Summary
Orwell opens the essay by explicitly describing the hatred that the Burmese people feel for him during his time as a police officer for the British Raj, in Moulmein, Lower Burma. This hatred forms part of a general anti-European sentiment in the area at the time. Though the Burmese aren’t ready to riot, they are hostile toward their colonizers. The main way that their hostility shows itself is through ridicule and bitter laughter. The Buddhist priests, he says, are the worst. They openly mock Europeans.
Orwell is deeply troubled by this atmosphere of hostility, for he feels that he is on their side. He says: “I had already made up my mind that imperialism was an evil thing” (31). He hates his own role. His job as a police officer gives him a close-up view of the brutalities of imperialism. He describes the whipped and tortured bodies of the people in filthy, stinking prison cells. He describes his inner conflict—on the one hand hating the tyrannical empire that he represents; on the other, being driven mad by the Burmese people who jeer at him and make his job miserable. He explains how at the time of the story he doesn’t yet know himself. He calls himself young and “ill-educated,” suggesting that he doesn’t yet have the confidence to stand up for his own opinions.
The narrative picks up on the day he is called to the other side of town to deal with and elephant that had rampaged through the bazaar. He gets on his pony and takes his .44 Winchester, though he knows the rifle is much too small to kill an elephant. As he goes, he learns from passing Burmen that the elephant is tame, but it’s experiencing a bout of “must”—a passing hormonal disorder that affects elephants. The elephant broke its chain and its owner is away. It has crushed huts, wrecked fruit stalls, killed a cow, and trampled a municipal garbage disposal van.
Orwell ventures to the side of town where the elephant is rampaging. It’s a poor part of town, a shanty, where people live in grass huts. When he arrives he finds people going about their business. He thinks the whole thing has been a lie. Then he comes to a scene where a woman is shooing naked children away. He goes around the corner of her hut and sees a dead man lying belly down in the mud. It looks as the though he’s been stamped into the earth. Orwell describes his face turned to the side, mud filling his mouth. His teeth are bared. Orwell sends an orderly to get an elephant rifle from a friend.
Analysis
A distinct attribute of Orwell’s style (both generally as a writer, and specifically within this essay) is his explicit or straightforward expository language. He isn’t nuanced or ambiguous in his analyses or critiques, either of character, event, idea or experience. Rather he attempts to spell out his meaning in plain terms. He presents the reader with his interpretations in clear, expository prose. This is not to say that he doesn’t deploy symbol or allegory or doesn’t try to demonstrate or illustrate by way of gestures and images. The story of the shooting of the elephant is itself a strong allegory. Yet when Orwell does make use of devices, he explains how they are working. His interpretation of events is woven through his narrative descriptions of those events.
“Shooting an Elephant” is explicitly about the inner conflict that defines Orwell’s experience as a police officer for the British Raj in Burma. It starts with a straightforward discussion of that conflict—what constitutes it and how it manifests—and it proceeds to illustrate it by way of scene and action. In discussing his own inner dilemma as a policeman who opposes his own role, Orwell openly presents a critique of the British Empire. He sees it as tyrannical. His description of it is as a complete and totalizing oppressive force, tightly clamped down on Burmese society. He holds this feeling in a general, theoretical way; but explains how as policeman he has firsthand experience, seeing the Empire’s violence up close, firsthand. His description of the tortured bodies of prisoners in their cells illustrates in physical terms what he refers to when he speaks of the British Empire's dirty work. In simple language he states that he is against the empire, and for the people of Burma.
Orwell’s dilemma is, in part, absurd. He hates the regime that he represents as a policeman and whose mandate he furthermore enforces. But as he explains, he’s too young at the time of the events of the story to know how to fully recognize the nature of this dilemma, let alone do anything about it. He thus carries on by attempting to play his role as the face of the British Empire, though he is acutely aware of the resentment that the Burmese people feel for him, and specifically he’s aware of how ready they are to ridicule him.
This fear of ridicule is the central motivation that drives Orwell through the story. He’s not afraid of being attacked or physically hurt. He’s afraid of being laughed at. Humiliation is an entirely psychic injury, unlike most other forms of injury. Nothing is lost from humiliation apart from personal pride. While Orwell may theoretically be opposed to his position as a police officer in Burmese society, he is driven to uphold it out of fear of ridicule. When he hears of the elephant rampaging through the bazaar, he feels compelled to show his face, and demonstrate his responsibility.
Upon arriving on the scene and seeing a man dead, he sends for an elephant rifle. But as he explains, this isn't out of some deeper sense of responsibility; it's simply to defend himself. He doesn’t yet know that when he finds the elephant it will be peacefully grazing.
