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 \u201clegally I had done the right thing\u201d (4). In accordance to British law he had full right to shoot the elephant. He\u2019d put down a \u201cmad\u201d elephant that had killed a man. However, upon examining Orwell\u2019s account of the situation, you would see the balance of power shift out of his hands.<\/p>\n
\u201cSuddenly 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\u201d (3). Despite Orwell\u2019s 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\u2019t shared his thoughts on the event, he\u2019s become a total \u201cpuppet\u201d to the expectations of the Burmans, thereby totally relinquishing his power to them (3). To me, this story highlights Scott\u2019s point of how important it is to study the hidden transcript of a society ruled by domination. For without Orwell\u2019s account we would have totally misjudged who had the power in this situation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
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 … Continue reading