Orwell in this piece presents his belief that the dominant group has less power than the subordinate, but I do not know that I completely agree. I think that the way in which one determines who has power in Orwell’s situation depends greatly upon one’s definition of power itself. Orwell sees the Burmese people’s “shared laugh,” and their ability to make him act a certain way, to “play the part,” as a sign of their power over him. While this may be so, I tend to view the “shared laugh” as something that keeps the subordinate right where they are; similar to Wedeen’s argument, the “shared laugh” of the Burmese in this case gives them the illusion of some disturbance of Orwell’s authority, but at the end of the day, Orwell still holds the gun, the British Raj remains in power, and the Burmese continue their lives. Furthermore, and perhaps more interesting, while the ability of the Burmese to make Orwell act differently than he wanted to may seem incredibly powerful, it can also be seen as perpetuating the Burmese people’s inferiority; as Demian points out, the English enforce their authority through violence and fear, but isn’t it the Burmese who force the English to act this way? In this case at least, Orwell would not have used violence had he not felt the pressure from the Burmese to do so, yet it is the use of violence that keeps him in the people’s mind as having power. In this way, the Burmese become—as Havel suggests—agents of their own subordination.

– Emily Peckham