George Orwell presents an idea that power can be lost in an imperialistic setting when the so called “controller” is amid the majority. From the story, Orwell, a sub divisional police officer in Burma, was constantly ridiculed and mistreated as the “anti- European feelings were pretty bitter”. The people of Lower Burma enforced their power over Orwell when “A nimble Burman tripped me up on the football field and the referee (another Burman) looked the other way.” This demonstrates that power lay with the majority, rather than the minority (Orwell). It also reinstates that power cannot come from as title, or in Orwell’s case, being set into a colony as a European, but instead, needs to be derived from within. When Orwell was debating on shooting the elephant, he was morally conflicted, as he knew that the elephant would be more beneficial if it were alive, but he did not want to be laughed at by the entire village. His last sentence ” I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool” reveals this sentiment, and further reveals the power that the Burmese have over Orwell. Even so, it could be argued that the shared unity of the people of Lower Burma also represents their subjugation, as their “shared laugh” just like Wedeen suggests, reminds them of their own powerlessness. The fact that they could influence his actions reveals their own inferiority, as Orwell was afraid of violence, therefore acting out in violence. This, as Wedeen and others suggest, is an example of how the Burmese are both victims and perpetrators of their situation.
Introduction to Comparative Politics: Nationalism, Ideology, and State Power
Professor Shervin Malekzadeh
When I read Orwell’s account, I interpreted the “power” in the story as stemming from an outside source, the British empire as a whole, rather than the Burmese people, which you make the case for. I actually like your assessment, particularly this excerpt, “…it could be argued that the shared unity of the people of Lower Burma also represents their subjugation, as their “shared laugh” just like Wedeen suggests, reminds them of their own powerlessness.” in which you explicate the power dynamic between Orwell and the villagers in a way I hadn’t considered, while also pointing to Wedeen’s view of subjugation’s effect on those subjugated and their relationship to those in power.
It is interesting to consider that Orwell is the minority here, considering he represents the entire British Empire, but you raise the point that he as the individual is the minority and I agree. The argument that power must come from within, rather than a title or uniform traditionally associated with power, is one that I had not considered but you make a good point, especially with this text as reference. This was definitely a bit different than I read and interpreted the source, but you do make very valid points that I can agree with.