Orwell in this piece presents his belief that the dominant group has less power than the subordinate, but I do not know that I completely agree. I think that the way in which one determines who has power in Orwell\u2019s situation depends greatly upon one\u2019s definition of power itself. Orwell sees the Burmese people\u2019s \u201cshared laugh,\u201d and their ability to make him act a certain way, to \u201cplay the part,\u201d as a sign of their power over him. While this may be so, I tend to view the \u201cshared laugh\u201d as something that keeps the subordinate right where they are; similar to Wedeen\u2019s argument, the \u201cshared laugh\u201d of the Burmese in this case gives them the illusion of some disturbance of Orwell\u2019s authority, but at the end of the day, Orwell still holds the gun, the British Raj remains in power, and the Burmese continue their lives. Furthermore, and perhaps more interesting, while the ability of the Burmese to make Orwell act differently than he wanted to may seem incredibly powerful, it can also be seen as perpetuating the Burmese people\u2019s inferiority; as Demian points out, the English enforce their authority through violence and fear, but isn\u2019t it the Burmese who force the English to act this way? In this case at least, Orwell would not have used violence had he not felt the pressure from the Burmese to do so, yet it is the use of violence that keeps him in the people\u2019s mind as having power. In this way, the Burmese become\u2014as Havel suggests\u2014agents of their own subordination.<\/p>\n
– Emily Peckham<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Orwell in this piece presents his belief that the dominant group has less power than the subordinate, but I do not know that I completely agree. I think that the way in which one determines who has power in Orwell\u2019s … Continue reading