Amy Shanks 

A Dystopian Study

            Primarily driven by the curriculum requirements for the district where I teach, I decided to select Animal Farm as the topic for my second research posting. It has been many years since I have read the novel, so I approached this assignment with an ulterior motive to ignite an enthusiasm within myself for the teaching the novel. Similar to my first research posting, there was a plethora of articles for me to peruse; however, finding articles that addressed my specific interests in the novel was a little more difficult. The focus of my research was to identify dystopian elements of the novel and to develop a strategic plan for teaching it in the classroom. 

            The first issue I ran into while researching was the very classification of Animal Farm. From satire and fable to allegory and dystopia, there was a surplus of categories that could define this work of literature. I found some of the articles I read would even interchangeably use many of these categories to define the novel.

Though it can be difficult to pin down the work to a specific category, Bernard Grofman’s article “Pig and Proletariat: Animal Farm as History”  provides insightful commentary on Orwell’s writing style, stating that the biggest mistake would be to, “confuse simplicity of form with simplicity of idea” (8). Instead, he suggests viewing the author’s writing technique as a clever use of, “apparently frivolous form of the animal tale to convey a profoundly bitter message” (8). Because of the novel’s poignant implications, Jenn Donahue successfully qualifies Orwell’s work as a dystopia. In her article “Dystopian Literature: Brave New World, Animal Farm and 1984,” Donahue identifies the dystopian structure as, “a fictional society ... where the standards of living are terrible due to oppression, deprivation and terror” (1). Despite its brevity, her article provides helpful introductory information about dystopias and Animal Farm’s relationship to the genre.

Donahue’s article explains that typically in dystopian texts, “totalitarian government creates or sustains a poor quality of life” (1). According to Donahue, Animal Farm exemplifies this dystopian characteristic through allegory. At the beginning of the novel is a seemingly simple story about farm animals wanting a better life for themselves.  Overthrowing the humans in an effort to be free from oppression, the animal’s behavior starts the novel in a seemingly utopian strive for ideals; however, once the animals begin to formulate a society, Orwell begins to slowly unravel the picturesque tale. This is perhaps why Orwell had been referred to as “the prophet of false utopias” (White 73). Donahue explains that dystopian literature often exposes the bitter reality that, “though most people start out with ideas of changing the world for the better, the end result often bears little similarity to the original plans” (1). What was at first simply an intelligent pig progresses into a satirical depiction of Joseph Stalin whose secret policing is done through raised puppies. A once utopian principal of “all animals are equal” gets the dystopian addendum “but some animals are more equal than others.” Donahue analyzes that Orwell’s “book has become well-known for showing what happens when power is overthrown only to have the over thrower become power-hungry and oppressive” (1). This striking moral of the novel is a cyclical element that is often characterized in dystopian literature.

Donahue highlights the significance of the genre stating, “Dystopia could not be so powerful if it was not for the fact that dystopian societies mimic our own societies” (1).  Elaborating on the allegorical elements of the work, Donahue concisely alludes to Orwell’s purpose for his novel: social commentary.  In “George Orwell: socialism and utopia,” Richard White specifies Orwell’s motivation for writing the novel stating, “he warns us of the future possibilities of totalitarianism, and he remains skeptical of every version of the ideal society that isn’t ultimately connected to ordinary life as we know it“ (White 73). Considering the complexity that comes from simply attempting to categorize the novel, it is not surprising that significant meanings would be derived from such a short work.

Though the second half of my research interests was in teaching strategies specifically applicable to Animal Farm, one of the best articles I found addressed utopian/dystopian teaching strategies more broadly. Paul Wild’s “Teaching Utopia” had pertinent information addressing apprehensions about teaching utopias that were raised in class discussion. A primary concern with integrating utopian literature in curriculum is whether students can be as engaged in utopian stories as they often are with dystopian.  From his personal experience teaching 10^th grade, Wild describes students’ reactions to the utopian unit as “the high point of our otherwise traditional genre-centered curriculum” (335).  Admitting that students generally started the unit “with the apparent widespread attitudes that perfection isn’t possible, that a world without problems could be very interesting, and that human nature would sabotage any utopian attempt,” (335) Wild provides a candid account of his experience. Directly addressing my concerns, Wild assuredly states, “however, a gratifying number (of students) awakened to the possibilities of true freedom and dignity described in Looking Backward, News from Nowhere and Walden Two” (335). His positive attitude and recounted success with teaching utopian literature gave me some optimism.

Part of the success of his unit can be attributed to the sequencing of the curriculum. All the skepticism the students might have felt toward the utopia they could express through juxtaposition of the dystopian literature. Wild fostered student discussion in a strategic approach of debate.  This appeared to be an effective method because it cultivated a multiple answer approach to class discussion that can often be lost in lectures and teacher-driven questioning.  As a final assessment, the students wrote analytical essays, “describing their attitudes toward utopian planning and social manipulation” (337). I applaud this approach to assessments because I am under the impression that English courses should not heavily rely on multiple-choice assessments. The prompt Wild gave not only required students to be reflective over course material, but also analytical of abstract ideas. Wild ends the article with a persuasive cross-curricular sell for teaching an utopian/dystopian unit describing his experience as, “an adventure into a humanities approach to literature” (337).

Whereas Wild’s article offered interesting and practical ideas for teaching utopian and dystopian literature, John Knapp’s article “Creative reasoning in the interactive classroom: experiential exercises for teaching George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’” provided unique, but seemingly complex strategies for the novel. Though I was not completely convinced that the ideas he purposed could be implemented with ease, I was able to glean valuable “best practice” ideas for next school year.  Knapp’s educational objective is to have the students innately compare Thomas Hobbes’s political philosophy with Animal Farm, by beginning the unit with a lecture over Hobbes and then having the students play a game based on the novel. Intentionally avoiding revealing the “explicit connection between Hobbes and Animal Farm,” Knapp adheres to an almost explorative learning approach where the students are expected to draw the association on their own.  Though his ideas appear to implement a “best practice” approach that encourages students to think for themselves, I have some reservations with his lesson. While I do not want to depreciate student abilities by demonstrating lowered expectations, I have reservations for 9^th grade students’ capacity to make such abstract connections. If I were to use his lesson, I would at least make modified back-up plans. Most of his article is dedicated to a detailed outlining of a seemingly elaborate Animal Farm game of class systems. While it would take a couple more reads for me to fully understand how the game works, I still appreciate the pedagogical approach. Student engagement is a current emphasis in education, and educational games are often an efficient approach to achieving the goal.

            Overall my research led me exactly where I wanted to be: still excited about teaching utopian and dystopian literature. Though I certainly do not intend to implement every idea I found, I have gathered some valuable tips for teaching through the utopian and dystopian genres. Instead of feeling overwhelmed with the task of creating a unit for the fall (or simply sick of the subject matter), I am invigorated with ideas and approaches.

Works Cited

Donahue, Jenn, “Dystopian Literature: Brave New World, Animal Farm, and 1984.”

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/468472/dystopian_literature_brave_new_world_pg2.html?cat=9

Grofman, Bernard. "Pig and Proletariat: Animal Farm as History." San Jose Studies 16.2 (Spring 1990): 5-39. Rpt. in Short Story Criticism. Ed. Joseph Palmisano. Vol. 68. Detroit: Gale, 2004. Literature Resource Center. Web. 28 June 2011.

Knapp, John V. "Creative reasoning in the interactive classroom: experiential exercises for teaching George Orwell's 'Animal Farm.'." College Literature 23.2 (1996): 143+. Literature Resource Center. Web. 30 June 2011.

Mezciems, Jenny. "Swift and Orwell: Utopia as Nightmare." Dutch Quarterly Review of Anglo-American Letters 15.3 (1985): 189-210. Rpt. in Short Story Criticism. Ed. Joseph Palmisano. Vol. 68. Detroit: Gale, 2004. Literature Resource Center. Web. 28 June 2011.

Protherough, Robert. "George Orwell: Overview." Twentieth-Century Young Adult Writers. Ed. Laura Standley Berger. Detroit: St. James Press, 1994. Twentieth-Century Writers Series. Literature Resource Center. Web. 28 June 2011.

White, Richard. "George Orwell: socialism and utopia." Utopian Studies 19.1 (2008): 73+. Literature Resource Center. Web. 28 June 2011.

Wild, Paul. “Teaching Utopia.” The English Journal 55.3 (1966): 335-339. JSTOR. Web. 28 June 2011.