George Orwell's Shooting an Elephant

George Orwell’s Shooting an Elephant is a complex and layered essay that explores the tensions inherent in the imperial experience. Through Orwell’s first-person account of an event during his time as a colonial officer in Burma, he critiques imperialism, highlighting its absurdities and contradictions. The essay is a powerful commentary on the dynamics between colonizer and colonized, the spectacle of empire, and the ambivalence inherent in these relationships.

Let’s break down the main themes and concepts you’ve mentioned, focusing on how Orwell critiques imperialism, the role of the colonizer, and the interplay between domination and submission, power, and performance.

1. Empire as a Spectacle/Performance

In Shooting an Elephant, Orwell depicts empire not only as a political and economic system but also as a spectacle—an act that must be performed in front of an audience. As a colonial officer, Orwell finds himself caught in a performative role, forced to act according to the expectations of both the British empire and the colonized Burmese people.

• The colonizer becomes an actor on a stage, playing the role of the “white man” or the British imperial figure. This role is not an authentic expression of the person but a constructed identity that conforms to the expectations of the empire. The white man is expected to be strong, resolute, and authoritative.

• The natives, in turn, become the audience of this performance, watching and responding to the behavior of the colonizer. Orwell highlights the tension between the power of the colonizer to control and dominate, and the power of the colonized to mock, ridicule, and challenge the authority of the colonizer. The colonizer's performance must maintain the appearance of strength and control, or else it risks being undermined.

Key Quote:
“I was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of the British Empire."
Orwell’s self-awareness of his role in the imperial system underscores the irony and the performative nature of colonialism.

2. The Coloniser as an Actor, Wearing a Mask

In this context, the colonizer—specifically Orwell himself—appears as an actor playing a role, wearing a mask of imperial authority. This mask is essential to the maintenance of colonial power. It represents the colonial discourse, which projects an image of the colonizer as self-assured, confident, and always in control. However, behind this mask, Orwell’s internal conflict reveals the ambivalence that exists within the imperial system.

• Ambivalence is central to Orwell’s critique. The colonizer, despite holding power, is often unsure of his role, motivated by guilt, resentment, and the pressure to uphold the façade of superiority. In the case of Orwell, he feels sympathy for the Burmese people and resents his position of power, yet he cannot escape the expectations of the British Empire.

• Orwell must conform to the role of the “sahib” (a term used for European gentlemen or masters in colonial contexts), not because he believes in it, but because his failure to perform would result in humiliation. The colonizer’s power is therefore precarious—dependent on the constant reinforcement of the imperial mask, and the fear of being exposed as weak.

3. The Ambivalence Between the Colonizer and the Colonized

A key part of Orwell’s essay is the ambivalence in the relationship between the colonizer and the colonized. The colonizer holds power over the colonized through violence and oppression, but the colonized have their own subtle ways of asserting power over the colonizer.

• Domination and Submission: Orwell reflects on how the colonizer maintains control over the colonized through oppressive means, yet this authority is ultimately unstable. In his own experience, the expectation from the Burmese people is that the colonial officer should act with authority, and failure to do so would result in a loss of face. However, Orwell also notes how the Burmese people subtly mock and ridicule the Europeans, undermining their authority in small but significant ways.

• The Burmese people’s expectations of the colonizer are shaped by their experiences with imperialism. Orwell observes that they expect him, as a British officer, to act with a certain detachment and strength—essentially to perform his role as an unflappable sahib, as seen in their reactions when he is unsure of how to handle the situation with the elephant.

Key Quote:
“I was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of the British Empire."
This quote illustrates Orwell's recognition that his position as a colonial officer, despite seeming powerful, is actually dictated by the expectations of the colonized and the system of imperialism.

4. The Power of the Colonized Over the Colonizer

Although the colonizer holds political and military power, Orwell’s narrative demonstrates how the colonized people exert power over the colonizer in indirect ways. Through actions that are often disrespectful or mocking—such as spitting at white women in the marketplace or jeering at the officers—the colonized assert their agency and challenge the colonizer’s authority.

• These actions are small but powerful forms of resistance. The Burmese people know that the colonizer, despite his apparent power, is vulnerable to ridicule. This power of ridicule is an important form of resistance in colonial contexts, where the colonized have few options for overt rebellion but can still disrupt the colonizer’s confidence and authority.

• In Orwell’s situation with the elephant, he recognizes the absurdity of his role—he is caught in a performative bind, where he must act out a role that he does not believe in and is in conflict with. The expectation of the natives that the British officer must always act according to the norms of empire forces him into a situation where he must go through the motions of his role, despite not wanting to shoot the elephant.

5. Attraction and Repulsion: Guilt/Sympathy vs. Hatred

Orwell’s essay also explores the psychological complexity of colonialism—how colonizers experience both sympathy for the oppressed and resentment toward the system they are part of. Orwell expresses his guilt and sympathy for the Burmese people, acknowledging the injustices of British rule. At the same time, he feels a hatred for the situation he is in, which forces him to act against his conscience.

• This internal conflict is a form of ambivalence: Orwell both identifies with the oppressed people and resents his role as an enforcer of imperialism. He does not want to be the one to kill the elephant, but he feels forced to do so to maintain his role in front of the natives.

Key Quote:
“I did not want to shoot the elephant... but I had to do it. The crowd would have laughed at me.”
This demonstrates Orwell’s recognition of the pressure to conform to colonial expectations, even when it conflicts with his personal morals.

6. The Screening of a Documentary on Colonialism

If we were to screen a documentary on colonialism and the British Empire, it would likely focus on the violence, exploitation, and racial hierarchies inherent in the imperial system. The documentary could discuss key themes such as:

• The spectacle of empire, where British rule is portrayed as a civilizing mission, yet in reality, it involves the subjugation and exploitation of indigenous peoples.

• Colonial resistance, focusing on how colonized peoples, while oppressed, found subtle ways to resist through humor, ridicule, and passive resistance.

• The complexity of the colonizer-colonized relationship, highlighting the ambivalence that Orwell describes—where the colonizer’s power is built on violence, yet also reliant on the submission of the colonized, who can still subvert authority through small acts of defiance.

Conclusion

In Shooting an Elephant, Orwell provides a nuanced critique of imperialism, focusing on the performative nature of colonial authority, the ambivalence within both the colonizer and colonized, and the ways in which power functions on both sides of the colonial divide. The essay challenges the romanticized view of empire and exposes the contradictions and absurdities of colonial rule, making it a powerful piece of anti-imperialist literature.

The discussion of power, performance, and identity in this essay invites us to question the lasting impacts of colonialism on both the colonizers and the colonized, revealing the deep psychological and moral complexities at play in imperial systems.