Literature should not exist for its own sake but should be a mirror through which the society looks at itself. It should therefore imitate the truth and portray it to the society for self-reflection. This is evident in George Orwells Shooting an Elephant and Lu Xuns The Real Story of Ah Q . Shooting the Elephant is a real life reflection of the authors experience as a police officer in India. It is about the shameless irony of imperialism spread by western governments, which subjects even its own to discrimination.
The Real Story of Ah Q is a satirical piece that shows the irony of revolutionary movements. Whereas these two stories have similarities, they also have marked differences in form, style, and aim. This paper endeavors to highlight some similarities and differences especially in the aims and the writing style of these two authors.
The aim of these two pieces is to portray societies as notorious for curtailing the freedom of individuals. Not only do communities prescribe rules that must be followed by all but also have expectations on certain individuals that are out of touch with reality. The main characters in these two stories find themselves in odd positions where their individual freedoms are subordinated under those of the community.
Orwell was made to shoot the elephant against his will, while Ah Q had no right over his sir name and was mistreated by the locals (Orwell para 7: Hsun para 3, 5). There is also a well-developed attempt to portray imperialism in its negative light (Orwell para 3; Hsun 2). The two authors also use irony to great extent. Ah Q thinks himself the enlightened one even thought the reader knows he is not, while Orwell agonizes under the realization of the irony of western imperialisms (Hsun para 16; Orwell para 3).
However, these authors also portray certain differences in their works. Hsun uses satire more overtly to laugh at the societies ills than Orwell. Ah Q thinks that he is the number one self-doubter and when your remove self-doubter you are left with number one. So he is always number one (6). He also sees his failures as his victories (7).
Orwell creates a sympathetic attitude on the main subject while Hsuns has comic relief (Orwell para 1, 2; Hsun 8). The aim of Shooting an Elephant is to describe the plight of those who rebel against their own culture, and are unappreciated by those they make this sacrifice for (Orwell para 2).
Hsun work criticizes satirically the failed Chinese revolution of 1911. The failure of this revolution is symbolized in the power of women who seduce men thus derailing them from their noble duty of revolutionizing the society. These women are demonized as the causes of the failed revolution (11).
Even though these two works were written years ago, they still find a lot of relevance in todays society. They ironically mirror the struggles of modern societies and individuals against injustices, such as the denial of individual rights by societal norms and the failure of modern governments to meet the expectations of its citizens.
Hsuns use of comic effect and satire is as effective as Orwells employment of sympathy and sarcasm. Therefore, these two authors prove that it is effectively possible to employ different styles to highlight similar themes.
Works Cited
Hsun, Lu. The True Story Of Ah Q. 2002. Blackmask Online. Web.
The problems of colonialism are generally thought to have not been recognized in earlier times and are thus considered to be only recently discovered. However, there are many texts, both in fiction and non-fiction, that indicate the problems of colonialism were widely recognized and ignored in the face of tremendous profits and the ability to suppress. These texts reveal the inconsistencies of colonialism and its tendency to place the colonized people, regardless of their own values, abilities, and talents, at a somehow sub-human status as if they were naturally intended to serve the desires and greed of the white people who came to rule over them.
Understanding colonialism from the perspective of the dominant white man in the colonized country as in Orson Wells story Shooting an Elephant (1936) reveals how colonialism didnt necessarily bring about the sense of superiority and greatness expected for the individual white man living in that country.
At the same time, Wells structures this story as a journey story. Journey stories are usually some form of coming-of-age ritual in which the main character learns something significant about himself as a result of some physical journey hes undertaken. While he doesnt take any lengthy journeys outside of his familiar region, the narrator of Shooting an Elephant relates an incident in which he found himself forced to shoot an elephant by the limitations and expectations of his position as the authoritative white man, learning much about himself in the process.
The story begins with an introduction to the character. Its told in the first person, so the character speaks directly to the reader as he shares his thoughts about how much he hates his job as an Imperial Policeman. He hates this job because he is obliged to uphold the British persona (that all British are far superior to all India and therefore cannot socialize at any level) even though he doesnt agree with it and is astonishingly lonely in his present capacity.
While he sympathizes with the situation of the people of India and wants more than anything to be friends with them, the Indian people hate him and constantly bait him by spitting on him, tripping him, and generally finding means of irritating him without actually stepping outside the bounds of their own station in this colonized life. All I knew was that I was stuck between my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil-spirited little beasts who tried to make my job impossible.
He is frustrated because he doesnt have anyone to talk to, and he is being blamed for the actions of his government, something he doesnt have any control over at all.
Then one day, he is called on to come and take care of a problem. An elephant in musth is running loose in the poor section of town, and they need him to stop it. Musth is explained to be something like an animal in heat, ready to copulate with his own species and therefore driven mostly out of his mind by the physical urge until either it is satisfied or the period passes.
The narrator is proud because the common people are confidently turning to him to take care of the problem, but despite his exterior appearance, internally, he isnt sure if there is anything he can do about it. He rides his pony to the area of town where the elephant is reported to be like a knight riding to the rescue of a fair damsel brandishing his rifle, which is not strong enough to kill the elephant, but he hopes he will make enough noise to frighten it away from the populated areas.
He sends for a stronger gun when he discovers that the elephant has killed a man, but when he sees the elephant, he decides that he doesnt really need to kill it because it is coming out of musth. I decided that I would watch him for a little while to make sure that he did not turn savage again and then go home. The value of a trained elephant was very high when it was alive but very low when dead, and the narrator believes he will be able to point to this fact as a rationale for why the animal wasnt shot. Although he is sure he is superior in this instant and the one making all the decisions, he is about to learn otherwise.
As he turns to go home, he notices the crowd of excited people who have gathered behind him, waiting either for elephant meat or to see the Englishman get trampled. Here was I, the white man with his gun, standing in front of the unarmed native crowdseemingly the leading actor of the piece; but in reality, I was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind.
Suddenly, he realizes the true nature of imperialism, wherein seeking to dominate another, the dominator actually only enslaves himself. Although he looked like he was in charge on the outside, he really only had two choices either kill the elephant and maintain the idea that the British were superior and decisive, or leave the now harmless elephant to wander around until the owner came to get him and give the English empire an association with weakness and indecisiveness in the process. Although the elephant was an expensive piece of equipment, the reputation of the British Empire was more important, so the narrator shoots the elephant.
This short and unusual series of events causes the narrator to reassess his position in life and realize that his position of command is, in reality, a position of service and capitulation to someone elses set of ideas.
The narrator experiences a loss of self in the face of having to live up to an ideal image of the sahib who must take definitive action rather than simply doing the right thing. The way Wells presents the story indicates that the narrators need to shoot the elephant sprung from the need not to make the white man, as a social concept, appear foolish rather than from the actual pressure of the crowd itself. Throughout the story, there is a schism between outward appearances and inward realities that highlights the level to which colonization worked to destroy from within on numerous and sometimes unexpected levels.
Works Cited
Wells, Orson. Shooting an Elephant. The Writers Presence: A Pool of Readings. 5th Edition. Donald McQuade & Robert Atwan (Eds.). St. Martins Press, 2000.
The problems of colonialism are generally thought to have not been recognized in earlier times and are thus considered to be only recently discovered. However, there are many texts, both in fiction and non-fiction, that indicate the problems of colonialism were widely recognized and ignored in the face of tremendous profits and the ability to suppress. These texts reveal the inconsistencies of colonialism and its tendency to place the colonized people, regardless of their own values, abilities, and talents, at a somehow sub-human status as if they were naturally intended to serve the desires and greed of the white people who came to rule over them.
Understanding colonialism from the perspective of the dominant white man in the colonized country as in Orson Wells story Shooting an Elephant (1936) reveals how colonialism didnt necessarily bring about the sense of superiority and greatness expected for the individual white man living in that country.
At the same time, Wells structures this story as a journey story. Journey stories are usually some form of coming-of-age ritual in which the main character learns something significant about himself as a result of some physical journey hes undertaken. While he doesnt take any lengthy journeys outside of his familiar region, the narrator of Shooting an Elephant relates an incident in which he found himself forced to shoot an elephant by the limitations and expectations of his position as the authoritative white man, learning much about himself in the process.
The story begins with an introduction to the character. Its told in the first person, so the character speaks directly to the reader as he shares his thoughts about how much he hates his job as an Imperial Policeman. He hates this job because he is obliged to uphold the British persona (that all British are far superior to all India and therefore cannot socialize at any level) even though he doesnt agree with it and is astonishingly lonely in his present capacity.
While he sympathizes with the situation of the people of India and wants more than anything to be friends with them, the Indian people hate him and constantly bait him by spitting on him, tripping him, and generally finding means of irritating him without actually stepping outside the bounds of their own station in this colonized life. All I knew was that I was stuck between my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil-spirited little beasts who tried to make my job impossible.
He is frustrated because he doesnt have anyone to talk to, and he is being blamed for the actions of his government, something he doesnt have any control over at all.
Then one day, he is called on to come and take care of a problem. An elephant in musth is running loose in the poor section of town, and they need him to stop it. Musth is explained to be something like an animal in heat, ready to copulate with his own species and therefore driven mostly out of his mind by the physical urge until either it is satisfied or the period passes.
The narrator is proud because the common people are confidently turning to him to take care of the problem, but despite his exterior appearance, internally, he isnt sure if there is anything he can do about it. He rides his pony to the area of town where the elephant is reported to be like a knight riding to the rescue of a fair damsel brandishing his rifle, which is not strong enough to kill the elephant, but he hopes he will make enough noise to frighten it away from the populated areas.
He sends for a stronger gun when he discovers that the elephant has killed a man, but when he sees the elephant, he decides that he doesnt really need to kill it because it is coming out of musth. I decided that I would watch him for a little while to make sure that he did not turn savage again and then go home. The value of a trained elephant was very high when it was alive but very low when dead, and the narrator believes he will be able to point to this fact as a rationale for why the animal wasnt shot. Although he is sure he is superior in this instant and the one making all the decisions, he is about to learn otherwise.
As he turns to go home, he notices the crowd of excited people who have gathered behind him, waiting either for elephant meat or to see the Englishman get trampled. Here was I, the white man with his gun, standing in front of the unarmed native crowdseemingly the leading actor of the piece; but in reality, I was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind.
Suddenly, he realizes the true nature of imperialism, wherein seeking to dominate another, the dominator actually only enslaves himself. Although he looked like he was in charge on the outside, he really only had two choices either kill the elephant and maintain the idea that the British were superior and decisive, or leave the now harmless elephant to wander around until the owner came to get him and give the English empire an association with weakness and indecisiveness in the process. Although the elephant was an expensive piece of equipment, the reputation of the British Empire was more important, so the narrator shoots the elephant.
This short and unusual series of events causes the narrator to reassess his position in life and realize that his position of command is, in reality, a position of service and capitulation to someone elses set of ideas.
The narrator experiences a loss of self in the face of having to live up to an ideal image of the sahib who must take definitive action rather than simply doing the right thing. The way Wells presents the story indicates that the narrators need to shoot the elephant sprung from the need not to make the white man, as a social concept, appear foolish rather than from the actual pressure of the crowd itself. Throughout the story, there is a schism between outward appearances and inward realities that highlights the level to which colonization worked to destroy from within on numerous and sometimes unexpected levels.
Works Cited
Wells, Orson. Shooting an Elephant. The Writers Presence: A Pool of Readings. 5th Edition. Donald McQuade & Robert Atwan (Eds.). St. Martins Press, 2000.
Literature should not exist for its own sake but should be a mirror through which the society looks at itself. It should therefore imitate the truth and portray it to the society for self-reflection. This is evident in George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” and Lu Xun’s “The Real Story of Ah Q”. Shooting the Elephant is a real life reflection of the author’s experience as a police officer in India. It is about the shameless irony of imperialism spread by western governments, which subjects even its own to discrimination.
The Real Story of Ah Q is a satirical piece that shows the irony of revolutionary movements. Whereas these two stories have similarities, they also have marked differences in form, style, and aim. This paper endeavors to highlight some similarities and differences especially in the aims and the writing style of these two authors.
The aim of these two pieces is to portray societies as notorious for curtailing the freedom of individuals. Not only do communities prescribe rules that must be followed by all but also have expectations on certain individuals that are out of touch with reality. The main characters in these two stories find themselves in odd positions where their individual freedoms are subordinated under those of the community.
Orwell was made to shoot the elephant against his will, while Ah Q had no right over his sir name and was mistreated by the locals (Orwell para 7: Hsun para 3, 5). There is also a well-developed attempt to portray imperialism in its negative light (Orwell para 3; Hsun 2). The two authors also use irony to great extent. Ah Q thinks himself the enlightened one even thought the reader knows he is not, while Orwell agonizes under the realization of the irony of western imperialisms (Hsun para 16; Orwell para 3).
However, these authors also portray certain differences in their works. Hsun uses satire more overtly to laugh at the societies ills than Orwell. Ah Q thinks that he is the “number one self-doubter” and when your remove “self-doubter” you are left with “number one.” So he is always number one (6). He also sees his failures as his victories (7).
Orwell creates a sympathetic attitude on the main subject while Hsun’s has comic relief (Orwell para 1, 2; Hsun 8). The aim of Shooting an Elephant is to describe the plight of those who rebel against their own culture, and are unappreciated by those they make this sacrifice for (Orwell para 2).
Hsun work criticizes satirically the failed Chinese revolution of 1911. The failure of this revolution is symbolized in the power of women who seduce men thus derailing them from their noble duty of revolutionizing the society. These women are demonized as the causes of the failed revolution (11).
Even though these two works were written years ago, they still find a lot of relevance in today’s society. They ironically mirror the struggles of modern societies and individuals against injustices, such as the denial of individual rights by societal norms and the failure of modern governments to meet the expectations of its citizens.
Hsun’s use of comic effect and satire is as effective as Orwell’s employment of sympathy and sarcasm. Therefore, these two authors prove that it is effectively possible to employ different styles to highlight similar themes.
Works Cited
Hsun, Lu. “The True Story Of Ah Q.” 2002. Blackmask Online. Web.
Burma is known as Myanmar and holds the highest record of human rights violation. The eye-catching issue in Burma is the long duration of military rule, from 1962 to 2011 (BBC par 1). A new constitution was formed in 2008, and it gave way for civilians to hold political positions.
Aung San Suu Kyi was an opposition group during the grand general election in 2010. The group opposed the elections since they were marred with impunity. The Burma military junta regarded the Aung San Suu Kyi as ‘democratic fighter’ because it led to ethnic tension in Burma. Additionally, the international human rights community viewed Aung San Suu Kyi group as a symbol of ‘freedom from oppression’ in Burma (BBC par 4).
The official name of Burma is the Republic of the Union of Myanmar. Burma is the largest ethnic group in the Republic of the Union of Myanmar. According to the UN 2012 report, the country has a total population of 48.7 million, and its capital city is Nay Pyi Taw. Major religions are Islam, Buddhism, and Christianity. Burma has experienced three major Anglo-Burmese wars in 1824, 1852, and 1885 (BBC par 4).
The first Anglo-Burmese war lasted for two years due to the intervention of the Treaty of Yandabo. The second Anglo-Burmese war was in 1852 and led to the removal of British governor from the political post. The Postcolonial Anglo-Burmese war occurred in 1885 where the British had an intention of conquering the remainder of Burma (BBC par 6).
Nature of Colonization
The story “Shooting an Elephant” expresses ways of gaining and destroying personal freedom under military rule. The soldier in the story has an Indian origin and goes ahead to shoot an elephant. The shooting of the elephant was in line with the will of the people, but the soldier feels guilty for denying the elephant its rights to live.
Orwell describes the humiliation he undergoes before his native people due to the oppression from the British Empire. The British practiced imperialism during the Anglo-Burmese wars. Imperialism affects both the oppressor and the oppressed, according to the Orwell narration (Orwell 2).
Orwell; who is a Burmese works as a British soldier and is displeased with the ruling nature of the Britain toward the Burmese. The unjust system of power results in doing activities that are wrong according to personal conscious. Orwell kills an elephant that was calm out of high pressure from the colonialists, and the locals. In other terms, the soldier thinks that the oppressor does not have control on the cause of actions that takes place at the community level (Orwell 4).
Tools of State Power
In Burma, there is extreme brutality of the police force unlike the police in the United States. The military junta instils fear among the residents and denies them freedom of expression. According to Larkin (15), Orwell worked for the military without any form of external influence. Orwell used his conscious in making influential military decisions even though the military coup on the rise.
The colonial experience in Burma varies greatly from the leadership tools used in the United States (Larkin 67). In the United States, there is minimal use of military force in governing the States, whereas in Burma the military junta is the ruling body that controls even the opposition. There is a heavy punishment on the people that violate the military rules, whereas, in the United States, the citizens participate in dialogue sessions for efficient governing (Larkin 119).
In a narration of one of his experiences in Burma, George Orwell manages to bring out the irony of imperial rule, the perception of the local people and the strange relationship between the imperialists and local people. Although Orwell categorically outlines that he does not support imperialism, his actions demonstrate discontent towards the local people due to their apparent ignorance, their pathetic living conditions and their evident lack of ambition or enthusiasm in life. Orwell uses the details surrounding the shooting of the elephant to bring out the sarcasm of imperialism, and the vulnerability of the imperialists to the otherwise primitive locals that they purported to rule over and civilize. The subsequent collapse of imperialism only demonstrates that colonies were white elephants and that imperialists could have been better off without the humiliation experienced during the colonial years. The paper analyses how Orwell uses literal tools to emphasize on the satire as the locals and the imperialists attempt to co-exist.
Orientalism
The greatest sarcasm in Orwell’s narrative is that no European could have agreed that there were some significant aspects of orientalism in existent in Burma or even in the rest of the colonies. Orwell manages to outline how the imperialists, who were supposed to be the masters, were psychological slaves to the primitive and uncivilized locals. Imperialism was supposed to have been an easy maneuver by the civilized Europeans with little or no resistance from the locals. Orwell outlines various instances where the Burmese demonstrated complete contempt and open hatred for the Europeans. Phrases like “hideous laughter” and “sneering yellow faces” demonstrate the contempt the Burmese felt for the Europeans (Orwell, 2011). Orwell describes his hapless situation just before he shot the elephant to outline how the Europeans had psychologically been enslaved by imperialism. Orwell writes: “I could feel their two thousand wills pressing me forward, irresistibly” (Orwell, 2011).However, Orwell still leaves the reader with the conclusion that he employed orientalism in the narrative. Orwell describes the situation and culture of the people of Burma as being inferior and as a people who are unambitious and petty. Orwell desperately attempts to bring out the effects of imperialism on both sides but eventually he only manages to demonstrate that his criticism and discontent is leaning more towards the locals. Orwell is relieved after shooting the elephant because he can justify his actions by claiming that the elephant was extremely wild and had even killed the Indian Coolie. However, we are only able to discover the facts because Orwell is sincere in his story. Orwell manages to demonstrate the humiliating imperialism was for the Europeans. Eventually, he admits that he shot the elephant not because he had to, but because he had made the decision to act as the other imperialists.
Orwell’s Portrayal of the Local Community
Orwell portrays the local people as being ignorant and weak, and as victims of imperialism. The elephant is figuratively used to represent the community in general while the Burmese are used to represent the locals. The general realization is that the locals are not keen in developing or protecting their land, exposing its vulnerability to exploitations by the imperialists. Despite the fact that the elephant had grown wild and destructive to the point of killing, the locals did nothing but hand over the responsibility of dealing with the elephant to the imperialists. Orwell writes that the owner of the elephant had apparently gone in the wrong direction and was perhaps “twelve hours journey away.” Orwell continues to outline that the Burmese had no weapons to deal with the elephant implying that the locals did not have the necessary resources to handle their already problematic society (Orwell, 2011). Although Orwell agrees that imperialism is not good by stating that it is evil, his portrayal of the locals gives the impression that the locals deserved the kind of treatment they got from the imperialist. Orwell also portrays the locals as a people who are extremely primitive because they are unable to clearly and consistently give accurate reports of the whereabouts of the elephant. Orwell describes the look on the face of the dead Indian Coolie as full of agony, devilish and depressing. Orwell also manages to go to unnecessary details to describe the death of the elephant. All these aspects demonstrate a state of desperation and foolishness of the Burmese to the extent that they are ready to tolerate the slow and painful killing of the elephant, which figuratively represents the Burmese nation, in the hands of the imperialists.
Conclusion
The narrative, “Shooting an Elephant” serves as a perfect example of portraying the destructive nature of imperialism both to the Europeans and to the locals. Although Orwell tends to be prejudicial and perhaps oriental, the general realization is that imperialism was destructive. Imperialism turned the locals into slaves and imperialists into puppets of the locals. Eventually, the system led to the death of an elephant that would have been more resourceful had it been left alive. Figuratively, the elephant represents the colonized nations that were destroyed due to the foolishness and ignorance of the locals and the arrogance and brutality of the imperialists.
References
Orwell, G. (2011). Shooting an elephant. In R. J. DiYanni, Fifty great narratives(246-253) (4th ed.). New York: Longman.
A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift and Shooting an elephant by George Orwell belong to the most famous examples of satiric literature. Both authors depicted reality of their time and expressed their attitude to the most burning problems of the day. In case of the abovementioned Swift’s work it is the problem of poverty and other social problems of Ireland of the 18th century. Orwell’s work is dedicated to one of the most discussed phenomena of the 20th century, namely imperialism and its influence on people’s minds.
Main Discussion
In a satiric form Swift suggests to eat children from poor families in order to prevent them “from being a burden to their parents or country” (McQuade, Atwan 343). A reader was not prepared for such a conclusion while the introduction of the essay touchingly describes the sufferings of little Irish beggars. Swift indicates that he has a plan for how to resolve this social problem, and we are waiting for a sustainable plan of social development.
But surprisingly there appears a phrase: “A young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or a ragout.” (McQuade, Atwan 345). With a unique irony Swift rejects the proposals that he was really standing for.
Swift uses absolutely serious tone and even almost a scientific style to emphasize the absurdity of the proposals expressed in the discussed essay. He even describes different possible methods of child cooking. This style can be named as “laugh through tears”, because we actually do not have any desire to laugh while thinking about poor children, but we cannot prevent a smile appear on our faces because of the author’s irony.
John Orwell’s Shooting an Elephant is another example of satiric style. His irony is directed not only on reality, but also on the author himself, which we can see, for example, from the words: “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.” (McQuade, Atwan 224) Orwell uses Latin phrases and words of Indian origin, which demonstrates the author’s educational level and the awareness of the specific features of Indian life. The author also uses original metaphors, like the following one: “If the elephant charged and I missed him, I should have about as much chance as a toad under a steamroller.” (McQuade, Atwan 226)
Shooting an Elephant is also a symbolic work: an elephant from this story can be understood as a symbol for imperialism. As in other his works, Orwell also reflects here on the nature of tyranny: “I perceived in this moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys.” (McQuade, Atwan 226) This is the very truth, which the author understands through study of everyday life: we can see how the episode with the elephant brought him to the thoughts about constraint and freedom.
Conclusion
Both discussed works belong to the satiric, or ironic literature. They cannot be compared; they are original and unique. Both of them demonstrate the authors’ concerns about the problems and burning issues of the day. The talent of both Swift and Orwell cannot be questioned; they are one of the most read authors in the world. In Swift’s A Modest Proposal we can see the unserious reflections on the serious problems, which turns public attention to these problems even more effectively than any serious articles and discussions. Orwell’s Shooting an Elephant is an example of how a thinking man can draw philosophic truth from the everyday life. By his work Orwell turned our attention in a entertaining way to the problems of tyranny, freedom, and, at last, animals protection.
Works Cited
McQuade, Donald, and Atwan, Robert. The Writer’s Presence: A Pool Of Readings. 5th edition. Bedford: St. Martin’s, 2006.
George Orwell is best known for his allegorical novella Animal Farm and a dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. His realistic short stories that date back to his days as an imperial police officer in Burma often elude readers’ attention. The early years spent in a country colonized by the British Empire had a lasting impression on the writer and inspired him to explore the themes of morals, personal principles, and power dynamics in his works.
In Shooting an Elephant, Orwell’s character is an imperialist police officer in colonized Burma. As he hears about an elephant rampaging through a bazaar, he has nothing left to do than to slander the animal. The incident gives rise to strong feelings of grief and discomfort and impacts the fragile relationships with both his compatriots and Burmans. The short story Shooting an Elephant is significant to colonialism studies due to its structure, quality, and applicability.
Structure
George Orwell gives a panoramic view of the ambiguous power dynamics between the British Empire and its colony, Burma, through the perspective of one character. The writer does not show this relationship as strictly black-and-white as he does not label either of the sides as good or evil. Instead, by making the main character reflective and conscientious, Orwell lets the reader understand what motivates both parties.
The story is structured in a way that showcases the main conflict three times throughout the narrative. The first example of the subverted power dynamic is at the very beginning of the story. Orwell writes: “In Moulmein, in Lower Burma, I was hated by large numbers of people (1).” Then the author notes that this hatred came from being “important enough for this to happen to [him]” for the first time in his life (Orwell, 1). The writer shows that power comes at a certain price, and in the case of the main character, he has to suffer hostility and isolation.
The second time that the topic of the flipped power dynamic resurfaces is when the main character gets a rifle for self-defense. The locals practically force him into killing the animal: “They had seen the rifle and were all shouting excitedly that I was going to shoot the elephant (Orwell, 3).” This scene is particularly interesting as it is placed in the very heart of the story. The main character is supposed to be the most influential among all since he is of British descent and armed.
However, the crowd has its own interests and can overpower him in case he does not oblige. At the end of the story, the main character does not gain any more respect from the locals. They feast on the elephant’s dead body while the animal’s owner is furious. Thus, the conflict in Shooting an Elephant never comes to any satisfying resolution.
Quality
Dynamic narration, believable characters, and the presence of complex topics such as power and colonialism attest to the high quality of Shooting an Elephant. It is not only easy to follow the events but also quite thrilling. Orwell accomplishes this effect by controlling the sentence length and contrasting short and long sentences by putting them back-to-back within the same paragraph. The following fragment is an excellent example of this strategy: “I had halted on the road. As soon as I saw the elephant, I knew with perfect certainty that I ought not to shoot him (Orwell, 4).” Stopping in the middle of a road is a short action described with a short sentence. Pondering, whether it is worth to kill an elephant, takes a little bit more time; therefore, a longer sentence is needed.
The believable main character adds to the overall quality of the short story. He is an ordinary man not devoid of character flaws, which makes his personality multilayered. Killing an animal is a cruel thing to do, and the reader sees the main character’s regret and repentance: “In the end, I could not stand [watching the elephant die] any longer and went away (Orwell, 7).” One should note that Orwell embarks on describing such complex emotions without being self-righteous. The author in this story is detached from the events. He does not make any judgment or tells what would be the right thing to do. By following the narration, sympathizing with the main character, and comprehending the depth of the discussed topics, the reader can draw his or her own conclusions and even take some life lessons.
Applicability
Shooting an Elephant can help with understanding the struggles of colonialism. Even though the story depicts a specific situation that took place back at the beginning of the 20th century, its moral is timeless and still applies. While setting the scene for his story, Orwell writes: “One day something happened which in a roundabout way was enlightening. It was a tiny incident in itself, but it gave me a better glimpse than I had had before of the real nature of imperialism — the real motives for which despotic governments act (2).” Thus, what happens next needs to be interpreted with regards to this perspective.
Usually, elephants are wild animals, but this one who ran amok in the village belonged to a resident. The animal was probably captured against its will and has been exploited its entire life. Keeping the previous citation in mind, it is possible to draw a parallel between an animal suffering in captivity and a nation oppressed by a colonist regime. From this standpoint, the reader can understand why the elephant wanted to break free, even if it meant wreaking havoc on its surroundings.
Continuing the allegory, the main character takes the role of the government. As it sees that a riot has started, it has nothing left to do than to use brutal power and violence to stifle it. In Shooting an Elephant, not a single person laments the animal’s death – instead, the main character hears “the devilish roar of glee that went up from the crowd (Orwell, 6).” Therefore, the reader can understand that imperialism does not allow for peaceful cohabitation. It implies exploitation for nothing in return and severe punishment in case of disobedience.
Conclusion
Published in 1936, Shooting an Elephant is one of Orwell’s masterpieces where topics of power and colonialism find reflection and development through both close-to-life descriptions and employment of allegory. The writer reminisces of his life in colonized Burma where, as a representative of the foreign superpower, he is hated and dismissed by locals. The structure allows for a careful exposition of the subverted relationship dynamic between the main character and Burmans.
The man’s origins and position make him influential only on paper. In reality, he has to consider what locals want, which eventually makes him cave to the crowd mentality. Quality-wise, Orwell creates a dramatic effect by manipulating the sentence length, adding dimensions to the main character, and putting complex emotions in the mix. The story can be of interest to those who would like to reflect on the legacy of colonialism through a real-life situation and the allegory of a killed animal that strived for freedom.
Work Cited
Orwell, George. Shooting an Elephant: And Other Essays. Secker and Warburg, 1950.
Orwell’s Shooting an Elephant focuses on a short story of a police officer who was forced to kill the animal. The story is a metaphorical representation of British Imperialism that limited people’s freedom and rights.
From the perspective of Kolb’s four-stage model, which defines four types of learning – thinking (Abstract Conceptualization), doing (Active Experimentation), feeling (Concrete Experience), and watching (Reflective Observation), the story focuses on the feeling (Concrete Experience), along with other less-represented learning styles that take place in the story.
At the very beginning of the story, the protagonist refers to reflective observation to describe the contextual background and explain historic context. Hence, while talking about the British government and people, the author notes, “There were several thousands of them in the town and none of them seemed to have anything to do except stand on street corners and jeer at Europeans” (Orwell, 2003, p. 31).
Further deliberations are more reminiscent of the abstract conceptualization stage, during which the author makes generalized statements about Imperial power and criticizes the government in general. The stage of abstract conceptualization is strictly intertwined with reflective observation, which contributes to the assimilating style of cognizing the worlds. The style is particularly relevant because it accurately reflects the protagonists’ greater attention to concepts and logical exposition of ideas.
Although the story focuses on enumeration and depiction of subsequent events, almost no references are made to the stage of active experimentation. However, the climax of the story is reached as soon as the police officer sees the dead man that was smashed by the elephant. As soon as he sees it, the man “sent an orderly to a friend’s house nearby to borrow an elephant rifle” (Orwell, 2003, p. 34).
As soon as the main hero resorts to action, the learning model forms a combination of active experimentation and concrete experience that guides the officer to the end of the story, with slight reference to the abstract conceptualization. In such a manner, the author transforms the hero’s learning style to the accommodation stage, according to which the police officer cognizes the events by means of intuition rather than by means of logic.
Hence, taking practical actions with no logical assumptions refer to the significant influence imposed on the hero by the British imperial power. This type of behavior model exposes the hero’s strong preference for a specific learning style. At the same time, by adjusting all stages to different situations, the author expects the audience to understand the story from various perspectives. Additionally, experimenting with different learning styles, the author also seeks to employ different approaches to achieve the objective.
In conclusion, Orwell’s Shooting an Elephant represents a sophisticated synergy of learning styles from a combination of concrete experience and abstract conceptualization and ending with active experimentation and reflective observations. Interestingly, the learning styles also provide a sufficient explanation for the themes and ideas reflected in the story.
This is of particular concern to the abstract conceptualization of imperialism, as well as reflective observation of the people’s reaction to a new political order. One way or another, the model of concrete experience prevails because it suits best the description of hero’s perceptions and attitudes to the political power and Imperial dominance. Hence, the essay’s analysis from the perspective of Kolb’s model provides another angle for evaluation.
Reference
Orwell, G. (2003). Shooting an Elephant. US: Penguin Books.
The protagonist in the story is a young police officer stationed in Burma. He is facing the biggest challenge of his career because a rogue elephant is wreaking havoc in a poor village, close to where he has been stationed. The antagonist is the British colonial administration, whose oppressive rule in the country has made natives resent its authority (Orwell, 2013)..
The story is set in a small urban quarter in Burma, inhabited by poor natives. They use tamed elephants to perform labor-intensive tasks. They live in squalid conditions and do not have access to basic amenities. This setting shows the country’s imperial rulers are not doing enough to improve the living standards of natives in the country. This setting shows the failure of the British administration to help natives live a comfortable life (Orwell, 2013).
The protagonist is facing a psychological conflict because if he kills the elephant, its owner will suffer a major economic loss. He realizes that laws put in place by the British administration are not favorable to many native Burmese. The story highlights the consequences of British imperial rule in the country. Native Burmese resent British imperial rule because it restricts their freedom (Orwell, 2013).
The narrator is considerate because he does not want to kill the elephant, yet he sympathizes with the plight of the man trampled to death by the beast. He is isolated because he is mocked by natives behind his back whenever he meets them. He becomes remorseful after shooting the elephant, which is a valuable asset to its owner, even though it threatened the lives of many people.
The British imperial administration is a symbol of oppression for many natives. The young narrator takes note of the fact that a tamed elephant is a revered asset in the country because it helps natives perform many difficult tasks. The narrator also describes the way he resents Buddhist priests, which shows that many natives have strong faith in Buddhist religious teachings (Orwell, 2013).
Orwell uses the chilly and gloomy weather in the morning to set the tone for events that are going to take place later in the day (2013). He shows how the imperial administration is not concerned about the plight of natives. This is revealed through convicted prisoners who are confined in inhumane living conditions. He feels he is made to bear the burden of misguided policies because his duties entail cracking down on any form of dissent from natives.
The story shows many flaws in British policies, which deny natives an opportunity to live freely in their own country. The elephant metaphorically refers to the British administration’s oppression of natives, who resent its authority. This makes natives live a life full of desolation (Orwell, 2013).
The narrator argues that the elephant is out of control and has to be killed to prevent it from causing more damage. The elephant has already killed one man, which gives him a strong justification to end its life.
Orwell means that despotic governments do not hesitate to use violence and force to make ordinary citizens submit to their authority. The elephant incident is used allegorically to show that administrative power should not be used unnecessarily unless there is a threat to law and order in an area (Orwell, 2013).