The only thing stronger than the pressure to conform is the desire to break free of that mold. A young George Orwell confronts this daunting conflict while occupied in Burma as a pawn of the British Empire. This internal struggle culminates in a gruesome act of violence in which Orwell is forced to deny his own moral compass to follow the direction dictated by the Empire. Despite his duty to uphold the regulations of this almighty regime, Orwell makes it clear that he is exceedingly disenchanted with their tyrannical rule. The British use the archetypal justification of the “white man’s burden” to deflect any criticism. They believe that bringing civilization to these aboriginal peoples excuses any wrongs they might wreak upon them. Orwell …show more content…
The Burmans’ hatred is bred from the oppressive British rule, thus rendering any “higher moral” claims moot. This culture clash is what drives Orwell to shoot the rampaging elephant. He commits this heinous act, not out of concern for the native peoples’ safety, or fulfilling his duty as a policeman, but because he is determined to not look a fool. He is so conflicted, and put under such an enormous amount of stress, that he desperately clings to his last flimsy scrap of dignity. He is living as a puppet of the empire and the laughing stock of the “coolies,” an existence that would be distasteful to anyone, but is utterly unbearable to Orwell. At his wit’s end, he is faced with a choice: his conscience or his self-consciousness. He chooses pride over principles and thus the Empire conquers another helpless hostage. In this vicious cycle of repression, no party is left untouched. The iron grasp the British exercise on the natives fuels their hatred for Orwell, which in turn causes Orwell to despise the very nation to which he owes his loyalty. There is not a shred of evidence to corroborate the claims of “higher moral beliefs” on the part of the Empire. Morals are meant to guide us to fight against oppression, not to turn a blind eye, and there is no morality in Shooting an
I strongly agree with Fromm’s viewpoints and interpretations of Orwell’s 1984 text. He warns that the future federal powers will dehumanize society and leave everyone alienated. Thus, I agree with Fromm to the extent that he acknowledges the fact that humanity can indeed cease to exist as a result of our own self-destruction as well as the effect of our actions. Many of his opinions and warnings expressed by Orwell to an extent appear in contemporary society.
Readers often find themselves constantly drawn back to the topic of George Orwell’s 1984 as it follows a dystopian community which is set in a world that has been in continuous war, has no privacy by means of surveillance and has complete mind control and is known by the name of Oceania. The story follows a man by the name of Winston who possesses the features of “A smallish, frail figure… his hair very fair, his face naturally sanguine [and] his skin roughened” (Orwell 2). The novel illustrates to readers what it would be like if under complete control of the government. As a result, this book poses a couple of motifs’, For instance part one tackles “Collectivism” which means the government controls you, while part two fights with “Romance” with Winston and Julia’s sexual tension as well the alteration of love in the community, and part three struggles with “Fear” and how it can control someone physically and mentally.
For just over half a century, George Orwell’s 1984, lauded as one of the most monolithic examples of a dystopian novel, echoes its values to this day. Orwell’s tale of a totalitarian society gone too far continues to epitomize the meaning of a cautionary tale even now. The novel begins with Winston, a worker for the Outer Party in the Ministry of Truth. When Winston begins to doubt the Party after witnessing discrepancies in the Party’s story, he discovers more than he ever imagined. From the first few pages of 1984, Orwell creates a world filled with paradoxes, irony, and fills the world with a very austere tone.
For many readers, the ending of George Orwell’s 1984 is a kick to the gut. Throughout the novel George Orwell teases the audience with the idea that there was going to be some sort of happy ending, and that Winston as an individual could live his life without control of the Party. In the end, he becomes brainwashed just like every other member of society. However, as readers we should have been able to pick up that the real end came in the beginning. When Winston began writing in that journal it was the beginning of the end for him and although he claims he won the victory over himself, the only real victor, in reality, is the Party. Orwell uses the book, and specifically the last chapter, to give a warning of what it would be like to live in a totalitarian society under complete control of the government.
In 1922, Orwell began working as the assistant superintendent of police in Myaungmya, Burma, and this is where his hatred toward imperialism and its tyrannical rule over the underdogs in society developed. He felt guilty torturing and flogging unwilling subjects. The community had taken too much power over the individual, and the imperialist society commanded Orwell to enforce this injustice: “I was stuck between my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil-spirited little beasts who tried to make my job impossible. With one part of my mind I thought of the British Raj as an unbreakable tyranny…with another part I thought the greatest joy in the world would be to drive a bayonet into a Buddhist priest’s guts. Feelings like these are normal by-products of imperialism” (qtd. in Lewis 41). Obviously, imperialism had affected Orwell to the point where he developed animosity towards the Burmese. As a policeman doing “the dirty work of the Empire” (qtd. in Lewis 41), Orwell acquired a hatred for imperialism, a belief that is focused on dominion over other individuals.
George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984 follows the psychological journey of main character Winston. Winston lives in a utopian society called Oceania. There, the citizens are constantly monitored by their government coined “Big Brother” or “The Party”. In Oceania, there is no form of individuality or privacy. Citizens are also coerced to believe everything and anything the government tells them, even if it contradicts reality and memory. The goal of Big Brother is to destroy individual loyalties and make its citizenry only loyal to the government. In Orwell's novel 1984, he uses Winston's psychological journey to stress the dangers of individuality in a totalitarian regime because it can result in death. Winston’s overwhelming desire to rebel
George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” is a short story that not only shows cultural divides and how they affect our actions, but also how that cultural prejudice may also affect other parties, even if, in this story, that other party may only be an elephant. Orwell shows the play for power between the Burmese and the narrator, a white British police-officer. It shows the severe prejudice between the British who had claimed Burma, and the Burmese who held a deep resentment of the British occupation. Three messages, or three themes, from Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” are prejudice, cultural divide, and power.
War Is Peace. Freedom Is Slavery. Ignorance Is Strength. The party slogan of Ingsoc illustrates the sense of contradiction which characterizes the novel 1984. That the book was taken by many as a condemnation of socialism would have troubled Orwell greatly, had he lived to see the aftermath of his work. 1984 was a warning against totalitarianism and state sponsored brutality driven by excess technology. Socialist idealism in 1984 had turned to a total loss of individual freedom in exchange for false security and obedience to a totalitarian government, a dysutopia. 1984 was more than a simple warning to the socialists of Orwell's time. There are many complex philosophical issues buried deep within Orwell's satire and fiction. It was an essay on personal freedom, identity, language and thought, technology, religion, and the social class system. 1984 is more than a work of fiction. It is a prediction and a warning, clothed in the guise of science fiction, not so much about what could happen as it is about the implications of what has already happened. Rather than simply discoursing his views on the social and political issues of his day, Orwell chose to narrate them into a work of fiction which is timeless in interpretation. This is the reason that 1984 remains a relevant work of social and philosophical commentary more than fifty years after its completion.
The quest for power is one which has been etched into the minds of men throughout history. However, it can be said that true power is not a result of one’s actions but comes from the following one’s own beliefs without being influenced by others. This principle sets up the story for Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell. The protagonist, Orwell himself, is a sub divisional police officer in Burma, a British colony. Orwell must try to find and use his inner power when he is faced with the decision of whether or not to kill an elephant which has ravaged the Burman’s homes. The state of power established through the imperialistic backdrop show that Orwell, as a colonist, should be in control. As well, the perspective and ideas given by Orwell show his true character and lessen the overall power set up for him. Lastly, the symbols shown are representations of traditional forms of power, but take on different implications in the story. In Shooting an Elephant, George Orwell uses setting, characterization and symbols to show that true power comes from following the dictates of one’s conscience.
1984 was written in 1948 and published in 1949 by Eric Arthur Blair under the pen name ‘George Orwell’. It is set in the year 1984 in Airstrip One, which is a province in the country of Oceania. The world is in a constant state of war between Oceania, and the other two countries, Eurasia and Eastasia. Oceania is controlled by English Socialism, or INGSOC in Oceania’s language, Newspeak. The powerful Inner Party controls the country using omnipresent surveillance, and manipulation. Every part of life is regimented and controlled, but the only crime is ‘thoughtcrime’: independent thinking and individualism. Big Brother is the figurehead of the Inner Party, and throughout the book, it is heavily implied that he may not really exist. The people
George Orwell is thought to be one of this time 's greatest political authors that ever has become very well known.While growing up, Orwell’s family was lower-upper class, using this terminology to make a comparison of his family’s working class income and social aspirations. He lived his later years in Jura, a small and isolated island off the coast of Scotland and started working on his book (Johnson 1545-46). His novel, 1984, is used to impact the governmental judgement with enhancing it from the inside out. This literary work is fierce, yet at the same time fear to the control of one’s mind. Some critics have thought of this work as a political horror comic (Deutscher 120). 1984 is based in a society where
The character, himself, is part of the British rule and is supposed to have all of the power. The Burmese, though, dangle the power in front of him. He is weak and unsure of himself, stating that he “wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it” (60). The character is not able to stand up for what he believes in -- that is, not shooting the elephant. There is a back and forth struggle in his mind about whether or not the elephant needs to be killed. Orwell’s character is fully aware that it is wrong and immoral to shoot an innocent creature, but eventually secedes to the demands of the Burmese, attempting to prove his cooperation and loyalty to those watching. In a way, the Burmese represent the pressures of society. Because of this, the audience can sympathize with the main character. There are always times when we, the readers, are unsure of ourselves, but we eventually make a decision. Whether we make the decision for ourselves or are assisted by others, in the end, we must take responsibility for our own actions. In a broader sense, Orwell’s character represents the internal conflict that everyone faces: should we conform to society or should we be our own
‘‘1984’’ was written in the period of intense depression, when the society tries to recover from the World War II. The unpleasant experiences Orwell had as schoolboy, policeman and soldier, urged him to introduce‘‘1984’’ as a warning to mankind against communism (Bossche,1984). The moment he decides to give chance his characters to represent Trotsky and Stalin , which immediately makes the author appear as a great communism criticaster. He declared : ‘‘Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it’’ (Orwell,1946)
Throughout "Shooting an Elephant" by George Orwell, he addresses his internal battle with the issues of morality and immorality. He writes of several situations that show his immoral doings. When George Orwell signed up for a five-year position as a British officer in Burma he was unaware of the moral struggle that he was going to face. Likewise, he has an internal clash between his moral conscious and his immoral actions. Therefore, Orwell becomes a puppet to the will of the Burmese by abandoning his thoughts of moral righteousness. This conflicts with the moral issue of relying upon other's morals, rather than one's own conscience.
In “Shooting an Elephant,” George Orwell gives his opinion on imperialism when he says, “I was hated by large numbers of people—the only time in my life that I was I was important enough for this to happen to me. I was a sub-divisional police officer of the town, and in an aimless, petty kind of way anti-European feeling was very bitter” (1). The main sentences in his first paragraph indicate the terrible way of imperialism and its bit-by-bit destructive consequences for both sides of the condition. His job handling with the Burmese gave him a closer look at “the dirty work of the Empire” and gave him an unbearable sense of guilt. Orwell knew he was stuck with hatred for the empire that he severed and his wrath against the people who made his job tougher.