George Orwell’s Shooting an Elephant is about how imperialism distributes power between the colonizer and the colony. We intuitively think that the imperial power, as the obviously stronger force, should be able to control the colony and its people. We’d also imagine a British officer (such as Orwell in this story) should dominate his relationship with natives, especially considering the power his position should give him over them.
The dilemma Orwell presents in Shooting an Elephant shows us that the power in an imperial relationship can often lie with the colonized people despite the colonizer holding all the official power: he doesn’t want or need to shoot the elephant, but does so anyway because the Burmese crowd that has gathered expects him to and – as a representative of the British empire – he needs to maintain (or gain) the respect of the natives by appearing resolute. Orwell’s writing makes it clear that the crowd’s expectations of the him control his actions. This is because the leader figure – in this context or any other- must continuously prove that he is worthy of his position.
The events of Shooting an Elephant also emphasize the power of groups. In the story, Orwell shoots the elephant because of the expectant Burmese crowd. Presumably, then, he would have acted differently if there were only a couple of natives watching him. Here, the Burmese show that they have influence and power in numbers. This relates to the notion (discussed in class) that a subjugated population or people have more power over when they form a large group.
A final word on Orwell’s decision to shoot and kill the elephant: I think his actions were arguably necessary and think his reasoning is acceptable. To have word go round that the British imperialists are soft would make the occupation of Burma more difficult. Put in a similar position, I probably would act as he did.
کتاب کار هفتم
I think that you make a key distinction very clear. The British Empire, and Orwell within it, hold the “official power” within this imperialistic structure. But what’s important, and what you note, is that the Burmese ultimately hold the power in their ability to control Orwell’s actions in the end. While this control is not overt–no direct orders–it does go as far as to influence Orwell in fulfilling a will that directly contradicts his own. I find your final reflection on Orwell’s decision intriguing–I wonder how the British imperialists would have reacted to Orwell’s not shooting the elephant. As a blow to their (façade of) strength, his weakness would most likely cost him his position as an officer. Therefore, by this reasoning, Orwell could be seen as the individual of least agency, with the Empire following suit, under the control of the large Burmese population.