English Prof Explains What the Elephant Symbolizes in Orwell's "Shooting An Elephant" 🐘 Analysis

- Dr. Whitney Kostars discusses with students the meaning and symbolism of the elephant in George Orwell's essay, Shooting an Elephant. The elephant's death is the event that gives the narrator a better glimpse than he had ever had before of the true nature of imperialism. - In the novel, the elephant acts like an imperialist and inflicts violences against anyone who tries to stand in its way. The narrator finds the elephant peacefully and doesn't want to be the one responsible for taking out the first cog that will start to undo everything. - Speaker A asks why Orwell chose an elephant to represent the British Empire. Orwell explains that elephants are powerful, strong, noble, intelligent, and incredibly challenging to kill. The elephant's power was beginning to fall due to a number of factors.

Hey, everyone. Dr. Whitney Kostars here to discuss with you the meaning and symbolism of the elephant in George Orwell's essay, Shooting an Elephant. This essay is Orwell's commentary on imperialism, which, as you probably already know, is the act of expanding into other regions and maintaining direct or indirect political or economical control over them in order to extend or empower an empire. When this essay was written in 1936, the the British Empire of which Orwell and the narrator are a part was the largest empire the world had ever seen, earning the nickname the empire upon which the sun never set, because it was literally comprised of a quarter of the world's population. And no matter where the sun was in relation to the earth, it was always shining on a part of the British Empire. So if you can imagine, the empire itself was massive and extremely powerful. But by 1936, it was starting to show signs of decline. Now Orwell is using this essay to make a commentary on the problems inherent in imperialism. The narrator makes his position pretty clear from the get go. He says imperialism was an evil thing and he hates his job precisely because he's confronted with the dirty work of empire. At close quarters. He says, I did not even know that the British Empire is dying. All I knew was that I was stuck between my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil, spirited little beasts who. Who tried to make my job impossible. The elephant's death is the event that gives the narrator a better glimpse than he had ever had before of the true nature of imperialism. So it's important to discern what the elephant symbolically stands for. Normally, when I teach this piece in my classes, I read word for word, the full murder and death of the elephant. It is an incredibly moving, graphic, violent and heartbreaking moment in the essay. An emotionally charged metaphor that's dramatic, dragged out from many paragraphs because it symbolically represents the slow, difficult and challenging decline of the British Empire, one that has stood so mighty and tall for hundreds of years. So when you can be sure to read it quite carefully, consider how this metaphor works in the context of the essay. What is the first thing one does as a colonizer or an imperialist? You extend your power over people, their land and their resources. You take and you consume for your own benefit. Now we're told that this was not a wild elephant, but a tame one that had gone must. It had been chained up, as tame elephants always are when their attack of must is due. But on the previous night, it had broken its chain and escaped. Its owner was 12 hours journey away. And in the morning the elephant had suddenly reappeared in the town. The Burmese population had no weapons and were quite helpless against it. This is usually the case with those who are imperialized. They lack all the real power to defend themselves, which is why they are imperialized in the first place. More often than not, the elephant acts like an imperialist, having already destroyed somebody's bamboo hut, killed a cow and raided some fruit stalls and devoured the stalk. Also, it had turned over a van with a man inside it and inflicted violences upon it. So. So, like the British, the elephant is taking and consuming what it wants without any real thought of those it affects. And it inflicts violences against anyone who tries to stand in its way. Further, we are told it is a tame elephant, a reference to the British who represent the epitome of civilization, yet are committing atrocious acts under the name of empire. Just as the elephant has gone wild in this moment. And when the narrator finds the elephant, he says, I knew with perfect certainty that I ought not to shoot him. It is a serious matter to shoot a working elephant. It is comparable to destroying a huge and costly piece of machinery. And obviously one ought not to do it if it can possibly be avoided. And at that distance, peacefully eating the elephant looked no more dangerous than a cow. There are a couple of things going on here. Empire is certainly like a costly piece of machinery and the narrator doesn't want to be the one responsible with taking out the first cog that will start to undo everything. Additionally, when he finds the elephant, it's consuming others resources, but it's doing so peacefully. This may be a reference to the way so many British citizens, living far away from the imperialized regions and having no real idea of what was going on, believed in the good of empire. The notion of spreading Christianity, stopping local policies or traditions that they found barbaric and problematic, and extending civilization to areas in which they believed it didn't exist. Obviously that wasn't the case and certainly not how these oppressed subjects saw it. Think about how the Burmans react to the elephant's shooting and death. They treat it like a circus show to be gleefully consumed. And wouldn't you if your oppressors were finally being punished and removed? And once the elephant is dead, they rush to it, stripping it down to the bone. You can read this as the oppressed Burmese fun, finally taking back the resources that are rightfully theirs and that they need in order to survive. Why do you think Orwell chose an elephant to represent the British Empire? What do you think of or associate with elephants? For one thing, they're massive, just as the British Empire was. They're powerful, strong, noble, intelligent, and incredibly challenging to kill. Orwell can't use a square squirrel, a porcupine, or even a cheetah to represent the Empire, because these animals would be too easily taken down with a gun. Also, think about when you step on an ant, for instance. You're so large and massive in comparison to that ant that you probably don't even notice that you stepped on it, much less killed it. The same is true of imperialism. It becomes so large and massive that the sufferings of individuals are no longer known, considered or accounted for. This is similar to the way that the elephant is just stepping on men and property. He's totally unaware of or just doesn't care about the things that he's doing and the destruction that he's leaving behind. The narrator tells us that one could have imagined the elephant thousands of years old, a clear reference to the British Empire, which was hundreds of years old. But as I said earlier, its power was beginning to fall due to a number of factors, and the narrator points out this dynamic by consistently mentioning the complicated space the elephant inhabits after being shot. Because while he's weakened, he's definitely not powerless. The word seem is used often in order to suggest that things may not really be how they appear. The narrator says it was as though the frightful impact of the bullet had paralyzed the elephant without knocking him down. He seemed to rise. He seemed to tower. An enormous senility seemed to have settled upon him. It was obvious that the elephant would never rise again, but he was not dead. We're told that a mysterious, terrible change had come over him. Once he was shot, he neither stirred nor fell, but every line of his body had altered. In other words, metaphorically. The power dynamics between the Empire and its subjects have fundamentally changed, but it's not quite understood how. And equally important, when he says it was obvious that the elephant would never rise again, but he was not dead. The narrator suggests that even when British rule is dissolved in its colonies, the aftermath of their presence and policies will still have a great effect on what and who is left behind. Let me know your ideas and thoughts on this lecture, and please share with me what you believe the elephant symbolizes in this essay. And don't forget to subscribe to my channel as I post new lectures on canonical literary texts every every single week. Thanks for joining me and I will see you guys next time. Bye.