Animal Farm

“All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others” a very famous line from George Orwell’s Animal Farm a book I was forced to read at high school, however unlike some of the other compulsory reads this one was quite interesting albeit my interest in social constructs and politics was still fairly low at that time.


For those that haven’t read the book it is George’s commentary on Communism, where the animals on a farm revolt and throw off the oppression of the human farmer and run the farm themselves. I can’t recall how the book ends but given that George was not a fan of communism it probably ends badly for the animals.

I was reminded of this line for a couple of reasons but principally because I was listening to a radio article on poverty in America. The setting is only of passing interest as the commentary was probably applicable to most developed western economies. They were discussing the outcomes of various assistance programs, who were the clients, how they could be helped and if that help worked long term after the programs were withdrawn.

In part they were talking about LBJ’s (Lyndon Johnston) “war on poverty” which was a group of programs he initiated. It seems that US Presidents are keen on “wars” as another one had the “war on want” and of course we have had the “war on terror”. War is a very emotive term of course but it also carries connotations of direct, goal focused action with certain outcomes. LBJ’s war was really a skirmish as he lost the next election with his opponents attacking the idea of big government versus personal responsibility, a fairly constant battle ground in US and other democracies, and dismantled a lot of his programs.

The idea of poverty as a personal responsibility is relatively recent and arose with the erosion of the class system in England on the back of the industrial revolution. Previously you were either born poor or rich and as there was no movement between the classes it clearly wasn’t your fault you were born poor, it was just your burden lot to bear. Once we had the rise of commerce and “self made men” then the conclusion became “if they can do it so can you” This idea is very powerful today and we all have a bit of “if they just got their act together” thinking in our attitude to the poor.

So what struck me about the tone of the conversation was the mostly unspoken but implied contrasting views on what constituted poor. This lead me to consider my own definition and the one that sprang to mind was the media sound bit phrase that anyone earning less than X% of the average wage was “in poverty”. But this isn’t a real definition of poverty is it, it is really a statement about a standard of living expectation.

Given that the basis for the measure is a statistical normal curve of income levels what this really argues for is a narrowing (?) of the bell curve. i.e. a taller curve so that everyone is more closely aligned to the centre. In fact the logical conclusion of this type of measure is that we should all earn the average and hey presto no poverty.

But are all animals created equal should we all be paid the same. I suspect most people would answer no we shouldn’t all be paid the same (especially those on higher incomes). So that means the pigs (the authors of the opening quote in the book) were right some animals are more equal than others. If one person is “worth” more than another it is hard to argue we are all equal. And if we are not equal what does that say about some other ideas founded on the basis we are all equal, like universal suffrage for example.

Strength and Honour

So I own very few DVD’s as there are not that many movies that I have a great desire to see more than once, one that I do own is Gladiator. In the event that you don’t know the film it is the story of a Roman General who falls from grace, endures and then rises to triumph again. Part of the reason I bought the DVD is that there is an opening battle scene that sounds particularly good on a surround sound system where you can hear the arches fire the arrows over your head and pots of flaming oil likewise catapulted over you to crash into the trees with a very satisfying explosion.


Prior to the commencement of the battle we find our General delivering the pre match pep talk which is suitably stirring before they all ride off to kill some Germanic tribe. At the end of his speech he concludes with a salute which includes the phrase “Strength and Honour” to which his troops all respond likewise “Strength and Honour” The historic accuracy of this particular phrase seems to be doubtful but it has returned to my memory while I was turning over the issue of what it means to be a man in today’s society, a topic I alluded to in my last post.

I had started with the idea of a sort of bullet list of things a man might ideally be and first on that list was Strength as it is an obvious differentiator between the sexes. In this context I am talking about physical strength and while I accept there are wide range of male and female examples, as a statement of averages men in general have the capacity to lift heavier weights etc than women. They also have greater genetic capacity in this arena, you only need to look at the extremes of body building to see that women never reach the gigantic size of some of the steroid enhanced males in this activitiy.

So this initially physical attribute has morphed into some of the other things we like our men to be, they should be able to protect their loved ones. They should be “handy” with tools etc, which I believe to be a manifestation of the heavy lifting sometimes associated with this type of task. They should be less emotional at times of crisis, which is not to say that men don’t have emotions or shouldn’t share but when the ship is sinking we admire those that can put aside the immediate concerns of fear etc and act for the good of the group. Women do this too especially in relation to their children but we still operate on the “women and children to the life rafts first” system. Even some of the negative things that men get up to like drinking too much with their mates is something to do with being the strongest and therefore last man standing. So a lot of being a man is derived from being strong one way and another.

Now a muscle bound man who simply knows how to be “strong” is to be avoided as their solution to all problems will probably be from the school of “hit it harder”. A man simply with strength is probably a danger to themselves and almost certainly to others. We need a modifier of that strength and it comes in the second part of our pseudo roman saying, Honour.

To act with honour, which implies “doing ones duty”, “a gentleman never tells”, “to protect my good name”, “a man’s word is his bond” and other clichés in both words and actions are bound up in the concept of Honour and acting with honour. We respect and admire people who can act with integrity and while this is not a trait reserved for men it is perhaps even more important to have when you are cast into the role of acting with strength. It is also the part that allows men the freedom to be caring and nurturing and not devoid of feelings to be giving and appreciative of the world. To honour learning etc is mans route to the intellectual to balance the physical.

So to be a man is “strength and honour” however it troubles me to have to base my foundation of manliness on a made up pseudo roman quote, but being fortunate to have been born in Aotearoa I don’t have to I have the word Mana to turn to and guide my quest for manliness. Mana in my mind encompases strength and honour and more. So to act in a way that enhances my Mana this, I think, is what it is to be a man today as it was yesterday and as it will be tomorrow.