On Animal Farm

Animal Farm

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

George Orwell to me is one of the best writers in English. The subtle horror he induces in the readers mind lingers long after the book is read. Animal farm still haunts me. Apart from noticing the obvious reference to The Russian Revolution there is something darker something more sinister in the treatment of the idea of power. Power is a heady drug the animals embrace the revolution readily but what awaits them is not a new world but a variation of the oppression they knew.

The other horrific idea Orwell leaves the reader with is of animal revolt.  In Orwell’s words

...I saw a little boy, perhaps ten years old, driving a huge carthorse along a narrow path, whipping it whenever it tried to turn. It struck me that if only such animals became aware of their strength we should have no power over them, and that men exploit animals in much the same way as the rich exploit the proletariat.

It’s this very idea that Orwell wants us to dwell on, how an animal rises against oppression and functions just as we do. Turning the power hierarchy upside down can be quite unnerving for the reader. It’s this very idea that makes Orwell stand out, the limit to which he pushes not just his own imagination but also the reader’s imagination. 

The audacity to challenge human power even if it is a work of fiction takes courage. Even though the animals falter we tend to sympathise with their condition because it is our condition as well, and we know it is inescapable.

This is the third element in the novel that horrifies the reader. Replacing one power structure does very little to liberate the animals so much so that in the end the humans and the pigs are indistinguishable. As Benjamin (the donkey) sums it up “Life will go on as it has always gone on — that is, badly.”

Animal farm demands the reader introspects. It deliberately horrifies and the reader and makes the reader ponder about the nature of power. 

Democratic Psychiatry

Democratic Psychiatry, sounds like an oxymoron of Foucauldian proportions but it isn't. Over the years I have heard the silence the mental health profession imposes on its users. It’s not the bad practitioners I am talking about but the good ones. They are probably the most lost here. They get accolades they don't breach ethical boundaries but they don't do any good either.

The practice of mental health requires a belief akin to the belief in God. As long as one believes they have found a way through they come out of the clinic feeling better. Those who question those assumptions, they fall by the wayside and their voices are never heard. Clients who question the practitioner are said to be resistant or worse still their curiosity worked into their symptomatology some unlucky ones get medicated.

As someone once said to me “ you don’t know what it is like to get diagnosed, you loose your sense of self, no matter what you do after that is looked as insane”.  

How many people will have to feel this way before we sit up and acknowledge the gaping holes in our mental health system? When will the client be able to speak and be heard?

Mental health must be looked at from the users perspectives their concerns however trivial must be taken into account. One must consider the damage a diagnosis can cause an individual. It may help some people but what about those who see the label as damaging?  

Practice must look at each individual within their own language rather than fitting the client into the language of psychiatry. How does this work? simple ask and the client will tell you.