Pig and Pepper and Social Theory
By Robert Chapman - '98 (English 73, 1995)
"Alice was just beginning to think to herself, 'Now, what am I to do with this creature, when I get it home?" when it grunted again, so violently, that she looked down into its face with some alarm. This time there could be no mistake about it: it was neither more nor less than a pig, and she felt that it would be quite absurd for her to carry it any further."
ictorian social theorists had a myriad of theories to justify the rule of the noble
over the working class and of England over its empire. The thinking went that if the
superiority of one over another could be established then rule was justified and just. One
such theory held that adults of inferior races behaved the same way as children of
superior races, thus emphasizing the maturity of the British ruling class. While it can be
dangerous to assume modern opinions in writers (to modern readers, Kipling's "The
White Man's Burden" can easily sound like an ironic warning against imperialism) it
is possible that the scene of the baby turning into a pig is a lampoon of the above
mentioned theory. If people in primitive cultures behave like children then, it would seem
to follow, the more primitive and unevolved the culture the younger the children they
would emulate. Simultaneously, children must act like members of primitive cultures, and
the younger the child the more primitive the culture.
Taken to its extreme, this would suggest that babies (since no culture is so primitive that its adults behave like infants) act like animals. Thus, in a reductio ad absurdum the baby turns into a pig, which unlike a baby can take care of itself. As Alice points out, it would be ridiculous for a human to care for a pig, or any other animal for that matter, as one would a human baby.
