Although the manifestations of power differ, both the British and the Burmese demonstrate power in George Orwell’s accounting of “Shooting an Elephant.” Burma was a British colony at the time, and Orwell represents British authority, so though he feels that imperialism is evil, he also feels the need to wear the mask of authority that the Burmese expect of him. As a result, the very system that empowers the British also entraps them in a code of conduct that limits British officers like Orwell to acting within their roles. Orwell sums up the dynamics between the power of the Burmese and that of the British when he says, “I perceived in this moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys. He becomes a sort of hollow, posing dummy, the conventionalized figure of a sahib. For it is the condition of his rule that he shall spend his life in trying to impress the “natives,” and so in every crisis he has got to do what the “natives” expect of him” (3). The British have the power to control the Burmese people’s actions, but they are able to freely use this power to act however they wish as the instruments of their power also trap them into behaving a certain way themselves. Therefore, while both parties hold a certain amount of power, no party is able to use it outside of the rules of the established system.

George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” is an interesting account grounded in power dynamics. British imperialism—“the white man with his gun”—fulfills the precepts of traditional authority. Britain ruled over the Burmese people through advanced weapons technology. Yet, on this micro account of imperial rule in a rural village, doesn’t it seem like Orwell holds the least amount of power? The Burmese people assume the European official, being the official, to solve the problem, and Orwell must submit to their assumptions of his power. His legitimacy would be under question if he doesn’t play the role that “the norm” has given him. Oddly, Orwell becomes powerless by the will of the Burmese people: if Orwell doesn’t shoot, if he doesn’t withhold his imperial visage, he will lose all his authority, all his power (then they’d probably kill him). The will of the majority reigns supreme in this story—despite their ignorance of it. Orwell sums it up in this line: “The futility of the white man’s dominion in the East … seemingly the leading actor of the piece; but in reality I was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of this yellow faces behind”

George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” questions which autonomous party (the British Empire, Burmese natives, or Orwell himself) has power over the other. On the most basic level, it would seem as though Orwell himself has power—he was an English police officer in British-conquered Burma. However, Orwell actually suggests that he, in fact, does not hold any power; he only wears its mask. Orwell views himself as subordinate to both the British colony he serves and the natives he protects. He hated imperialism, viewing it as “an evil thing”, yet simultaneously perpetuated it through his role in the police force. He was targeted, tripped, and insulted frequently, yet was obliged to defend the “little beasts who tried to make [his] job impossible.” Even when Orwell seemingly assumed power with the possession of a gun (an authoritative symbol), he still was not “the leading actor of the piece”. It was the “unarmed native crowd” that decided the gunshot, the fate of the elephant. Orwell, in that moment, was nothing but a mere “absurd puppet”. Orwell held little to no power in this account, and he himself was conscious of it. The power dynamic between the British Raj and imperialized Burma, though, is more complex and less obvious. On the surface, the British maintained power over the Burmese as the Brits had conquered and colonized the entire nation. As the story progressed, however, the real holders of power became less clear. The local Burmese usurped power over Orwell—an extension of British rule—by forcing his need to control the situation overrule his morals. In blurring these lines of power, Orwell juxtaposes the role of power and control. In order for the British empire to maintain its control and presence in Burma, Orwell felt he had to give the natives dominion over his decisions. The British Raj might have gained power of Burma, but they hadn’t gained full control of the Burmese population. The lack of control over the Burmese allowed the natives to seize a fraction of local power. This begs the question: is it possible for a nation/an empire to exercise full and true power over another?

Power is a rather nebulous thing. Orwell was the one with the gun, the authority. If he had declared that the elephant would not be killed, that’s exactly what would have happened. But the desire to save face, or to command respect, perhaps to be liked, these desires can make it seem as though we have no power, no choice, in any given situation. For example, when called upon to defend a loved one’s honor, it often doesn’t seem that we’re the ones holding the power to choose our actions in that situation. It seems some force is inexorably dragging you towards one path, “power” be damned. Orwell is describing this very phenomena with his elephant story. Colonizers came in thinking they would be like gods, and discovered that they were still men. Men with power, men with guns, yet still governed by the same desires as the rest of us. In the face of those desires, power is revealed to be far less concrete than it is presented in the movies.

Another confounding factor is that power in Orwell’s case lies only in the threat of violence. There are plenty of other forms of power, each with their own strengths and limitations. If he had rapport with the villagers, if they trusted and respected him, he could have avoided killing the elephant. That’s certainly a different sort of power than the kind his gun and uniform represents, but it’s no less authentic.

In George Orwell’s essay “Shooting an Elephant,” from the outside looking in, it would appear that the white man, specifically Orwell and his fellow police officers, hold the power in Burma. However, it soon becomes clear that this is not the case. Orwell recounts the time when an elephant got loose, going on a sort of mini-rampage, destroying a hut while also killing a cow and a person. Orwell sets out to locate the elephant and handle the situation. However, when he asks and receives an elephant rifle, the townspeople expect to see the elephant killed. Not only do they want to observe the spectacle of the elephant being killed, but they also want the meat of the dead elephant. When Orwell locates the elephant, he comes to the conclusion that it is no longer and danger to society, and it need not be killed. Orwell also realizes, though, that the 2,000 townspeople expect to see the elephant killed. Through this encounter, it becomes evident that it is not the white man who holds the power in Burma. Rather, it is the people who hold the power, whether they know it or not. Orwell explains how he did not see the need to shoot the elephant, but “suddenly [he] realized that I should have to shoot the elephant after all. The people expected it of [him] and [he] had got to do it; [He] could feel their two thousand wills pressing [him] forward, irresistibly.” The phenomena that Orwell describes is a perfect example of domination. He did no want to kill the elephant, but he felt he had to do something against his will due to the wills of other people. Orwell himself recognizes this when he says, “Here was I, the white man with his gun, standing in front of the unarmed native crowd — seemingly the leading actor of the piece; but in reality I was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind.” In this instance, Orwell recognizes the power that the people of Burma have over him, despite the fact that he is an authority figure. It becomes very clear, both to Orwell and the reader, that the real power in Burma lies with the people.

In Orwell’s classic account, the possessor of power seems to be counterintuitive. On one hand, Orwell explicitly states that the crowd behind him propelled him to kill the elephant. On the other hand, Orwell was the so-called officer with the rifle. He was the man who “ruled” over the crowd behind him. Orwell states the crowd’s ability to exert power over him, the “ruler,” as the downfall of European imperialism in the east. Despite the fact that Orwell was the officer with the gun he was obligated to act by his position. I tend to agree with Orwell’s account in this regard. He perfectly states it as being an “absurd puppet” for this crowd that he has supposed dominion over. To Orwell, this is the price paid to rule over another body of people. The ruler has to wear a mask to rule them, but in turn, his true face starts to grow to become the mask. In the matter of killing the elephant, Orwell had no control over it. It was either kill the elephant or look the fool in the eyes of the Burmese. I must agree with these points because the ruling does come at a price. Obviously, this price is not as heavy as the price paid by those being ruled, but the ruler does lose some freedoms and personal identity when they choose to rule.