Lesson video

Hello everyone.

It's lovely to see you here today.

My name's Dr.

Clayton, and I'm here to guide you through your learning journey today.

So today's lesson is called, "The consequence of complicit and apathetic language in Orwell's 'Animal Farm'." So we're going to be really thinking about the extent to which we can see the animals as responsible for their own oppression, and think about what Orwell might be suggesting about human nature through that.

So if you're ready, grab your pen, laptop, or whatever you need for this lesson, and let's get started.

So by the end of the lesson, you'll be able to explore how Orwell presents apathy and complicity in "Animal Farm".

So we have five words today we're going to be using as our keywords.

They'll be identified in bold throughout the learning material, and I'll try to point them out to you as well so you can see them being used in context.

So our first keyword is "complicit", which means involved in or knowing about a crime, or some activity that is wrong.

So we're going to be thinking about whether the animals on the farm were aware the pigs were engaged in activity that was morally wrong.

Our second keyword is "apathetic", which means showing or feeling no interest, enthusiasm, or concern.

We're going to be focusing on the character of Benjamin, and what the consequences of his apathy are in the novel.

Our third keyword is "inherent", which means belonging to the basic nature of someone or something.

So we're going to be thinking about whether we can see the animal's complicit behaviour as something that's natural to them, and what Orwell might be suggesting about human nature through that.

Our fourth keyword is "oppression", which means prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority.

We're going to be thinking about how the apathy and complicity allow this cruel treatment of the animals to take place.

Our final keyword is "conditioned", which means to influence a person as they do or expect a particular thing without thinking about it.

We're going to be thinking about whether the pigs have influenced the animals and caused their complicity.

So I'll just give you a moment to write down those keywords and their definitions.

So pause the video, write them down now.

Fantastic.

Let's get started with the lesson.

So we have two learning cycles in our lesson today.

For our first learning cycle, we're going to be thinking about the character of Benjamin and how Orwell presents the consequences of his apathy and what that might suggest for society as a whole.

For our second learning cycle, we're going to be thinking about how we can arguably see the animals as complicit in the pigs' oppression, and whether we think that complicity is inherent, so something natural to them, or whether the pigs have conditioned them to be complicit through the manipulation of language.

So as I said, we're going to focus on the character of Benjamin in this first learning cycle.

Now arguably, Orwell presents Benjamin's character and language as apathetic throughout "Animal Farm".

Now "apathetic" is one of our keywords.

It means showing or feeling no interest, enthusiasm, or concern.

So let's think about how we can see Benjamin as a character who shows no interest or enthusiasm.

Orwell introduces Benjamin to us as someone who seldom talked, and when he did, it was usually to make some cynical remark.

So what I'd like you to think about is how does this present Benjamin as apathetic from the outset? Now, if you're working through this with someone else, you might talk over ideas with them.

If you're going through this by yourself, you might just think of your ideas.

So pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back, everyone.

Some great ideas there.

You might have said, "The image of him seldom talking," so not talking very much, "suggests he doesn't have an interest in others or forming connections with others." "Cynical" means pessimistic, so negative.

So you might suggest his negative remarks mean he has no enthusiasm for life.

So now for a quick check for understanding, what I'd like you to do is tell me whether the following statement is true or false.

So is it true or false? Orwell presents Benjamin's character as apathetic from the beginning.

Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

The correct answer is true.

Now I'd like you to tell me why it's true.

So pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back, everyone.

You might have said, "Orwell presents Benjamin as a character who has no interest in or enthusiasm for life." So very well done if you got those right.

So now I want you to think about the reason behind Benjamin's apathy, because this is where we start to see Orwell making comment about society and human nature.

So I'd like you to think about the following quotations.

"Windmill or no windmill, Benjamin said, life would go on as it had always gone on.

That is, badly." "Hunger, hardship, and disappointment being, so Benjamin said, the unalterable law of life." So what I'd like you to think about is what is Orwell telling us about the reason behind Benjamin's apathy? Pause the video.

Take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back, everyone.

Some fantastic ideas there.

Now Oak pupil Aisha said, "I think Benjamin's apathy stems from an inherently pessimistic view of life.

He believes that life will always be hard, therefore there's no point in trying to change anything, because change will never bring a positive outcome." So what I'd like you to think about is whether you agree with Aisha.

Why or why not? Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back, everyone.

It was great to see people engaging with Aisha's ideas.

I think we can definitely see the negativity that Aisha mentioned in Benjamin's attitude to life.

He believes life will always be hard, so there's no point having any hope that things could become better.

So now for a quick check for understanding, what I'd like you to do is tell me which of the following does Orwell imply is the reason for Benjamin's apathy.

Is it A? He dislikes the other animals.

B, he has a pessimistic outlook on life? C, he had a traumatic experience in the past? Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone.

Now Orwell says that Benjamin doesn't talk to the other animals very much.

He doesn't say he dislikes them.

We don't hear anything about Benjamin's past.

We do, however, hear his negative opinions on life.

So the correct answer would be, he has a pessimistic outlook on life.

So very well done if you got that right.

So now we're going to think about the consequences of Benjamin's apathy, and how it might relate to the pigs' oppression of the animals.

So I'd like you to think about the following instances from "Animal Farm".

So Benjamin can read, but he refuses to read the commandments to the other animals when he is asked to do so.

Benjamin's seemingly aware the pigs are altering the commandments, but he says nothing.

So what I'd like you to think about is to what extent do you think Benjamin's apathy is a form of complicity in the pigs' oppression? So how can we see Benjamin's lack of interest as allowing the pig's oppression to take place? Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back, everyone.

Some great ideas there.

Now one of the Oak pupils, Sam, said, "I think Benjamin's apathy can be read as a form of complicity in the pigs' oppression.

He actively resists requests for assistance from the animals, and he withholds information about the pigs' corruption.

However, I'm not sure whether the outcome of 'Animal Farm' would've been different if Benjamin had shared his knowledge." So what I'd like you to do is think about Sam's ideas, and whether you agree or not.

Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back, everyone.

It was great to see people engaging with Sam's ideas, especially the hypothetical question of whether Benjamin could have changed the outcome of the novel.

And this is something you might like to come back to later, after the second learning cycle, where we look at the animals' complicity.

So now I have a quick check for understanding.

What I'd like you to do is tell me whether the following statement is true or false.

So is it true or false? We might interpret Benjamin's apathy as a form of complicity in the pigs' oppression.

Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

The correct answer is true.

Now I'd like you to tell me why it's true.

So pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back, everyone.

You might have said, "Benjamin has opportunities to share information about the pigs' corruption with the other animals, but he chooses not to." So very well done if you got those right.

Fantastic work, everyone.

We'll now do the first task of the lesson.

So what I'd like you to do is bring everything from this learning cycle together and create a single paragraph outline to answer the question, "How does Orwell present Benjamin's apathy in 'Animal Farm'?" Now remember, a single paragraph outline includes a topic sentence.

It explains the focus of the paragraph.

It includes supporting details, which are analysis of methods, and includes a concluding sentence, which is a summary of the paragraph with a consideration of the writer's intentions.

Now you want to make sure you're always bringing your argument and your analysis back to the text.

So you might consider the following quotations as evidence for a single paragraph outline.

"Hunger, hardship, and disappointment being, so Benjamin said, the unalterable law of life." "Benjamin could read as well as any pig, but never exercised his faculty." "Benjamin was the only animal who did not side with either faction." "Clover asked Benjamin to read her the Sixth Commandment, and when Benjamin, as usual, said he refused to meddle in such matters." "Except old Benjamin, who nodded his muzzle with a knowing air and seemed to understand.

but would say nothing." So pause the video, create your single paragraph outline now.

Welcome back, everyone.

Some fantastic work there.

Now what I'd like you to do is think about Laura's ideas.

Do you agree? Why or why not? So Laura's topic sentence was, "Arguably, Orwell presents Benjamin's apathy as a contributing factor to the pigs' oppression of the animals." For a supporting detail, Laura zoom in on the phrase, "unalterable law of life," to show Benjamin's pessimistic attitude towards life.

He believes that hardship is a part of life, and nothing will ever change.

She zoomed in on, "as well as any pig," to show where Orwell positions Benjamin as as intelligent as the pigs, and then followed that with "refused", to show that even though he's intelligent, he resists the animals' requests for assistance.

Laura also zoomed on the phrase, "with a knowing air, said nothing," to demonstrate how Benjamin withholds information about the pigs' corruption because of his apathy.

And then Laura's concluding sentence was, "Potentially, Orwell might be suggesting that if people are apathetic and have a pessimistic attitude towards life, they will allow oppression, since they believe there will be no positive outcomes to change." So, pause the video, think about how well you agree with Laura's ideas.

Welcome back, everyone.

It was great to see people engaging with Laura's ideas on how we can see Benjamin as representative, and what effect this negative outlook can have on society.

It arguably allows oppression and corruption to take root, 'cause people believe things will always be that way.

Amazing work, everyone.

We're now to the second learning cycle, where we're going to think about the animals' complicity in the pigs' oppression, and whether we see them as being inherently complicit, or whether the pigs have conditioned them to be complicit.

Now I think this is such an important aspect to explore, because again it really comes back to what Orwell suggests about human nature.

Is he saying that people naturally accept oppression, or that oppressors influence people into accepting it? Now, as I said, arguably we might consider the animals' behaviour throughout "Animal Farm" as complicit.

We might interpret this complicity in two ways.

The animals' inherent complicity allows the pigs to gain power and oppress them.

They're naturally inclined to accept the behaviour of the pigs.

Or, the pigs' language has conditioned the animals into complicity.

So the pigs' language has influenced the animals into accepting oppression.

So, let's begin by thinking about the idea the animals might be inherently complicit.

So what I'd like you to do is think about the following two quotations.

So when Napoleon attacks Snowball, "Too amazed and frightened to speak, all the animals crowded through the door to watch the chase." And then when Napoleon starts executing the animals, "When it was all over, the remaining animals, except for the pigs and dogs, crept away in a body.

They were shaken and miserable." So what I'd like you to think about is how might we interpret the animals' complicity as allowing the pigs' oppression here? How are they allowing the pigs to act in an unjust and cruel way? Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone.

Some great ideas there.

Now one of our Oak pupils, Izzy, said, "I think we can see from the words 'frightened' and 'shaken', the animals are aware that something morally wrong is happening, but none of them challenge the pigs' behaviour.

Their silence continues as the violence and oppression escalates, which implies their complicity encourages the pigs' corruption." So what I'd like you to do is think about Izzy's ideas and whether or not you agree.

Why or why not? Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back, everyone.

It was great to see people engaging with Izzy's ideas.

Now as Izzy said, we can obviously see the animals are scared here, and they're aware something's wrong, but they don't challenge the pigs.

This implies they're allowing the pigs' cruel behaviour to happen.

Now, one interpretation of "Animal Farm" is that Orwell's suggesting that it's a lack of education that oppresses the animals.

Now I think we can absolutely say the animals are not as educated as the pigs.

However, Orwell does hint at their intelligence.

So I'd like you to look at the following two quotations.

"Their lives now, the animals reasoned, were hungry and laborious." "The thought that at least Boxer had died happy." I'd like you to think about what the significance of "reasoned" and "thought" is, in terms of the animals' complicity.

Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone.

Some fantastic ideas there.

Now one of our Oak pupils, Lucas, said, "I think 'reasoned' in particular suggests the animals do have the power of critical thinking.

This enhances the perception they're not mindless.

Instead, they're aware of the pigs' oppressive actions and tactics.

However, they do not oppose the pigs' actions, which suggests they're complicit in their oppression." So, what I'd like you to do is think about whether you agree with Lucas.

Why or why not? Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back, everyone.

It was great to see people engaging with Lucas' ideas.

I think it does challenge the idea it's a lack of intelligence that prevents the animals from challenging the pigs.

They're intelligent enough to realise that something wrong is happening, but they don't challenge it.

So, now for a quick check for understanding.

What I'd like you to do is tell me whether the following statement is true or false.

So is it true or false? Orwell presents the animals as mindless and unintelligent.

Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

The correct answer is false.

Now I'd like you to tell me why it's false.

So pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back, everyone.

You might have said, "Though he presents the animals as less educated than the pigs, the word 'reasoned' specifically suggests the animals do have the power of critical thinking.

Therefore, they're not mindless." So very well done if you got those right.

So, now we're going to think about the idea it's the pigs who condition the animals into complicity.

So what I'd like you to do is think about the following idea that the pigs subtly altered the commandments throughout the novel, yet they insist the commandments have not been changed.

And what I'd like you to think about is how might the pigs' manipulation of the commandments condition the animals to be complicit? Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back, everyone.

Some great ideas there.

And you might have said, the fact they have changed them, yet insist they have not, leads the animals to doubt their own recollections and reality, and through this, it might affect their perception of events and the pigs' actions.

So the animals start to doubt themselves, and therefore they doubt their judgement about the pigs' behaviour.

Now, as well as altering the commandments, the pigs make them inherently paradoxical, so they make them contradictory.

For example, saying "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others," is a paradox, because you can't have some people being more equal than others.

Equality is a state of being absolute.

You're either equal, or you're not equal.

So, what I'd like you to think about is how might this paradoxical language condition the animals to be complicit? Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back, everyone.

Now that was a really hard question.

I heard some fantastic ideas.

And you might have said, "Accepting paradoxes implies you aren't questioning what you're being told.

You're accepting facts without really thinking about them.

This suggests the pigs are encouraging the animals not to question truth or reality, and this creates an unquestioning loyalty to the pigs' words." The animals are blindly following what the pigs are saying, without thinking that what the pigs are saying can't be true.

Now this relationship between accepting paradoxes and complicity is explored in Orwell's other works.

So for example, in "1984", which is another of Orwell's famous dystopian novels that really examines the way that we can be controlled, Orwell writes, "In the end, the party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it." Now we know that two and two is four, but the control the government has over people means they'll accept that two and two make five.

At the end of the novel, Winston Smith's obedience to the party is evidenced by him writing 2+2=5.

He's accepting something he knows cannot be true, 'cause he's been told to do so.

Now, this is a key Orwellian concept, about how language can be used to demonstrate complicity and the suppression of independent thought.

So, now for a quick check for understanding.

What I'd like you to do is tell me which interpretation of the pigs' use of paradoxes is most relevant to ideas of conditioning.

Is it A, the pigs' use of paradoxes suggests that that pigs are willing to change their ideology to suit them, or B, the pigs' use of paradoxes suggests they're encouraging the animals not to question reality.

So pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

The correct answer is B.

The pigs' use of paradoxes suggests they're encouraging the animals not to question reality.

Now I'd like you to tell me why it's B.

So pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back, everyone.

You might have said, "While the pigs' use of paradoxes does suggest the pigs are willing to change their ideology, the idea of encouraging the animals not to question reality is more relevant to ideas of conditioning." So very well done if you got those right.

Amazing work, everyone.

We're now onto the final task of the lesson.

So what I'd like you to do is take your ideas from this learning cycle and answer the following questions.

So number one, do you think the animals are inherently complicit, or have they been conditioned to accept the pigs' oppression? And number two, what do you think Orwell's intentions might have been? Is he suggesting that people are inherently complicit and that causes oppression? Or is he saying that language can condition people to be complicit? So, pause the video, answer the questions now.

Welcome back, everyone.

Some fantastic work there.

What I'd like you to do is think about Sofia's ideas.

Do you agree? Why or why not? So question one.

Do you think the animals are inherently complicit, or have they been conditioned to accept the pigs' oppression? And Sofia said, "Personally, I think Orwell presents the animals as inherently complicit in the pigs' oppression.

Though the pigs' language arguably alters the perception of reality, Orwell implies the animals are uneasy about what the pigs are telling them.

This suggests the perception of reality hasn't been completely altered.

They're aware that something is wrong, and their lack of response allows the pigs to continue their oppression." So, pause the video.

Think about whether or not you agree with Sofia's ideas.

Welcome back, everyone.

Now I heard a few people disagreeing with Sofia and saying they believe the pigs have conditioned the animals to accept the oppression, and that's absolutely fine.

There are no right or wrong answers here.

We can interpret the text in two different ways.

It's your job to present your argument about the text using evidence from the text.

So, question two.

What do you think Orwell's intentions might have been? Is he suggesting that people are inherently complicit and will always accept oppression, or is he saying that language can condition people to become complicit? And Sofia said, "I think Orwell might be suggesting that people are inherently submissive to those in authority, and therefore complicit in the growth of oppression.

And I think his presentation of the animals demonstrates how people can be aware that something wrong is happening, yet do nothing to challenge it." Again, I'd like you to pause the video, think about whether or not you agree with Sofia's ideas.

Welcome back, everyone.

Now I think this question really cuts to the heart of what Orwell might be suggesting about humanity.

We'd all agree that cruel and oppressive treatment is wrong, but it happens throughout history.

Is it because it's our human nature not to challenge such behaviour? Or is it that we can be influenced to accept it? That's something Orwell invites us to take away and think about.

You all did amazingly well today, everyone.

Here's a summary of what we covered.

Arguably, Benjamin's language conveys apathy throughout "Animal Farm." We might see Orwell as suggesting Benjamin's apathy is a form of complicity.

Potentially, we might see the animals' complicity as allowing the pigs' oppression.

On the other hand, we might consider the pigs' language as conditioning the animals to be complicit.

I really hope you enjoyed the lesson, everyone.

I hope to see you for another lesson soon.

Goodbye!.