Animal Rights and Literature in George Orwell's Shooting an Elephant - PDF

Animal’s Right and Literature in George Orwell's "Shooting an Elephant" Presentati on Overview Introduction to Animal Rights Historical Context Literary Analysis of “Shooting an Elephant” Ethical Considerations Broader Implication...

Animal’s Right and Literature in George Orwell's "Shooting an Elephant" Presentati on Overview Introduction to Animal Rights Historical Context Literary Analysis of “Shooting an Elephant” Ethical Considerations Broader Implications Introduction People often ask if animals should have rights, and quite simply, the answer is “Yes!” Animals surely deserve to live their lives free from suffering and exploitation. Scientific research increasingly demonstrates that animals possess consciousness, emotions, and the capacity to experience pain and suffering. This challenges anthropocentric views and raises ethical questions about our treatment of other species.  Animal Rights Philosophical Foundations Animal rights are moral principles grounded in the belief that non-human animals deserve the ability to live as they wish, without being subjected to the desires of human beings. The animal rights movement emphasizes activism and education to promote awareness and protection for animals worldwide. Animal rights is rooted in the belief that non-human animals have inherent value and deserve ethical consideration. At the core of animal rights is autonomy, which is https://www.ijeast.com/papers/76-79,%20Tesma611,IJEAST.pdf  In many countries, human rights are enshrined to protect certain freedoms, such as the right to expression, freedom from torture, and access to democracy. These choices are constrained depending on social locations like race, class, and gender, but human rights safeguard the basic tenets of what makes human lives worth living. Animal rights aim to do something similar, only for non-human animals. The animal rights movement emphasizes that animals have inherent rights akin to human rights, promoting their protection.  The Case Against Animal Rights A Number of arguments are put forward against the idea that animals have rights. Animals don't think Animals are not really conscious Animals were put on earth to serve human beings Animals don't have souls Animals don't behave morally Animals are not members of the 'moral community’ Animals lack the capacity for free moral judgment Animals don't think. Historical Review A) Utilitarianism and Animal Welfare: Utilitarianism, as advocated by Jeremy Bentham and Mill, emphasizes maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering. Bentham famously stated, "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" This principle extends moral consideration to animals based on their capacity to experience pain.  In that passage, Bentham points to the capacity for suffering as the vital charactecant gives a being the right to equal consideration. The capacity for suffering is not just another characteristic like the capacity for language or higher mathematics. All animals have the ability to suffer in the same way and to the same degree that humans do. They feel pain, pleasure, fear, frustration, loneliness, and motherly love.  B) Deontology and Animal Rights: Deontological ethics, associated with Kant and Tom Regan, focuses on inherent rights and duties. Regan argues that animals, like humans, are "subjects-of-a-life" and possess inherent value, demanding that we treat them as ends in themselves, not merely as means to our ends.  If a being is the subject-of-a-life then it can be said to have 'inherent value’. All beings with inherent value are equally valuable and entitled to the same rights. Their inherent value doesn't depend on how useful they are to the world, and it doesn't diminish if they are a burden to others. Thus adult mammals have rights in just the same way, for the same reasons, and to the same extent that human beings have rights.  Human beings and adult mammals have rights because they are both 'subjects-of-a-life'. This means that: They have similar levels of biological complexity They are conscious and aware that they exist They know what is happening to them They prefer some things and dislike others They make conscious choices They live in such a way as to give themselves the best quality of life They plan their lives to some extent The quality and length of their life matters to them  C) Speciesism Speciesism is prejudice or discrimination based on species membership, analogous to racism or sexism. It involves prioritizing human interests over the interests of other animals, even when those interests are comparable. This bias underlies many forms of animal exploitation. Animals should have Freedom the from right to live free Suffering from suffering and exploitation, ensuring their  In his book Animal Liberation, Peter Singer states that the basic principle of equality does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal consideration. This is an important distinction when talking about animal rights.  Animal Rights and Exploitation Animal rights come into direct opposition with animal exploitation, which includes animals used by humans for a variety of reasons, for food, or as experimental objects, or even pets. Animal rights can also be violated when it comes to human destruction of animal habitats. This negatively impacts the ability of animals to lead full lives of their choosing. The Difference Between Animal Welfare And Animal Rights Animal rights philosophy is based on the idea that animals should not be used by people for any reason, and that animal rights should protect their interests the way human rights protect people. Animal welfare is a set of practices designed to govern the treatment of animals who are being dominated by humans, whether for food, research, or entertainment.  Should the rights of animals be recognized If so, animal exploitative industries would disappear. the environmental problems they cause, including water pollution, air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and deforestation would disappear. Halting the widespread use of animals would also eliminate the systematic cruelty and denial of choice that animal industries perpetuate. The physical and psychological pain endured by animals in places like factory farms has reached a point many consider to be unacceptable. Animals are mutilated by humans in several different ways, Shooting an Elephant: An Interdisciplinary Look at Animal Rights  George Orwell (born June 25, 1903, Motihari, Bengal, India—died January 21, 1950, London, England) was an English novelist, essayist, and critic famous for his novels Animal Farm (1945) and Nineteen Eighty-four (1949). The latter of these is a profound anti-utopian novel that examines the dangers of totalitarian rule. He served in a number of country stations and at first appeared to be a model imperial servant. In 1922, went to Burma as assistant district superintendent in the Indian Imperial Police. https://www.britannica.com/biography/George-O  He realized how much against their will the Burmese were ruled by the British, he felt increasingly ashamed of his role as a colonial police officer. Later he was to recount his experiences and his reactions to imperial rule in his novel Burmese Days and in two brilliant autobiographical sketches, “Shooting an Elephant” and “A Hanging,” classics of expository prose. https://www.britannica.com/biography/George-O  George Orwell's "Shooting an Elephant" recounts the narrator's experience as a British police officer in colonial Burma. Faced with a rampaging elephant, he feels pressured by a watching crowd to shoot the animal, despite not wanting to. This act becomes a symbolic representation of the complexities of colonialism and its moral compromises.  Modern Animal Rights Movements Literary works such as Orwell's have significantly influenced modern animal rights movements, raising awareness and empathy.  The traditional critics always wanted to focus on the metaphors of “Shooting an Elephant” whereas the concrete fact is always right before our eyes. Some viewed the “slow death of the elephant as an allegory of imperialism” (Meyers 24) while others argued that the death of the elephant symbolizes the death of the empire. Edward Quinn said that the elephant represents “traditional Burmese culture” (307). Revisiting Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” through the Lens of PostColonial Ecocriticism The Symbolism of the Elephant Symbol of Oppression In Orwell's narrative, the elephant symbolizes oppression and the struggle faced by the marginalized. Representation of Power The elephant also embodies power and control, reflecting the dynamics of authority in society. Sociological and Postcolonial Context Colonial Power Dynamics The story vividly portrays the power imbalance between the British colonizers and the Burmese people. The narrator, as a representative of the colonial administration, holds a position of authority, even though he feels alienated and powerless himself. The Crowd Mentality The crowd's presence exerts immense pressure on the narrator. He feels compelled to act in accordance with their expectations, even if he disagrees. This illustrates the sociological phenomenon of deindividuation, where individuals lose their sense of personal responsibility within a group. Sociological and Postcolonial Context The Elephant as a Commodity The elephant's value within the colonial system is primarily economic. It is a tool for labor, a commodity to be used and disposed of. This instrumental view of animals reduces them to mere objects, devoid of intrinsic value. The Narrator as a Cog in the Colonial Machine The narrator, despite his internal doubts, functions as a cog in the colonial machine. He enforces the laws and maintains order, even when he recognizes the injustice of the system. Imperialism and Exploitation of British imperialism in Burma was driven by Resources economic interests, including the exploitation of natural resources like teak and rice. The elephant, as a working animal, becomes part of this system of exploitation. But These metaphors and symbols served the purpose of distracting the discourse. Canonical reading often takes the reader away from the fact and “Shooting an Elephant” is an example of animal being hurt. Literary works such as Orwell's have significantly influenced modern animal rights movements, raising awareness and empathy. Animal Farms = Animal Farm has been read as a political satire of Stalinist Russia or human political failings. But Orwell himself claimed that one of the major motifs for writing the novel had been to protest against the human treatment of animals, especially farm animals (Huggan and Tiffin 148). Ironically, the critics of Animal Farm overlooked this claim from the author and kept on extracting the human messages out of the text Revisiting Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” through the Lens of PostColonial Ecocriticism The essay is not about colonizer or the colonized only but about Empathy Towards Animals Empathy towards animals is crucial for understanding their needs and ensuring their welfare in society. The elephant serves as a gateway to discussing empathy and the importance of animal rights in social contexts. Let us take a look at the story from the point of the animal A) The killing of the elephant is described as such: “It was a tiny incident in itself, but it gave me a better glimpse than I had had before of the real nature of imperialism – the real motives for which despotic governments act”(Orwell 36). The ghastly murder is referred to as a “tiny incident” and the lesson that was learned was about imperialism and its true motifs. This is what ecocritics call ‘extracting human messages’ out of the sufferings of nature and the animal world. Revisiting Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” through the Lens of PostColonial Ecocriticism  B) the destruction done by the animal is described with vivid details: “It had already destroyed somebody’s bamboo hut, killed a cow and raided some fruit-stalls and devoured the stock; also it had met the municipal rubbish van, and, when the driver jumped out and took to his heels, had turned the van over and inflicted violence upon it.” What is ironic here is the reason behind this aggressive behavior of the elephant does not get much highlight in the narration. It simply says the beast “had gone must”. The elephant was being denied to fulfill its biological necessity and was chained so that it can suffer in a handicapped way. Revisiting Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” through the Lens of PostColonial Ecocriticism  C) the killing could be avoided. The animal was almost pacified and when it was eating paddy peacefully in the paddy field, it looked “no more dangerous than a cow”. The narrator even said that all he was supposed to do was to observe the beast’s actions and if it does not go wild then leave it alone until the mahout comes. Revisiting Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” through the Lens of PostColonial Ecocriticism  D) the value of the animal in the market the narrator did not want to kill the animal primarily because “It is a serious matter to shoot a working elephant It is comparable to destroying a huge and costly piece of machinery”. Animal life seems less valuable than the monetary value that humans add to its life. Revisiting Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” through the Lens of PostColonial Ecocriticism  E) what made him kill the animal then? He had to act like a sahib and do what the crowd wanted him to do as he could not afford to look foolish in front of the colonized. Hugan and Tiffin observed : “That western exploitation, both past and present, has resulted in the murder, displacement and impoverishment of people, animals and their environments; and it has also generated apparently ‘either/or’ situations in contexts of land and resource scarcity or degradation.” Here the moral degradation of the narrator is also an “either/ or” situation and we see that in such sort of situations, the Westerners always pick to destroy the resource instead of their image or interest. Revisiting Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” through the Lens of PostColonial Ecocriticism The White man is not the only one to be blamed Although the white colonizers are generally blamed for exploiting the nature and animal world, the colonized too are in no way different in their attitude towards the animals. The colonized despite being the victim of racism, commit speciesism. This anthropocentric attitude is common regardless of ethnicity, geographical position, and political status. Elephants have always been a target of humans for meat and ivory. Revisiting Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” through the Lens of PostColonial Ecocriticism  The white man kills the animal, and the natives make him do that for their amusement and most importantly for the meat. When the narrator gave the first shot, he heard a “devilish roar of glee that went up from the crowd”. This monstrous celebration indicates that it does not matter whether you are a colonizer or colonized, you still belong to a species that is more dangerous and crueller than any animals in the jungle. It was the natives who wanted the meat, and they used the white man because they knew, with his gun, he is a better killer of the wild. Revisiting Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” through the Lens of PostColonial Ecocriticism  The dying process of the elephant has been portrayed with vivid description by Orwell in “Shooting an Elephant.” It tells us about the great agony of dying and ghastliness of killing but unfortunately, this too has been interpreted as the metaphor of the slow decay of the British Empire. The anthropocentric critics never cared about descriptions like: “the bullet had paralyzed him”, he looked “thousands of years old”, “the agony of it jolt his whole body”, “he trumpeted for the last time”, “his great mound of a side painfully rising and falling”, “the thick blood welled out of him like red velvet” “He was dying, very slowly and in great agony”, “ the great beast lying there, powerless to move and yet powerless to die”, and “the tortured gasps continued as steadily as the ticking of a clock”.  It is quite shocking that we still manage to overlook this heart- rendering description of the murder of such a large animal and replace it with thoughts of human power politics. The narrator acknowledged that it was a clear murder, and his ending remarks are yet more shocking: “And afterwards I was very glad that the coolie had been killed; it put me legally in the right and it gave me a sufficient pretext for shooting the elephant. I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool.” Revisiting Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” through the Lens of PostColonial Ecocriticism  It clearly shows that the death of the collie was just an excuse, This hideous task was done only to keep the masterly image of the white colonizer intact. The narrator admitted that he did not want to look like a fool, but what could be more foolish than murdering an innocent creature when it could have been easily avoided? Here comes the idea of the human ego and self- centeredness. We humans have always participated in the race of becoming superior. We try to be superior among our own species and we take it for granted that we are by default superior to other creatures. Revisiting Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” through the Lens of PostColonial Ecocriticism  Therefore, The Elephant as a Symbol of Oppression The elephant in the story symbolizes both wild nature and the colonized Burmese people. It represents a force beyond human control, yet also a vulnerable being subjected to the whims of colonial power. Its death mirrors the destruction wrought by not colonialism only but also by humans. Why it is important how we treat nonhumans? The way we treat non-human beings reflects our values and humanity; compassion is essential. The Cycle of Violence The killing of the elephant represents a culmination of the violence inherent in the human social systems. It is a symbolic act that reflects the broader violence inflicted upon the natural world which if not overlooked would be praised: “The older men said I was right, 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.” The Moral Implications of Domination over Nature:  The desire to dominate and control nature, including animals, has deep ethical implications. "Shooting an Elephant" illustrates the destructive consequences of this mindset, both for the natural world and for human morality. Thank You