Another Essay I Wrote For School

I have not posted any posts lately. That's because I had to work on a writing sample to apply to graduate school. I just barely finished it. I hope it's good. I think it's pretty good. But don't take my word for it- read it for yourself! Here it is:


Technology, Evil, and Human Equality in Animal Farm and The Soul of Man Under Socialism

“A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at,” says Oscar Wilde in his essay The Soul of Man Under Socialism (1256). Oscar Wilde is one of many literary figures who thought and wrote about utopia. Another is George Orwell. Both authors had interesting ideas about the perfect society. Orwell wrote about Utopia in one of his classic works, Animal Farm, and Wilde wrote about it in his essay, The Soul of Man Under Socialism. These texts represent a radically different take on utopia. Animal Farm is generally realistic yet pessimistic, while The Soul of Man Under Socialism is generally idealistic and optimistic. In this essay I will focus on three topics that illustrate Orwell’s realistic pessimism and Wilde’s idealistic, impractical optimism: technology, evil, and the inherent equality of human beings.

Both the essay and the novel understand that there is menial work to be done in order for a society to subsist. Food needs to be produced, goods need to be manufactured, trash needs to be taken out, and a myriad of other unpleasant jobs need to get done. Both the essay and the novel express the view that technology could be used in order to better society to an extraordinary degree. Listen to the striking similarity between Snowball’s and Wilde’s take on technology: “Snowball conjured up pictures of fantastic machines which would do their work for them while they grazed at their ease in the fields or improved their minds with reading and conversation” (Orwell 64). Wilde writes of a future where technology will serve humans. “Just as trees grow while the country gentleman is asleep, so while Humanity will be amusing itself, or enjoying cultivated leisure… or making beautiful things, or reading beautiful things, or simply contemplating the world with admiration and delight, machinery will be doing all the necessary and unpleasant work” (Wilde 1255).

But even though both The Soul of Man Under Socialism and Animal Farm address this possibility of technology improving the human condition, Wilde seems to believe in it, whereas Orwell does not. The reader can safely assume that Wilde believes in it, first of all, obviously, because he is the one speaking in his essay. In the essay there are no fictional characters; no ambiguous speaker of a poem; the essay is written by Oscar Wilde. It is put forth to the world as the opinions and beliefs of Oscar Wilde himself. Second of all, the reader can safely assume that Wilde believes that technology will improve the human condition because Wilde explicitly states this view. He writes, “All work of that kind [i.e. unpleasant work] should be done by a machine. And I have no doubt but that it will be so” (1255).

Orwell, though, is not so optimistic. He does not believe that technology will serve to work towards utopia. No doubt Orwell believes that technology could be used to improve the human condition, but he does not believe that it will. The reader may safely assume that Orwell’s position on technology bettering society is pessimistic, first of all, because Orwell is not speaking for himself. He is speaking through a fictional character he created, Snowball.

Second, through a series of plot events, Orwell expresses the fact that humans, being fallible and mortal, will mishandle technology. As the plot of Animal Farm unfolds, Snowball, the pig that came up with an idea for a windmill, is run out of the farm by rival leader, Napoleon. After Snowball is gone, Napoleon decides to have the windmill built, and it takes years and years of hard work to complete the windmill. In the final chapter, when the windmill is finally finished, it does not serve to give the animals leisure but in fact only serves to bolster Napoleon’s totalitarian regime. “The windmill, however, had not after all been used for generating electrical power. It was used for milling corn, and brought in a handsome money profit” (Orwell 128). From this quote we see that Napoleon used the windmill not for the general well being of Animal Farm, but for accumulating wealth for himself.

Thus Orwell, through the string of events he creates, expresses his pessimistic outlook on technology helping the human race. Orwell affirms that technology takes a long time to develop. Years and years of work, money, research and experimentation have to be expended in order to invent technologies that are intended to solve many societal ills. On top of the resources being spent, when the technology finally is invented, the technology has to be used properly. Because, according to Orwell, as long as technology is in the hands of corrupt leaders, it doesn’t matter how impressive the technology is, it will still be used for evil purposes.

Speaking of evil, George Orwell seems to believe in evil more than Oscar Wilde does. That is, Wilde thinks of all individuals as inherently good, while Orwell believes in the evil that naturally creeps up in the hearts of some.

Wilde thinks that all individuals, if properly civilized, and if placed in the proper form of society, would live peacefully, basking in the glory of beauty, art and pleasure. In The Soul of Man Under Socialism, Wilde describes at length how dreamy and pleasurable society will be when the individual will make what is beautiful and the state will make what is useful (1255).
So if humans are inherently peace-loving, artistic, and congenial, how does Wilde explain crime? If crime does not come from evil in our genetic makeup, or from Satan, where does it come from? Wilde answers: crime comes from the defects of society. He blames capitalism and the government of his day for what others call the manifestation of evil. Wilde sums up this idea nicely with, “Starvation, and not sin, is the parent of modern crime” (1254). Wilde further describes his view on evil when he writes of utopia, void of punishment. “When there is no punishment at all, crime will either cease to exist, or, if it occurs, will be treated by physicians as a very distressing form of dementia, to be cured by care and kindness” (1254). Thus Wilde views crime not as the symptom of humanity’s basic wickedness, but as merely the misguided actions of the lower classes. Put in another way, so-called “evil” acts are the byproducts of a society in which dishonesty and cutthroat competitiveness are rewarded with the bestowal of more property and more comfort.

In addition to his explanation for crime committed by the lower classes, Wilde has an explanation for white-collar crime. Again he blames a corrupt society. Even though rich people aren’t starving, even though they live a quite comfortable life, they still commit crimes because they are so obsessed with owning property, according to Wilde. A Monopoly or Risk board game mindset pervades the upper class, Wilde says, because the upper classes were socialized from their youth to compete. Wilde concludes, “The possession of private property is very often extremely demoralizing,” (1249). With these quotes and arguments taken into consideration, it is clear that Wilde does not believe in inherent evil, per se. Rather, he believes that humans are basically good.

Moving on to George Orwell’s views, Orwell sees evil very differently. Orwell thinks that no matter how philosophically sound and fair a society’s framework is, no matter how egalitarian the governmental or economic auspices appear to be, some people, having evil in their hearts, will find a way to mess it up. Orwell’s pessimistic opinion is evidenced by Napoleon’s rise to power.

In Orwell’s novel, after the Rebellion, all the animals rejoice that their oppressor, Mr. Jones, has been defeated. “They rolled in the dew, they cropped mouthfuls of the sweet summer grass, they kicked up clods of black earth and snuffed its rich scent” (40). All the animals seemed to be rejoicing together. The pigs, the horses, the dogs, and all the other animals had freedom, able bodies, and fertile soil. At this moment, with freedom and the promise of utopia, what reason does Napoleon have for stealing goods and oppressing others? Why does Napoleon choose to drink alcohol, sleep in a bed, kill other animals, and otherwise break all the commandments that he originally claimed to have been a proponent of? What prompted his bad actions? Nothing that I can think of, besides inborn evil, can explain his actions.

Napoleon could have worked his fair share and lived peacefully in an idealistic commune, where all animals are called comrades, where everyone received a fair amount of resources, and everyone did their fair share. Napoleon could have cultivated his mind. He could have created or enjoyed beautiful things, like Oscar Wilde suggested. Instead, the greedy pig hogged the resources, raised an army of dogs, set himself up as a master, and turned out worse than Mr. Jones had ever been. Again, the only explanation for Napoleon’s behavior is his innate evilness.
Finally, Orwell’s realistic pessimism and Wilde’s idealistic, impractical optimism are illustrated by how the two authors treat the final topic in this paper, the inherent equality of human beings. Wilde believes that all people are inherently equal, not in talent or ability, but in their individuality. In contrast, Orwell believes that humans are inherently not equal.

Certainly Wilde does not think that all humans possess the same aptitude for all the same subjects, or the same qualities of mind and body. He recognizes that some have an affinity for a particular subject or undertaking while others do not. Wilde enjoys the diversity of human experience; he would never dare to say that all people are equal in every way. But Wilde considers everybody to be equal because they are all individuals. Everybody, in Wilde’s view, has the potential to indulge pleasurably in their own personality and realize their own souls, (1254).

By “realize their own souls,” I mean that, in Wilde’s view, everybody can discover who he or she truly is. If relieved from the pressures of peers, social institutions and traditions, and if relieved from the menial cares of gathering material necessities, people are free to rejoice in their own awesomeness. In effect, in Wilde’s utopia, individuals will toot their own horns, whether or not anybody else is listening. Most of The Soul of Man Under Socialism is about individualism, actually; it is about how all people can realize the beauty that is within themselves if only a proper societal framework were there to support self-exploration. In light of these ideas about self-realization, Wilde sees all people as inherently equally valuable and special. It is only the defects of the milieu that keep people in such a state of social inequality.

Wilde also considers people to be equal when it comes to how much they need and want in order to be content. Wilde fancies that as long as individuals are provided with material necessities, space to create beautiful things, and beautiful things to appreciate, everyone will be satisfied. No one will miss owning private property or being better than his or her neighbor.
George Orwell, on the other hand, is skeptical of a universal inherent equality among all the people born into this world. Several elements of Animal Farm evidence Orwell’s mistrust of a universal inherent human equality.

First of all, the animals in Orwell’s fairy story are obviously different animals. There are dogs, pigs, horses, sheep, and others. Some are big. Some are small. Some are very strong. For example, Boxer is the strongest animal on the farm, and as such can do more work than anyone else. Some animals are very weak. The ducks are only able to contribute a very little bit to the construction of the windmill and the overall well being of the farm.

The animals on Animal Farm are not only different in size and physical strength, they possess differing amounts of intellect. The pigs possessed the most intellect. “The work of teaching and organizing the others fell naturally upon the pigs, who were generally recognized as being the cleverest of animals” (Orwell 35). The sheep, hens, and ducks were the stupidest. “It was also found that the stupider animals, such as the sheep, hens, and ducks, were unable to learn the Seven Commandments by heart” (50). By creating a cast of characters composed of animals that differ in strength and intelligence, Orwell is revealing the inherent inequality in the human race.

In addition to showing how people have differing amounts of strength and intelligence, Orwell shows how humans are naturally different when it comes to their dispositions. Soon after the Rebellion, the text states, “Everyone worked according to his capacity… nobody shirked – or almost nobody. Mollie, it was true, was not good at getting up in the mornings, and had a way of leaving work early on the ground that there was a stone in her hoof” (47). Thus, Mollie’s attitude towards work was different than most of the other animals. Most of the other animals willingly subscribed to idea of communism and equality. But Mollie slacked off. She kept ribbons and sugar for herself. Although the pigs tried to ensure that all comrades contributed equally to the well being of the farm, some animals were just stubborn. Likewise, although Wilde insists that everybody would be happy contributing fairly to the production of useful things, and although Wilde insists that everybody would be happy being himself or herself, some humans, according to Orwell, are just stubborn. Try as one might to lead the way to peace, some will not follow. In matters of strength, intelligence, and dispositions, Orwell claims that people are inherently unequal.

Overall, Animal Farm is a pessimistic, yet realistic book. First, an analysis of the plot reveals that Orwell does not think that technology will make a solid contribution towards the establishment of utopia, since humans with less than noble intentions can easily use technology to squelch others. Second, Animal Farm presents evil as an unprovoked, naturally occurring human attribute. Third, Orwell expresses through his novel the inherent inequality among humans.

In contrast, The Soul of Man Under Socialism by Oscar Wilde is generally idealistic and optimistic. Wilde believes that technology will aid in the establishment of utopia, that people are basically good, and that humans are equal in the sense that they are all unique, beauty-loving individuals with the potential for self-realization.

It is interesting to see how these two great literary figures wrestle with the idea of utopia. By contrasting Animal Farm with The Soul of Man Under Socialism, we can see the very different ideas that George Orwell and Oscar Wilde generated. Perhaps somewhere between these two differing outlooks there is an attainable happy medium, a balance, a satisfying compromise. Perhaps, in fact, there is a way for everyone to be happy all the time. Or perhaps not.


Works Cited


Orwell, George. Animal Farm. New York: Penguin Putnam Inc., 1996.

Wilde, Oscar. Oscar Wilde - Collected Works - Complete and Unabridged. New York: Barnes
and Noble Publishing, Inc., 2006.