I think Sasha makes some good points with regard to the power of the majority and the “shared laugh” concept. Like I alluded to in my own post, while Orwell and the British may have authority over the Burmans, the native people actually have power over the Europeans. This is due in part to both the sheer discrepancy in numbers between the groups and the social obligations that Orwell’s authority entails. However, the two factors are often intertwined. When Orwell is gratuitously fouled in soccer, he is unable to complain because he is outnumbered by the Burmans and because he would appear weak if he were to show his fear, compromising the legitimacy of his authority. Evidently, the extent of Orwell’s authority does not translate to his extent of power in the situation. Meanwhile, despite the power dynamics of Orwell and the Burmans, the concept of the “shared laugh” may be applicable to the bigger picture. While the British exercise their power the Burmans are free to engage in whatever kind of private discourse they like, mostly likely regarding their anti-British sentiment. However, in the public sphere, they are well aware of their position in the Imperialist society. This is made evident after Orwell shoots the elephant and elicits a strong reaction from its owner. “The owner was furious, but he was only an Indian and could do nothing.” This matter-of-fact remark speaks volumes. Even though Orwell lacks power in the story, his authority is still firmly cemented in society.