Depending on the knowledge you possess of the event, the balance of power shifts. From an external view, say someone studying the event through empirical archives, you would determine Orwell had the power in the situation. As he put it “legally I had done the right thing” (4). In accordance to British law he had full right to shoot the elephant. He’d put down a “mad” elephant that had killed a man. However, upon examining Orwell’s account of the situation, you would see the balance of power shift out of his hands.
“Suddenly I realized that I should have to shoot the elephant after all. The people expected it of me and I had got to do it; I could feel their two thousand wills pressing me forward” (3). Despite Orwell’s legal power over the situation, his public transcript demands he be decisive in front of the crowd. He is so engulfed in the persona of being a rigid imperial officer of the British empire that his actions are beyond his control. Though we would not know this if Orwell hadn’t shared his thoughts on the event, he’s become a total “puppet” to the expectations of the Burmans, thereby totally relinquishing his power to them (3). To me, this story highlights Scott’s point of how important it is to study the hidden transcript of a society ruled by domination. For without Orwell’s account we would have totally misjudged who had the power in this situation.
Thank you very much
Knowledge helps us to be able to analyze the received information and make more effective conclusions or perform work on the project more productively. Therefore, I paid attention to the advice depositphotos.com
on image processing. When performing visualization, this is sometimes very necessary.
How might knowledge of English law and an external perspective on the situation Orwell faced lead to the conclusion that he had power in the situation?
That shift in “power”, though, only exists if power is narrowly defined as an individual being unable to act as he might choose without personal inconvenience due to the expectations of a violent system he sustains and materially benefits from, and such a definition only distracts from the real power imbalances between imperialists and indigenous peoples that dominate the political climate. That Orwell openly acknowledges that his only real consequence for shooting the elephant would be to be laughed at (and even then, he is choosing that as the more upsetting outcome over having to deal with the enraged owner of the fallen elephant) reveals that the there is no problem facing him that is not the doing of the British empire. That he cannot exercise his authority while separating from himself from the system he purports to describe does not mean that the crowds have any real leverage over him. He can do as he pleases, as long as he accepts that certain choices will maintain the theatrics that lend a shallow moral credulity to his presence in Southeast Asia, while others will not. Those among the victims of imperialism, on the other hand, make choices with the constant threat of deadly and dehumanizing violence, the true power that sustains the British Empire.