There is an aspect of the third dimension of power, the idea that the elite have to compromise with the masses, which is evident in Orwell’s account of shooting an elephant. Orwell succumbed to the pressure of the two thousand natives and killed the elephant despite the fact that they all knew the elephant was peacefully eating and did not deserve to die. Orwell could not, just because he had the rifle, do whatever he wanted. He had to conform to the masses regardless of the fact that he was the one in the supposed position of power. This necessity is quite powerful and arguably the biggest force behind Orwell’s killing of the elephant. He ends his account insisting that he killed the elephant “to avoid looking like a fool”. Orwell didn’t want to appear foolish in front of the natives, meaning the native’s perception of Orwell was important to him and significantly influenced his actions.
Introduction to Comparative Politics: Nationalism, Ideology, and State Power
Professor Shervin Malekzadeh
One aspect of your comment that I think is very interesting is the point that Orwell “had to conform to the masses regardless of the fact that he was the one in the supposed position of power”. While I agree that he was forced to behave in a certain manner due to the will of the people, I would argue that because of this, he was not actually in power. I therefore agree with you statement that he was merely in “supposed position of power”. When the will of group A influences the actions of group B contrary to wishes of B, group A has power over group B. The irony, however, is that group A, or the Burmese in this case, are not aware that they have power to that degree over Orwell.