Davidson

Where Economics and Politics Entwine: A Marxist Criticism of George Orwells Shooting an
Elephant
INTRODUCTION
Because it is, ultimately, an examination of societal behavior, Marxist criticism can be
applied to many things. One of the ways in which Marxist criticism can be used is in the process of
examining the manner in which people or systems use other people or systems for their own
benefit, usually to the detriment of whoever is being used. This sort of interaction plays a vital role
in the short story Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell. A significant part of the storys
narration is spent discussing the relations between Britain, Orwells country of origin, and India,
the country in which he was stationed to serve as a policeman. The relationship between Britain
and India is a very skewed one, as a Marxist criticism reveals a significant imbalance of power
between one party and the other. Additionally, Marxist criticism can be used to examine the
relationship between Orwell and the townspeople he was placed in India to serve. A Marxist
examination of this interplay would note that throughout the story, Orwell has no autonomy, and
is instead a puppet to be used as the townspeople in India see fit. Additionally, a Marxist criticism
is necessary in order to understand the ways in which people and things are valued or devalued,
as the case often is in Shooting an Elephant. Overall, a Marxist interpretation of Shooting an
Elephant highlights the controlling, parasitic, and oppressive relationships that exist between
both groups and individuals.
THE BOURGEOISE AND THE PROLETARIAT: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BRITAIN
AND INDIA
Firstly, it is important to take into account the tense relationship between Britain and
India at the time of the events of Shooting an Elephant, as well as Orwells position within that
relationship. Orwell was stationed in the town of Burma as a policeman, meant to monitor the
citizenry both as a means of protection for them from one another, and protection for Britain
from possible uprisings and rebellion. I was hated by large numbers of people, he recollects, the
only time in my life that I have been important enough for this to happen to mein an aimless,
petty kind of way anti-European feeling was very bitter (1). He responds to the hatred he receives
in kind. Although he sympathized with the plight of the Burmese people, he remembers being
stuck between my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil-spirited little beasts
who tried to make my job impossibleI thought that the greatest joy in the world would be to
drive a bayonet into a Buddhist priests guts (2). Despite these deep-seated feelings of rage and
dislike, however, Orwell was at heart a socialist, a disaffected member of the lower-upper-middle
class who believed that working people possess a common decency which is often lacking in their
social superiors (Bounds 29).
Orwells struggle both internal and external - with the citizens of Burma is a symptom of
a larger problem, that problem being the oppressive nature of Britains rule over India. In her
book Theory Into Practice: An Introduction to Literary Criticism, University of Louisiana professor Ann
B. Dobie describes the social class relations that Marxist criticism seeks to highlight. The
dominant class, using its power to make the prevailing system seem to be the logical, natural one,

Davidson

entraps the proletariat into holding the sense of identity and worth that the bourgeoisie wants
them to hold, one that will allow the powerful to remain in control, she explains. This sort of
power dynamic was very much in place during the time Orwell was serving in Burma. Britains rule
was imperialistic in nature. By Marxist definition, imperialism is the concrete form of the process
of globalization of the capital of dominant states (Pradella 1). In other words, imperialism is an
attempt by one dominant economic party to obtain more money capital by conquering other
parties and seizing their capital. Orwell himself referred to the system as an unbreakable tyranny,
as something clamped down, in saecula saeculorum, upon the will of prostrate peoples (2).
This is just one of what will become many examples of Orwell being torn between his own
opinions of what he should do, and the opinions of those in power on what he should do. In his
essay Not at Home in the Empire, Australian National University professor Barry Hindess
discusses Orwells battle between his expected duties and what Hindess refers to as the liberal
conscience. Hindess associates this conscience with both liberal fear and liberal anxiety,
defining each as [something which] arises in relation to some specific or impending threat (1)
and [something which] plays a major part in heroic narratives by providing the one essential
condition without which there could be no heroism to celebrate (1). Orwells liberal anxiety is
seen in his professions of hatred, first, towards the dirty work of an empire which he describes as
an evil tyranny, and secondly, towards those he had to govern (Hindess 364).
Orwell makes his distaste for his job abundantly clear. In his explanation, it also becomes
obvious that ultimately, the Burmese are not the only ones being stifled by the oppressive Britain.
He explains:
In a job like that you see the dirty work of the Empire in close quarters. The wretched prisoners huddling
in the stinking cages of the lock-ups, the grey, cowed faces of the long-term convicts, the scarred buttocks of
the men who had been flogged with bamboos all these oppressed me with an intolerable sense of guilt.
But I could get nothing into perspectiveI had to think out my problems in the utter silence that is
imposed on every Englishman in the East (3).

When power imbalances such as the one between Orwell and his native Britain occur, any sort of
dissent on the part of the powerless often becomes silenced by default. Though their restrictions
differ, Orwell is ultimately just as imprisoned and oppressed by Britain as the Burmese people he
polices are. He speaks both of himself and of his native country when he makes the statement,
when man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys (7).
THE POWER SHIFTS: ORWELLS OBJECTIFICATION BY THE BURMESE
The only way the Burmese people exhibit power over Orwell is when they are spurring him
to shoot the elephant near the end of the story. Orwell describes the sea of yellow faces over the
garish clothes faces all happy and excited over this bit of fun (7), knowing full well they were
watching me as they would watch a conjurer about to perform a trick. They did not like me, but
with the magical rifle in my hands I was momentarily worth watching (9). Orwells comparison of
himself to a conjurer a showman - is significant, particularly when a Marxist criticism is applied
to the story. No longer is Orwell in control of himself, and no longer is he autonomous and
responsible for his actions as he wishes to perform them. With the Burmese crowd gathered
behind him, Orwells dilemma with the elephant becomes a spectator sport, one with a

Davidson

predetermined winner and an ending already decided upon by his audience. At this crucial
moment, Orwell has a moment of clarity regarding the relations between Britain and India, and
his feeble place within those relations. He remembers:
It was at this moment that I first grasped the hollowness, the futility of the white mans dominion in the
East. Here was I, a 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 (9).

The exercise of power that the crowd exerts over Orwell could be seen as an act of
rebellion, the hypothetical proletariat taking control over the perceived bourgeoisie. In his article
Marxism and the Class Struggle, scholar Cliff Slaughter describes a vital moment of any social
change, in which the working class[arrives] at the necessary consciousness and thereby the unity
necessary for social revolution (9). Though the unity between the Burmese townspeople is never
explicitly stated, it is clear that they have become linked together in silent agreement. Orwell
decides that it is required of him to shoot the elephant, because the people expected it of me and
I had got to do it; I could feel their two thousand wills pressing me forward, irresistibly. At this
time the balance of power shifts from Orwell to the townspeople.
In Theory Into Practice, Dobie describes something known as the false consciousness. The
false consciousness occurs when cultural conditioning leads people leads people to accept a
system that is unfavorable for them (93). The moment in which Orwell and the crowd face the
elephant could be seen as the moment when that false consciousness is broken. Although the
Burmese people did not exactly accept the system they were placed under, in the sense that they
did not think it was right or fair, they never attempted a real subversion of power until this time.
They may have made their displeasure with his presence clear in subtle ways, such as tripping him
in a marketplace, but here is where they begin to exert control over his behavior.
Orwell is keenly aware of the control the crowd holds over him, and what the results of
that control may be if he does not do what they want him to do. He says:
It is the condition of [the white mans] 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 native expect of him...a sahib has got to act like a sahib; he
has got to appear resolute. 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 mans life in the East, was one long struggle not to be laughed at (9).

When Orwell is standing there with his gun, with the elephant standing in front of him
and the crowd standing behind, it becomes apparent that the real power has rested with the
Burmese crowd all along. Orwell admits as much when he speaks of the white man policing in the
east, noting, he wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it (9).
FOR WHAT ITS WORTH: USE, SIGN, AND EXCHANGE VALUE
This realization, coupled with all of the events that precede it, could be viewed as Orwell
coming to terms with his use value. Dobie defines use value as valuing things for their utility
(90), or in other words, seeing people/things for what they can do rather than for what they are. To

Davidson

some extent, both the Burmese and Orwell are objectified and looked at for their use value and
nothing else. The Burmese are seen as mere cogs in the larger machine of the British Empire.
Meanwhile, the objectification of Orwell is twofold: Britain views him only as a policeman meant
to uphold order, while the Burmese only look to him for the entertainment his shooting the
elephant can provide. Other types of value described by Dobie include sign value, which is
valuing thingsfor their power to impress others (90) and exchange value, or valuing
things...for their resale possibilities (90). There are elements of both these types of value present
in Shooting an Elephant.
Orwells rifle has a very potent sign value, because it allows him to command authority,
despite his ultimate lack of personal autonomy. When he first hears of the elephant and his duty
to shoot it, Orwell takes his .44 Winchester rifle, a weapon he knew to be insufficient to kill an
elephant if the situation required him to do so. Symbolically, readers understand that the taking of
the weapon was largely for show (Tyner 264). While holding the rifle, Orwell feels powerful, but
he also feels a responsibility to use that power in socially acceptable (by the standards of the
current situation) ways. In this manner, the sign value of the rifle hinders Orwell even more than it
helps him, because the impression he commands while holding the rifle eventually aid in the
imprisonment of his personal choice.
The titular elephant is an example of a thing noted only for its exchange value. Orwells
hesitancy to shoot the elephant stems largely from the fact that alive, the animal was worth at least
a hundred pounds; dead, he would only be worth the value of his tusks, five pounds, possibly
(10). Although other, more emotional factors come into play later, his initial worries about killing
the elephant involve his hesitancies to waste the money the elephant is worth. The elephants
exchange value also comes into play when it is compared to the relative exchange value (or lack
thereof) of the Burmese townspeople. At the beginning of the story, Orwell describes the
nightmarish sight of a dead black Dravidian coolie (4) the elephant had killed. At its end, he
brings up the man again, mentioning that when discussing the loss of something as valuable as an
elephant, 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 (14). The man, even in
death, is looked at for his use rather than his personhood and in so doing, is viewed as
comparatively worthless.
CONCLUSION
Marxist criticism can be applied to Shooting an Elephant in myriad ways. Some of the
primary ways it can be used are in understanding the political and economic relationship between
Britain and India at the time of the storys events, understanding Orwells place within that
relationship (and how it eventually shifts), and understanding how different things and people in
the story are looked at only in terms of their use. Ultimately, a Marxist criticism of Shooting an
Elephant examines the destructive tendencies present in all angles of the situation, and how they
combine to create the storys tragic end.

Davidson
Works Cited
Bounds, Philip. Orwell and Marxism: The Political and Cultural Thinking of George Orwell.
Encyclopedia of Literature and Criticism. Web.
Dobie, Ann B. Theory Into Practice: An Introduction to Literary Criticism. Print.
Hindess, Barry. Not at Home in the Empire. Social Identities. EBSCOHost. Web.
Orwell, George. Shooting an Elephant. Web.
Pradella, Lucia. Imperialism and Capitalist Development in Marxs Capital. EBSCOHost. Web.
Slaughter, Cliff. Marxism and the Class Struggle. Web.
Tyner, James A. Landscape and the mask of self in George Orwells Shooting an Elephant.
EBSCOHost. Web.