Ironically, conquering and subjugating a nation goes both ways within George Orwell’s Shooting an Elephant. Orwell’s complicated relationship with the natives persistently feel as though, while he is supposedly a member of the ruling class, he is not able to execute his authority on his own will. Rather, his actions end up being heavily influenced by the inferior masses around him, in practice, he really becomes their instrument, rather than an instrument of the nation he claims to serve. Shooting the elephant, an intimate decision that should be made at Orwell’s discretion, ends up being entirely made by the will of the masses. His experience with the elephant is a parallel to the United Kingdom’s greater struggle to maintain dominance of it’s larger empire. As nations develop under the empire, they become harder and harder to control, and eventually, it becomes the British who are controlled by their subjects. Once the empire is no longer serving the English, but is instead making decisions based on the will of native peoples from around the world, its benefits disappear, and it eventually disintegrates as a result. Orwell’s elephant incident, and the experiences of colonial empires around the world, exemplify the complications of political authority. All governments need the respect of their subjects to function properly, without it, the regime risks widespread disobedience or revolution, neither of which are profitable for anyone involved. This game of who rules who is also at play in democracy, as elected officials will never make decisions that will alienate too many voters. Authority is not simply given to those in power, there is much more than a single person’s will at work whenever a “powerful” individual makes a decision.

Even tyrants are, to some extent, made accountable by their people. We see this demonstrated in Orwell’s story of shooting the elephant. By all rights Orwell should have the power, and therefore the choice. His consequences for doing as he pleased would not have been institutional but rather social. The power of the crowd lies in their opinion, their potential disdain for him. If Orwell did not care that he would be made a fool of, it would make him more powerful. However, as humans, we tend to care what others think of us. Those in power want to be seen as strong and capable, therefore they are slaves to that desire, giving power to the Burmese. Furthermore, Orwell is also a slave to the system in his participation in imperialism. He describes it as an “evil thing” and expressed his desire to leave his job. However, in the time when he wrote the story, he was complicit. Orwell is powerless in the sense that he is under the influence from both above and below.

I think in the story presented by Orwell neither he nor the Burmese has complete power, however, both are only able to exert their power in very specific ways. Orwell’s daily treatment and his ultimate decision to shoot the elephant for the sake of not looking foolish exemplify the way in which the Burmese are able to exercise their power. In many ways, the Burmese function as the Peasants presented by Scott in Weapons of the Weak. The way in which Orwell is jested, insulted, mocked, and disrespected illustrates that while the Burmese did not have an explicit political power under the rule of British colonialism they were able to show their power through other means. This constant mistreatment only further exemplifies their lack of traditional power, having to resort to this constant mistreatment of Orwell in order to express the only form of power available to them.

In that vein, the power possessed by Orwell must then be discussed. Orwell ultimately has a more traditional authority and power, however, throughout the piece, it is observed that his power has significant limits. While he is able to jail prisoners and ultimately is needed to kill the elephant, he is unable to gain any respect from the Burmese people. This lack of respect, while it does not detract from the authority he possesses to control the prisoners and his ability to access sufficient weaponry and firepower to kill the elephant once it turns violent, in the shooting of the elephant against his own wishes he illustrates the limits of his power.

I also believe there is symbolism in the way the elephant dies that connects to Orwell’s own comments on the death of British colonialism. While the elephant does not die instantly from one of the bullets, a large number of bullets in combination with time slowly degrades the elephant’s power and allows it to die, mirroring the slow decline of the British Empire. Scott seems to indicate that through slow degradation of power the colonies of Britain can and do ultimately gain their freedom, regardless of the elephant-like power possessed by the British. Through this symbolism of the elephant, Orwell further illustrates the limits of his own power as the system and authority that grants him his power is presented as vulnerable and can be overthrown given sufficient time and degradation. Orwell, therefore, presents a system in which his traditional authority is significantly limited, and while the Burmese may not have a traditional form of power they seem to possess more power than both he and the British in their homeland of Burma.

I think the one in power is the British government in Britain, not anyone in Burma. There is a façade that the colonial officers have power over the Burmese locals in Burma, but I think both are in control of a faraway British government. First, both sides have to act “onstage,” as Scott puts it, as if they are okay with the situation regardless of their actual belief. The locals, of course, must defer to colonial officers who wield the “legitimate force.” But the officers themselves have to act in control and dominant, even though they might hate the job, like Orwell does. These facades then perpetuate and reinforce the power structure, as Havel contends. Anyone who doesn’t act the part will be thrown out the system. This would include a local who goes against the officers but also any officers who don’t punish the local enough.

As shown, everyday plays his or her part, but there are everyday forms of resistance. The problem is that the Burmese and the white officers believe that the officers are in power, when they too are merely parts of a system. So the Burmese everyday resistance is directed mistakenly at the officers, as Orwell describes so vividly. This ultimately helps the real ones in charge in Britain, as this kind of resistance pits the officers against the locals. The officers will be frustrated and angry because they cannot put down a rebellion that isn’t really there. As a result, they will cling to the colonial system and the British government that gives them “legitimate power” over these unruly locals. This helps the government keep things the way they are.

The elephant shooting is a great example of these power dynamics. Orwell must shoot the elephant to keep the façade, but at the same time develops a resentment towards the Burmese that might unknowingly strengthen his desire to keep things the way they are.

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.

There is only one group with referenced in George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” that has complete power, and that is the English Empire. This group, however, does not include Orwell himself, for his power is entirely dependent on the Burmese’s’ perspective of his position. When Orwell walks through the street, people taunt and attempt to provoke a reaction from him, mocking the fact that he is a white man in their country. As a body of people, they have the strength to offer resistance in the most meager form they can manage. But as individuals, not a single person has the strength to organize a legitimate resistance. The British empire, therefore, has power over the Burmese, as they are affecting the Burmese contrary to their interests (Gaventa). The Burmese and Orwell both have some degree of power over the other, due to traditional and legal authority, respectively. The British empire holds power over Orwell, as he states he does not enjoy his position of authority and secretly agrees with the Burmese; the empire affects Orwell contrary to his personal interests.

Once the elephant comes into play, however, the dynamic of power completely shifts. As Orwell stands in the field, staring at the elephant, with 2000 Burmese watching and assuming he will shoot the creature, he decides it would be immoral to do so. He feels strongly that the elephant should live, yet those around him believe otherwise. Orwell puzzles through the consequences of not shooting the elephant, and concludes that he must kill the animal for the sake of the English empire, and so he himself does not look like a fool. In this moment, the Burmese people have power over both the English Empire and Orwell. Orwell is pushed to contradict his personal perspective, and the English become dependent upon the will of one man to shoot an elephant.