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”
I agree with the idea that the British function almost as puppets in the face of Burmese opposition. I feel it’s important to remember British rule does come to an end in Burma, and these last years of formal British rule foreshadow this. It seems that the Empire’s power over the region was slowly beginning to shift into the hands of the Burmese, and I believe Orwell experience this first hand. In the legal sense the Burmese were given no political power over the region making them seem powerless, but because the Burmese have no legal power doesn’t mean they can exert their power in a different way. I believe the “puppet” feeling Orwell got arouse from the Burmese ability to tap into the weakness of British domination. Since they have no legal power, the Buramese empower themselves by exploiting the egoistical, superior attitude of Imperial rule.