True Power in Shooting an Elephant

Posted on by
2

George Orwell presents an idea that power can be lost in an imperialistic setting when the so called “controller” is amid the majority. From the story, Orwell, a sub divisional police officer in Burma, was constantly ridiculed and mistreated as the “anti- European feelings were pretty bitter”. The people of Lower Burma enforced their power over Orwell when “A nimble Burman tripped me up on the football field and the referee (another Burman) looked the other way.” This demonstrates that power lay with the majority, rather than the minority (Orwell). It also reinstates that power cannot come from as title, or in Orwell’s case, being set into a colony as a European, but instead, needs to be derived from within. When Orwell was debating on shooting the elephant, he was morally conflicted, as he knew that the elephant would be more beneficial if it were alive, but he did not want to be laughed at by the entire village. His last sentence ” I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool” reveals this sentiment, and further reveals the power that the Burmese have over Orwell. Even so, it could be argued that the shared unity of the people of Lower Burma also represents their subjugation, as their “shared laugh” just like Wedeen suggests, reminds them of their own powerlessness. The fact that they could influence his actions reveals their own inferiority, as Orwell was afraid of violence, therefore acting out in violence. This, as Wedeen and others suggest, is an example of how the Burmese are both victims and perpetrators of their situation.

for whom was the elephant shot?

Posted on by
Reply

I think the one in power is the British government in Britain, not anyone in Burma. There is a façade that the colonial officers have power over the Burmese locals in Burma, but I think both are in control of a faraway British government. First, both sides have to act “onstage,” as Scott puts it, as if they are okay with the situation regardless of their actual belief. The locals, of course, must defer to colonial officers who wield the “legitimate force.” But the officers themselves have to act in control and dominant, even though they might hate the job, like Orwell does. These facades then perpetuate and reinforce the power structure, as Havel contends. Anyone who doesn’t act the part will be thrown out the system. This would include a local who goes against the officers but also any officers who don’t punish the local enough.

As shown, everyday plays his or her part, but there are everyday forms of resistance. The problem is that the Burmese and the white officers believe that the officers are in power, when they too are merely parts of a system. So the Burmese everyday resistance is directed mistakenly at the officers, as Orwell describes so vividly. This ultimately helps the real ones in charge in Britain, as this kind of resistance pits the officers against the locals. The officers will be frustrated and angry because they cannot put down a rebellion that isn’t really there. As a result, they will cling to the colonial system and the British government that gives them “legitimate power” over these unruly locals. This helps the government keep things the way they are.

The elephant shooting is a great example of these power dynamics. Orwell must shoot the elephant to keep the façade, but at the same time develops a resentment towards the Burmese that might unknowingly strengthen his desire to keep things the way they are.

The British Facade of Power

Posted on by
3

In “Shooting an Elephant,” author and narrator George Orwell exposes the facade of control that the British have over the Burmese people. In the traditional colonial system a minority of outsiders–in this case, the British–have domination over a large minority of natives–the Burmese–due to their military strength. Orwell, however, describes a power situation, where he, a British colonial and police officer, is insulted, tripped on the soccer field, and jeered at by the so called “oppressed” Burmese. Orwell is confused and humiliated due to not only the actions of the Burmese, but also because it is intrinsically understood in theory that the British have the power in the society. Orwell, and his fellow ex-pats, therefore, must maintain a facade of power, even though they, in fact, as individuals, are powerless against Burmese majority. The shooting of the elephant demonstrates this complicated dynamic and facade of power. Orwell both does not want to and “ought not” to kill the elephant, and yet he does, because of the pressure of the crowd and the necessity to maintain his own mask of power. He declares that he could “feel…two thousand wills pressing [him] forward, irresistibly,” and further describes himself as an “absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind.” In this way, Orwell himself becomes the oppressed, overpowered individual at the mercy of a larger authority. He writes in the end that he only shot the elephant “solely to avoid looking like a fool,” further attesting to the irrationality of the current power dynamics, and the need for a more rational system of authority to be implemented.

“Shooting an Elephant” Post

Posted on by
Reply

While the British may have systematically had power over the Burmans during this period of Imperialism, in the case of “Shooting an Elephant,” it is the other way around. While Europeans are poorly treated in the area Orwell works, it is particularly bad for Orwell, as a police officer. Being in this position, Orwell must not show that he is frightened by his abuse. To show his true feelings would be interpreted as a sign of weakness by the people. In this way, the Burmans have power over Orwell because the system forces him to adhere to a strict set of expectations that keep the social status quo in check. While the British system Orwell takes part in may oppress the native people, he himself is actually oppressed in a non-legal and non-physical sense.
Further, Orwell is bound to the expectations of his social inferiors. When surrounded by a large group of Burmans, he knows that the only way to preserve his legitimacy as a powerful man is to shoot the elephant. “Every white man’s life in the East was one long struggle not to be laughed at.” As a member of the ruling class, Orwell is bound to much stricter regulations of conduct than the Burmans. If he loses his clout among them, either he will be replaced or the social structure will disintegrate. Meanwhile, the Burmans are free to taunt him on the street or trip him in soccer, with no consequence. Orwell is oppressed not by the native people but by the system.

The Power of a Power Exploiting Elephant

Posted on by
Reply

Orwell’s recantation of shooting an elephant touches on an interesting example of irony in a power dynamic reversal. One might assume that authority in the British colony of Burma resides in British officials, but to the contrary, Orwell’s account points towards the power of the Burmese people influencing his actions. In this regard, I think there’s an interesting correlation between James Scott’s “Weapons of the Weak” and Orwell’s story because it makes the reader and Orwell cognizant of how ordinary Burmese people conduct their lives while galvanizing subtle change that will eventually rise to the dismantlement of imperial rule. Orwell manifests this concepts in his thoughts of shooting the “mustly” elephant which: “made me (Orwell) vaguely uneasy. I had no intention of shooting the elephant — I had merely sent for the rifle to defend myself if necessary– and it is always unnerving to have a crowd following you” (Orwell 2). Orwell’s unsteadiness can be attributed to how he feels coerced by the Burmese people to make the elephant topple by gunshot and demonstrates the power of crowd influence over British colonial rule. Likewise, in the preceding moment before aligning his rifle to shoot the elephant, Orwell has an epiphany where he understood the: “hollowness, the futility of the white man’s dominion in the East. 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 this yellow faces behind” (Orwell 3). Orwell’s revelation reveals the accumulation of power in the masses, but also undermines the inefficiency and vanity of the British Empire’s fluke to subjugate Burmese to British power — further exhibiting Scott’s theory of slow subversion by the masses.

Blog 2- Shooting an Elephant

Posted on by
Reply

In Orwell’s classic account, “Shooting an Elephant,” it can be easily concluded that Orwell himself has the least amount of power. Orwell highlights his powerless predicament when he writes, “All I knew was that I was stuck between my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil- spirited little beasts who tried to make my job impossible.” However, it can also be said that perspective matters a lot in this account, and that if it were written from the perspective of a Burmese citizen, the conclusion about power dynamics may appear to be a little different. Taking into account Scott’s notions in “Weapons of the Weak,” one can argue that the British Raj maintains the most power in the system described. Though the Burmese citizens assert some power, especially over Orwell himself, their main role tends to be defying the power that is being exerted over them from the officers. The Burmese people are “foot dragging” and subtly resisting this authority, while at the same time setting the standard and expectation for how Orwell is to act in order to legitimize his authority. Orwell is socially still their superior, and he still has the recognized power over them even if he is “wearing a mask” which his face has grown to. So, it can be said that the Burmese people are acting as agents of their own subordination, and the British Raj is controlling both Orwell’s and the citizen’s position in the power hierarchy.

Shooting an Elephant

Posted on by
1

In George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” what strikes me is the strong will and unity of the people Orwell ostensibly has power over, while the citizens in both Wedeen and Havel’s models of authoritarian rule are driven in some way to perpetuate the system through either social self-preservation or drawing upon a public transcript. It seems to me that the citizens in Orwell’s story have found a way to alter their political system such that unspoken social threats drive Orwell to responds to their needs. This is reminiscent of what many would think of as the ideal democracy, as it gives the leader no option but to act in accordance with the will of the masses. I’m positive that a large percentage of the public wishes that they had this degree of influence over our government’s proceedings, yet at the same time the story highlights the ways in which direct responsiveness can be dangerous by depicting a scene in which Orwell is essentially forced to destroy what he believes is a potentially useful tool. This has proven to be the case in many referendums, one example being Brexit. However, this also highlights how leaders must have both a public and private transcript when put in a system where they are in some capacity reliant on social relations. In this sense, it seems as though most, if not all, governments that appear to act in the interest of the people will simultaneously be making personal judgements that might come into conflict with the public’s condoned course of action.

Shooting an Elephant -EP

Posted on by
1

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

The Tanglement of Power

Posted on by
Reply

In George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant,” there are several layers or categories of power. For one, Orwell describes the British Empire as evil and tyrannical. Imperialism, to him, is the greatest malevolent force. However, this is all theoretical. In real life, in Orwell’s lived experience, the Burmese are the real nefarious forces. Orwell’s mind is split between these two forces: the theoretical evil and the experienced one. But there are several other units at play that also appear in the story Lisa Wedeen shares. The Burmese people, discontent with the British people’s presence, exert influence on the European officers by yelling at them, insulting them, and even physically effecting them (through tripping during games, for example). All of these acts serve as a type of transgression. However, I think that even with such overt expressions of discontent the Burmese people still partly play into the system that the British government has set in place (although I do believe the Burmese transgress more often than they submit for even Orwell admits the power they have over him). When Orwell is moving towards the scene in which the elephant was last seen, “Various Burmans stopped [him] on the way and told [him] about the elephant’s doing” (para. 3). It’s clear that there is somewhat of an expectation that Orwell (and other European officers) will resolve the issue. The Burmese, not having any weapons, are relatively powerless. They then look to the ones in “power”–those who they resent–as important entities during certain situations. By doing so, they recognize their influence and thus play into the system they (the British) have created. They’ve developed their power over Europeans yet at times (although they hold the power to decide what times) step slightly into the sphere they wish to undermine.

Shooting an Elephant

Posted on by
1

There is an aspect of the third dimension of power, the idea that the elite have to compromise with the masses, which is evident in Orwell’s account of shooting an elephant. Orwell succumbed to the pressure of the two thousand natives and killed the elephant despite the fact that they all knew the elephant was peacefully eating and did not deserve to die. Orwell could not, just because he had the rifle, do whatever he wanted. He had to conform to the masses regardless of the fact that he was the one in the supposed position of power. This necessity is quite powerful and arguably the biggest force behind Orwell’s killing of the elephant. He ends his account insisting that he killed the elephant “to avoid looking like a fool”. Orwell didn’t want to appear foolish in front of the natives, meaning the native’s perception of Orwell was important to him and significantly influenced his actions.