\'Shooting An Elephant\' outline PDF

Preview

Summary

plan d'analyse de texte...

Description

Shooting an Elephant George Orwell, 1936 Possible outline for a text commentary Keep in mind that the following plan is just ONE example of what could be done with this text. There are, of course, many other options.

Problématique : How does the essay reflect Orwell's anti-imperialist position? (- To what extent does this essay reflect Orwell's anti-imperialist position? - How does Orwell express his anti-imperialist view in this essay? - etc )

I/ The narrator as the personification of imperialism 1/ Personification → The narrator embodies, symbolizes, the British Empire. → He is the physical representation of GB's authority in Burma. 2/ Consequences of this personification → The colonized Burmese hate him precisely because he represents Britain (just as they hate Europeans in general (l. 3-4)). In spite of himself, he is the physical incarnation of the 'oppressor'. → The narrator is miserable and embittered because they all hate him. → Because of what Britain is doing in some of its colonies, general anti-European feelings are growing in these countries (and don't forget than France wasn't any better …).

II/ The appearance of control 1/ Who is in control? → The narrator is supposed to be in control (he is a police officer, the legal authority, etc). → But he is not, he is doing things he doesn't want to do because he 'has to', because he is expected (by the Burmese) to act a certain way (l.76-7) ('A sahib has got to act like a sahib' (l. 79)). → He is acting against his own will (shooting the elephant whereas he clearly doesn't want to). → Paradox: the oppressed dictate how the oppressors have to act. → From 'master' ('sahib' (l.79) ) to 'puppet' (l. 72) or 'dummy' (l. 75), the roles are reversed. 2/ The symbol of the rifle → The weapon/gun/rifle: not powerful enough to kill the elephant (l. 40). It can only do some damage. Again, the 'magical rifle' (l. 65) is a metaphor for the British authorities/British power in the colonies : they play on fear to keep control over the natives but they are ultimately powerless against them. → The rifle is useless against the 'unarmed' oppressing crowd which is blocking the road behind him. Just like the elephant, the crowd is too big to be 'killed' with the gun. They may not be armed, but it doesn't mean they are armless.

III/ A sharp criticism of Imperialism 1/ Orwell's obvious anti-colonial position → 'I was all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British' (l. 16-7), 'Imperialism was an evil thing' (l. 15). Imperialism = 'tyranny' (l. 28), 'dirty work' (l. 18), 'hollowness' and 'futility' (l. 69-70), etc.

2/ Imperialism leads to mutual destruction → Mutual disrespect, mutual resentment, mutual fear. → Which lead to mutual destruction: → Self-destruction for the narrator, who acts against his own principles 'When the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys' (l. 73-4) → Destruction of the country, 'to shoot a working elephant – it is comparable to destroying a huge and costly piece of machinery' (l. 52-3) (the elephant represents the Burmese population?). + depiction of terrible conditions of imprisonment (almost torture) on lines 19-21.

Possible links/connections between this text and the iconographic documents of Section 2 There is an obvious contrast between the patriotic pride conveyed in the pictures and Orwell's anti-imperialist (and anti-patriotic (l. 14-17)) views. → The Empire was a source of pride, but also a growing source of shame. Orwell shows the 'other side' of the Empire. This essay shows that if the British were proud of the Empire, they were also quite naive. They were unaware (or maybe they didn't want to be aware) of what was really going on in the Empire. If you want to go even further, you can say when Orwell writes 'I was young and ill-educated' (l. 22) it echoes the pictures. Indeed, Orwell was a member of the 'British Indian Imperial Police' in Burma from 1922 to 1927. He was 19 when he arrived in Burma. So technically, he could have been one of the children on the pictures. Some of you said that Empire Day was some form of propaganda. You could make the hypothesis that Orwell could have been a 'victim' of this propaganda and that this is what he means by 'I was ill-educated', he might have been taught, as a pupil, that the Empire was a positive thing, which was not what he experienced while in Burma....