In Orwell’s account no one has complete power. I would say that the power is mostly divided between the Burmese and the British Raj, while Orwell himself has little power. The Burmese have power over Orwell through (as Scott explained) the little acts of resistance that they perform on a daily basis. However, at the same, to them, Orwell represents the power that the British Raj posses that necessitate these acts of resistance. In this way, the question of who has power is complicated, just as it is in almost every society. No one ever has complete power because of the way that people can resist. Additionally, since power is such a fragile concept, those who “have power” are constantly in fear of losing it. In this way, they do not in fact have complete power. This creates for an interesting dynamic because the Burmese dislike Orwell for the repression that he represents; Orwell dislikes the Burmese for the way they treat him, as well as the British Raj for forcing him to do this job. In this way, out of all three entities, the British Raj has the most power. By playing Orwell and the Burmese off each other, the British Raj maintains its power. If the Burmese and Orwell were to come together, it would be much more difficult for the Raj to maintain order and keep power. However, since Orwell and the Burmese are unable to come together, the Raj remains the most powerful entity in the region.
Introduction to Comparative Politics: Nationalism, Ideology, and State Power
Professor Shervin Malekzadeh
I also really like your take, Madeline. I definitely agree that there are layers to power, that power relationships should not be seen as existing between just two simplified groups—dominant and subordinate; I think that often the dominant group can be split into those who rule at the top (i.e. the Bristish Raj) and those who rule directly over the masses and enforce the laws of those at the top (i.e. Orwell and the other English officers). Furthermore, I think it is even reasonable to say that those who rule over/interact with the masses most directly often fall into both categories: dominant and subordinate. In Orwell’s case, his position as an officer labels him, at the surface, as a dominant figure, but as he explains in his essay, he is subordinate/obedient to the British Raj—despite his “hatred of the empire” (1)—as well as to the Burmese in many ways. In sum, I think it is interesting that, despite his surface-level power, Orwell in this case has so little real power.
-Emily Peckham
I really like your take on this, Madeline. In my response I focused on Orwell’s powerlessness, but I couldn’t pinpoint with confidence that it was the Burmese who had complete power. It is interesting to think about the fact that there are layers to power. While the Burmese and the officers have this underlying, constant power shift, it is really the Raj who controls the pawns of this game. However, it is worth pondering what would happen if the officers and the Burmese joined forces, as you mentioned.