In George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant,” it seems to me that no one present at the scene possessed any power over their actions. Orwell, compelled by the system of domination present in British colonies, had to shoot the elephant. The Burmese onlookers, compelled by likely deprivation of both resources and feelings of personal control, had to demand Orwell’s horrific act. Orwell was forced to wear a mask, as others have said, to uphold the power of the British Empire. The Burmese were forced to demand entertainment and meat.

In Orwell’s telling, each actor seemed to have lost their individualism to the state. Without each group performing their role in this scene, the imperial British state would fall apart, as hinted at in the “Parable of the Green Grocer.” Complete domination over peoples as is described by Orwell in passing (references to terrible treatment of incarcerated Burmese and the disregard for the life and property of Burmese people) necessitates a flawless performance in which the state is upheld above all else. Insults and poor refereeing are just the sort of actions that allow one to see that everyone in Orwell’s story is indeed playing a part, rather than believing in the state.  However, when it comes to moments of demonstration of power, roles much be executed so that the state of the British empire is upheld. Thus I would argue, that each individual in this case took actions in a performance staged for furthering the power of the state.

As of the point in time where the account was taken, the British Empire has the power. They are the ones who have implanted their chosen power structure on to the citizens of Burma and the English expatriates living there. While the Burmese people are a force of pressure in Orwell’s conscience leading him to the eventual act of killing the elephant, there is a larger pressure, coming from the Empire which is validating the pressure coming from the burmese. The english have set up the power structure in Burma, they have created the “mask” that orwell now finds to be his skin. It is the english that have put him in the position of relative power and now orwell must be a slave to the system which empowers him in order to not let it fall. What the British have been able to do is connect inseparably the dignity of Orwell, to him doing his duty to uphold the power dynamics which the British Empire has seen fit to implement. While orwell is trying to protect his dignity by using a decisive method of force he is also playing into the power dynamic that not only allows him, but expects him to do so.

Later this phenomenon will play out in more formative ways. When enforcers of english rule abroad will be faced with unruly subjects who question the authority of the outsiders, the power dynamic engrained in the minds of the english foreigners will be used to justify the repression of the indigenous people.

George Orwell’s Shooting an Elephant allows us the opportunity to witness the thoughts of the dominator as he interacts with those he dominates. James Scott would refer to what we read as Orwell’s hidden transcript; we got to see both how he acted as a British officer doing his job, and also how he truly felt, as he shot the elephant simply to avoid being made look like a fool in front of the Burmese. Naturally, seeing Orwell’s hidden transcript readers might sympathize with how he felt powerless with the gun in his hand, and how “two thousand wills” seemed to be exerting a force over him that drove him to act (Orwell, 3). However, if we actually consider the role of the Burmese in this power dynamic, this is not the case.

Consider two less important characters: the elephant owner and the elephant’s victim. The owner, according to Orwell, “was furious, but he was only an Indian and could do nothing” (Orwell, 4). His ability to seek legal retribution was nonexistent because of his race. By not allowing the elephant owner to air his grievances, we see Gaventa’s second dimension of power where the powerful control by setting the agenda. Furthermore, some of Orwell’s peers declared that it was a “damn shame to shoot an elephant for killing a coolie,” suggesting that the native victim was less than equal in his oppressors’ eyes (Orwell, 4). Thus, while Orwell’s narrative is compelling in demonstrating the power of the oppressed over the oppressor, their titles are still just that, and in most every place in this colonial society, it is the English oppressor who has power over the natives.

In Orwell’s Shooting an Elephant, I believe that the power was soundly in the hands of the villagers. This power came from three sources, each different and each affecting the way Orwell treated the elephant situation. The villagers’ first source of power was their size. The large number of onlookers directly pressured the wary Orwell to shoot the elephant. We see this dynamic in Crick’s basic definition of power: the ability of A to get B to do something that B does not want to do. Orwell felt dwarfed in comparison to the crowd and did not want to go against the desires of the “two thousand people” watching him (3). The second source of power came from ethnicity. The crowd members were all Burmese, while Orwell was British. This amplified the insecurity that he explained feeling earlier in the essay. The third source of the villagers’ power came from British imperialism. Orwell explains that the Burmese had a strong disdain toward imperialism and often expressed this anger toward the British that lived in Burma. Even though Orwell was ashamed of this British rule, he was still British and, therefore, a symbol of imperialism. The large presence of cross villagers made Orwell feel guilty and more susceptible to influence. Ultimately, the villagers made Orwell feel small, different, and guilty. It would have been unrealistic to expect Orwell to go against the wishes of the crowd in the presence of all this pressure and frustration.

In “Shooting an Elephant,” Orwell presents himself as being the individual with the least agency. In his position as a British officer, he describes his “hatred of the empired [he] served and [his] rage against the evil-spirited little beasts,” (1). Orwell’s insecurity abroad leaves him vulnerable to manipulation, and he ultimately serves a will that is not his own. As such, following Havel’s definition of power, Orwell’s mind and body work as one, so as to serve will that directly contrasts the dominated’s beliefs. The Burmese people also derive their power in the manner Scott describes in Weapons of the Weak, via an anonymous, “two-thousand” (3) person crowd’s constant retaliation to the White Man’s presence. Via the collection of insults towards Orwell, they develop a firm grasp on his psyche, instilling self-doubt in his vulnerability, and they ultimately display their power in getting him to shoot the elephant.

Orwell’s first-hand account, however, must be taken as such–a personal rendition of his insecurity abroad. While he offers a variety of powerful candidates–the British Imperialists, the Burmese population–he yield the piece’s climax over to the elephant’s death. By ending with a description of amazement towards event–”thick blood welled out of him like red velvet, but still he did not die,” (4)–Orwell may be offering a new viewpoint as to who yields the most power: the “great beast” (2,4) himself. Moreover, this final turn could reveal further insight into the shame with which he follows the will of the Burmese, and thus too his desire to shift the narrative so as to mask this inner turmoil.

Orwell’s account of shooting an elephant brings up a paradoxical example of power and its influence. Orwell undeniably has all (or most) of the power because he benefits from and works within the structure of British imperialism. However, in this instance of shooting the elephant, his power, influence, and renown within this Burmese community is what turns the tables on him. Having established an identity within the community that is rooted in power and domination of the people around him, it seems they only expect him to continue this demonstration of power with the elephant. After all, “a white man mustn’t be frightened in front of ‘natives.'”

There is also an important distinction between lasting structural power, and momentary influence. It is clear that Orwell is in the position of structurally-enforced power within the community. Similarly, just because he felt pressured and forced by the Burmese people to shoot the elephant does not mean that this power has disappeared. Orwell’s superior position within the community, as well as his visual display of power (the gun), created an isolated instance in which the community’s expectations, and “intimidating” group dynamic could have influence over Orwell.

In “Shooting an Elephant,” George Orwell offers the point of view that the Burmese (the oppressed) have the real power over the British officers (the oppressors). Because of the expectations created by the position of power Orwell is in, he feels that he is not able to show any weakness. When debating whether or not to shoot the elephant, he worries that “the crowd would laugh at me. And my whole life, every white man’s life in the East, was one long struggle not to be laughed at” (3). This argument relies heavily on Havel’s idea that a regime imposed without consent of the governed can tolerate no cracks in its façade.

I disagree with Orwell, because while the white police officers may be trapped in a performance (giving the Burmese some psychological power), they have the physical means of oppression, a much more tangible form of power. Orwell earlier recognizes, “The Burmese population had no weapons and were quite helpless” (1). Although he writes this in the context of the elephant, it applies as well in the context of British imperialism. Orwell alone can obtain the physical means to destroy the elephant, just as Orwell alone (along with his white comrades) can obtain physical means of power to oppress the Burmese. Orwell seems to get caught up in his own insecurities and therefore overlook the importance of force in determining power structures.