All conventional norms established by members of society have a specific purpose and a prevailing ideology as a basis. Generally, rules are created by a hierarchical elite based on an ideology that is either initially shared by the majority as in Orwell’s Animal Farm or eventually imposed on it as in Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. In the first case, ideology is a community value, and when rules become distorted or inconsistent with it, they lose their meaning. In the latter case, ideology is inherently contrary to the interests of society, which makes it appropriate to challenge them. This paper argues that challenging the rules is only appropriate if the ideology behind them is in disagreement with the values of the community’s individuals.
Essence and Function of the Rules
Orwell’s Animal Farm is a satirical parody of events that took place in the Soviet Union after the 1917 revolution. Every animal on the farm initially respected and supported the ideas of the Old Major, who believed that “no animal must ever tyrannize over his own kind,” because they are all equal (Orwell 8). The old pig taught that human habits generate evil, and animals must behave differently. After Old Major’s death, three pigs, Napoleon, Snowball, and Squealer, brought his ideas together in the teaching of animalism that parodied communism and reflected it in seven commandments they inscribed on the wall (Orwell 16). These rules in their meaning represented the essential provisions of animalism, and, therefore, all animals expressed their agreement with them.
The prohibition against storing and reading books in Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 was a reflection of the idea imposed by the government that books contain dangerous and revolutionary thoughts that undermine the equality of citizens. Captain Beatty makes that point explicitly, stating that all people “must be alike,” and that “not everyone born free and equal, as the Constitution says, but everyone made equal” (Bradbury 55). According to this ideology, joy should not be overshadowed by contradictory book reasoning and theories, and people’s lives should be filled with entertainment. Many citizens have been repressed for keeping books, and their houses were burned down by firemen.
Thus, both in the Animal Farm and Fahrenheit 451, the rules represented the essence of the ideology behind them. The primary function of the rules was its implementation through specific regulations created by governing subjects. Nevertheless, in the first case, the ideology was accepted and supported by all participants in society. In Fahrenheit 451, the underlying ideology was forcibly imposed on citizens and largely contradicted their interests.
Eligibility to Challenge the Rules
It was Napoleon who was dissatisfied with the necessity of considering the opinions of all animals in making decisions and began to violate the provisions of animalism even before the official reformulation of the commandments. He stated that all issues would be resolved by “a special committee of pigs, presided over by himself,” and “there would be no more debates” (Orwell 34). This directly contradicted the spirit of animalism and the ideas of the Old Major, who condemned tyranny and proclaimed equality between animals. Nevertheless, animals have continued to support Napoleon’s authority and work tirelessly, convinced that they do it for their own benefit and that of their offspring (Orwell 36). Almost none of the animals noticed that the leader made an ideological substitution, and his power loses the features of animalism.
Over time, pigs began to adopt human habits, such as trading and drinking alcohol, and reformulated all the commandments, and then excluded all but one. This last commandment was already in direct conflict with animalism and claimed that “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” (Orwell 80). It should be emphasized that the amendments to the existing regulations modified them into directly opposite ones in spirit. Thus, Orwell provides an illustrative example of rules that initially expressed an ideology beneficial to society and later were inappropriately distorted for the welfare of the ruling elite.
In Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, the rules were challenged by a group of ordinary citizens who did not have government power. At the beginning of the story, Guy Montag meets his neighbor Clarisse McClellan during a night stroll and discusses feelings and thoughts, nature, and even books with her (Bradbury 4). Over time, he realizes that his previous life was empty, including his work and relationship with his wife. Guy Montag challenges the prohibition on reading books since he believes something is missing for people’s happiness, and “books might help” (Bradbury 78). This leads him to disagree with the fundamental ideology of the government and challenge the existing rules.
In this case, the challenge takes the form of an outright protest against the existing system, which is an appropriate response to the repressive ideology of the government. Bradbury demonstrates an example of the citizen opposition to the prevailing order, where the underlying ideology is inherently perverse and imposed on society. This ideology limits the freedom of thought and behavior of people, and therefore the author takes the position of a protagonist.
Conclusion
It should be concluded that in both literary pieces, there is a gradual process of challenging the rules. However, Napoleon, by modifying the commandments, distorts and deviates from the fundamental animalism ideology supported by the inhabitants of the animal farm, and therefore his actions are inappropriate. At the same time, Guy Montag is opposed to a totalitarian regime of a government that infringes on the citizens, and challenging the rules that reflect such an ideology is legitimate.
Works Cited
Bradbury, Ray. Fahrenheit 451: A Novel. Simon and Schuster, 2012.
Orwell, George. Animal Farm and 1984. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2003.