Not at home in the empire

B. Hindess*

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    32 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    The distate for the work of a colonial official, so clearly expressed in George Orwell's 'Shooting an Elephant', is often seen as reflecting a straightforward liberal commitment to freedom. This interpretation misrepresents both Orwell's standpoint and the character of liberal political reason. As a doctrine of government, liberalism is indeed committed to ruling over, and as far as possible to ruling through, the activities of free individuals. But it has also taken the view that substantial portions of humanity consist of individuals who are not - or not yet - capable of acting in a suitably autonomous fashion. This view results in a division of the world into settings in which individuals can normally be trusted to conduct themselves as autonomous rational agents and other settings in which they cannot be trusted to behave in this fashion. Examination of the consequences of this view for the practice of colonial government suggests a different interpretation of Orwell's account: it reflects a cultivated liberal's distaste, on the one hand, for working with and living among people he clearly regarded as inferior and, on the other, for the dirty work of paternalistic rule. A short concluding section considers the post-colonial liberal condition.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)363-377
    Number of pages15
    JournalSocial Identities
    Volume7
    Issue number3
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2001

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Not at home in the empire'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this