At first, I thought that the power players in Orwell’s account were the Burmans. However, upon closer examination I find this not to be true. While the Burmans can yell obscenities at Orwell as soon as they in the background and anonymous, this does not represent a significant form of power. Their power comes in the form of perpetuating brutal British behavior, as the British feel that it is expected of them and they will be exposed as weak otherwise. While this certainly represents power, this actually harms the Burmans, therefore making it less valid in my opinion. I also find that Orwell does not have true power in the account, as he acts according to the Burmans’ expectations rather than his own free will. Instead, their is a third variable holding power over both Orwell and the Burmans. This third variable is the British state. Without British backing, Orwell would not be in his position, and the Burmans would not have their expectations of him as a brutal man. Both Orwell and the Burmans experience oppression, as they cannot acknowledge their hidden politics without fear for some repercussion. Thus, the British government had set up in Burma two sets of pawns, creating a political stalemate, perpetuating their power over the region.
Introduction to Comparative Politics: Nationalism, Ideology, and State Power
Professor Shervin Malekzadeh
Andrew, I like the analysis of the British state being a third player in Orwell’s account. Without Britain, none of the expectations of power in the piece would play out how they did. The British state is the ultimate player writing everyone’s expectations of everyone’s actions.
Andrew, I guess I do not see where the Burmese have been forced to be “brutal” because of British colonialism and how that does not represent true power. I think that ultimately in Orwell sets up a metaphor within the elephant of British colonialism and that he argues that these small mistreatments of him and the ultimate lack of decision he has in shooting the elephant all point to this seemingly unrecognized power of the Burmese people as opposed to indicating that they have a lack of power. I think the distinction has to be made between traditional and non-traditional power and which ultimately has more sway in controlling the other group’s action. Who’s to say the native Burmese did not treat the prior ruling group in a similar manner.
I think this is a really interesting take on the power play going on in this scenario. I certainly agree that the power the Burmese have over Orwell and his officers is futile, and that they most likely would be better off not having that power in the first place. However, the Officers wouldn’t necessarily be better off if they didn’t have their power. From this perspective, perhaps the officers have more power since it’s a more preferable power.