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?
Introduction to Comparative Politics: Nationalism, Ideology, and State Power
Professor Shervin Malekzadeh
Trendufeed is a content platform dedicated to delivering the latest trending news, updates, and viral stories. It consolidates information from various fields, making it accessible and convenient for users who want to stay informed. Health and Wellness Tips
Baddiehubtimes is a platform that offers an exclusive collection of curated content, including photos, videos, and articles tailored to individuals interested in lifestyle, beauty, and social trends. baddiehub
thanks
While the problem of elephant poaching in Africa is deeply troubling, it is also important to consider the broader context of wildlife management and conservation efforts. The article https://www.agmglobalvision.com/Hunting-in-South-Africa offers valuable information on responsible hunting, including hunting at night. By educating hunters on legal and ethical principles, such platforms help conserve endangered species such as elephants, promote sustainable hunting practices and discourage illegal activities. This intersection of awareness and action is critical to protecting the future of Africa’s wildlife.
Thank you very much
What is meant by the shift in power between the British and the native Burmese in this story, and how do these dynamics reflect the complexity of the concept of power?
I like how you create a distinction between the British Empire and Orwell as an individual as it highlights the individual’s lack of power in “Shooting an Elephant.” Orwell’s opinion that he wears a mask indicates that he does not have the freedom or power to act according to his beliefs and is trapped into taking on a role much like an actor does in a play. Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” also seems to suggest that power lies in numbers. As you say, Orwell has little to no power and is aware of this, but the individual Burmese is similarly limited in this account as Orwell says that “no one had the guts to raise a riot” (1), and it is only the will of the mob that pushes the British officer “to and fro” (3). However, Burmese individuals do participate in passive-aggressive forms of resistance to the British government when they spill betel juice over a European woman’s dress or fail to call out another player when he trips Orwell. This resistance feeds the British Empire’s need to “impress the natives” (3), which in turn gives the Burmese a certain amount of power in controlling the actions of the Empire’s representatives. However, I would agree that as one of those representatives, Orwell gets the shortest end of the stick: being trapped between both the British Empire and the Burmese natives. In answer to your question, I would say no, it is not possible for a form of government to exert full power over another because the very system of power limits itself.