Literary Critique of “Shooting an Elephant”

George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant”

George Orwell, internationally renowned author of Animal Farm and 1984, was born in India in 1903. His father was a British civil servant there, and later Orwell also served in the Imperial Police in Burma from 1922-1927. These facts are crucial because it was his work as an Imperial Officer which instilled within him the abhorrence towards British Imperialism and towards imperialism in general so prevalent in some of his works. His Imperial service also produced within him a sense of guilt about his services for the government, which he only realized in his later twenties, and which gave him the haunting feeling that he must make up for it. It was this volition and need for justice which led him to write one of the most controversial and anti-colonialist essays in English Literature, Shooting an Elephant (1936). The essay is still relevant today as it explores the ultimate futility of a class society and also the psychological, political and social implications that imposing rule on seemingly inferior people creates. This futility can be seen in modern military campaigns such as the American war in Iraq and the conflict between Israel and Palestine where violent and deadly tension is created as a result of imposition. The essay focuses on one man, who must take responsibility and do something about the elephant that runs wild and attacks the native Burmese. It is in this situation that Orwell masterfully divulges the psychology of a man “selected to power,” who really is only a mask for colonialism and quite divided himself over the evils of imperialism.
Primarily, the essay divulges the raw and anxious nature of the narrator directly at the onset as he describes his persona and how he is perceived in Burma. He says: I was hated by large numbers of people – the only time in my life that I have been important enough for this to happen to me. I was sub-divisional police officer of the town, and in an aimless, petty kind of way anti-European feeling was very bitter. The section goes on further to describe how the Burmese jeered and molested European women walking alone in the streets, and how he himself, though a police officer, was insulted and harassed even by Buddhist monks. This is a significant introduction because it shows that imperialism and the forced imposition of rule by an alien power on a native people not only forces discrimination upon the natives, but instills hatred in the natives themselves and creates a cycle of racism and anger. Therefore, the essay excellently reveals this truth about the nature of imposed rule that sadly instills hatred and discrimination that may not have been there before. This is akin to Bush naming Iran, one of the most pro western countries in the Middle East, as part of the “Axis of Evil” and therefore instilling a negative hatred that may not have been there before. Furthermore, this is also seen in the futility of the Guantanamo torture and prison sight which by imposing a fake “mask of power” on supposed and as yet not convicted “terrorists” only increased hatred towards America.
The essay continues to show how the narrator himself is confused about imperialism, and offers us this profound and insightful revelation that: I had already made up my mind that imperialism was an evil thing and the sooner I chucked up my job and got out of it the better. Theoretically – and secretly, of course – I was all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British. As for the job I was doing, I hated it more bitterly than I can perhaps make clear. In a job like that you see the dirty work of Empire at close quarters. He also gives a reason for joining the Imperial Police, which rings true for many young people around the world and reveals how government blinds youth to serve in futile and evil purposes through propaganda: I was young and ill-educated and I had had to think out my problems in the utter silence that is imposed on every Englishman in the East. Surely this speaks to the disruptive powers of propaganda that the government imposes on youth to recruit them in their imperialistic and military ploys, and it is utterly unjust and unfair, just like the injustice it reaps. The narrator realizes this himself: 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. Feelings like these are the normal by-products of imperialism; ask any Anglo-Indian official, if you can catch him off duty. Therefore, masterfully the essay pinpoints the cycle of hatred and anger which is born from all types of imperialism, colonialism, and any discriminatory system which subjects one type of society to lower standards and human rights.
After learning that an elephant was running wild in the streets, the narrator reacts by getting a gun, for protection only, and heads out to instill peace. He emphasizes many times that he only wanted to “observe the elephant” until it leaves and had no intention of killing it. It is this moment in the essay where the narrator reveals the psychology of a man trapped between the evils of a government and the hatred of a populous which he must play the leader to. While the elephant was not harmful in any way and was busy eating, the narrator felt pressure from the crowd that this would be the perfect time to shoot the elephant. He realizes his divided situation and thinks:
Here was I, the white man with his gun, standing in front of the unarmed native crowd – seemingly 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. I perceived in this moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys. He becomes a sort of hollow, posing dummy, the conventionalized figure of a sahib. For it is the condition of his rule that he shall spend his life in trying to impress the “natives,” and so in every crisis he has got to do what the “natives” expect of him. He wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it. I had got to shoot the elephant. I had committed myself to doing it when I sent for the rifle. A sahib has got to act like a sahib; he has got to appear resolute, to know his own mind and do definite things. To come all that way, rifle in hand, with two thousand people marching at my heels, and then to trail feebly away, having done nothing – no, that was impossible. 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.
Therefore, the power and prestige of an Imperial officer is nothing more than mask and a puppet, and even worse he kills his own soul for working for the evils of the government. He finally shoots the elephant and feels so much agony for the wounded animal, which takes hours to die and which the people were prepared to strip for food. The profound barbarism of the situation creates a momentous impression on the mind of the reader and we are able to see, and also feel, the profound futility of the narrator. What was his role? Wouldn’t a native be better prepared to deal with the elephant without killing it? And it is this very futility that unveils the mask and hollow role of the Imperial officer, the modern equivalent of any forced military operation which imposes its role on a people who have no trust for it. By playing a false role the narrator does nothing but continues the evil discrimination of the British government and destroys his own soul while being utterly lost in a foreign land.
The essay concludes with a haunting reminder of this futile “role playing” that leads to nothing but destruction and the narrator ponders about the opinion of the populous and about his leadership. He also shows how he has changed negatively as a human being and how he became his role, which means he is only concerned for the mask he wears:
Afterwards, of course, there were endless discussions about the shooting of the elephant. The owner was furious, but he was only an Indian and could do nothing. Besides, legally I had done the right thing, for a mad elephant has to be killed, like a mad dog, if its owner fails to control it. Among the Europeans opinion was divided. The older men said I was right, the younger men said it was a damn shame to shoot an elephant for killing a coolie, because an elephant was worth more than any damn Coringhee coolie. And afterwards I was very glad that the coolie had been killed; it put me legally in the right and it gave me a sufficient pretext for shooting the elephant. I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool.
The bitter irony has become that while striving to not look like a fool, he has become a fool. He does not even see the death of the native as the death of a human being, but as something that will maintain the right for him to have shot the elephant in the court of law. He is a fool, playing a role that is futile. And while this essay may be at once specific to this situation, there is no doubt that George Orwell elevates the relevance of the discussion about imposed military power, and many governments around the world must realize the destruction they cause to the souls of young people and generations everywhere due to their thirst for power, rule, military exploits and the subsequent subjugation of certain peoples.

By Robert Danielak