Marxist Literary Theory Of The Novel ' Shooting An Elephant '

Marxist literary criticism as defined by Peter Barry approaches a literary text through terms introduced in Karl Marx’ and Friedrich Engels’ Communist economic theory. Their jointly written text titled The Communist Manifesto called for a society with “state ownership on industry… rather than private ownership”. The social theory later became known as Marxism. As stated in Barry’s text, “The aim of Marxism is to bring about a classless society, based on the common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange” (156). One of the theory’s main aspects looks to the “exploitation of one social class by another. The result leaves one class alienated.” Central to Marxism is a belief in its ability to change the material world, which it theorizes. According to Marxist theorists, only through conflicts between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, can the status quo positively change (157).

The first portion of Orwell’s piece is filled with his hatred for imperialism and the “evil-spirited little beasts” (para. 2) that torment him. Orwell hated the imperialism in Burma and “those who tried to make [his] job impossible” (para. 2). You can see his true anger and hatred when he uses diction like “petty”, “sneering”, “wretched”, “intolerable”, and “rage” (para. 1,2) when he’s describing some of his encounters in Burma. Most of all, Orwell just wanted to be liked and respected. He is tired of being punished for the actions of the British empire. He states that like “every white man,.. in the East” (para. 7) he was just living “one long struggle [to] not be laughed at” (para. 7). Orwell’s change in tone forces a change in the reader’s perception of the situation. When he shifts from enraged hatred and hostility towards the eastern world to a desperate want to be liked by the burmans, the reader also has a shift. They go from not only despising imperialism but

Staring down a gun barrel at one of the largest and most majestic animals can often times be extremely intimidating. One might be temped to do something they are normally uncomfortable with when an angry crowd is right behind you watching your every move. In George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant”, Orwell finds himself in the same situation having to make a drastic decision that normally he would not do. In Orwell’s essay, he is trying to inform his audience about the negative ways in which British Imperialism has on people involved.

For the Marxist critic, literature is in of itself a social institution, with a particular ideological function based on the experience and beliefs of the author, and a material product to be comprehended in broadly historical terms, emphasizing class and ideology as they are illustrated, distribute, and contest the social order of the period in which it was written. Terry Eagleton, in his book Marxism and Literary Criticism, describes Marxist application to literature

All the fuss, actions he was encouraged to make, lead back to his job he had to do, which was one he despised. Orwell’s introduction makes it very clear he doesn't not like being a police officer and especially does not like imperialism. “For at that time I had already made up my mind that imperialism was an evil thing and the sooner I chucked up my job and got out of it the better.” (Orwell,1963,pg. 1) He wanted nothing to do with imperialism, he was all for the Burmese. He didn't believe in the cruel ways the British had forced him to act on. His words are spread among many sentences created this harsh tone. He was furious he was considered part of the imperialism. He was in the group though, and being part of this came with responsibility and standards. Orwell had to prove he was worthy and could hold up his end

and disrupting the little bit of peace that they have. So in that instant he

He demonstrates that this oppression perhaps goes deeper than the average man would imagine, noticeably hindering even the lives of the oppressors. The elephants controlling force over Orwell is compared to that of an imperialist.

Story is about a Burma village where an elephant got loose and wreaked havoc on the town and kills a villager (a man). George Orwell is the sheriff and ultimately makes the choice to kill the elephant.

The white man’s burden is an idea that the white men have a job to take care of the uncivilized beings and develop them to be a more socially endowed race. Their belief that they are superior to the natives is where this is rooted. This idea excused racism and portrayed it as more of a positive element in our society, rather than the destructive mechanism that it actually is. It also caused white men to truly believe that they are better than any other race out there. In “Shooting an Elephant,” by George Orwell, the narrator’s brain is subconsciously imbedded with this notion. He claims to be opposed to imperialism and everything about it while also hating his job and the people associated with it. These two things cannot go hand in hand.

George Orwell’s 1930 short story “Shooting an Elephant,” demonstrates the total dangers of the unlimited authority a state has and the astounding presentment of “future dystopia”. In the story, Orwell finds himself to be in an intricate situation that involves an elephant. Not only does the fate of the elephant’s life lie in Orwell’s hands, he has an audience of people behind him cheering him on, making his decision much more difficult to make. Due to the vast crowd surrounding his thoughts, Orwell kills the elephant in the end, not wanting to disappoint the people of Burma. Orwell captures the hearts of readers by revealing the struggles he has while dealing with the burden of his own beliefs and morals.

In “Shooting an Elephant,” George Orwell achieves two achievements : he shows us his personal experience and his expression while he was in Burma; he use the metaphor of the elephant to explain to describe what Burma looked like when it was under the British Imperialism. The special about this essay is that Orwell tells us a story not only to see the experience that he had in Burma; he also perfectly uses the metaphor of the elephant to give us deep information about the Imperialism. By going through this essay, we can deeply understand what he thinks in his head. He successfully uses the word choices and the sentences to express his feeling. By reading this essay, Orwell succeeds us with his mesmerizing sentences and shows us the

George Orwell’s personal narrative “Shooting An Elephant” expresses the message that imperialism is wrong. He demonstrates this through his occupation as the sub divisional police officer in the essay when talking about an experience with an angry elephant. In Scott Russell Sanders personal essay “The Inheritance of Tools” he expresses the message that tradition and family are important. He demonstrates this by talking about his father’s death and the impact he made in his life. In both stories the authors use three rhetorical strategies to capture the reader's attention, which are, time, significance and persona.

When you know that everyone wants you to do something and their will is pushing yours, even if you feel like what they want done isn't what you believe should be done. This is the problem that George Orwell faced, he was pushed by a crowd to kill the the elephant even though he felt it was wrong.  The essay shows through the language that Orwell uses that his pride pushed him to kill the elephant and the deep regret he feels afterwards.

In the essay “Shooting an Elephant”, George Orwell recounts his experiences as a British police officer in the British Raj during the 1930s and 40s. During this time period, Great Britain controlled most of South Asia, including the Burman village where Orwell was stationed. He describes the futility of imperialism for both parties involved, directing his experiences to the European audiences of the time. This is meant to provide perspective towards the consequences of European imperialism and internal struggle which Orwell and the British Empire both face. The act of imperialism restricts both the conqueror and the conquered from true freedom and is pointless due to the resistance and morality of human nature.

The Marxist literary criticism states that “literature reflects class struggle and materialism.” Someone who reads texts through a Marxist lens tries to identify issues that relate to both money and power, and commonly asks questions about how they deal with the struggles for money and power, along with the roles they play in the work. These criticisms stem from the beliefs and perceptions of popular philosopher Karl Marx that human society consists of clashes and conflicts between the oppressed and oppressing; between the proletariats and the bourgeoisie (Delahoyde).