The central idea of "Shooting an Elephant" by George Orwell is the destructive nature of imperialism, the political and moral conflict it creates for those who enforce it. Through his personal experience as a British colonial officer in Burma, Orwell illustrates how imperialism dehumanizes both the oppressors and the oppressed. The essay highlights how colonial rulers are often powerless despite their apparent authority in the face of societal expectations. Orwell feels compelled to shoot the elephant not out of necessity but to maintain his image of control before the Burmese crowd. This situation becomes a metaphor for the British Empire’s control over its colonies—imperial rulers, like Orwell, may appear powerful but are ultimately controlled by the expectations and demands of those they dominate. The essay critiques the moral contradictions of colonialism, illustrating how it dehumanizes both the oppressors and the oppressed.
Interpretation
The elephant in Orwell’s essay is a powerful symbol that represents British imperialism. Initially, the elephant causes destruction, much like the British Empire disrupts and dominates the lives of the colonized people. However, by the time Orwell finds it, the elephant is calm, no longer a real threat—just as the British Empire, though dominant, is weakening under the pressure of resistance. The slow, agonizing death of the elephant mirrors the slow decline of colonial rule, showing how imperialism is unsustainable and causes suffering for both the oppressors and the oppressed.
The Psychological Burden of Imperialism
Orwell’s internal conflict is central to the essay. As a British colonial officer, he resents both his role in enforcing imperialism and the hostility of the Burmese people. He acknowledges that imperialism is wrong, yet he is trapped in a system where he must act against his own conscience. This reflects the broader dilemma of imperial rulers, who may recognize the immorality of their actions but feel unable to escape their roles. His reluctance to shoot the elephant but ultimate decision to do so highlights how colonial officials are pressured to maintain their authority, even when they do not believe in the system they serve.
The Theme of Power and Control
At first glance, Orwell appears to hold power over the Burmese people and the elephant. However, the essay reveals that he is not truly in control. The local crowd expects him to kill the elephant, and he realizes that failing to do so would make him look weak. He describes himself as "an absurd puppet", showing that his authority is an illusion. This reflects how imperial powers, despite their dominance, are often dictated by the expectations and reactions of the colonized. Imperial rulers must constantly perform strength to prevent rebellion, making them prisoners of the very system they enforce.
The Irony of Imperialism
One of the essay’s strongest themes is irony. Although Orwell represents British rule, he feels powerless and controlled by the expectations of the Burmese people. He is forced to uphold an image of strength, even when he knows his actions are morally wrong. The idea that he must kill the elephant simply to avoid looking foolish demonstrates how imperialism dehumanizes both the colonizers and the colonized. This irony reinforces Orwell’s critique of colonialism as a system that corrupts everyone involved.
The Dehumanization of Both Rulers and the Ruled
The essay highlights how imperialism strips individuals of their humanity. The British colonial system turns Orwell into a figure of oppression, forcing him to act against his moral beliefs. At the same time, the Burmese people, though oppressed, take pleasure in his discomfort and expect him to entertain them with an act of violence. The crowd’s eagerness to watch the elephant’s death reflects how colonial subjects, despite their suffering, can also participate in the cycle of cruelty. This mutual dehumanization is one of Orwell’s key critiques of imperialism.
The Use of Personal Experience to Convey a Political Message
Orwell uses a personal narrative to illustrate a broader political idea. By focusing on his own moral dilemma, he makes the critique of imperialism more relatable and powerful. Instead of presenting an abstract argument, he shows how colonialism forces individuals into ethical compromises, making them act against their own will. This approach engages the reader emotionally while reinforcing the essay’s political themes.
Conclusion
"Shooting an Elephant" is a powerful critique of imperialism, revealing its contradictions, moral dilemmas, and psychological burdens. The elephant serves as a metaphor for the British Empire, while Orwell’s struggle reflects the internal conflict of those who enforce colonial rule. The essay ultimately shows that imperialism is not just oppressive to the colonized—it also traps and corrupts the colonizers, making them act against their conscience. Through irony, symbolism, and personal experience, Orwell exposes the moral failures of colonialism and its inevitable decline.
Summary
George Orwell’s "Shooting an Elephant" is a reflective essay that explores the complexities of imperialism, power, and personal conscience through a personal experience in colonial Burma. As a British police officer stationed in Burma, Orwell grapples with the moral contradictions of imperial rule. He despises the British Empire’s oppressive control over the Burmese people, yet he also resents the hostility he faces from the locals, who see him as a symbol of colonialism. This inner conflict sets the stage for the incident he narrates.
One day, Orwell receives a report that an elephant has gone on a rampage, destroying property and even killing a man. As the only authority figure present, he is expected to handle the situation. Initially, he sets out with little intention of killing the animal, hoping instead to scare it away. Along the way, he observes the damage caused by the elephant, including a trampled hut and a dead man whose body has been grotesquely mangled. These sights reinforce the seriousness of the situation, but Orwell remains unsure of what action to take.
When he finally finds the elephant, he sees that it is calm, peacefully grazing in a field. At this point, Orwell realizes that the elephant is no longer a threat and does not need to be killed. However, a massive crowd of Burmese villagers has gathered, eager to witness the spectacle of the elephant’s death. Orwell suddenly feels immense pressure to go through with the act, despite knowing it is unnecessary. He recognizes that if he were to walk away, the crowd would see him as weak, and as a colonial officer, he must maintain the illusion of control.
Reluctantly, Orwell fires his rifle at the elephant, but it does not die immediately. He shoots it multiple times, yet the animal remains standing, suffering in agony. Finally, after failing to kill it with his rifle, Orwell leaves the scene, and the elephant dies slowly over time. The experience leaves him deeply disturbed, highlighting the cruelty and senselessness of his actions.
The essay’s conclusion reveals Orwell’s deeper realization about imperialism. Just as he was forced to shoot the elephant to maintain authority, the British Empire is trapped in its own cycle of oppression. The colonizers believe they are in control, but in reality, they are dictated by the expectations of those they rule. The entire system is built on maintaining an illusion of power, even when it comes at great moral cost.
Through this incident, Orwell critiques the dehumanizing nature of colonial rule. The essay illustrates how imperialism not only oppresses the colonized but also corrupts the colonizers, forcing them into actions that go against their own conscience. Orwell’s reluctant killing of the elephant serves as a powerful metaphor for the moral contradictions of empire, showing that those who enforce oppression are often its greatest victims.
In "Shooting an Elephant", Orwell masterfully blends personal narrative with political commentary, offering a powerful critique of imperialism and the way it distorts both power and morality.
Understanding
1. What is the purpose of the first two paragraphs? In what ways do they introduce the incident Orwell narrates in his essay?
The first two paragraphs of “Shooting an Elephant” serve to introduce the setting, establish Orwell’s conflicted perspective on imperialism, and foreshadow the central incident of the essay.
Orwell describes his role as a British police officer in Burma, highlighting the hostility he faces from the local population. He acknowledges his hatred of imperialism but also his resentment toward the Burmese people who mistreat him. This paradox sets up his internal conflict, which becomes crucial to understanding his actions later in the essay.
The paragraphs introduce the oppressive nature of colonial rule and Orwell’s personal struggle with his position of power. They create an atmosphere of tension, showing how he is caught between his own moral beliefs and the expectations placed upon him. This prepares the reader for the ethical and political dilemma he will face when he is called upon to deal with the elephant. Together, these paragraphs not only provide the necessary background but also build anticipation for the main event, reinforcing the essay’s central themes of power, coercion, and the moral consequences of imperialism.
2. What thesis about "the real nature of imperialism" does Orwell prove by narrating this "tiny incident"?
In the essay, Orwell uses this “tiny incident” to prove a profound thesis about the real nature of imperialism—that it is a system that not only oppresses the colonized but also enslaves the colonizers, forcing them into roles they do not want to play.
Through the incident of killing the elephant, Orwell demonstrates that imperialism is built on a false sense of power and control. Although he is a colonial officer and appears to wield authority, he realizes that he is not truly in control—he is compelled to act according to the expectations of the native people, fearing humiliation more than moral failure. This moment reveals the paradox of imperialism: the ruler must constantly prove his dominance, yet in doing so, he becomes a mere puppet of the system, trapped in a cycle of violence and performance.
Orwell also shows that imperialism dehumanizes both the oppressor and the oppressed. The Burmese people, although victims of colonial rule, mock and resent him, while he, though an agent of the British Empire, despises his role. He recognizes the cruelty of the system but still participates in it, revealing how imperialism corrupts the morality of those who enforce it. The slow and painful death of the elephant serves as a metaphor for the British Empire itself—once powerful but now struggling under the weight of its own contradictions. Ultimately, Orwell’s thesis is that imperialism is a destructive force that imposes artificial authority and moral compromises on those who uphold it, making them prisoners of the very system they seek to maintain.
3. What are the reasons Orwell considers when he tries to decide what to do? What, does he conclude, was his main purpose in shooting the elephant?
Orwell considers several reasons while deciding whether to shoot the elephant. He initially hopes to avoid killing it, recognizing that it is no longer a threat. He also considers the economic value of the elephant and the unnecessary cruelty of killing such a large animal. However, he ultimately realizes that the massive crowd expects him to act, and he fears looking weak, ridiculous or foolish in front of them if he does not shoot.
His main purpose in shooting the elephant, he concludes, was not necessity but to avoid humiliation. He recognizes that as a colonial officer, he is trapped by the expectations of the people he rules. The incident reveals that imperialism forces oppressors to act against their own conscience to maintain an illusion of control.
Orwell concludes that his primary reason for shooting the elephant is not necessity but rather his fear of embarrassment. He recognizes that, despite being a colonial officer with supposed authority, he is not in control—he is compelled to act in a way that upholds the illusion of British dominance.
In the end, Orwell realizes that he shoots the elephant not out of duty, justice, or necessity, but because he feels pressured to maintain the image of power. He states, "I had to shoot the elephant. I committed myself to doing it when I sent for the rifle. A white man mustn't be frightened in front of 'natives'; and so, in general, he does things he ought not to do."
This conclusion reflects Orwell’s deeper critique of imperialism: the colonizer, despite appearing powerful, is actually controlled by the expectations of the colonized. The need to uphold authority forces him into morally compromising situations, revealing the hollow and self-destructive nature of imperialism.
4. What kind of people does Orwell imagine will read his essay?
Orwell likely imagines his essay will be read by Western intellectuals, critics of imperialism, and those interested in political and moral issues. His audience includes individuals who may support or question colonial rule, and he aims to expose the moral contradictions and psychological burdens of imperialism to provoke thought and self-reflection.
5. Why did he really shoot the elephant?
Orwell
really shot the elephant not out of necessity, but to avoid looking weak in
front of the Burmese crowd. He felt immense pressure to maintain the image
of British authority, fearing that if he backed down, he would be ridiculed.
Though he recognized that the elephant was no longer a threat, he went through
with the act because imperialism forced him to uphold a false sense of power.
His decision symbolizes how colonial rulers, despite their dominance, are
trapped by the expectations of the people they govern.
Rhetorical/Language/Writing
1. Although Orwell begins narrating the incident in paragraph 3, we do not see the elephant until the end of paragraph 5. What details do we see? How do they intensify the dramatic conflict?
Before the elephant appears at the end of paragraph 5, Orwell provides several key details that build suspense and intensify the dramatic conflict:
The Chaos and Destruction Left by the Elephant
Orwell describes the aftermath of the elephant’s rampage—damaged houses, trampled fields, and an injured cow—which establishes the initial tension. Most significantly, he sees a man trampled to death, described in graphic detail with his body twisted unnaturally. This violent image heightens the seriousness of the situation and raises the stakes.
The Growing Crowd and Their Expectations
As Orwell follows the elephant’s trail, more and more Burmese villagers join him. The crowd is eager and excited, anticipating a spectacle. Orwell realizes that their presence places him in an unspoken social obligation to act decisively, intensifying his internal conflict.
Orwell’s Increasing Pressure and Uncertainty
He expresses his own doubts about the necessity of shooting the elephant, recognizing that it may no longer be dangerous. However, the massive crowd behind him expects action, and he feels trapped by the role of the colonial officer. These details intensify the dramatic conflict by emphasizing Orwell’s moral dilemma: he knows that killing the elephant may be unnecessary, but he also understands that failing to do so will make him look weak. By delaying the appearance of the elephant, Orwell builds tension, ensuring that when it finally comes into view, the reader fully grasps the weight of the decision he must make.
2. What techniques does Orwell use to describe the shooting as a drama? Who is the audience? How does their attitude influence the leading actors?
Orwell transforms the shooting into a dramatic spectacle through several literary techniques:
Vivid Imagery and Sensory Details
He describes the elephant’s slow, agonizing death in graphic detail: “A mysterious, terrible change had come over the elephant… He sagged flabbily to his knees.” The use of slow-motion-like detail and repetition of the shots makes the scene painfully drawn out, heightening the emotional weight of the moment.
Symbolism
The elephant symbolizes British imperialism — once powerful but now weak and struggling. Similarly, the act of shooting represents the moral corruption and futility of colonial rule, as Orwell realizes he is acting against his own conscience.
Internal Conflict and Psychological Tension
Orwell’s self-awareness and hesitation add to the drama. He does not want to kill the elephant, but he feels forced to do so. His struggle reflects the greater conflict of imperialism — colonizers must uphold an illusion of power, even when they feel powerless.
The Role of the Audience (The Burmese Crowd)
The crowd is described as an excited, expectant mass, eager to witness the spectacle. Orwell realizes he is merely performing for them, stating: “I perceived in this moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys.” The crowd’s excitement pressures him into acting, just as imperial rulers feel compelled to maintain control, even at great moral cost.
As far as the audience is concerned, the direct audience is the Burmese people. Their presence transforms the event into a public performance. Orwell realizes that he must shoot the elephant, not because it is necessary but to maintain the illusion of colonial authority. Their excitement, expectation, and silent command over Orwell force him into the role of executioner. Moreover, he also writes for a Western audience, particularly those who might support or question imperialism. By portraying the event as a tragic, ironic spectacle, he exposes the hollowness of colonial rule and the moral destruction of the oppressors.
In conclusion, the shooting is presented as a tragic drama in which Orwell is both the performer and the victim, forced by the expectations of the crowd to act against his better judgment. This mirrors the larger reality of imperialism, where colonial rulers must commit oppressive acts to uphold a power structure that ultimately enslaves them as well.
3. Orwell begins to tell the story of the elephant in paragraph 3 and reveals his attitude toward the Burmese in various indirect ways. In paragraph 4, he describes the dead coolie in considerable detail. In paragraphs 5 through 9, he discusses his plans and options regarding the elephant. Paragraphs 5 and 6, however, differ greatly from 7, 8 and 9, both in content and treatment. Characterize the difference.
Paragraphs 5 and 6 focus on Orwell’s external observations and logical reasoning. He follows the elephant’s trail, considers its past destruction, and debates whether killing it is necessary. His tone is analytical, weighing the practical and ethical aspects of his decision. In contrast, paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 shift to Orwell’s internal conflict and psychological pressure. Here, he becomes acutely aware of the massive crowd watching him, realizing that he is trapped by their expectations. His focus moves from rational decision-making to the performative nature of power — he must kill the elephant not out of necessity but to maintain his authority and avoid humiliation.
4. How does Orwell pace the shooting of the elephant in paragraphs 11 and 12? How does the elephant's slow death affect Orwell's point of view toward what he has done?
Orwell paces the shooting slowly and agonizingly in paragraphs 11 and 12, emphasizing the elephant’s prolonged suffering. Despite being shot multiple times, the elephant does not die immediately but staggers, kneels, and struggles before finally collapsing. The detailed, drawn-out description creates a sense of helplessness and futility, mirroring Orwell’s realization of the moral and ethical emptiness of his actions. Watching the elephant suffer, he feels guilt and powerlessness, reinforcing his belief that imperialism is cruel and dehumanizing — not just for the oppressed but also for the oppressors, who are forced into acts of unnecessary violence.
Discussion
1. Why is it important to "avoid looking a fool" (14)? What does it mean to be laughed at? What is the difference between acting like a joker and acting like a fool?
In the colonial context Orwell describes, avoiding looking like a fool is crucial because power in imperialism is based on perception. If Orwell hesitates or fails to act decisively, he risks losing authority in the eyes of the Burmese people. To be laughed at means to be stripped of power and control, which, for a colonial officer, is deeply dangerous — it would expose the fragility of British rule. The difference between acting like a joker and a fool lies in intent and control. A joker chooses to entertain and maintain some authority, whereas a fool is unintentionally ridiculed, losing respect and influence. Orwell fears becoming the latter, trapped by the very system he enforces.
2. Much of Orwell's essay assumes a knowledge of the worlds "imperialism" and "despotism". What do these words mean? How do they apply to the essay? What correct events can you identify in which these words might also apply?
Imperialism refers to a system where a powerful nation controls and exploits weaker territories for economic, political, or military gain. Despotism is a form of absolute rule where a leader or government exercises oppressive power over people. In the essay, Orwell explores how British imperialism in Burma forces him into an oppressive role, even when he personally opposes the system. The essay reveals how imperialism dehumanizes both the oppressor and the oppressed, creating a cycle of violence and moral corruption.
These terms also apply to historical events like the British rule in India, the Belgian colonization of the Congo, and the apartheid system in South Africa. In these cases, imperial powers maintained control through force and coercion, just as Orwell, despite his reluctance, was compelled to kill the elephant to maintain the illusion of authority. The essay ultimately critiques how imperialism turns rulers into despots, trapping them in roles they cannot escape.
3. Have you ever been placed in a situation in which you were forced to do something that you did not entirely agree with? Discuss such an incident and detail your feelings before, during, and after in an essay.
As a teacher, I once found myself caught between my personal beliefs and the expectations of my colleagues regarding a controversial issue — whether boys and girls should be kept in the same classroom or taught separately. Our school administration was debating a policy change, with some teachers strongly advocating for separate classrooms, believing it would improve discipline and focus. I personally believed that mixed classrooms foster better social skills and equality, preparing students for the real world. However, I soon realized that expressing my views openly would put me in conflict with many of my colleagues.
Before the meeting, I felt anxious. I wanted to defend the benefits of co-education, but I also didn’t want to be seen as disruptive. During the discussion, I hesitated, watching others passionately argue for separation. When it was my turn to speak, I softened my stance, avoiding direct opposition. Though I didn’t fully agree, I ended up supporting a compromise to avoid tension.
Afterward, I felt a deep sense of regret. By staying neutral, I had failed to stand up for what I believed was right. The experience taught me a valuable lesson — sometimes, maintaining harmony comes at the cost of personal integrity. Like Orwell in "Shooting an Elephant", I realized that authority figures often act based on societal expectations rather than their own convictions. Next time, I hope to have the courage to voice my beliefs, even if it means standing alone.
0 Comments