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.