One of Orwell's most compelling arguments in "Shooting an Elephant" (and one which recurs throughout his work, particularly in 1984) is that oppressive structures oppress everyone. The primary victims of colonialism are the colonized people, but the colonists also suffer. Even at the highest levels, colonialism is a corrupting influence, but Orwell writes from the perspective of a low-level official of the British Empire, a sub-divisional police officer in Burma. In this position, Orwell says, "you see the dirty work of Empire at close quarters." He also describes being divided in his allegiance, or perhaps more accurately in his lack of allegiance. Theoretically, he hates imperialism, and his sympathies are all with the Burmese. In practice, however, he finds many of the local people infuriating and is constantly afraid of looking foolish in front of them.
The scene that Orwell finds when he catches up with the elephant provides a telling commentary on his position. There is a harmless elephant stuffing grass into its mouth, a crowd of at least 2,000 Burmese people, and Orwell, with his gun. Theoretically, he is the most powerful person there. He has, after all, the power to shoot an elephant. However, it turns out that what he really wants is the power not to shoot an elephant—a power which everyone else on the scene has. Orwell understands this and, at that moment, feels himself to be more of a victim of imperialist oppression than anyone else in the crowd:
And it was at this moment, as I stood there with the rifle in my hands, that I first grasped the hollowness, the futility of the white man’s dominion in the East. 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.
Every member of the crowd goes home without having the death of an elephant on their conscience and without having performed an unnecessary act of cruelty merely to avoid looking a fool. They may have other tribulations to face, but on that particular day, Orwell (to his mind at least) was more of a victim of imperialism than any of them.
In the essay "Shooting an Elephant," the unnamed narrator, presumably Orwell himself, tells of being a sub-divisional police officer in the town of Moulmein in Lower Burma. He hates his job and has great sympathy for the Burmese townspeople, although they continually bait and insult him. One day he is called to deal with an elephant ravaging a bazaar. When he finally locates the elephant it has calmed down. However, he is under heavy pressure to shoot it anyway, especially because it has already trampled someone to death. Giving in to the crowd, he shoots the elephant several times, and the elephant dies slowly and painfully.
In this scenario, Orwell is both a victim and an oppressor. Despite the fact that he hates the British Raj and sympathizes with the Burmese, he is an oppressor by being a part of the British administrative structure that is oppressing the Burmese people. He is a policeman, and as a policeman, he has to obey and enforce the regulations that the British government has put into effect as part of its colonization policy. That's why the Burmese hate and ridicule him despite his sympathy, because his job and uniform stand for the forced oppression of their country by the British.
At the same time, Orwell is a victim both of the British government and of the Burmese people. He is victimized by the British government in that he is forced to serve in a job that he hates and that he thinks is wrong. He is horrified to have to witness "the dirty work of Empire" such as the caged and wretched prisoners, some of whom had been tortured by floggings with bamboo. He is victimized by the Burmese people in that he is continually baited, tripped up, sneered at, and insulted. He is also victimized by the Burmese crowd when he is forced to kill the elephant when he really doesn't want to do so.
It's worth noting that being a victim and being an oppressor are not mutually exclusive of one another—a person can easily be both simultaneously. I'd suggest that Orwell depicts his experience with colonialism in much the same terms.
First of all, I think it's important to recognize that Orwell himself was one of the oppressors. Even if Orwell detested colonialism, he remained an agent of it all the same. Furthermore, this realization is a critical one (analytically speaking), because his entire criticism of colonialism ultimately rests upon it. Consider his experience with the elephant: ultimately, Orwell holds that his own own preferences and judgment were inconsequential, when weighed against the weight of expectations that had been placed upon him.
In Orwell's analysis, all agents of colonialism must inevitably be forced to become oppressors (regardless of their own moral convictions, assumptions or judgments), and, in that respect, his analysis would simultaneously paint them as victims of the colonial experience as well.
One could argue that Orwell is more of a victim than he is an oppressor throughout the short story. As a British police officer, Orwell represents the imperialist authority that oppresses the Burmese citizens. However, Orwell is secretly in favor of the Burmese people, even though they continually make his life difficult. Orwell mentions that the young Buddhist priests are the worst and continually ridicule him while he walks through the market. The oppressed Burmese citizens jeer and mock Orwell and even pressure him into shooting an elephant. In the story, Orwell mentions that he has no intention of shooting the elephant but feels compelled to kill the majestic animal because of pressure from the Burmese citizens following closely behind. At the end of the story, Orwell admits that the only reason he killed the elephant was to "avoid looking a fool." Despite the fact that Orwell represents British authority, he is very much the victim throughout the story. Orwell is taunted and picked on by the Burmese citizens, who essentially force him to shoot the elephant against his will. At no point throughout the story does Orwell personally depict himself as an oppressor. While the British regime he serves is considered oppressive, Orwell is portrayed as a victim throughout the short story.
No comments:
Post a Comment