once the colonies become
independent. In fact, Said displays how the modes of depiction common to colonialism
have sustained after decolonization and stay part of the modern world (Said, p.123).

One of the many commendable possibilities of Orientalism is its readability.

The style of Said‘s writings is noted and accessible for its lucidity and clarity.
Nonetheless, it raises many challenging issues and ideas. Essential to the view of the
world stated by Said is the dualistic separation it causes between the West (Occident)
and the Orient. Occident and Orient are expected to exist in opposition to one another:
―the Orient is considered as being everything the West is not, its alter ego‖ (Said,
p.5). McLeod argues that this opposition is not of an equal partner; the Orient is
described regularly in a sequence of negative expressions that function to reinforce a
sense of the

26
West‘s strength and superiority (p.40). If the West is supposed to be the seat of
learning and knowledge, then it follows that the Orient is the place of naiveté and
ignorance. Therefore, in Orientalism, the West and East are situated through the
construction of unequal opposition (p.40). The West seizes a higher rank, whereas the
Orient is it‘s the ―Other‖ in a subservient position. And this makes the nature of the
relationship between the two asymmetrical.

It is significant to grasp Said‘s argument that Western opinions toward Orient

are not established on what is observed to exist in Oriental lands but often come from
the West‘s assumptions, imaginations, and dreams about what this was drastically
contrasting, different place encloses. Orientalism is first and foremost a
―fabricated‖ concept, a sequence of ideas that ―come to stand as the Orient‘s reality
for those in the West‖ (p.40). This manufactured truth in no way mirrors what could or
could not really be there in the Orient itself; ―it does not exist outside of the
representations made about it by Westerners‖ (Said, p.6). It is not ―an inert fact of
nature‖ (Said, p.5). Orientalism imposes upon the Orient definitely Western opinions
of its reality. Significantly, its formation from the paraphernalia of the unreal does not
make it any less distant from the world. Orientalism could be essentially imaginative,
but material effects consequences from its beginning. Orientalism is a far-achieving
structure of representations inevitable to the construction of political dominance.
Orientalist depictions work to explain the decorum of Western colonial law of Eastern
lands. They are a significant side of the arsenal of Empire. They ―legitimate‖ the
supremacy of other people and ―lubricate‖ the judicial and political structures that
uphold colonial law through physical coercion.

The works of Said and Fanon motivated a new generation of literary scholars in
the eighties of the twentieth century ―keen to apply their ideas‖ to their understanding
of the literary works. What critics learned from the works of Said and Fanon was the
concurrently complex and candid reality that Empires colonies fancy. Fanon displays
how this operates at the psychological level of the oppressed; Said, on the other hand,
validates the legitimation of the colonial for the oppressor. Then, overturning
colonization is not only about giving the land back to its dispossessed citizens, handing
back ―power to those who were once ruled by Empire‖ (McLeod, p.24). It is
also a procedure of abolishing the prevailing conducts of perceiving the world
and

27
representing reality in ways that do not echo colonial standards. If colonialism includes
colonizing the mind, then resistance to it needs a ―decolonizing the mind‖
(Ngugi, p.54), which means that it is the issue of language. Salman Rushdie, the
Anglo-Indian novelist, comments, ―the language, like so much else in the
colonies, needs to be decolonized, to be remade in other images, if those of us who
use it from positions outside Anglo-Saxon culture is to be more than artistic Uncle
Tomas‖ (1982, p.8).

So, liberation from colonization originates not only from the adoption of
announcements of independence and the raising and lowering of flags. There has to be
a change in the minds, a challenge to the prevailing conducts of seeing. This represents
an experiment for those from both colonizing and colonized countries. Individuals
from various areas of the Empire need to reject the prevailing languages of power
which have separated them into slave and master, the ruled and the ruler if the lasting
and progressive change is to be attained. Fanon wrote, ―a man who has a
language consequently possesses the world expressed and implied by that language‖
(p.18). The capacity of reading and writing otherwise, to reconsider our identification
of the organization of things, contributes to the ability of change. In fact, ―in
order to challenge the colonial organization of things, some of us could need re-
consider our received assumptions of what we have been taught as ‗true‘ or ‗natural‘‖
(McLeod, p.20).

It would be exceptionally reductive to assume that Said is the initiator of

postcolonialism, not least because this might disregard the significant anti-colonial
critiques before to Ngungi, Fanon, and others. However, it is maybe reasonable to
argue that, institutionally, the success of Said‘s Orientalism did much to encourage
new kinds of study. Sensitized by Said‘s book and others to the operations of the
colonial discourses, a new generation of critics became more ‗theoretical‘ materials in
their work (McLeod, p.22). Probably, this was the beginning of postcolonialism as one
understands it today and marked a main leaving from the earlier, humanist methods
which characterized ―criticism of Commonwealth‖. Emerging in the 1980s were new,
excitingly dynamic structures of textual analysis prominent for their interdisciplinary
and eclecticism, merging the insights of ―feminism‖, politics, ―psychology‖,
philosophy, ―anthropology‖, and literary theory in energetic and provocative ways.

28
 Three methods of textual analysis in specific turned to be common at the
beginning of Orientalism. One included ―re-reading English colonial literature‖ so as
to inspect if past texts questioned or continued the hidden ―assumptions of
colonial discourses‖. This type of textual analysis continued along two avenues. In one
direction, reviewers looked at authors who tackled noticeably colonial themes and
discussed the problem of whether their works were critical or supportive of colonial
discourses. One instance is Joseph Conrad‘s Heart of Darkness (1899). Scholars argued
if Conrad‘s work preserved the colonialist view of the supposed inadequacy of other
people or if it questioned the whole colonial scheme, dissenting from colonial
discourses. On the other hand, writings that are not directly connected with
colonialism, for example, Jane Austin‘s Mansfield (1814) or Bronte‘s Jane Eyre
(1874), were also ―re-read‖ provokingly regarding colonial discourses.

Second, a number of scholars who worked with the post-structuralist thoughts

of Jacques Lacan, Jacques Derrida, and Michel Foucault started to investigate the
―representation of colonized subjects‖ in a diversity of colonial texts, not just literary
ones (McLeod, p. 24). As Said claimed, if the West shaped knowledge about other
people so as to verify the ―truth‖ about their ‗inferiority‘, was it likely to consider
these texts ―against the grain‖ and explore ―in them moments‖ when colonized
subjects
―resisted‖ being presented with ―recourse to colonial standards‖ (McLeod, p.24). This
matter was regarded in various manners during the 1980s by Gayatri Spivak and Homi
K. Bhabha, as well the ―Subaltern Studies‖ critics based in India. In her
significant writings ―Subaltern Studies: Deconstructing Historiography‖ (1988)
and ―Can the Subaltern Speak‖ (1993), Spivak dealt with the ―problem of
whether or not it is possible to recover the voices of those who had been made
subjects of colonial representations‖, particularly females, and read them as potentially
subversive and disruptive. Since the eighties of the last century, Bhabha, Spivak, and
Said have opened a ―wide variety of theoretical issues‖ central to
postcolonialism (McLeod, p.24). The three emerged as the ―Holy Trinity‖ of
reviewers investigating or working in the domain of postcolonialism.

The third form of literary analysis provoked by the turn of theory brought
together some of the insights obtained by ―theories of colonial discourses with
readings of the new literature from nations with a history of colonialism‖. Using the

29
works of

30
Said and Fanon, and late Spivak and Bhabha, it has become common to claim that
these works were mainly involved with ―writing back to the centre‖,
actively connected to the procedure of travestying and questioning colonial discourses
in their texts (McLeod, p.25). The ―nomenclature of Commonwealth‖ was dropped
in favour of postcolonial in explaining these authors and their writings, ―as if to
signal new generation‖ of critic‘s ―repudiation of older attitudes‖ in preference of the
newer, more interdisciplinary methods. The ―imperious overtones of
Commonwealth literature made this term fall increasingly out of favour from the
1980s‖ (McLeod, p.25). In plain difference to ―liberal humanist readings‖ by critics of
―Commonwealth literature‖, the postcolonial literature were ―at a stroke‖ considered
as locally situated and ―politically radical‖ rather than universally relevant. They were
believed to present straight challenges to the colonial centre from the colonized limits,
transferring new manners of seeing that both challenged the prevailing method, and
gave expression and voice to colonized and once-colonized individuals.
―Postcolonial literature‖ was vigorously involved in the act of decolonizing the mind.

This method was crystallized in a significant text that emerged at the end of the
twentieth century titled ―The Empire Writes Back: Theory and Practice in Postcolonial
Literatures‖ (1989). The book was co-written by the Australians: Gareth Griffiths, Bill
Ashcroft, and Helen Tiffin. The three critics were motivated by Rushdie‘s claim
regarding the necessity to decolonize the English language, ―The Empire Writes Back
orchestrated the issues we have been exploring into a coherent critical practice‖. It
epitomized the increasingly common observation that writings from the once—
colonized nations were essentially ―concerned with challenging the language of
colonial power, unlearning its worldview, and producing new modes of representation‖
(Said, p.23). Its writers explored the fortunes of the English language in countries with
a colonial past, as well as how authors were voicing their own sense of belonging by
refashioning English to suit their experiences. In the post-colonial world, English was
supplemented by a variety of linguistic cultures (Griffiths, Ashcroft & Tiffin, p.8).
They were watching it as a means of questioning the colonial belief structure it
enshrined and bearing witness to these peoples' sense of cultural change? The three
commentators illustrate the assumption that postcolonial literature describes itself by
snatching the vocabulary of the middle and substituting it in a discourse completely

31
suited to the colonized position in a tone that is mostly more viewpoint than
descriptive. (p.88)

This refashioning was effective in a variety of ways. Griffiths, Ashcroft, and

Tiffin concluded that authors were inventing new ―Englishes‖ by using a variety
of techniques, including adding untranslatable phrases, glossing apparently ambiguous
expressions, ignoring Standard English grammar in favour of constructs drawn from
other languages, and integrating numerous creolized varieties of English into their
literary works. Each of these strategies was demonstrated in a variety of postcolonial
books, and in each, the writer's attempt to refashion and subvert Standard English into
several new forms of ‗English,' as a means of jettisoning the colonialist standards that
Standard English housed, was given special attention (p.88).

The Empire Writes Back claimed that postcolonial writings were only the
product of "the renunciation (i.e. discounting) of the perceived English that speaks
from the middle, and the act of appropriation (i.e. seizure) that puts it under the control
of a vernacular language, the multifarious of speech patterns that define the "local
tongue" (p.38). The colonized place's new "English" was irreversibly distinct from the
colonial centre's language, isolated by an unbridgeable distance: "this gap, or absence,
is not derogatory, but in its consequence, it is regarded as optimistic." It creates a
differentiation from which an identification (whether retrieved or created) may be
expressed‖ (p.62). Standard English could not be modified because the current
"Englishes" had gone over its bounds and violated the laws. Fresh identities, traditions,
and belief systems emerged as a result of this irreversible plurality, whereas old
patriarchal values were vehemently opposed.

In the 1990s, it had a major influence on discussions of postcolonial literature

in university classrooms. The Empire Responds made a major contribution to the
domain's literature studies. It moved the approach to literature from formerly colonized
countries away from the abstract question of a text's eternal and universal meaning and
toward a more politicized approach that analyzes texts specifically within regional and
historical frameworks. Postcolonial literature, according to Griffiths, Ashcroft, and
Tiffin, questioned rather than verified broadly held expectations. Their
―local‖ attentions were vital to their definitions, not simply accidental (McLeod, p.27).
Griffiths, Ashcroft, and Tiffin lump together a complex and plural body of literature

32
from various locations, failing to consider the differences between the literature they
study. The Empire Writes Back spawned a "grand theory of postcolonialism " that
ignores cultural and historical distinctions among authors, homogenizing "specificities"
into a less or more unproblematic theory of the "other" (p.278). In the end, variety and
diversity are dismissed. As a result, one must be aware that postcolonial ideas cannot
be too dissimilar from the generalizing and homogenizing impulses that are often cited
as the area of Commonwealth literature's core flaw nowadays.

In the 1990s, postcolonial studies became trendy among academics and became
steadily busy. A strange splitting of the realm between critical studies that explore
postcolonial philosophy and textual critique of postcolonial literature has been in
danger of happening in a literary setting. Griffiths, Ashcroft, and Tiffin's efforts,
although problematically, to put analytical observations to bear on readings of
postcolonial texts in The Empire Writes Back are an illustration of this. However, the
‗Holy Trinity' of Spivak, Bhabha, and Said has recently become the topic of much
discussion and commentary in postcolonial studies, not least because some facets of
Bhabha and Spivak's work may seem impenetrable at first glance. Collectively, this has
aided in the creation of ‗postcolonial theory' as a separate discipline of its own right,
often at the detriment of postcolonial literature critique.

The most significant surveys of the postcolonial theory are series of essays
rather than analytical writings, not least because they go beyond the Bhabha-Spivak-
Said triad. Extracts from the work of 'Holy Trinity' and many other significant voices
can be found in Laura Chrisman and Patrick Williams' Colonial Discourse and Post-
Colonial Theory, edited by Laura Chrisman and Patrick Williams in 1993. The editors
of the book provide a broad and comprehensive sense of the excitement and variety of
postcolonial theory by including some excellent introductory sections. The Post-
Colonial Studies Reader, edited by Griffiths, Ashcroft, and Tiffin (1995), has a similar
feel, but the editors opt for brief excerpts from little commentary and longer sections,
rendering the text seem threadbare. Another collection, Colonial Discourse/ Post-
Colonial Theory, edited by Margret Iverson, Francis Baker, and Peter Hulme, contains
many articles that challenge several of the key assumptions of postcolonial theory,
though the complication of the critique allows it a text to tackle after one has made his
or her first foray into postcolonial theory.

33
 After extensive critiques of Spivak, Said, and Bhabha, Bart Moore-Postcolonial
Gilbert's Theory and Robert Young's White Mythologies: Writing History and the
West (1990) are the two most significant. Young provides valuable examples of the
work of the 'Holy Trinity,' situating their writings within a larger investigation of
poststructuralist historical approaches. Bart Moore-Gilbert, on the other hand, presents
the wealthiest and most thorough work on postcolonial theory to date and situates it in
relation to Commonwealth literature as well as the works of other postcolonial writers
(Although Said, Bhabha, and Spivak stay its primary subject matter). Moore-interest
Gilbert's in postcolonial theory is incredibly valuable and remarkable, but this suggests
that his book is not intended to be an introductory document.

There are several excellent introductory guides to postcolonial theory, but they
seldom seek to deal properly with postcolonial literature; this is maybe unsurprising
considering that their authors' backgrounds are mainly in literary studies. An
Introduction to Postcolonial Theory (1977) by Patrick Williams and Peter Childs is the
most stimulating since it covers far more ground than Spivak, Said, or Bhabha and
does so in a supportive and transparent manner; nevertheless,,, the ‗Holy Trinity'
remains paramount.

After studying the philosophical and historical contexts of postcolonialism, one

is now in a position to define it. First and foremost, we must comprehend the relation
between postcolonialism and colonialism. According to theories of colonial discourses,
colonization has a major impact on forms of representation. Languages hold a series of
beliefs about the "proper order of things" that are taught as "facts" or "fact" (McLeod,
p. 32). It is far from reasonable to say that colonization came to a rest as a colony
officially archives its freedom. The raising of a newly independent colony's flag may
signal a critical change in constitutional authority to those in the newly independent
nation, but it's important to remember that colonial standards do not vanish on the first
day of independence. In several cases, life after freedom, according to Stuart Hall, "is
marked by the presence of many of these colonial forces" (Hall, 1996, pp.248). The
reading patterns, beliefs, and representations of colonization are not quickly dislodged.
Is it necessary to communicate about a postcolonial period if colonialism's numerous
information, views, and assumptions are left unquestioned?

34
 Postcolonialism Part of the mission entails writing back in response to
patriarchal forms of knowing. However, imperial forms of understanding continue to
exist and circulate today; regrettably, they have not actually vanished when the Empire
has weakened. Therefore, one of Davies‘s reservations about postcolonialism is the
impression it might give that colonial relationship no longer exist (Davies, 1994, p.82).
Davies argues that people have to remember the ―numerous individuals that are
still existing within definite countries who have been colonized with the
former/colonies (African-American, Native-American, Palestinians, South Africans,
Aboriginal Australians) (p.83). This comment raises the issue of internal colonialism
that persists in many ways in once-colonized nations; for such individuals, colonial
oppression still far from over. This is the reason why people must be careful in using
postcolonialism strictly as shaping a historical period or moment.

As a result, the word "postcolonialism " differs from "after colonialism," as

though imperial values are no longer relevant. The concept does not necessarily denote
a modern historical period, nor does it mean a bold new future free of the ills of the
imperial past (McLeod, p. 32). In reality, postcolonialism acknowledges both transition
and historical continuity. It also recognizes that, even as the political map of the world
has shifted as a result of decolonization, the material forms and realities of
representation typical to colonialism are also very much present today. However, it
asserts the potential, hope, and continued need for reform, while still noting that
substantial improvements and obstacles have already been encountered.

Thus, with this firmly in our minds, one may proceed to make some decisions
about what is assembled under the umbrella notion of ‗postcolonialism ‘. Keeping in
mind the concern with the variety that the term may cover, one may identify three
noticeable areas that fall within its remit. In a literary context, and very basically,
postcolonialism includes either or a variation of the following: first, reading literature
works from countries with a colonial history, especially those dealing with the residue
and working of colonialism in the present and past. Second, reading texts on diaspora
relationships and their different consequences published by migrants from countries
with colonial history or descendants of migrant families. Re-reading documents from
the period of colonialism, both those that specifically address the Empire's views and
those that appear not to, in terms of colonial debate hypotheses. (McLeod, p. 34).

35
 The main term in each is ‗reading‘. The process of readings in a postcolonial
context is by no means neutral activities. The way one reads is as significant as what
he/she reads. The ideas one may encounter within postcolonialism and the issues they
raise need that conventional reading models and methods interpretation have to be
rethought if one‘s reading practices are to contribute to the decolonization of
discourses to which post-colonialism aspires. Re-thinking conventional modes of
reading are essential to postcolonialism.

In fact, making distinctions like what has illustrated above always involving a
certain degree of generalization. It would be unlikely; also a mistake to unify these
three areas into single coherent postcolonialism with a common philosophy. Single-
sentence clarifications are unwise and impossible. Moreover, one has to be aware that
each area itself heterogeneous and diverse. For instance, colonial discourses may
operate in definite ways for various peoples at different periods of time. One must not
presume totality and consensus where there is instead heterogeneity. The last point to
be discussed here is that postcolonialism might well aim to oppose colonial values and
representations, but whether it fulfils these aims stays a hotly debated issue in the field.
Postcolonialism could bring new possibilities, but it is not free from problems of its
own.

1.2 Ambivalence and Mimicry

―Escape has turned to be a way of displacement and life, a perennial condition.

For the evicted political, colonial independence solves no problem. A type of sequence
of determinism makes it likely for them (those who experienced diaspora) to find a
home. Neither the mother country nor the colony provides a matrix. Displacement and
dependence are their ultimates‖ (Amur, p.137). Societies with colonial history have
been struggling with the issues of inconsistencies once they were given by colonizers.
Their poor condition of the post-independence periods made them imitates the
conducts of the colonizers to thrive in the postcolonial nations. Postcolonial reviewer
Homi K.Bhabha asserts that the people of a colonized country imitate the colonizers so
as to escape from disorder (Bhabha, 1984, p.182). The colonized, by adopting the role
of mimicry, hopes to bring order and coherence. In the colonial discourse, both the
colonized and the colonizer pander to negotiation. Mimicry involves both menace and

36
resemblance. The kind of ambivalence that colonized witness in the postcolonial
discourse is similar to that of the diasporic people living in the postcolonial nations.

In migrant societies, features like hybridity, ambivalence, and mimicry

recognizable by the diasporic people. Diasporic authors handle the problem of identity
in their writings. For them, identity is not fixed; identities are partial and plural. The
clash of two cultures is the main issue that the migrants suffer from. Their situation is
too confusing that they are motivated to construct imaginary homelands. They reimage
their native countries, and their identities remain inconsistent. By imitating Western
people, colonial subjects are still included in cultural negotiation; this process is called
`mimicry', also known as 'double consciousness' (Bhabha, 1984, p.182). The diasporic
people who lost their identities in the previous colonies of the Empires struggle to
regain their past.

Bhabha, like Said, asserts that colonization is based on a set of myths intended
to justify its perspective on other cultures and territories. ―The aim of colonial
discourse is to construe the colonized as a community of degenerate kinds on the
grounds of racial heritage, in order to justify the invasion and maintain colonial
authority,‖ writes Bhabha. System of instruction and administration (Bhabha, 1994,
p.70). The appearance of colonial stereotypes characterizes colonized people in
different pejorative ways. Moreover, Bhabha maintains that this significant goal
―is never fully met‖. This is because the ―discourse of colonialism does not
function according to plan because it is always pulling in two contrary directions at one
time‖ (Bhabha, 1984, p.70).

The discourse of colonialism, on the one hand, would have it that the Oriental
(or in Bhabha‘s parlance, the ―colonized subject‖) is a curious creature whose
bizarre eccentric appearance is a source of both fear and fascination. The colonized are
seen as the ―other‖ of Westerners (or the colonizing subject), who are essentially
outside of Western society and cultures (McLeod, p.53). Colonialism's rhetoric, on
the other hand, aims to domesticate colonized objects and eliminate their militant
"otherness," introducing them into Western awareness through the Orientalist project
of information construction regarding them. As a consequence, the construction of
"otherness" is "broken" by the colonized's inconsistent location outside and within
Western awareness. ―Colonial discourses create the colonized as a social phenomenon
that is at
37
once the ―other‖ and yet fully recognizable and knowable,‖ according to
Bhabha. (pp.70-1)

Therefore, Stereotypes seek to justify the strangeness of others by suggesting

that they are incomprehensible: the Chinese are often perplexing, the Irish are
invariably ignorant, and the Arabs are fundamentally violent. If the colonized are taken
beyond the limitations of Western knowledge, the distance between them and the
colonizer is narrowing. Colonial stereotypes, on the other hand, operate in the other
direction to preserve this illusion of distinction. Colonizers could never admit that
other citizens are not truly different from themselves since this will undermine
colonialism's legitimacy.

Probing Said‘s claim, which says/ that Western illustrations of the East are
mainly based on wishes, imaginings, and fantasies, Bhabha maintains that ―the
fantasies of the colonial stereotypes often appear as horrors‖. ―The discourse of
colonialism is frequently populated with ―terrifying stereotypes of cannibalism,
lust, anarchy, and savagery‖ (p.72). Bhabha argues that:

Any attempt to subdue the radical otherness of the colonized is perpetually

offset by the alarming fantasies that are projected into them. This specifies how, in the
discourse of colonialism, colonized subjects are split between contradictory positions.
They are knowable, harmless, domesticated, but also at the same time harmful,
mysterious, and wild. Bhabha maintains that as a consequence, in colonialist
representations, the colonized subject is always in motion, sliding ambivalently
between the polarities between difference and similarity; she or he simply will not
stand still. Because of this slippery motion, stereotypes are deployed as a means to
arrest the ambivalence of the colonial subject by describing her or him in static terms
(McLeod, p.53).

However, this securing of the colonizer's subject role is still ineffective. As a

result, myths must be echoed regularly in an incomplete, anxious effort to protect the
colonized topic in the colonial debate. The same old tales of the Negro's animality, the
Coolie's stupidity, or the Irish inscrutability have to be related anew and again,
according to Bhabha and are different frightening and gratifying each time (Bhabha,
p.77). The imperial stereotypes are replicated in an effort to hold the colonized in a set
place, but it is often an acceptance that this will never be accomplished.

38
 Therefore, to sum up, Bhabha‘s discourse of colonialism‘ is characterized by
both anxious repetitions and ambivalence. In trying to do two things at once—
constructing the colonized as both similar to and the other of colonizers—it ends up in
doing neither properly. As a replacement, it is condemned to be at war with itself,
placing radical otherness between individuals while instantaneously attempting to
lessen the degree of otherness. Although ―the aim is to fix knowledge about
other people once and for all, this objective is always deferred‖. The best it ―may do is
set in motion the anxious repetition of the colonized subject‘s stereotypical attributes
that endeavour to fix it in a stable position‖ (Bhabha, p.77). But the reality that
stereotypes must be endlessly repeated reveals that this fixity is never attained.

In his article ―Of Mimicry and Man‖, Bhabha constructs these notions and
finds how the ambivalence of the colonized persons turns to be a complete threat to the
authority of the colonizers throughout the impact of mimicry. Bhabha argues that as
―one of the most effective and elusive strategies of colonial knowledge and
power‖ (p.85). Bhabha concentrates on the idea that in colonial countries like India, the
British colonizers needed native people ―to work on their behalf and thus had to
teach them the English language‖. An example of that Macaulay's infamous
―Minute‖. Macaulay argues that the British in India needed to create a class of Indians
able to talk in English, speaking about intellect, morals, and opinions (Macaulay, 1995,
p.76). These figures comparable to ―Fanon‘s French colonials depicted in Black Skin,
White Masks, are described as a ―mimic man‖ who is taught to act English but do not
look English at all, nor are accepted as such. Bhabha argues to be Anglicized
emphatically not to be English‖ (p.87).

These mimic men are not the slavish, disempowered individuals required by the
British in India. Bhabha maintains, ―they are invested with power to menace
the colonizers because they threaten to disclose the ambivalence of the discourse of
colonialism, which the use of stereotype anxiously efforts to conceal‖ (p.87).

39
 CHAPTER TWO: MIMICRY IN ORWELL’S ANIMAL FARM:

A POSTCOLONIAL READING

In general, the success of a literary work shows its value, and one explanation
for Orwell's Animal Farm's universal appeal is the classic simplicity of its style and
language—an English that is equally accessible to adults and teenagers. Animal Farm's
ability to thrive as a work of fiction, to engage the feelings and creativity of potential
audiences, could well be contingent on a greater understanding of the work as an
intrinsic part of a much broader cultural structure, with interwoven threads stretching
back to the ancient past. Animal Farm's many threads—allegory, animal plot, comedy,
fairy tale, ballad, morals, lamentation, among others—can be traced back to English-
language classics by Swift, Gay, Bunyan, Shakespeare, Dickens, Chaucer, and
Spencer. Any broadening of a reader's viewpoint assists in unveiling Orwell's Animal
Farm as a cell adding to the continuing existence of a civilizing literary tradition, rather
than an isolated literary event applicable only to a single moment in history.

Orwell reveals himself to be a writer very much of the era as he says in "Why I
am Writing" that he has been attempting to express political concepts in an artistically
pleasing way since the mid-thirties of the previous century. Owing to the fact that not
only was literature politicized during this period, but also academics, leaders, and
authors were judged and categorized based on their ideological views. The harsh
reception awaited in the manuscript of Animal Farm—from the slings of the
intellectual left to the bows of the militaristic right—has a hint of the allegorically
symbolic.

Since its publication, many reviews have appeared discussing Animal Farm; in
fact, up till today, the novel still receives many critical views. Among these critics who
discussed Orwell‘s novel is Donald Morse, who argues that Animal Farm is a novel
with the fantastic convention of data from pig to human and reversible from human to
pig (Morse, 1995, p.89). Orwell‘s novel has a fable as its surface due to the fast that it

40
tells its readers about animals that have human qualities, and the most prominent
quality is its ability to speak. Moreover, Animal Farm is considered an allegorical
novel because its characters mirror or correspond to some figures that are taken from
the real world. Perhaps the most human quality that the animals show appears at the
end of the novel when pigs start to walk on two legs and wear human attire so that
other animals on the farm will not be able to differentiate them from human beings.

Besides the allegorical significance that the novel depicts, also Orwell‘s novel
puts forward the issue of exploitation and colonialism. There have been some trials to
show that in Animal Farm, colonialism had taken place in Russia, and this colonialism
is internal with the Russian government plays the role of colonizer through its
tyrannical policies. Similarly, Animal Farm depicts the idea that colonization caused
by pigs, and these pigs represent the Soviet Union which worked to colonize the
Russian people. Within the scope of this colonialism, one may also refer to the concept
of mimicry in the novel. Kirschner (2007) argues that mimicry might be seen in any
process of colonization, and perhaps the most common process is the interaction that
takes place between the colonized and the colonizer (p. 31). In this respect, the social
order that one can see in Animal Farm mimics or resembles ―European
Socialism‖ (p.31). As an allegory to the Russian revolution, Animal Farm, especially
in the beginning, presents the image of animals that are colonized by men; this
shows how the colonized (in this case, the animals) are exploited for the benefit of the
colonizers (men). The concept of internal colonization appeared in postcolonial studies.
Beatriz (1979) defines internal colonization as the stage that follows the colonization
and domination of the foreigners over the natives; in this stage, the role of colonizers is
taken by the natives themselves (p.85). In this sense, the colonizers might not always
be foreigners, they the colonizer and the colonized might be from the same country but
with different ideology or views (p.85).

The internal colonization, Calvert (2001) argues, could include the physical
conquest not across and within the limitations of the political region. So, depending on
Calvert‘s view, internal colonization occurs in one place and even in one group, and it
is caused by economic, racial or political conflict (p.63). S. W. Williams argues that
internal colonization always occurs within a single country, and the term itself was
mostly used in literary works; perhaps the most significant work that depicts this

41
notion is Orwell‘s Animal Farm (p.125). At the beginning of the novel the animals on
the farm are dominated by men, and then the pigs took the role of men and started to
colonize and dominate other animals on the farm.

In his speech to other animals, Old Major explains how the animals are
exploited and oppressed by men; men, in this case, take the role of the colonizer and
animals, thus, colonized by humans. When reading the novel, not only the physical
exploitation of animals such as using horses for transportation or plowing the soil by
cows that one may observe, but also the productions of these animals such as wool,
eggs, and milk are taken by humans. The distribution of wealth and labor from the
colony—Animal Farm- into the civilization or center—Mrs. Jones‘s properties—
symbolizes colonial relationships (Yang, 2006, p.287). These subjects are made quite
clear by Old Major:

―Now Comrades, our lives are short, laborious and miserable. We were given
just so much food as will keep the breath in our bodies, and most of us are
forced to work till the last atom of our strength‖ (Orwell, 1945, p.2).

Old Major continuous: ―in England, animals know nothing about leisure
or happiness, and when our usefulness comes to an end we are slaughtered with
hideous cruelty, the life of animals is slavery and misery, and no animal is free‖
(Orwell, 1945, p.2). Old Major‘s speech indicates that the owner of the farm, Mr Jones,
has been treating the animals very badly. Colonial discourse, Said argues, may always
display the relationship between the colonizer and the colonized, also the oppressing
and the oppressed (Said, 1972, p.34). So from the beginning of the novel, Orwell
shows the inequality between animals and humans, and after Old Major‘s speech, it
became clear that animals see the owner of the farm as a colonizer. The Old Major acts
as the representative for the other animals on the farm. The aim behind his speech is to
motivate other animals on the farm to make a revolution on the farm against the
authority of Mr Jones. Perhaps, through Old Major‘s speech at the beginning of the
story, Orwell wants to deliver the idea that only through revolution colonization might
be defeated.

Old Major is the first animal among others on the farm to announce and declare
that animals on the farm are being oppressed by the human owner. The aged boar gives
the motivation that fuels the revolution. The boar is an allegorical combination of the

42
Russian communist leader Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx; he draws up the values of
the revolution. His skull being put on honoured public display recalls Lenin, whose
conserved body was put on exhibition. Because of the cruelty of Mr Jones, Old Major
urges other animals on the farm to revolt against the owner of the farm. This cruelty, as
explained by Mr Jones, lies in the fact that he gives the animals the amount of food that
prevents them from starving, while the rest of the products goes to the owner of the
farm and his family. The animals which are unable to produce any kind of product will
face a crueller fate either by losing their lives, or they are sold to another owner, who
in his turn slaughter them.

The animals on the farm start to be aware of their position in a colonial

relationship. Their late awareness, as argued by Robert (1990), is due to the fact that
these animals lack education and Old Major was the tutor who enlightened or told their
animals about their rights. From this point, the animals decide to arrange a rebellion
against Mr Jones. It is important to mention that the word ―Rebellion‖ in the novel was
used with capital ‗R‘, in doing so, Orwell wants to highlight the idea that ―Rebellion‖
became the grand goal for all animals in the novel. Robert argues that the reason
behind using the capital ‗R‘ in the word rebellion is to indicate that this word is
considered sacred by all animals on the farm because it represents their goal of
equality. Furthermore, Old Major himself stated, ―the word Rebellion should start with
capital ‗R‘‖. For him, the word has become a symbol of revolution, a symbol of
communism ―all animals are comrades. All men are enemies‖ (Orwell, p.2).

The allegorical figure or Old Major always reminds animals of the hierarchy
system in Mr Jones‘s farm in which animals are inferior to men and that animals
always feel that humans are above them. Also, it is important to note that Orwell
always capitalizes the word ―Man‖ to give the impression that ―Man‖ is an animal‘s
supreme enemy: ―always remember your duty of enmity towards Man and all his
ways. Whatever moves upon two legs is our enemy. Whatever has wings or moves on
four wings is our friend. And always remember that we must not resemble Man when
fighting against him‖ (p.4). This quotation illustrates animals‘ feelings of hatred
toward ―Man‖, but for some critics, Old Major has always been uncertain about
the success of this ―Rebellion‖ because, as Robert argues, he thinks Rebellion is
still an

43
unattainable dream for animals due to their capacity and strength compared to Mr
Jones‘s power.

The awareness that ―Man‖ is superior to animals leads ―to the formulation of
mimicry‖ as an essential idea in the story (Darmawan, 2018, p.39). The animals on the
farm start to understand the fact that every human‘s attitude, action, and appearance is
important to determine him as a superior creature in this world. They start to realize
that humans‘ behaviours are what make them in a higher rank than animals. According
to Darmawan, what really encouraged Old Major to act against humans is his feeling of
inferiority when he compares himself with Mr Jones (p.40). Even when they heard Old
Major's speech, not all animals were convinced with his idea of ―Rebellion‖.
An example of those who declined Old Major‘s view is Mollie, who is convinced that
Mr Jones is his master, and it is his property. However, those animals which are
convinced in Old Major‘s speech think it is better to behave just like humans, imitate
human‘s attitude, but there are some human behaviours that are difficult to imitate by
animals such as: sleep in bed, living in houses, wearing clothes, smoking, or even
drinking alcohol. Moreover, there are some other human habits that are forbidden for
animals, as asserted by Old Major ―Humans are evil so as their habits‖ (Orwell,
p.5). Among these habits is a dictatorship because it is a humanistic feature.
Therefore, unexpectedly, Old Major asks other animals not to mimic humans, as
Darmawan argues, ―Mimicry was the line that animals must never across‖ (p.39).

In spite of Old Major‘s instruction to other animals not to mimic any human
behaviour, the animals begin to generate a hierarchy system in the body of their
community. The dominant race (humans) was replaced by a dominant species of
animals, the pigs:

It was early March at the time. There was a lot of covert action during the next
three months. Major's speech had offered the farm's more intellectual animals a whole
different perspective on existence. They had little idea when Major's expected
Rebellion would occur, and they had no reason to believe it would happen in their
lifetime, but they recognized that it was their responsibility to plan for it. The task of
educating and organizing the others inevitably fell to the pigs, who were widely
regarded as the most intelligent of the species. (p.6)

44
 This illustrates Orwell‘s view that the actual power lies in one‘s ability to
adapt, and education remains the most prevalent factor in determining a dominant
position in a particular group. In Manor Farm, all species of animals consider pigs as
the cleverest animals on the farm. For that, the animals trust pigs to teach them and
organize their life.

In the novel, the pigs on the farm always steal some books from the owner‘s
library and secretly read these books. So, although Old Major forbids animals to mimic
humans, pigs were the first species of animals to imitate humans. Yet, the pigs‘ act of
mimicry seems necessary to overcome the authority of the colonial system. In the later
events of the novel, one of the pigs called Napoleon used mimicry to justify his
oppression and domination of other animals.

Indeed, as introduced by Orwell, pigs have qualities that enable them to mimic
humans, as compared to other animals on the farm. Another reason for using pigs as
the animals that act like ―Man‖, as discussed by some critics, is that pigs were found to
be among the most intelligent animals in the world, they are able to use mirrors for
their own advantages and perform some tricks like stand and bow, jump hoops, open
and close cages, roll our rugs, even playing videogames (Darmawan, p.51). Definitely,
it was very appropriate for Orwell to use pigs; normally, pigs are used to represent
uncleanness, they eat any slop, and they wallow in the mud. Pigs also might signify
moral depravity, so in using pigs as representatives of Stalin‘s regime, Orwell indicates
the idea that the leaders of the Soviet members are filthy and smart at the same time.
The most important figures among these pigs are Snowball, Napoleon, and Squealer,
and all of these characters symbolize famous leaders from the Soviet Regime.
Napoleon is a big, fierce—fierce-looking boar; it is a representation of Joseph Stalin.
Napoleon is a symbol of the new revolution that resents the old political system and
aims to change it. Snowball is an allegorical character; it signifies Trotsky. Leon
Trotsky was a Marxist politician and theorist; he was one of the pioneers of the
October revolution. He is best known for being one of the leaders of the Red Army.
For many historians, he was the vital reason that enabled the Red Army to win the
Russian Civil War. When Joseph Stalin took rule of the country, Trotsky was forced to
leave Russia, and he spent the rest of his life in exile. His ideas advanced the
foundation of Trotskyism, a major school of Marxist consideration that opposes the

45
philosophies of Stalinism. When the animals on the farm decide to act against the
authority of Mr Jones, Snowball helps Napoleon in his plans to roll over humans, but
later the two friends oppose each other as their perspectives and views towards ruling
the group change. Another pig that participated in the distribution of the ‗Rebellion‘ is
Squealer. Squealer is the second in command after Napoleon. He is the minister of
propaganda. Orwell describes him in the novel as a fat porker and a very convincing
orator; he is very convincing that he could ―turn into white‖ (Orwell, p.173).
He occupies a central role in delivering announcements. Some critics like Robert
argue that Squealer is a representation of Pravada; Pravada was the official newspaper
of the Communist Party in Russia when Stalin ruled the country (p.17). Both Squealer
in the novel and Pravada spread Stalin and Napoleon propaganda. Squealer succeeded
in convincing every animal of the Manor Farm in Napoleon‘s policies. According to
Darmawan (2018), Squealer is the best example of mimicry in Animal Farm (p.41). In
this way, Orwell reflects the main events in Russia after the revolution; he reflects
these events as an unwelcome path, and that the democratic socialism the Orwell
believed turned to be a vicious dictatorship constructed around a cult of personality and
imposed by lies and terror: "individuals who are morally sound have known since
about 1931 that the Russian régime stinks" Orwell wrote (p.41). As the main
propagandist of the Russian regime, Squealer is prominent in the novel, and the author
describes the path down that minor lies lead to larger lies. Orwell considered
propaganda as a characteristic of most modern régimes but particularly prominent in
dictatorial governments, which depend and regard it as an essential part of it.

Mimicry in Animal Farm is used as a means of ―Rebellion‖, as an instrument of

resistance against the colonial regime of Mr Jones. The ―Rebellion‖, Darmawan
argues, begins when Snowball starts to steal art books from Mr Jones‘s library and then
tries to apply what he reads in his real life, but despite his animalistic appearance,
Snowball thinks like a human, act like a grown, educated man (p.40). He always aims
to strengthen Old Major‘s dream of having an independent animal kingdom. Snowball
dreams of a world without humans, and for that, he must stir a rebellion not just in Mr
Jones‘s farm but in all other farms in England. Although Snowball intends to remain
loyal to Napoleon, the latter always disagrees with Snowball‘s suggestion because he
fears that Snowball may have a bigger influence on the group and thus gain more
popularity among animals. Just like when humans write their constitutions, Snowball

46
decides to write the Seven Commandments. These rules determine the action of pigs,
however later in the story, the seven rules are changed by Squealer, under to
supervision of Napoleon. Snowball thinks like humans; he uses his knowledge from
books when fighting enemies. When the moment comes to fight with Mr Jones,
Snowball uses human strategies in fighting to overcome Mr Jones.

In his commentary about Bhabha‘s notion of mimicry, Lacan argues that the
impact of mimicry is camouflage, like human techniques used in warfare (Bhabha,
p.85). Snowball camouflages himself with Mr Jones‘s knowledge to beat him. So in
doing mimicry (for example, reading and writing like humans), Snowball acts not as a
colonized but as a colonizer. He uses every opportunity possible for him to learn about
humans using human books and industries so as to use them later against them.

The animals have not taken any step against the humans yet. After the death of
Old Major, the animals start to put a plan for their ―Rebellion‖, but they never decide
when it occurs. The ―Rebellion‖ starts when the owner of the farm, Mr Jones,
gets drunk, and his workers abandon the farm without feeding the animals, leaving the
animals starving. The animals have to break into the store—shed searching for food.
When the owner arrives with his men, they try to take the animals out of the store, but
the animals fight back. Soon Mr Jones and his men find themselves being chased off
the farm. After that, the triumphant beasts start to eat heartily, destroy all traces of
Jones, and celebrate their recent freedom. After discovering what‘s inside Mr Jones'
house, the animals agree to leave the house as it is as a museum. Snowball changes the
sign from "Manor Farm" to "Animal Farm" and paints the ―Seven Commandments of
Animalism‖ on the wall of the barn.

The success that the ―Rebellion‖ achieved to change the colonial system
resulted in a vacuum of powers. Led by the pigs, the animals start to determine their
own destinies. However, this did not last long as the pigs start to take the role that was
occupied by humans before the Rebellion. The pigs also confess to other animals that
they start to learn reading and writing before planning to make a revolution. The
animals take the feeling of pride from humans; moreover, instead of using their own
language, animals and especially pigs, continue to use human language. Pigs decide to
use the colonizer‘s language (Mr Jones and his men) instead of using the colonized
own language. For pigs, the language of ―Man‖ is the language of knowledge
and
47
civilization. Huddart (2006) states that mimicry can become a source of mockery
(p.39). In Animal Farm, mimicry becomes a mockery when pigs, as ex-colonized mock
humans as their ex-colonizers by imitating their habits, language and the way they
wear clothes (Darmawan, p.43).

Perhaps the most obvious example of mimicry depicted in the animals‘ decision
to dedicate their own constitution under the name ―Seven Commandment
of Animalism‖, but these rules present an irony since these Commandments are written
in human language and human‘s way of writing:

It was written quite well, and except for the 'mate' and one was written
wrongly, the orthographic was right all the way around. For the good of everyone,
Snowball read it aloud. In absolute agreement, all the animals nodded, and the cleverer
started studying Commandments with their heart. (Orwell, p.9)

Byrne (2009) argues that mimicry occurs as a response to stereotyping (p.88).

Stereotyping ‗Man‘ is the main reason behind the imitating process that the pigs of the
farm do. For animals, particularly pigs, humans‘ habits are very tempting to be
imitated. Wearing Mr Jones‘s clothes and moving on two legs illustrate what Edward
Said calls ―mesmerizing power‖ held by the culture of the colonizer (Darmawan,
p.54). By announcing their own rules and writing their own constitution, the animals
on the farm are actually stereotyping humans (Darmawan, p.54). Actually, the process
of stereotyping humans begins before the rebellion; it begins with Old Major, who does
his speech just like a political man whose aim is to persuade his listeners or supporters
with his convincing methods of speech.

At this stage of the novel, the conduct of the animals could be considered as the
first stage of mimicry because they are unable to copy human‘s writings in a perfect
way. They misspell the word ―friend‖; they also failed to write the letter ―S‖.
This slippage, Darmawan argues, is the earliest example of mimicry in Animal Farm
(p.55). This case was discussed by Bhabha and his notion of mimicry, who argues that
the practice of mimicry is not always perfect, not always complete (p.86). However,
this simple, incomplete form of mimicry becomes a successful strategy that enabled
them to overcome Mr Jones and his men. Furthermore, this act of mimicry has
proved pigs to be the cleverest animals on the farm.

48
 The demonstration of mimicry in the story continuous after the employment of
several policies. Whereas the new leaders of the farm, Squealer, Snowball, and
Napoleon, disturbed the motto that says ―do not copy human‖, some animals on
the farm find it fun to wear some humans‘ accessories. The white mare, Mollie which
its‘ previous job was pulling Mr Jones‘s cart, is the only animal that refused the
rebellion. The white horse is depicted as a shallow materialist, which cares for nothing
but its own self. The white horse‘s main concern is his love for ribbons and sugar, and
because of that, she was against the rebellion because she was afraid not to get more
sugar. After the success of the revolution, Snowball decides to take every ribbon on the
farm and burn them. For Snowball, ribbons are symbols of slavery. Snowball suggests
that animals must stay naked because wearing clothes is what differentiates humans
from animals. For animals like Mollie, Snowball‘s decision was not fair because the
white mare loves to wear human attire. This conflict between those who oppose
mimicries like Snowball and those animals who like to imitate humans and enjoy
human resources continuous to the end of the story.

As it is obvious in the story, the reception of human knowledge or the ability to

mimic ―Man‖ is different from one animal to another. There are certain animals that
benefit from human‘s achievements and use them in their lives, such as Snowball.
Other animals, such as Napoleon, refuse anything that is invented by or even related to
humans. Because of that, two opposite parties appeared on the farm, one led by
Snowball and the other led by Napoleon. The first side of the conflict held the belief
that some human‘s attitudes should be imitated or mimicked. The second side of the
conflict refuses any attachment with the colonizer, with humans. Both Snowball and
Napoleon think that they are depicting Old Major‘s views, but in fact, each of the two
pigs is depicting its own views. That‘s why the two pigs become the head of two
opposed parties on the farm. Darmawan states that this conflict between Snowball and
Napoleon reflects the early influence of mimicry, which separates the animals into two
teams (p.57).

After the success of the rebellion, most of the animals on the farm start to
change. This change is mainly in the attitudes. After using human strategies and skills
to win their freedom, the animals in this stage of the story are convinced that all
human‘s attitudes and habits are good and that from now on, they must act like

49
humans. That‘s why some animals like Napoleon have noted that humans‘ supremacy
has not ended with the departure of Mr Jones and his men, and debates started to
appear on the farm about the necessity of mimicry. Snowball is the smartest animal on
the farm. He is a forward thinker; he also has foresight. He ―is able to see the
big picture and plan for it‖ (p.57). His main aim after the success of the rebellion
is to build a windmill. Snowball teaches the idea that when animals use humans‘
technology, their lives will be easier. He starts to present lectures about the importance
of electricity. On the other hand, Napoleon is devious. He knows the importance of
technology, but he never admits it. He plans to drive Snowball away from the farm and
claim that the idea of the windmill is his in the first place. The conflict between the two
main pigs on the farm resulted from their different understanding concerning the
degree of mimicry. Each pig starts to gather some animals around him and declare their
plans in their efforts to win the battle against each other. After the campaign, the
process of mimicking humans became wider; especially pigs with their campaigns
became very obsessed with the attitudes of the old colonizers.

After the human‘s regime ended, Manor farm starts to witness great changes. In
the middle of this far-ranging upheaval, the concept of equality starts to appear in the
story. The pigs start to convince other animals to do their works; they only direct and
supervise others:

It was normal for them to take on leadership with their superior expertise.
Boxer and Clover will use the horse rake or the cutter. And tramp across the
field slowly, a pig walking behind, crying out, 'Help, comrade, or 'help me
back, comrade!' as it might be. (There were no parts or reins needed in these
days,) And every animal worked to make the hay into the most modest.
(Orwell, p.11)

The pigs start to act like their former master, Mr Jones. Instead of working,
they start to command others to do their work; they act like if they are the masters and
other animals are slaves. In spite of that, other animals are willing to do whatever the
pigs want; they actually start to work for the pigs. This state contradicts what Old
Major‘s predicted when he spoke about equality that would come to Manor Farm when
they defeat humans. Therefore, animals find themselves working all day again, but this
time, they work for another master, for pigs.

50
 Although these animals are still colonized by a different colonizer, they never
feel that they are colonized. This feeling resulted from the pigs‘ aim to convince
animals with Animalism belief, what they produce is what they consume. It is true and
that what makes the animals happy and satisfied, the number of productions that the
animals start to have more than what they used to have under the rule of Mr. Jones. So
now they have more food to eat and more free time.

Due to their position as the new ruler of the farm, the pigs begin to implement
their policies. Most of these policies are an act of mimicry about the humans‘ habits
and rules. These policies were the reason behind the conflict between Napoleon and
Snowball, who has a contrasting policy regarding how far mimicry should be
conducted:

The pigs had named the harness room as their centre of operations. They
learned blacksmithing, carpentry, and other required arts from books they had taken
out of the farmhouse in the evenings. Snowball was still busy organizing the other
animals into Animal Committees, as he named them. He was unstoppable in his
efforts. He founded the Egg Production Committee for hens, the Clean Tails League
for cows, the Wild Comrades' Re-Education Committee (to tame rats and rabbits), the
Whiter Wool Movement for sheep, and other organizations (Orwell, p.11).

Pigs make themselves busy with reading humans‘ books while other animals do
their jobs. The hierarchal system that the pigs wanted to get rid of has returned now
because pigs see themselves as superiors, and any other animal on the farm is inferior
to them. Pigs have now actually replaced humans as the superior race. With their
growing obsession with human knowledge, pigs make their own committees as an
implementation of human governance. Mimicry as well starts to be implemented to all
other animals on the Farm through human cultures, such as funerals. When Mr Jones
tries to take the farm back from the animals, the animals fight back and force Mr Jones
and his men to retreat, but they lose many lives. When the battle ends, the animals
conduct some kinds of human rituals during the funeral of their fellow comrades who
sacrificed their lives for the sake of the rest. Other humans‘ habits are mimicked after
the end of the battle, like having a celebration, raising a flag, and sing victory songs. At
the end of the funeral, Squealer does a speech in which he encourages animals so they

51
will defend and die for the sake of the farm if they are attacked in the future. This kind
of speech, Darmawan (2018) argues, has been done by the Soviet comrades when one
of their fellow soldiers die. Not only honouring the fallen comrades, but also they do
other ceremonies like set the gun up at the foot of flagstaff and fire them twice a year.

Perhaps, the most vivid act of mimicry that animals do after the rebellion is
creating their own system of education. The pigs decide to make a school; they aim to
teach literature to all animals on the farm. By the end of the autumn, all animals on the
farm were able to read and write (Orwell, p.13). In Bhabha‘s views about education in
colonization, he argues that education in colonized nations is usually used for the
benefit of the colonizer (p.14). Macaulay also argues that ―mimic man raised
through our English schools‖ (p.11). It indicates that the colonizers, through schools,
aim to propagate their culture. In Animal Farm, Napoleon builds a school to teach
other animals what the pigs have learned from humans. In spite of its seemingly noble
purposes, there is another important aim for the pigs besides teach other animals
writing and reading. The pigs‘ hidden aim is to keep other animals under their control.
It became easier to keep the animals under the pigs‘ sight.

In this respect, the pigs are playing the role of colonizers, and other animals are
the colonized who are forced to learn the colonizers‘ culture. Therefore, pigs are
forcing other animals to mimic humans. Unconsciously, animals still inferior to ―Man‖
because animals still see humans as superior to them, and humans‘ way of life is the
best way of living. Pigs became aware that without humans‘ science, the farm will
never progress, and they will never have enough food. The ability of learning varies
from one animal to another. The pigs can easily learn reading and writing, as for other
animals like goats and dogs, they study hard and can easily follow the pigs. On the
contrary to these animals, horses like Clover and Boxer are slow; they are physically
strong but mentally weak. Napoleon decides to make use of these animals by giving
them hard works.

George Orwell uses the term ―Stupider animal‖ in order to refer to the
animals that cannot learn reading and writing. Orwell depicts animals that can read as
superior. In other words, animals that can mimic humans the most (in this case, the
pigs) are in higher rank than animals that cannot mimic ―Man‖. From the context,
Snowball seems to be the cleverest animal on the farm. He starts to show the
animals pictures from
52
books; these pictures are mainly machines that help humans in the harvest works. His
aim is to build such machines to enhance the productions of the farm. Snowball starts
to encourage other animals to think like humans by using human machines.

Meanwhile, Napoleon is unhappy with the progress of the farm, not because he
does not like technology but because technology is being presented by Snowball, this
makes the latter adored by other animals, and this makes Napoleon jealous. Napoleon
starts to disagree with whatever decision Snowball makes. Napoleon begins to claim
that animals must return to old traditions and give up humans‘ technology. As a
replacement, Napoleon promises animals more food. Napoleon uses food as his slogan
in his campaign against Snowball: ―Vote for Napoleon and the full manger‖ (p.20). On
the other hand, Snowball is thinking to liberate other farms from the rule of humans.
Snowball‘s idea is to hire pigeons to stir up rebellion in other farms neighbouring
Manor Farm. Every day, those pigeons fly to the neighbouring farms and spread out
the motto of ―Animalism‖. Snowball promises the animals that when the neighbouring
farms become free from humans‘ rule, the animals will share the products with other
farms, and in this case, the animals will work only three days a week. Snowball‘s
slogan is ―Vote for Snowball and the Three-day week‖ (p.20).

The competition between Snowball and Napoleon is, without any doubt, an
imitation of humans' features. Although Napoleon, as he claims, claims to be against
mimicking humans‘ habits, he makes humans‘ habits when propagating himself and
his policies to animals. When Snowball starts to give his passionate speech about
technology, Napoleon responds pathetically with a brief and an affecting resort. Other
animals seem interested in what Snowball says, and just before the animals start to give
their votes, Napoleon orders nine dogs to attack Snowball and force him to leave the
farm. Now the other animals are forced to take with "the dogs growling menacingly" at
Napoleon's foot; Napoleon declares, "from now on, meetings will be conducted strictly
for symbolic purposes." He claims that ―all major decisions would be made solely by
the pigs.‖ (p.37)

Later, many of the animals feel disturbed and confused. Squealer explains to
the animals that in taking the leadership, Napoleon is making a huge sacrifice, and he
is putting a lot of responsibilities upon himself and that, ―as the cleverest animal‖, he
serves ―the best interest of all by making the decisions‖ (p.38). Such
declarations
53
soothe the animals, although they are still shocked by the exclusion of Snowball.
Squealer tells the animals that Snowball is a criminal and traitor. Finally, the animals
are forced to admit this version of incidents, and some animals like Boxer adds greatly
to Napoleon‘s prestige by implementing the proverbs ―I will work harder‖ and
―Napoleon is always right.‖ These two proverbs rapidly strengthen each other
when, one month after the expulsion of Snowball, Squealer tells the animals that
Napoleon agrees about the windmill project. He clarifies that Napoleon never really
opposed Snowball‘s idea; the leader simply uses his apparent disagreement as a
manoeuvre to overthrow the mischievous Snowball. He claims that these tactics
attended to ―advance the collective best interest‖. These words of Squealer prove so
tempting, and the barks of his three-dog back-up so intimidating, that the rest of the
animals agree to his justification without question.

In this part of the story, George Orwell illuminates Napoleon‘s ―corrupt

and power-hungry motivations‖. Although against mimicry, Napoleon unabashedly and
openly takes hold of power for himself. Just like human politicians, he throws out his
opponents with no justification and manifests a bald-faced inclination to modify
history so as to delay his own ends. In the same way, when Lenin died, Stalin expelled
Trotsky from Russia and strengthen his domination of the country. Orwell‘s experience
in a ―persecuted Trotskyist political group in the late 1930s during the Spanish Civil
War may have contributed to his comparatively positive portrayal of Snowball‖
(Nawaz, 2015, p.21). Eventually, Trotsky was assassinated in Mexico, but
―Stalin continued to evoke him as a phantom threat, the symbol of all enemy forces
when he began his bloody purges of the 1930s. These purges appear in allegorized
form in the next chapters of Animal Farm‖ (Nawaz, 2015, p.21).

Darmawan argues that the victory of Napoleon did not end the process of
mimicry. On the contrary, Napoleon used mimicry more radically than Snowball ever
had (p.65). It means that colonization does not end with Napoleon‘s victory; only the
colonizer has changed, colonization becomes an ongoing and continuing process. In
this case, mimicry caused a new kind of colonization that is ―internal colonization‖. S.
W. Williams (2001) argues that ―internal colonization is a physical conquest
within and not across the boundaries of the political region‖ (p.125). In this case, pigs
are doing this internal colonization within Manor Farm. This colonization is
highlighted by

54
the degree of mimicry that the pigs adapted after the departure of the old colonizers,
humans. The ―internal colonial model is developed to illustrate the fact the
colonialism is not necessarily an external phenomenon; it occurs within one country‖
(p.125).

The animals worked very hard for what the left of the year. Their main job is to
build the windmill. Just like what Mr Jones used to do when he was on the farm,
Napoleon decides that animals will never receive food without working on Sunday
afternoons. However, because now they work for their own and for their animal leader,
they are willing to accept extra labour. Boxer, for instance, pledges himself to Animal
Farm, ―doing the work of three horses but never complaining. Even though the farm
possesses all of the necessary materials to build the windmill, the project presents a
number of difficulties‖ (Darmawan, p.66). The only difference now is that animals
now use their brains and the knowledge they gained from school in completing their
works. For example, they fight over how to break down a stone into controllable sizes
for construction without crowbars and picks, which they cannot use anymore.
Eventually, they realize that the problem cannot be solved without using their brains,
just like humans. They learn to ―raise and then drop big stones into the quarry,
smashing them into usable chunks‖.

Although they are working very hard, the animals do not suffer any more like
they were under the rule of humans. Now animals have enough food to eat and can
sustain the farmlands without difficulty now that Mr Jones and his men do not come to
―cart off and sell the fruits of their labour‖. However, Manor Farm lacks a number of
substances that cannot be produced on the farm, such as paraffin oil, nails, and iron. As
the current materials of these substances start to run low, the new leader declares that
he has employed a human attorney called Mr Whymper to help them in
―conducting trade on behalf of Animal Farm‖ (Orwell, p.43). Whymper starts to visit
the farm every Monday morning, and Napoleon now is more connected with humans
than ever. Napoleon starts to give orders. Meanwhile, pigs seem to have more freedom
more than other animals. Napoleon establishes the policy of voice; all animals must
keep their voices low except dogs and pigs. Darmawan argues that all decisions and
responses in this stage are decided by a single voice that is the pigs‘ voice:

Any concerns about the farm's operation will be resolved in the future by a
special committee of pigs presided over by him. Both groups will meet in
55
 private and then inform the rest about the group of their decisions. On Sunday
mornings, the animals will always meet to salute the banner, sing Beast of
England, and collect their weekly instructions, but there would be no further
arguments. (Orwell, p.21)

This committee that Napoleon decides to make represents a shift in Old

Major‘s values of equality. Now there is a dominant race that is pigs; before that,
animals used to hold meetings and discuss farm issues. Now every important decision
is the committee‘s work.

What is worth mentioning here is that while at first, he refused humans‘ culture,
which was embraced by Snowball, Napoleon reaches to the idea that by mimicking
humans‘ rules and laws, he might have the chance to gain full authority over all
animals? Bhabha argues that at first, mimicry appears as a process of disavowal; those
who mimic the colonizers feel that they are superior to others (Bhabha, p.86). By
making his own committee, hiring his own attorney, and ordering animals to build the
windmill, Napoleon begins to discard his own culture and adopt the old colonizer‘s
culture. The growing oppression is related to Napoleon‘s continual adoption of
humans‘ habits. In this respect, the further he conducts mimicry, the more dictator he
becomes. Now ―the animals watched his coming and going with a kind of dread, and
avoided him as much as possible‖ (Orwell, p.26). On the other hand, for the pigs,
seeing Napoleon giving orders for Mr Whymper, ―who stood on two legs‖, roused their
pride, and they start to realize that their relationship with humans is not similar to what
it had before.

The pigs start to walk on two legs, sleep in the bed, and threaten other animals
with food. They start to forget their hatred towards humans, the old colonizers and
begin to show their admiration for the old colonizers‘ habits, at the same time
oppressing other animals who were convinced of pigs‘ supremacy. For example, when
the time comes to build the windmill, the pigs ordered other animals to work day and
night, or they never get food. The pigs not only compel other

Orwell also remarks on the recurring nature of oppression. As Napoleon and

other pigs gain enough power, they converted more and more corrupt. Rapidly they
personify ―the very iniquity that Animal Farm was created to overturn‖ (Orwell, p.26).
Throughout Animal Farm, the pigs progressively bear a resemblance to humans,

56
ultimately flouting altogether ―Old Major‘s strictures against adopting human
characteristics‖ (Darmawan, p.70). With the pigs‘ moving sleeping in the beds, Orwell
comments upon ―the way that supreme power corrupts all who possess it‖, converting
all tyrants into power-hungry, self-serving and ruthless objects that can exist only by
dominating others. When animals see pigs sleep in beds and walk on two legs, they
become disturbed (Orwell, p. 27). Such acts reveal that there is a shift in power on the
farm. While they sleep in beds and eat in the kitchen, the pigs forbid other animals to
act like them. This does not only show the imbalance in pigs‘ way of life but also
indicates the appearance of a new dictatorship on the farm. Other animals start to
realize that pigs are using them for their own benefit.

The winter comes, and animals decide to rebuild the windmill, and Napoleon
continues in oppressing animals by a special committee of pigs. The sole job of those
members is to give instructions to others. The committee members force animals to
work day and night but without any benefit. Then the pigs decide to ask humans for
help. The humans tell the animals that the wall is not thick enough to bear a windmill,
so the animals decide to build two walls instead of one. To do that humans‘ machines
and humans‘ materials. This act of mimicry enables animals to work twice as before,
but as the work gets harder, food starts to run off. Meanwhile, and in spite of the lack
of food and sources, Napoleon contracts with some humans to sell them two hundred
eggs per week. The animals react with shock because one of the main forbidden acts
that made Old Major act against humans is selling animals‘ products and eggs in
particular. Napoleon‘s cruel act makes some animals rebel against him. The hens react
violently, but Napoleon ―responds by cutting their rations entirely. Nine hens
die before the others give in to Napoleon‘s demands‖. Stealing the sources of the
colonized nation is one of the main purposes behind colonization.

The limitation of birth control that Napoleon decides is another form of

colonization on the farm:

Somehow, without richening the livestock themselves except for dogs and pigs,
the farm seems to have become wealthier. This may have been partly because
too many pigs and dogs were around. It was not because, according to their
style, these beings could not perform. There was constant work under control,
as Squealer was never tired of illustrating. (Orwell, p.50).

57
 With birth limitation control, Napoleon wants to ensure that animals will never
rebel against him. Also, dogs and pigs start to sabotage animals‘ works. Such acts
make animals angry with Napoleon, they start to question the real intentions of
Napoleon, but Napoleon puts the blame on Snowball. To their life-threatening dismay,
the animals hear that Snowball has been sneaking to the farm when animals are sleep
and sabotaging the efforts of the animals. Napoleon confirms that he is able to sense
Snowball‘s existence everywhere, and every time something that seems bad occurs,
Snowball is the one to blame. Squealer declares that Snowball now is sealing himself
to Mr Frederick, another owner of a farm, and secretly, Snowball has been aiding Mr
Jones in his fight against the animals.

With his special forces of dogs, and his followers of pigs, Napoleon seems to
be more powerful than ever, and pigs are living in prosperity comparing to others. As
for other animals, ―As far as they understood, their life was still as it was. They were
starving, sleeping on paws, they drank from the swimming pool and worked on the
fields; the wind hit them in winter and the flights in season.‖ (p.50). Orwell continues
to confirm the idea that animals‘ state has not been changed, it became worse: ―Older
ones often struck their dim memory, trying to decide if things were better or worse in
the early days of the Rebellion when Jones' expulsion was already new‖ (p.50).

With the increasing of Napoleon and the pigs‘ tyranny, mimicry increases. Pigs
act more and more like humans while they hide in the false information that Squealer
spreads. After the bloody executions that they have made, the pigs start to drink wine
that they take from Mr Jones‘s basement and celebrate like humans. As the leader of
the animals, during the celebration, Napoleon wears a bowler hat which was the
property of Mr Jones. He recalls what the previous owner of the farm has been doing
and tries to copy his habits. Squealer drinks alcohol as well, and while he is drunk, he
gathers all animals on the farm and announces that Napoleon is dying. Of course, this
announcement is not true at all, but Squealer is under the influence of alcohol. While
he is under alcohol, Napoleon makes a new policy which says that any animal drinks
alcohol will be punished by death. Of course, his new rule is not applied to the pigs;
actually, the main purpose behind Napoleon‘s new law is to keep alcohol for the pigs

58
only. This shows that pigs see themselves as superior to other animals; now, they are
the new humans, the new colonizers.

After the bloody acts that Napoleon takes against those who disagree with his
decisions, the animals discover that the pigs have changed one of the commandments,
which was reading: ―No animal shall kill any other animal‖ to ―No animal shall kill
any other animal without a cause‖. In addition to that, Napoleon now has changed his
title from ―Leader‖ to various other titles. He also has his own poet now; the main job
of the poet is to praise Napoleon in his poems. Minimus, the poet, makes a poem in
which he glorifies the life under Napoleon; Napoleon is described as ―Fountain
of happiness!‖ but also ―Lord of the swill-bucket!‖ Napoleon has become a
human dictator; he is changing all the rules and laws for his own benefit. For instance,
when he became addicted to alcohol, Napoleon orders Squealer to change the
commandment, which reads ―No animal shall drink alcohol‖ to ―No animal shall
drink alcohol to excess‖.

The process of mimicry does not end with Napoleon coping with Mr Jones‘s
habit of drinking alcohol, using humans‘ sources more common among the animals in
Manor Farm. After the wine incident, the pigs begin to wear green ribbons on Sundays;
these ribbons mark pigs as having a higher position on the farm. The Commandments
of Animalism that was first made by Old Major forbid animals to wear humans‘ attire,
but pigs‘ do not commit themselves to these Commandments anymore. Ironically, pigs
scold Molly she wears a ribbon; this irony indicates the way in which the pigs seeing
themselves above the law. According to Bhabha, what differentiates normal colonized
and colonized who do mimicry is ―the part-objects of the colonizer‖ (Bhabha, p.92).
This ―part-object‖ represents the colonizer, and in Animal Farm, human clothes
and humans‘ accessories become the part-object.

After a year of Napoleon‘s rule, animals start to realize that they are working
like slaves, but instead of protesting against the pigs, they work harder and harder
because they think that they are free because the rules is an animal. This is what
Darmawan (2018) calls internal colonization, which is not seen by the colonized
because it is done by the same race or class; the animals do not realize they are
colonized by the pigs (p.73). Moreover, the pigs‘ way of using propaganda and the
sense of togetherness make the animals believe that they have a common enemy, and

59
without Napoleon‘s cleverness, they would be slaved by humans. So whatever the pigs
do, they do it under the term of ―Animalism‖.

Weakly and wearily, the animals begin to rebuild the windmill. Although Boxer
stays extremely injured, the horse does not show any sign of being tormented and
rejects the idea of leaving his labour for even a day. Boxer‘s friend, Clover, bandages
him; eventually, Boxer improves, but his ―coat doesn‘t seem as shiny as before, and
his great strength seems slightly diminished‖. Of course, Clover learns how to treat
patients from Mr Jones‘s books. Boxer says his sole aim to finish building the
windmill before he retires. However, animals do not retire on Manor Farm. After the
rebellion, all animals have agreed that all horses may retire at the age of twelve.
Animals now can retire and die in peace, just like humans.

"Food is becoming scarcer", and all livestock receive decreased rations, but
dogs and pigs also have much food. Squealer provides several figures to show that "the
rations outweigh that which they got under Mr Jones" for this "readjustment." Squealer
says that the whole farm would prosper if the dogs and the pigs get more food. When
the piglets of Napoleon, thirty-one in total, are born in four sows, Napoleon commands
that a schoolhouse should be constructed to train them, as the funds are diminishing.
This act shows that Napoleon learned from humans that schooling is an integral part of
societal development. Napoleon begins to gather gatherings called Spontaneous
Demonstrations, in which animals have to march around the farm's walls, "listen to
speeches and joy in the glory of animal farming." When the sheep start to grumble,
other animals throw them out with "Four healthy legs, two poor legs!"

Boxer becomes very ill, and his strength fails him. The pigs tell other horses
that they will take Boxer to the hospital. When the vehicle arrives, one of the horses
reads the inscription on the ―cart‘s sideboards‖ and declares that the pigs are sending
Boxer to a ―glue maker‖ to be slaughtered. The animals freak out and start shouting to
Boxer to escape from the cart. The old horse begins kicking, trying to find a way out,
but he fails. Soon after that, Squealer declares that they have lost Boxer: when he
arrived at the hospital, doctors could not help him. Squealer says that Boxer was
―He was by the great horse's side when he passed, and he describes it as "the most
stirring sight he has ever seen"—"Boxer died celebrating the glory of Animal Farm,"
he notes. Boxer was not "taken to a glue plant," according to Squealer, who says that
"the doctor
60
actually purchased the cart from a glue manufacturer and had forgotten to paint over
the lettering". The animals feel relief when hearing this news. The animals feel
completely soothed when Napoleon praises Boxer in his speech. Just after Napoleon‘s
speech, the farm gets a delivery from the grocer, and noises of carousing explode from
within. The animals start to ask questions about the source of money when they see
pigs buy a crate of whisky while they did not have any money at first.

In this part of the novel, the animals, especially pigs, seem to have become
more like humans with animalistic appearance. The process of mimicry increases more
and more. Now the animals exchange goods with humans, also instead of the primitive
treatment that has been used when one of the animals gets sick now they go to the
hospital. Moreover, Snowball uses the word ―doctors‖ instead of a vet when he
describes Boxer‘s death. Bhabha says ―almost the same but not white‖ the ―visibility
of mimicry is always produced at the site of interdiction‖ (p.130). In this case, animals
are almost the same as humans but not humans. Napoleon acts exactly like Mr Jones;
in addition to drinking alcohol and becoming addicted to it, he is slaving animals,
stealing their products, controlling their food, executing the weak ones, and selling
meat to butchers as did with Boxer.

After many years, many animals aged and died, and few remember the times
before the revolution. Now the new windmill is ready to use, but it isn‘t used for
generating electricity for crushing corn, ―a far more profitable endeavour‖. The
pigs and dogs seem to live a comfortable life even more than before. Squealer clarifies
that the dogs and pigs are doing very significant work—they fill out forms and do
paper works. Most of the others accept this explanation, and their way of living never
changes. ―They never lose their sense of pride in Animal Farm or their feeling that
they have differentiated themselves from animals on other farms‖ (Darmawan, p.78).
The residents of Manor Farm still ardently believe in the aims of the Revolution—―a
world free from humans, with equality for all animals‖. Of course, the concept of
quality that Old Major used in his speech has been ignored by the pigs from the first
day after the Rebellion.

Squealer takes off the lambs to a distant place to give them instructions about
the new chant. Soon after that, Clover shouts out to other animals, and they quickly
come to the yard. The ―Squealer, marching toward them on his hind legs, attracts the

61
attention of the creatures. Napoleon arrives shortly after, walking upright and wielding
a whip‖. Just before others react to this astonishing change, the sheep start to sing, all
together: ―Four legs good, two legs better!‖ Clover asks Benjamin to read the
inscription written on the wall where the ―Seven Commandments‖ were first written.
All commandments have been omitted only the last one has been changed from: ―all
animals are equal‖ to ―all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal
than others.‖ In the following days, Napoleon ―openly smokes a joint, and the
other pigs continue to subscribe to human publications, listen to the radio, and begin to
install a telephone, all while dressing in human clothes retrieved from Mr Jones'
closet.‖ (Orwell, p.121) In his descriptions of the mimic man, Macaulay argues that
gradually the colonized becomes a new version of the colonizer (p.49). Gradually, after
reading books, constructing a school, windmill, pigs now seem to be a new version of
the old colonizers, very similar to humans. The whip that Napoleon carries seems to an
instrument of torture, persecution, and dominance. Before that, Mr Jones and his
assistances used the whip to punish, control and torture the animals that do not work
enough.

Orwell uses this instrument as a symbol of man's exploitation and abuse and, as
such, ―is a much-reviled object‖. The whip was the first thing that animals destroyed
after the ―Rebellion‖: ―The reins, halters, blinkers, and degrading nosebags were tossed
into the garbage fire that was raging in the yard. The whips were as well. When they
saw the whips engulfed in fire, all of the animals squealed in delight.‖ (Orwell, p.22)
They were delighted because they believed that they had liberated themselves from the
pain imposed on them by this dreadful tool. They believed now ensue an era of mutual
respect and equality among animals. They will be forever free. Their fear of torture is
now something of the past.

In their minds, animals realized that the ―pigs are their new masters‖.
From now on, without any question, animals accept whatever the pigs say or do, even
when it includes purchasing tools and luxuries reserved for human use and
consumption or adopting human traits. Animals‘ life has gone ―full circle‖, and, in
the final sections, no one can distinguish between real humans and the pigs on the
farm. Their previous dictators or oppressors have been substituted by a new power in
the form of the pigs, which, ―ironically‖, leaves them ―worse off than they have ever
been. The revolution

62
has, for all intents and purposes, been a failure for the animals but a massive success
for the pigs‖ (Darmawan, p.83).

Many years pass, the pigs start to connect with humans more than before; they
even become friends. Now, they invite over the neighbouring human farmers to take a
look at Animal Farm. The humans admire the pigs and express, in ―diplomatic
language‖, their remorse for past ―misunderstandings.‖ Clover and other animals watch
through the hole-in-the-wall as Napoleon and Mr Pilkington toast each other; both
agree that they share the same problem: ―If you have the lower livestock to compete
with, we have our lower classes!‖ says Mr Pilkington. The pigs "have discovered
strategies to make Animal Farm's animals function better and with less food than any
other community of farm animals in the county," Human observes admiringly. (Orwell,
p.146) Mr Pilkington says that he is aiming to introduce these developments on his
farm. Napoleon and Squealer respond by comforting their guests that they
―never wanted anything other than to conduct business peacefully with their human
neighbours and those they have taken steps to further that goal‖:

He claims that Animal Farm's animals can no longer treat each other as
Comrade or pay tribute to Old Major, nor will they salute a flag with a horn and hoof
on it. He tells the men that both of these customs have recently been modified by order.
Napoleon also claims the Animal Farm will be called Manor Farm, which he assumes
is the right and initial name. (p.145).

The final chapter in the novel shows the complete transformation of the pigs
into humans. The process of mimicry has reached its climate. In the final event of the
novel, the farmers and the pigs return to their friendly card game while other animals
sneak out from a hole. After that, the noises of a quarrel gathered all animals on the
farm to listen.

The final chapter of Animal Farm brings the novel to its unavoidable, logical
conclusion. The pigs entirely merge totalitarianism and power. Napoleon and other
pigs have turned to be identical to men. The meaning of Napoleon‘s name has become
completely obvious: the real French Napoleon, who ruled his country at the beginning
of the nineteenth century and occupied considerable parts of Europe before being
beaten at the ―Battle of Waterloo‖ in 1814, initially seemed to be a mighty liberator,
conquering Europe‘s monarchs and kings and carrying liberty to its people. Then, he in

63
the end crowned himself ―emperor of France‖, crushing the visions of European
liberalism. Instead of abolishing the aristocracy, he just re-created it around himself.
Similarly, the pig Napoleon figures as the champion of Animalism early on. Now,
however, he protests to the humans that he wants nothing more than to be one of them
—that is, an oppressor.

All over the novel, Orwell‘s story is being told from the animals‘ perspective.
In the chapter, in the case of mimicry, the reader recognizes the dramatic power that
was accomplished by this narrative strategy. Pigs and animals became identical so that
the reader is reading poems written by pigs, seeing the pigs playing cards or punishing
other animals, and finally having their own hierarchy system. Strangely, all other
animals remained naïvely hopeful that the colonization and slavery of humans would
end with their ―Rebellion‖. Although ―they realize that the republic foretold by
Old Major has yet to come to fruition, they stalwartly insist that it will come someday.‖
These proclamations control the concluding events of the novel with a strong irony.
For although the writer employs subtle hints and foreshadowing to make his readers
more doubtful than the animals of the ―pigs‘ motives‖, these statements, Aziz (2013)
argues, are ―of ingenuous faith in Animal Farm on the part of the common
animals occur just before the final scene‖ (p. 5). The gap between the cruel reality of
the pigs‘ authoritarian rule and the animals‘ optimism generates a sense of dramatic
difference.

The final picture of the farmers and pigs, identical to each other, playing games
together indicates the degree of mimicry to which the pigs have reached. Orwell,
however, enables the readers to view the last scene from the animals‘ point of view—
sneaking at the meeting. By framing the end of the novel like this, the writer points to
the animals‘ ultimate loss of entitlement and power: ―Animal Farm has not created a
society of equals but has simply established a new class of oppressors to dominate the
same class of oppressed—a division embodied, as at the opening of the novella, by the
farmhouse wall‖ (p.13). Mimicry gave the pigs the power they needed to dominate
other animals. Before the Rebellion, it would have seemed logically impossible pigs
would be as powerful as humans, but by increasing the process of mimicry, pigs have
become equal and sometimes more powerful than humans.

64
 CHAPTER THREE: THINGS FALL APART

Things Fall Apart is a novel written by the Nigerian author Chinua Achebe in
1958. It plays a fundamental role in introducing African literature and culture to the
readers. In fact, Achebe's work is meant to be as a representation of African history
and the history of the European colonization as well, but it has been submitted from an
African point of view in a way that he changed the focus of the narrative to the
colonized perspective instead of the colonizer's one. The title of the novel has been
borrowed from the poem of W. B. Yeats "The Second Coming" in 1919.

Things Fall Apart is seen as an example of a Postcolonial novel that attempts to

present the effects of British colonialism on the Igbo people of Nigeria. It demonstrates
the richness of African cultural traditions, which is contributed to the correction of the
unfair literary and historical views towards African culture and society; it is also
characterized by its intelligent and realistic way of treating the tribal beliefs
simultaneously with their psychological collapse and social dissociation.

The novel sheds light on the pre-colonial life and the coming of the white man
during the late nineteenth century in Nigeria. It deals deeply with the effects of
colonialism on the native people of Africa, in addition to discussing the traditional
culture of the Nigerian villagers in the novel. Chinua Achebe, in his novel, treats the
life of an Igbo leader man, Okonkwo, from his leading period until he accidentally
killed a clansman, which led to his banishment from his community for seven years.
The story starts by introducing Okonkwo, the protagonist, as a celebrated wrestling
champion, a very strong man who never shows weakness.

He decided not to follow his father's shameful life that did not have the
qualities of masculinity that a man should have in his village. In fact, Okonkwo wanted
to build an entirely self-dependent wealth, as his father Unoka's death was shameful
and that he left many unpaid debts. This encouraged him to be a powerful and wealthy
leader among his neighbours and to get a respected position in his community.

One day, the elders of Umuofia have assigned Okonkwo to be the guardian of a
boy, 'Ikemefuna', whose father has killed an Umuofian woman as reconciliation
between the two villages. Okonkwo brought him to live with his family, they were

65
attached to each other, and although Okonkwo was like a second father, he did not
show his love to Ikemefuna in order not to appear weak. When the oracle of Umuofia
declares that Ikemefuna must be killed, Okonkwo has been warned by the Ezeudu, the
oldest man in the village, to avoid killing Ikemefuna since he is considered as one of
his children, but Okonkwo's fear of being feminine and weak among his society did not
prevent him from killing Ikemefuna.

After Ikemefuna's death, things changed and began to be wrong for Okonkwo;
he took several days to get rid of his feeling of being guilty. Furthermore, his daughter
Ezinma falls seriously ill, and they worried she might die. At Ezeudu's funeral, while
they are making a gun salute, Okonkow's gun mistakenly exploded and killed the son
of Ezeudu. To appease the offended gods, Okonkwo and his family have been
abandoned for seven years in exile. By the coming of the white man to Umuofia,
Okonkwo was still away in Mbanta but, he knew that the missionaries brought a new
religion, Christianity and that the number of converted people is rising whereas, the
new government is constantly growing. At that time, the Umuofians were divided into
converters and resistors. When he returned from exile, Okonkwo saw noticeable
changes in his village and its people, so he and other village leaders have burned the
new church, and this is what led to jail and humiliation by the missionaries.

When Okonkwo killed a colonial messenger, he did not find who stands behind
him because of his divided villagers, which led to his suicide. This act violated the
Igbo traditions of death, which prevented Okonkwo from getting a proper burial.

The novel is served as an alternative image to the stereotypical European

representations of Africa, through which Achebe depicts vividly the sociocultural
realities of the Igbo people, and thus Achebe attempts to obtain correct historical
records by recounting the history of Africa from an African perspective. In fact, the
novel is considered a realistic representation of the hybrid identity of Achebe and his
society in the postcolonial era; it reflects the ambivalence of Achebe's identity and the
consequences of colonial encounters. He lived in a multilingual community in which
he has been influenced by the English language. Accordingly, he used the English
language in his novel because it is considered a second language for him and that he
has studied it in his childhood, the same thing his country Nigeria has experienced at
that time.

66
 Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart is the first Postcolonial African literary
work that reflects the social and political conditions in Africa. In this sense, Achebe, in
his novel, adopts the central themes and concepts of postcolonial literature such as
mimicry and hybridity in culture, identity, ideology, and language. Thus, the novel
Things Fall Apart is considered the best example to clarify the proper identifications of
the mimicry concept. Additionally, the African novelist Achebe formulates his first
novel under the name of the anti-colonial discourse in an objective way by which he
exposes both the cultural and linguistic mimicry. Hence, the author illustrates that the
cultural and linguistic differences are the major causes behind the creation of hybridity
in Africa and which particularly appears during and after the arrival of colonial
dominance. So, from this perspective, Chinua Achebe (1958) states:

What did the white man say before they killed him?" asked Uchendu.
"He said nothing," answered one of Obierika's companions. "He said
something, only they did not understand him, " said Obierika. "He
seemed to speak through his nose." "One of the men told me, " said
Obierika's other companion, "that he repeated over and over again a
word that resembled Mbaino. Perhaps he had been going to Mbaino and
had lost his way. (Achebe, p.45)

The flexible nature of the Igbo community manifests itself in several ways in
the novel. It is reflected in Uchendu‗s assertion that the old and new generations do not
have much in common concerning the willingness to keep relationships secure.
Uchendu represents the past generation who understands the meaning of social
integrity. The unity that Achebe portrays among the younger seems to be less strong
than the one Uchendu had once experienced in his life. Though, it is quite obvious that
in every community, no two generations are the same. The writer intensely shows that
the Igbo community gradually faces an ill-fated change with the arrival of colonialism.
However, for Thiong‗o (1993), ―Cultures that change to reflect the ever-changing
dynamics of internal relations and which maintain a balanced give and take with
external relations are the ones that are healthy (p.16).

Through reading TFA, one might undoubtedly witness that as soon as the
colonizers enter Nigeria, the whole population partake in a perplexing web of change.
Even though there is a distinct contrast in the people‗s will against colonial rule,

67
Achebe creates characters like Okonkwo, Uchendu, Obierika, and others that
emblemize the true nature of his society. These characters are true representatives of
their culture regarding preserving traditional values. They are entirely opposed to any
hegemonic power that aims at the distortion of their culture, whereas others easily give
in to the influence of an alien society. Therefore, through the coming of white people,
TFA presents the conscious and unconscious types of characters. The former are those
who enthusiastically struggle to protect their country from an outsider, and they label
the latter as worthless beings. Central to this view is the instance when Obierika visits
Okonkwo in Mbaino; he informs him that Abame is no longer the same because the
white people have destroyed the majority of the clan.

What distresses Uchendu and Okonkwo is the fact that Abame villagers were
not able to defend themselves. It is fascinating to elaborate Uchendu‗s perspective on
such people by clarifying the story he tells to Obierika to emphasise the real reason
behind their destruction by the British colonizers. As a knowledgeable elder, his
purpose of bringing the story of Mother and Daughter Kite is to relate Abame‗s
downfall to the failure of its people to equip themselves with their weapon against the
enemy despite the warning they received from the Oracle. Since they were not able to
defend themselves, they deserved to face such a fate. Obierika states that the Abame
clan ―have paid for their foolishness‖ (TFA, p.140).

Deep down in their hearts, these characters are so sad for Abame, and what
distresses them more is the inability of the people to react to the coloniser‗s attack.
However, nearly two years after such an incident, the colonisers widely penetrate the
Igbo community and introduce their religion, education, and system of administration.
Umuofia, once feared by all the neighbours, now faces a situation that tremendously
disappoints all the leaders or title holders. As soon as the colonisers arrive, they begin
to have converts among the men, who are usually called Efulefu, which means
insignificant or worthless beings. For the narrator, Chielo calls them ―the excrements
of the clan‖ (p.143). Even if the converts are not of prestigious types, their conversion
into the coloniser‗s culture would definitely disturb the collective power that a
successful culture might have as a means of opposition.

As Retd and Maut (2014, p.8) notice, colonialism profoundly alters the unity of
pre-colonial Igbo. While Okonkwo is the emblem of cultural conservation, Nwoye is

68
one of the converts who wholeheartedly accept the culture of the colonisers. However,
his excuse is justifiable because he continually thinks about the absurdity of some
cultural customs and rules like killing Ikemefuna and twins. Nwoye is the only
character who is profoundly influenced by the demerits of his culture. Additionally, the
missionaries, through religious songs, attracted the interest of the young, especially,
Nwoye about the excellence of their religion. The narrator states: ―It was the poetry of
the new religion, something felt in the marrow‖ (TFA, p.147). Each time, the question
of killing such innocent beings comes into his mind; Nwoye finds relief by listening to
the white men‗s hymn because as Olsson (2010, p.14) remarks, for Nwoye,
Christianity seemed to be more sympathetic towards twins.

Even though Nwoye is an African man who considers himself one of the
missionaries, that is, he accepted the Western beliefs and thoughts in addition to his
African background; this makes him a mimic character. Then after, concerning the
novel, the white man depends on the translation as a mediator in order to interact with
the colonized and to avoid the misunderstanding, which is created by the distinct
linguistic consciousness; the narrator here says:

When they had all gathered, the white man began to speak to them. He
spoke through an interpreter who was an Ibo man, through his dialect
was different and harsh to the ears of Mbanta. Many people laughed at
his dialect and the way he used words strangely. Instead of saying
"myself," he always said "my buttocks. "But he was a man of
commanding presence, and the clansmen listened to him. (Achebe,
p.14)

In this regard, the author casts light on the multiplicity of the voices and the
double-voicedness created by the colonization within the Postcolonial context. In this
manner, the distinction of the languages and voices generates an empty space that
prevents the interaction and contact with the other. Thus, this confusion requires the
hybridity or "Third space", the concept of Bhabha that reflects the process of
negotiation by the use of translation. According to Hoogvelt (1997) "hybridity," is "
celebrated and privileged as a kind of superior cultural intelligence owing to the
advantage of the in- betweenness, the straddling of two cultures and the consequent
ability to negotiate the difference" (p.158). Therefore, the space of difference and

69
negotiation asserts the existence of cultural hybridity. In Things Fall Apart, Achebe
tries to depict the diversity, difference and contradiction of customs and identities
between East and West; he says:

… He said he was one of them; they could see him from his colour and
his language. The other four black men were also their brothers,
although one of them did not speak Ibo. The white man was also their
brother because they were all sons of God. And he told them about this
new God, the creator of all the world and all the men and women. He
told them that they worshipped false gods, gods of wood and stone.
(Achebe, p.158)

In addition to their poetry, the missionaries, through Igbo interpreters,

persistently endeavour to spread Christianity among the people. They begin to
undermine their traditional religion and label their gods as worthless objects. Under
such a condition, the reader will perceive a competitive struggle in which both the
coloniser and the colonised disrespect each other‗s beliefs. When the white man‗s
interpreter attempts to convince the people that there is one God who is the only
benevolent creator of the world and the father of a son ―whose name was Jesu Kristin
(TFA, p.146), Okonkwo interprets the white man‗s thoughts as the raving of a mad
man‘s mind that needs a reasonable solution.

The attempts of the missionaries result in success in most cases. Since the Igbo
have no kings, the missionaries aim at gathering the Umuofia titleholders together.
However, they fail to realise that these men cannot be assembled easily. Unlike
Umuofia, Mbanta elders accept their offer to have some land so that they can build
their churches. They decide to ―give them a portion of the Evil Forest (p.149) because
this forest is thought to be an ominous place due to the great number of unwanted
corpses or evil spirits. The Mbanta people believe that by providing them with some
land of Evil Forest, they would disable their power over their cultural tradition. But,
such attempts of decolonising their culture will turn out to be against the wishes of
Mbanta elders because the missionaries are as safe as living in their houses, whereas
Mbanta people ―expected them all to be dead within four days. The first day passed,
and the second and third, and fourth, and none of them died (p.149). Thus, the
coloniser‗s power and hegemony gradually become much stronger as soon as people

70
witness that the bad results the Igbo conceive of living in the Evil Forest are nothing
but superstitious beliefs. Therefore, they begin to brainwash the young converts to defy
all the gods and burn their shrines as well.

Despite the coloniser‗s reasonable attempts in defending twins and falsifying

gods, initially, their work is met with constant reactions by men who truly resist their
power, but day by day, the decolonising struggle of the Igbo loses its strength. After
the white people prove the rationality of their religious methods, they begin to
stimulate the villagers to come to their churches and worship God. For instance, Mr
Kiaga, who is the interpreter and the teacher, continuously works on inspiring children,
the young, and those women who intensely suffered from severe cultural traditions.

What crucially works to the advantage of the missionaries is the abandonment

of cultural values and family relations to the commitment of Christianity. Nneka is one
of those women who remarkably reminds the reader of her culture‗s unreasonable
custom of killing twins. After witnessing the murder of several of her twins, she
heartbrokenly gives in to the coloniser‗s culture. This female character, like Nwoye, is
forced to forsake her family relations. Similar to Nneka, Nwoye denies any attachment
to his father because Okonkwo severely beats him for attending Christian churches.
Afterwards, he decides to go to school in Umuofia, where the white men have set up
their headquarters and schools to teach the people. Mr Kiaga is overjoyed by seeing
Nwoye‗s complete allegiance to their power because one of the coloniser‗s aims is to
cut off all the intimate relations and family ties that contribute to the homogeneity of
the Igbo community. ―Mr Kiaga‗s joy is very great. Blessed is he who forsakes
his father and his mother for my sake‗, he intoned‖ (Achebe, p.152).

What intensely hurts Okonkwo‗s feelings is the reality of not being able to
control his own son against the hegemony of the colonising power in spite of his
persistent refusal of Nwoye‗s personality. The novel explains that initially, Okonkwo
decides to take his machete and destroy the whole group of unlawful outsiders, but
soon he realises that Nwoye never deserves to fight for. Unfortunately, a man who is
the epitome of bravery and cultural heritage is the father of such a child. The narrator
states that Okonkwo is deeply injured in his heart and asks himself why
―should he…of all people, be cursed with such a son?‖ (p.152). the colonizers have
successfully swayed the converts to commit crimes that were never heard in the

71
lifetime of the community because for Okonkwo, leaving the gods and ancestors with
the purpose of adhering to an alien culture is ―the depth of abomination‖
(Achebe, p.153).

In addition to religion, the white people endeavour to introduce their system of

administration. They establish ―a place of judgement in Umuofia to protect their
followers‖ (p.155) and sentence those who disrespect their power. For Basu (2014, p.
51), colonial rule deforms ―the psyche of the oppressed‖. Unlike the Igbo, the
Christians could verify their religious practices depending on The Holy Bible. Mr
Kiaga persistently works on brainwashing the converts so that they would never doubt
their religious beliefs. He usually tells them that the heathens say: ―nothing but
falsehood‖ (TFA, p.157). As for the Igbo, Christianity is the sort of religion that
welcomes abominations like accepting twins and denouncing the idea of killing them.
Therefore, Mr Kiaga reminds the villagers that nothing happened to them by saving
twins or building their church in the Evil Forest.

Besides twins, Mr Kiaga aims at freeing the outcasts or Osu from the fear of
degrading the power of gods or ancestors, which is instilled in them by their clans. The
outcasts of Mbanta are people who ―could neither marry nor shave their hair‖ (p.156).
The Osu live in a part of the village separated from the clan, and they are deprived of
all their village assemblies and titles. More than this, they are made to believe that
when they die, they will be buried in the Evil Forest. Accordingly, the church seems to
signify the only shelter for them, especially after witnessing the acceptance of twins by
the missionaries. As soon as the church welcomes the osu, some of the converts
express their disagreement. They explain to Mr Kiaga the disapproval of associating
with such outcasts, but Mr Kiaga asserts that an osu ―needs Christ more than you and
I‖ (p.156). Accepting the outcasts is certainly for the benefit of colonisers because the
more they receive people, the more they could impose their power and hegemony over
the Igbo.

The British hegemony is also apparent in distorting the traditions the Igbo
revered, like respecting the python and conceiving it as a sacred animal. When the
outcasts joined their service, they become zealous protectors of the colonising power.
Thus, the missionaries instruct them to shave their hair as a means of removing the
sign of disgrace. They are encouraged to challenge everything related to the Igbo

72
culture. For instance, Okoli, one of the outcasts, is accused of ―killing the
sacred python, the emanation of the god of water‖, which is the most favourite animal
in the whole Mbanta, besides, ―It was addressed as Our Father‖ (p.157). Whenever a
python is killed unintentionally, there must be sacrifices and the arrangement of an
expensive burial by the accidental killer. The python‗s burial must be as big as a great
man‗s burial, but Okoli‗s case is different as he is not the accidental killer but one for
whom the clan decides to arrange a severe punishment.

While Okonkwo suggests that a violent reaction must be done towards Okoli,
the elders of Mbanta choose peace instead. Thus, for Okonkwo, these men are merely
performing a practice that is usually done by women. In the presence of personal
affairs, none of the Mbanta men would like to intervene. They avoid problems that are
related to a man and his personal god. One of the Mbanta men says: ―When a
man blasphemes…. We put our fingers into our ears to stop us a hearing. That is a wise
action. For Okonkwo, such an action signifies a coward‗s personality. Therefore, he
labels Mbanta as ―a womanly clan‖, and his mind immediately goes to his fatherland
where men are warlike and brave (Achebe, pp.158-159).

Umuofia represents manliness and a place where a man could play his real role.
The people of Umuofia rarely fear coming across problems; they are zealous protectors
of every unwelcome situation. They never show signs of cowardice, ―Such a
thing could never happen in his fatherland‖. Okonkwo regularly encourages Mbanta
people to resist the coloniser‗s hegemony because they accept every type of
abomination. One of the Mbanta men acknowledges that Okonkwo‗s view is rational,
and he suggests that his people should prevent the outsiders from distorting their
cultural values. Then, they start to exclude all the practitioners of their religion from
the ―privileges of the clan‖ (Achebe, pp.158-159).

However, the Igbo people‗s struggle of decolonizing their culture is met with
constant failures because the Christians have formed a community of converts
consisting of men, women, as well as children. ―Mr Brown, the white
missionary‖ states: ―it is only eighteen months since the Seed was first sown among
you, I marvel at what the Lord hath wrought‖. The decolonising power of Mbanta
people affects those women who begin to make some Easter arrangements. They have
been ordered by Mr Kiaga ―to bring red earth and white chalk and water to
scrub the church for
73
Easter‖ (Achebe, p.158-159), but they return having being whipped severely by the
clan, and they acknowledge that their community has outlawed them. By doing such an
action towards women, the Mbanta men think that they are dismantling the coloniser‗s
power, but in reality, they are merely showing signs of their weakness. More than this,
whenever they hear news of Okoli‗s death, they think that their gods are still
influential because Okoli has received his punishment straightly from the gods for
killing the sacred python. So, the people come to believe that there is no point in
fighting.

Consequently, due mostly to the irrationality of their view about the world, the
collective endeavour of Mbanta people is entirely unable to rule out the coloniser‗s
hegemony. Thus, Okonkwo eagerly waits to see the ending moments of his exile. He
believes that the real ambition of dismantling such an unlawful intrusion will find its
dead in his fatherland. However, he expresses his extreme gratitude to his mother‗s
kinsmen by preparing a large feast through which a reader can observe the unaffected
nature of some certain traditional customs by the colonizers. The gathering of kinsmen,
performing sacrifices, and expecting elders like Uchendu to break kola nut and pray to
their ancestors to provide them with health and children as the symbol of wealth and
power are vivid examples of the traditional customs that resisted the coloniser‗s
hegemony. This case can be linked to the argument of Bhabha, who argues that the
definition is significant because it describes the dysfunctional world in which
colonized people are compelled to conform or try very hard to reject. The imperial
influence is substantial, and the likelihood of joining a hybrid society is almost
imminent. The emphasis here would be on the characters' reactions to the fusion
between two societies and their ability to adjust to this hybrid world (Bhabha, p.219).

Relatives mean a lot for the Igbo, but unfortunately, the arrival of colonialism
aims at cutting off all the intimate relations among the people. The elders presented in
this novel are deeply worried about the drastic changes in their cultural aspects and the
negative consequences of colonialism on their culture. Therefore, by expressing his
gratitude to Okonkwo, an elder member of the Umunna expresses his anxiety about the
future of the young people. He tells them: ―I fear for you; I fear for the clan‖ (Bhabha,
p.167) because leaving relatives and family members with the purpose of integrating
into the new system of society have found a footstep, especially among the young who

74
could be brainwashed more efficiently by the coloniser‗s system of beliefs and
administration.

The old man‗s speech foreshadows the partition of the Igbo community, loss of
identity, and the cultural assimilation Okonkwo witnesses as soon as he returns to his
fatherland because he begins to lose the fame and position that he had formed seven
years ago. As Loon and Sardar (1999, p.123) believe, ―identity is regarded as
the product of an assemblage of customs, practices and meanings, an enduring
heritage and a set of shared traits and experiences‖. In fact, Ashcroft, Griffiths, and
Tiffin (1995) go more than this, and they argue that ―The post-colonial desire is the
desire of decolonised communities‖. Therefore, Okonkwo does not want an
identity ―thrown into mimicry and ambivalence‖ (p.125), but the intrusion of European
power has deprived him of the opportunity of attaining the highest title in the
clan. Thus, he comes across a situation that weakens his will, as the narrator states:
he ―lost his place among the nine masked spirits who administered justice in the clan‖
(TFA, p.171). Now he understands that his fatherland also has gone under the shadow
of colonial power. Such a reality shatters most of his future hopes when he has already
planned to rebuild two more huts for two new wives and prepare himself to be the lord
of the clan. Unfortunately, the colonial hegemony has much more power in destroying
his desires and putting obstacles in the way of his lifetime ambitions. The tragedy that
most highlights Okonkwo‗s incapability is when he cannot cease his son from
mimicking the coloniser‗s culture.

It is worth noting that, in Umuofia, the Christians are quite able of

brainwashing not only the outcasts and lower classes of people but also title holders.
The white people established ―a court where the District Commissioner judged cases in
ignorance‖, and received men for the trail from court messengers. The court
messengers come from Umuru, where the majority of colonisers first settled and built
their church and government. For this reason, the court messengers, who are called
Kotma, are intensely disliked by the Umuofia people because they are ―foreigners and
also arrogant and high-handed‖ (p.174). They guard the prison, which is filled with
men who stood against colonial rule. The prisoners are forced to work every day, and
each time they begin to work, they sing a song that is worth quoting:

―Kotma of the ash buttocks,

75
 He is fit to be a slave.

The white man has no sense,

He is fit to be a slave‖ (Achebe, p.175).

The Kotma are called Ashy-Buttocks ―because of their ashcoloured shorts

(p.174). However, they hate to be called by such a name; therefore, they beat the
prisoners so severely.

Okonkwo‗s individual power still encourages him to react against cultural

hegemony when he hears the reality of the loss of Igbo identity and culture. The only
thing that intensely puzzles him is how the Umuofia people, who were the epitome of
bravery and cultural preservation, have become powerless. Zizek (2003, p. 313) argues
that ―if the individuals were uneven in terms of power, the order could be guaranteed
through sheer domination‖. Okonkwo is the only character who never stops preserving
his culture because the colonial power, like a contagious disease, has affected the
whole Igbo community, and Okonkwo tries to become the community‗s healer from
such a disease. He tells Obierika that they should do something to clear their land from
the outsiders, but Obierika reminds him that individual efforts could not be as powerful
as collective ones. Thus, their attempt will be met with failures, as Obierika says: ―Our
own men and our sons have joined the ranks of the stranger‖ (TFA, p.176). Even if
they could drive out the colonisers in Umuofia, they could not fight their own people
because they are given power. Obierika further states:

The white man is very clever. He came quietly and peacefully with his
religion. We were amused at his foolishness and allowed him to stay.
Now he has won our brothers, and our clan can no longer act like one.
He has put a knife on the things that held us together, and we have
fallen apart (TFA, p.176). Postcolonial literature examines the structural
transformation that occurred in postcolonial cultures and resulted in the
multicultural state in literature and culture. The postcolonial African
novel is characterized by its ethnic and linguistic hybridity, which is
used to combat colonialism and preserve African socio-cultural
traditions. As a defining feature of culture and identity, language is
critical in postcolonial studies and critique since it is the medium by

76
 which the colonizer's history, thought, and politics are articulated and
by which he thinks the first move toward changing the nation's culture
is taken. Indeed, this demonstrates the colonizers' wisdom in presenting
his language as a means of education in order to impose their ideas and
thereby transform the African people (Obierika, p.54).

No man in Umuofia is as concerned as Okonkwo about the white people‗s

intrusion because they come to be highly respected by the clan. The colonisers employ
various methods to accomplish their mission of brainwashing the Igbo about their
culture through religion, education, medicine, etc. Mr Brown persistently tries to
relegate their gods as false and merely wooden statues. The narrator explains, on Mr
Brown‗s visits to other villages of Umuofia, ―he had been presented with a
carved elephant tusk, which was a sign of dignity‖ (p.179), and he gains lots of
information about the traditional religion of the Igbo specifically from Akunna, one
of the great men of the neighbouring village. Mr Brown attempts to convince him that
their gods or religious practices are false and there is only one Supreme God. Akunna
enthusiastically explains to him that in spite of the Supreme God or what they call
Chukwu, they also believe in other gods and view them as God‗s messengers.
Akunna‗s endeavour to convince the white man of the validity of their religion can be
seen as an attempt at decolonisation because religion has recorded essential roles both
in the process of colonisation and decolonisation.

Due mostly to the fact that the worthy men in the Igbo community were firm
believers in their traditional beliefs or religion, Mr Brown concluded: ―that a
frontal attack on it would not succeed‖ (p. 181). Thus, the white people influence them
not only through the church but also school and hospital, and they beg families to
send their children to school because religion and education are two essential
elements in the coloniser‗s strategy. For Khatar and Zarrinjooee (2016), Fanon often
emphasises that ―colonial education‖ causes an ―inferiority complex‖ because it
―invites the black man to follow white man‗s values and forget his own culture‖
(p.224). In addition, Gikandi (2000) asserts: ―school is a vehicle of colonial rule and
conquest‖ (p.65). As a means of encouragement, the colonisers provided students of
different ages with various presents. In this way, the coloniser‗s power begins to have
more effect on the Igbo. For this reason, Okonkwo is deeply grieved when he
witnesses these drastic
77
changes. He grieves for the entire Umuofia, which he sees ―breaking up and
falling apart‖, and he even grieves more for those brave men who have
―unaccountably become soft like women‖ (TFA, p.183).

The Igbo society separated, and the kinship bonds between Igbo people become
weakened because of this multiculturalism, which generated an ambivalent identity to
the new generation that grows in an Igbo society but learning English language and
culture. Furthermore, it leads to cultural assimilation and mimicry; by inserting African
forms, Achebe is participating in the process of mimicry and showing how and to what
extent the Igbo have assimilated to British culture. The Igbo people started to
assimilate the colonizers whose ideologies are imposed through language and
education. This passage is taken from the novel, and the oldest man's speech to
Okonkwo shows how much colonialism affected the new generation:

An abominable religion has settled among you. A man can now leave
his father and his brothers. He can curse the gods of his fathers and his
ancestors, like a hunter's dog that suddenly goes mad and turns on his
master. I fear for you, I fear for the clan. (TFA, p.183)

However, there is disunity among the colonisers themselves because when

Reverend James Smith takes the position of Mr Brown as the head of the church, he
detests the way Mr Brown managed the church. For him, the important thing is not to
have numerous inappropriate converts who do not deserve Christian values. For the
most part, Mr Smith intends to attract the attention of great men of the clan to their
culture. As soon as he leads the church, he begins to express his intense aversion to
several Umuofian customs, like mutilating dead Ogbanje children. Labelling such a
practice as devilish works, Mr Smith condemns the practitioners as devil worshippers.
Thus, the novel portrays Mr Smith as the most rigid white missionary who ―saw things
as black and white. And black was evil (p.184). As Fanon (2008, p.139) states:
whiteness symbolises ―Justice, Truth, Virginity‖, whereas blackness stands for all bad
references.

The writer depicts most effectively the coloniser‗s aim to break up the Igbo
culture into pieces and distort every custom they hold in high esteem. For instance,
every year, the Igbo form a ceremony to honour the earth goddess with the presence of

78
the ancestors as Egwugwu. And according to the Igbo tradition, to unmask an
Egwugwu publicly means to kill the ancestral spirit, whereas Enoch, who is a zealous
convert, dares to perform such a practice which is ―One of the greatest crimes a man
could commit (TFA, p. 186). For these people, ancestral spirits talk to them through
their masks, and during their communication, there is no human being under the mask
but a spirit. Consequently, Enoch‗s action falsifies such beliefs, and this is another
vital sign of partition because the clan might doubt the sanctity of their beliefs in the
Egwugwu.

This means that "the hybrid personality" does not represent a unified, cohesive,
singular, and coherent body, but rather a fragmented, unstable, numerous, and hybrid
one. As a result, hybridity primarily refers to the process of merging, integrating, and
combining in order to reflect impurity and variety, and it opposes the uniqueness and
fixity of community and personality. That is, in the hybrid community created by the
colonial phase, new multicultural types arose within the contact zone as a result of the
relationship between colonizer and colonized.

The impact of Enoch‗s crime on the clan and the band of Egwugwu profoundly
manifests itself in surrounding Enoch‗s compound with ―machete and fire‖ as a means
of destruction (p. 188). However, Enoch seeks refuge in the church, but the band heads
for the church as well. For them, the church stands for all the distortion that has
devastated their community. Without paying attention to Mr Smith‗s idea of solving
the matter, they begin to destroy the church collectively. Achebe's novel depicts the
life of African people who live under colonial rule and subtly narrated Achebe's
colonial history by his protagonists. Indeed, the African postcolonial novel shows
microphones as a way of rebellion. This novel acts as a subversive hybrid style for
English; Achebe chooses the vocabulary and literary method of the colonizer himself
but does not use the pure one.

It is after the destruction of the church that Okonkwo feels happy once for all
these years. He encourages the clan to take more violent action by killing the white
men and driving them out of their memory. The clansmen respect his decision as they
did before his exile, but they do not kill anyone. When the District Commissioner asks
the village leaders to meet each other, Okonkwo reminds them to be well-armed to
avoid any situation similar to what Abame people had faced. However, when they meet

79
the District Commissioner, they put down their machetes and begin to explain the
crime Enoch has done towards their entire culture. Unfortunately, the colonisers
imprison the leaders and encourage them to mimic their methods regarding religion,
education, etc.

Due mostly to the fact that the British people view their culture as superior to
all other cultures, they try to prove such an erroneous way of thinking by forcing the
Igbo to follow their rules. This is because the colonisers usually impose their power
and hegemony over the natives through the use of one of the two contrasting strategies:
negotiation and force. Thus, what one might observe in the District Commissioner‗s
attempt can be related to the former as he tells the leaders: ―We shall not do you
any harm…if only you agree to cooperate with us‖. To release the imprisoned leaders,
the District Commissioner asks for ―two hundred bags of cowries‖ (p.194). The
guardians mistreat the leaders so severely, and for Okonkwo, this would not have
happened if the clan had accepted his advice of killing the white men. However, out of
love and respect for their leaders, the people of Umuofia attempt to collect money to
rescue them soon.

Even after their release, the District Commissioner insists on reassuring the
superiority of his culture and the power of his queen as ―the most powerful ruler in the
world‖ (p.194). Thus, the colonisers justify their cruel treatment by labelling the Igbo
as irrational and uncivilised people who need to be disciplined and educated by the
British. Their illegal settlement in his community deeply touches Okonkwo. In no way,
his mind stops thinking about the severe treatment he received in prison. Therefore, he
hopes that the clansmen reach a final decision and act like real warriors to drive out
these illegal occupiers, and if they do not cooperate with him, he will resist alone. For
him, ―worthy men are no more‖ (p.200). At last, the villagers gather and meet in the
marketplace. Okika, one of the leaders whom the white man arrested, speaks to the
crowd and encourages them to fight and do whatever contributes to the expulsion of
the colonisers from their country, including the clansmen who have followed them.
What happens here is that Colonization is the deliberate mechanism of "shifting
influences" that form the colonized character, that is to say, forced shifts on the
indigenous identity while concurrently correcting the identity and community of the
colonizer; this simultaneous process seeks to reshape colonized culture and values in
such a way that they are easily managed and admitted by the colonizers.

80
 Unfortunately, the meeting is interrupted by the arrival of some court
messengers, and their head announces that the white people have ordered to put an end
to the meeting. Okonkwo, whose anger is indescribable, approaches the man and
fearlessly beheads him with his machete. Okonkwo is the only one who practices his
power without any hesitation because he knows that Umuofia is no longer the place for
warlike men. Such an assumption confirms itself when Okonkwo sees people allowing
the other court messengers to escape instead of taking action. He hears people saying:
―Why did he do it?‖ (p. 205). Okonkwo finally realises that his power cannot preserve
his culture no matter how effortlessly he struggles. Thus, he commits suicide rather
than surrender to the authority of the white men because his extreme obsession with
masculine strength causes him a sense of estrangement. He realises that no one is as
ardent as himself about preserving cultural values and preventing the influence of
external forces. Ironically, the District Commissioner plans to write his experiences of
civilising the Nigerian and about the story of a ―man who had killed a messenger and
hanged himself in his future book ―The Pacification of the Primitive Tribes of
the Lower Niger‖ (pp. 208-209).

It is reasonable to mention that TFA portrays a kind of people who are caught
between two conflicting cultures. Achebe‗s hero intensely struggles to stimulate the
Umuofia people into the preservation of their traditional ways of life and opposition to
the colonial power. However, Okonkwo realises that he is all alone in maintaining
cultural integrity, and his downfall brought about such self-consciousness. He
witnesses the tension between his longing to remain inflexible and society‗s desire for
assimilation.

Alam (2014) argues that ―Okonkwo symbolises the essence of Umuofia‖ and
his suicide which is the result of the colonial power ―, symbolises the suicide
of Umuofia‗s essence‖ (p.104). However, similar to what Njeng (2008) writes, his
―suicide is one of the greatest acts of valour‖ (p.5). Okonkwo‗s suicide symbolises the
triumph of the coloniser‗s hegemony and the collapse of the Igbo people‗s resistance
during the occupation.

The novel puts forward two different interpretations of Okonkwo‗s suicide. On

the one hand, one could relate his death to the drastic psychological and social pressure
of colonialism on him. On the other hand, his death, which is not anybody‗s death but

81
the death of someone who was once the epitome of his culture, symbolises the attempts
of the Igbo to decolonise their occupied culture and not to be assimilated by the alien
values and the oppressive hegemonic power. Thus, Okonkwo‗s suicide implies the
community‗s ongoing struggle for decolonisation as they want to sacrifice themselves
for rejecting the colonizers' culture. Racial blending reinforces and promotes cultural
unity between diverse peoples, while colonial experiences demonstrate how colonial
philosophies are built on distinction and bring disparate individuals together in a
communication region. The newly emerging ideologies influenced the postcolonial
discussion about the acceptance of new identities and the rejection of indigenous ones.
These Postcolonial books, the majority of which are novels, are defined by the
polyphonic existence of their characters.

82
 CONCLUSION

African literature represents the oral traditions of African people. In the pre-
colonial era, Africans proved their culture and existence through oral genres such as
proverbs, folktales, and songs. By the arrival of colonization, African aspects of life
changed, and many African writers have used the European language as a means of
fighting for their independence. These colonial effects are still continuing in the
African communities after independence, which led to the emergence of what is called
postcolonial African literature; a considerable number of African writers, such as
Chinua Achebe, established a new way of writing which is written in both the language
of the colonizer in addition to the local language.

In Things Fall Apart and Orwell‘s Animal Farm, Chinua Achebe and Orwell
depict two of the prominent issues during the twentieth century, Ambivalence and
Mimicry. Postcolonial reviewer Homi K.Bhabha asserts that the people of a colonized
country imitate the colonizers so as to escape from disorder (Bhabha, 1984, p. 182). In
migrant societies, features like hybridity, ambivalence, and mimicry can be seen as
recognizable to diasporic people. Diasporic authors handle the problem of identity in
their writings. For them, identity is not fixed; identities are partial and plural. The clash
of two cultures is the main issue that the migrants suffer from. Their situation is too
confusing that they are motivated to construct imaginary homelands.

Therefore, to sum up, Bhabha‘s discourse of colonialism‘ is characterized by

both anxious repetitions and ambivalence. In trying to do two things at once—
constructing the colonized as both similar to and the other of colonizers—it ends up in
doing neither properly. As a replacement, it is condemned to be at war with itself,
placing radical otherness between peoples while simultaneously attempting to lessen
the degree of otherness. Although the aim is to fix knowledge about other people once
and for all, this objective is always deferred. In his essay ―Of Mimicry and
Man‖, Bhabha constructs these ideas and explores how the ambivalence of the
colonized subject turn to be a direct threat to the authority of the colonizers through the
impact of mimicry. Bhabha argues that as ―one of the most effective and elusive
strategies of colonial knowledge and power‖ (p.85). Bhabha focuses on the fact
that in colonial

83
countries such as India, the British authorities required native people to work on their
behalf and thus had to teach them the English language.

African literature has obviously foregrounded during the postcolonial period,

and that refers to the struggle issues adopted by Africans against the colonial existence.
In this matter, Postcolonial theory is found to deal with the same issues between
colonized and colonizer advocated by certain postcolonial writers, such as Frantz
Fanon, Homi Bhabha, Edward Said, and Gayatri Spivak. Furthermore, Postcolonialism
draws a clear line to study the African narratives and their characteristics as
postcolonial literature. In this sense, it focuses on the culture of resistance and
negotiation presented by African writers towards the imperial power in order to
maintain their own identity and culture.

In Things Fall Apart (1958), Chinua Achebe depicts one of the prominent
issues during the nineteenth century in Africa, mimicry. Mimicry refers to the
emergence of new culture and identity under the colonial conflict between the
colonizer and the colonized. Thus, Chinua Achebe adopted the mimicry narrative in
the African Igbo portrayal as a reflection of their real life. Moreover, he shows the
changes that the colonizers have brought into the Igbo's community. In this matter,
through his mimic forms, Chinua Achebe is changing the negative European views on
African people as being primitive and savage.

The current study also has the way in which the colonizing power of the British
has changed the culture of Igbo society. It emphasised the pre-colonial Igbo identity
and portrayed Okonkwo as the symbol of cultural preservation whose identity was
formed through wealth, status, titles, and strength. In addition, this study examined the
impacts of colonialism on the colonised people and how they responded to the
occupier‗s culture by accepting it and mimic it. In other words, it depicted the
hegemony of the coloniser and the native people‗s resistance to decolonise their own
culture. Through Okonkwo, who was the epitome of his community, the work showed
that the Igbo kept on resisting the hegemonic power because he was ready to sacrifice
his life instead of surrendering to colonial rule. Finally, the study pointed out the
negative effects of colonialism, and it conveys a message to resist collectively the
hegemony of the colonizers that work for the devastation of the native culture and the
erasure of national identity.

84
 In postcolonial African literature, mimicry is very important in the construction
of literary works because it is considered as a form of poetics; by using the mimic
forms, the writer is engaging in a high level of creativity, where he can add different
languages and cultures into the same literary work. The mimic narrative also shows
great respect to the diversity of ideologies since it permits the expression of multiple
voices, and the most important is that mimicry opens the doors to the former African
colonized writers to reflect their current African societies and to resist the colonial
domination.

Concerning Animal Farm, Orwell does not only pinpoint the policies which
were applied by Stalin but also criticizes the belief that the country applied.
Communism, the main belief that Stalin promoted to the country at that time, was
actually successful in overthrowing the previous leader, Tsar Nicholas II. Stalin
proposed Communism because it has equality as the advertisement sign. There is not
any class segregation inside this belief. Everyone is equal with no limits. But, in the
end, what makes Orwell‘s anxiety becomes a reality. The equality was only a thin skin.
Stalin was applying stricter policies than Tsar Nicholas. Those policies make the
people more suffering than before. Orwell satirizes the twentieth-century belief of
totalitarianism that was applied to every Stalin‘s choices of policies. What he proposed
is utopia was impossible to gain. At that time, Russia is both colonizers and colonized
at the same time. They are colonized by their own people. Thus, they become suffer on
their own.

It is hard to draw the different line of mimicry, which is done by the animal and
the true act of an animal that is pictured as a human as it is one characteristic of fable.
Furthermore, as Letemendia says, George Orwell cleverly writes Animal Farm to play
the two-sided game with his reader. In some parts, he is clearly emphasizing the
qualities of humans in the real world that is owned by beast characters on the farm. For
instance, they hold a meeting like humans in a barn in which Old Major injects all
animals there with his belief. The way Old Major speech can also show the quality of
humans. On the other hand, Orwell also provides pathos and humour to show the
differences that separate humans from the beasts. By doing so, Orwell forces the reader
to draw a distinction between conduct and personalities that makes humans and beast
different. This way to draw a distinction between subtle differences in the similarities

85
between human and beast is described as finding the interdictory space. Thus, by
knowing the place of interdictory space, we can know when the animal is doing
mimicry and when they are just doing animal personalities that are humanized.

Mimicry as the response of colonization actually starts to manifest right after

the Old Major finishes his event of encouragement. Snowball, who is the smartest pig,
breaks into Mr Jones library. In that place, he finds many books that show human‘s
knowledge of the way they make war on the system of life, such as farming, gardening,
and so on. From the inferiority complex that is planted to him, Snowball studies more
and more in the library, so he gains much knowledge from the library that no animal
ever has.

The mimicry that is done by the pigs in Animal Farm is an embodiment of how
Bhabha‘s concept of mimicry can have two different purposes. At first, led by
Snowball, mimicry can be the mean of resistance. Snowball uses his ability to mimic
humans to learn from Mr Jones's library. He learns about the art of war and war
strategies. The second, by Napoleon, mimicry is used as a tool of power. He uses
mimicry to gain complete authority over the farm.

Bhabha‘s theory of mimicry is covering the research question enough to

correlate with the implementation of mimicry and internal colonization in Animal
Farm. As a process, mimicry also has a peak. This peak of mimicry appears in the
novel as the blurring limit between the colonizer and colonized party. In the last
chapter of Animal Farm, George Orwell mentions meetings that appear both in the
Animal Farm and also neighbouring farms owned by a human. Those meetings
indicate that human thinks the pigs have similar status with them and vice versa
because they have similar interest and power in the economic issues. Those events also
indicate that the colonial theory, which is contextualized by the word colonizer and
colonized, disappears from the novel at that moment. So, the peak of mimicry is signed
by the line between colonized and colonizer that was omitted so the third side, in this
case, another animal than a pig on the farm, does not spot any difference between
human as their ex-colonizer and pig as their current colonizer.

86
 REFERENCES

Alam, M. (2014) ‗Reading Chinua Achebe‗s Things Fall Apart from the Postcolonial
Perspective‗, Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, [online] 4(12),
104. Available: http://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/RHSS/article/downloa
d/13617/14216 [accessed 7 Aug. 2018].

Basu, A. (2014) ‗Postcolonial Adaptation and Appropriation in Chinua Achebe‗,

International Journal of English and Literature, [online] 6(3), 51-52. Available:
http://academicjournals.org/journal/IJEL/article-full-textpdf/3EA5A015099
[accessed 7 Aug. 2018].

Bhabha, H. (1984). Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse.

October, 28, 125. https://doi.org/10.2307/778467

Bose, B., Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G., & Tiffin, H. (1996). The Post-Colonial Studies
Reader. World Literature Today, 70(2), 483. https://doi.org/10.2307/40152289

Bronte, C. (1983). Jane Eyre (Bantam Classics). Bantam Classics.

Calvert, P. (2001). Internal Colonisation, Development and Environment. Third World

Quarterly, 22(1), 51-63. Retrieved May 7, 2021, from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3993345

Chaloult, N., & Chaloult, Y. (1979). THE INTERNAL COLONIALISM CONCEPT:

METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. Social and Economic
Studies, 28(4), 85-99. Retrieved May 7, 2021, from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27861779

Chartrand, T. L., & Lakin, J. L. (2013). The Antecedents and Consequences of Human
Behavioral Mimicry. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 285–308.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143754

Childs, P., & Williams, P. (1997). An Introduction To Post-Colonial Theory (1st ed.).
Routledge.

Conrad, J. (2019). Heart of Darkness. Independently published.

87
Darmawan, R. I. (2020). Revisiting Bhabha‘s Mimicry in George Orwell‘s Animal
Farm. PIONEER: Journal of Language and Literature, 12(2), 141.
https://doi.org/10.36841/pioneer.v12i2.731

Fanon, F., & Philcox, R. (2008). Black Skin, White Masks (Revised ed.). Grove Press.

Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, E., & Daley, P. (2020). Routledge Handbook of South-South

Relations (1st ed.). Routledge.

Gikandi, S. (2000) Ngugi Wa Thiong‘o, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hall, S. (1996). [Questions of Cultural Identity] [Author: Stuart Hall] [May, 1996].
Sage Publications Ltd.

Hoogvelt, Ankie Maria Margaretha. Globalization and the Postcolonial World: the
New Political Economy of Development. The John Hopkins University Press,
1997.

Huddart, D. (2006). Homi K. Bhabha (Routledge Critical Thinkers) (1st ed.).

Routledge.

Jeffers, F., & Soules, J. A. (1965). Elementary Study of Impulsive Forces. American
Journal of Physics, 33(12), 1079–1081. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1971160

Judd, D. (1997). Empire: The British Imperial Experience From 1765 To The Present
(1st Edition). Basic Books.

Khatar, S. and Zarrinjooee, B. (2016) ‗Hybridity in Culture and Identity: Chinua

Achebe‗s No Longer at Ease‗, Journal of Novel Applied Sciences, [online]
5(6), 224. Available: http://jnasci.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/JNASCI-
2016- 224-232.pdf [accessed 7 Aug. 2018].

McLeod, J. (2000). Beginning Postcolonialism (Beginnings) by John McLeod (2000–

05-04). Manchester University Press.

Morse, R. (1995). INTO THE STORM (Loveswept) (0 ed.). Loveswept.

Njeng, E. (2008) ‗Achebe, Conrad, and the Postcolonial Strain‗, Comparative

Literature and Culture, [online] 10(1), 5. Available:
https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1328& context=clcweb
[accessed 7 Aug. 2018].

88
Olsson, M. (2010) . Colonial Legacies: Ambivalence, Mimicry and Hybridity in
Chinua Achebe‗s Things Fall Apart and Louise Erdrich‗s Tracks‗, Special
Project, Mid Sweden University. Available:
http://www.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:302445/fulltext01.pdf [accessed 7
Aug. 2018].

Orwell, G., & Steadman, R. (1996). Animal Farm: A Fairy Story (50th Anniversary
ed.). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Postcolonialism: An Historical Introduction. (2003). Nations and Nationalism, 9(4),

627–628. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8219.00134

Rao, R. (2004). The Empire Writes Back (to Michael Ignatieff). Millennium: Journal
of International Studies, 33(1), 145–166.
https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298040330010601

Retd, P. and Maut, D. (2014) ‗The Impact of Colonizer on the Colonized: A

Postcolonial Study of Nigerian Igbo Culture and History in Chinua Achebe‗s
Things Fall Apart‗, Journal of Humanities and Social Science, [online]
19(11), 257-260. Available:
http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol19-
issue11/Version-2/A0191120108.pdf [accessed 7 Aug. 2018].

Said, E. W. (1979b). Orientalism (1st Vintage Books ed). Vintage.

Sardar, Z. (1999). Orientalism. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

Sharrad, P., Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G., & Tiffin, H. (1990). The Empire Writes Back:
Theory and Practice in Post-Colonial Literatures. World Literature Today,
64(3), 537. https://doi.org/10.2307/40146848

Thiong‗o, N. (1993) Moving the Centre: The Struggle for Cultural Freedoms,
London: James Currey Ltd.

Thiong‘O, W. N., Achebe, C., & Serpell, N. (2017). Devil on the Cross (Penguin
African Writers Series). Penguin Classics.

Zizek, S., ed. (2003) Jacques Lacan: Critical Evaluations in Cultural Theory, London:
Routledge.

89
 RESUME

Abdulqader Yaseen received his BA in the English Language from Tikrit

University and his MA in English Language and literature from Karabuk University.
He worked as an English teacher. He has the intention to apply for a PhD in English
literature to extend his research.

CONTACT INFORMATION

E-mail: [email protected]

90