Orwell\u2019s need to maintain an image of domination in front of his subjects means the Burmese had the power in the account of shooting the elephant. However, this does not translate to the Burmese having significant power in the situation overall – their acts of rebellion did little to undermine the ultimate claim to British authority in Burma.<\/p>\n
As an imperial police officer, Orwell was well-positioned to observe what Scott called \u201cweapons of the weak\u201d, the subtle methods the oppressed had to fight back in some measure against those subjugating them. The jeering, tripping, and general ill-reception Orwell was met with in public seem little more than minor irritants, but they made an impression on him, building up into some truly passionate and racially tinged hatred – the Burmese were \u201cevil-spirited little beasts\u201d, the worst of whom he wished to \u201cdrive a bayonet into\u201d (Orwell 1). This sets the stage for what comes next: a performance of power where the audience has control, the principal actor helpless to do anything but follow the script they\u2019ve laid out. Orwell \u201cdid not want to shoot the elephant\u201d but felt that he must to maintain the facade of control he had over the natives; not doing so would have invited their laughter, a humiliation a \u201cwhite man in the east\u201d could not bear (Orwell 3). In forcing Orwell to maintain his public performance against his will the natives have power.<\/p>\n
Scott addressed this in his piece on public and hidden transcripts. He specifically cites \u201cShooting the Elephant\u201d and its discussion of the mask of power, how its wearer\u2019s face \u201cgrows to fit it\u201d as an example of the power the oppressed have over the oppressors in terms of enforcing a symbolic politics (Orwell 3). However, Scott\u2019s writing makes it clear that there are limits – sometimes unmasking an oppressor as a fraud does not diminish their power. It is most effective when their mask-slip reveals a contradiction to their claim of authority; this does not happen in the case of Orwell. He describes the British as \u201cclamped down\u201d on Burma, implying a rule justified by force and the threat of it (Orwell 1). The humiliation of a British officer, while personally unfortunate, does little to undermine the basis of imperial domination. It is important to remember that the power dynamic seen in \u201cShooting the Elephant\u201d is not applicable to most other situations in the British occupation of Burma – it\u2019s an uncommon case of the need for a public transcript backfiring on the oppressing class.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Orwell\u2019s need to maintain an image of domination in front of his subjects means the Burmese had the power in the account of shooting the elephant. However, this does not translate to the Burmese having significant power in the situation … Continue reading