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.
Introduction to Comparative Politics: Nationalism, Ideology, and State Power
Professor Shervin Malekzadeh
I completely agree with your assessment of British power in Burma, and I like your description of this power as a “facade.” One line that particularly jumped out at me in the text was when Orwell claims that “No one had the guts to raise a riot.” This claim would suggest that the people of Burma are in fear of some sort of military discipline if they do riot against British control. However, Orwell seems to imply throughout the essay that a revolt by the people of Burma could be successful, especially when he describes the British Empire as “dying.” These are perfect examples of this “facade” of power that you speak of.
I agree with you, Ian. There is no perfect system of power. In this case scenario, however, would there be a better one than Orwell finds himself subject to? When an elephant kills a man and then grazes peacefully in the field, which power structure is best suited to properly handle that situation? Clearly not the one Orwell finds himself a part of because the elephant is killed when everyone could see he was peaceful and everyone knew he was worth more money alive than dead. If a democracy were in place, how long would it take the committee to get together, debate the consequences for the elephant, and then come to a vote? What if the decision is appealed? When should the decision be made by? However, there is a beneficial capacity here in that a group of people deciding the fate of the elephant would not be as subjected to the pressures of the natives as Orwell was.
There are pros and cons to every system of power and I’m just wondering if there is a different system that would be better tailored to this particular situation.
I’m not entirely sure there is a more rational system of authority, one that will never put someone in Orwell’s position. Democracy? What are voters but that same horde of wills pressing against a politician, daring them to disobey. Is that not the position Aung San Suu Kyi finds herself facing right now? Monarchy? Ask Louis XVI how that worked out for him. In the end, those who hold power will always ultimately be at the mercy of the majority, even if it doesn’t always seem like it. Laws and norms and threats can be placed as obstacles, but if the majority wished to tear the powerful apart, I don’t think any system would be able to stop them.