Civil Disobedience By George Orwell Analysis

The subject of an experiment cries out, “I can’t stand it. I’m not going to kill that man in there” (Milgram 120), as the experimenter compels his subject to administer deadly electrical shocks to another man. The subject clearly expresses his moral objections to these instructions, yet to influence his subject, the insistent experimenter does not lock the door, nor does he hold the subject at knifepoint- he only requests that the subject “Continue, please” (121). And so the subject continues. According to Henry David Thoreau, people obey the majority because it is “physically the strongest” (199). A majority bends and stretches the small minority to execute the majority’s will, just as the experimenter succeeds in compelling the shock administrator …show more content…
How can such a feeble power drive the subject to compromise his own convictions, especially those sacred convictions against inflicting unjust suffering unto another? This paradox of obedience to a powerless influence presents itself in two great works of literature: “Shooting an Elephant” and “Civil Disobedience”. Take the pieces’ two bold writers, George Orwell and Thoreau himself, respectively. Forces compel both men to perform what each considers an objectionable act: for Thoreau, to pay a tax supporting the aggressive Mexican- American war; for Orwell, shooting an elephant wandering through the Burmese town that Orwell polices. However, the influential forces, and the power they each possess, differ greatly. The American government, the force that compels Thoreau to pay his tax, wields immense power and can inflict severe repercussions against …show more content…
Drawing further insight from these findings, Milgram writes of the perils of obedience, “There was a time, perhaps, when people were able to give a fully human response to any situation because they were fully absorbed in it as human beings. But as soon as there was a division of labor things changed…He yields to authority but in doing so is alienated from his own actions. Thus there is a fragmentation of the total human act” (130). This fragmentation phenomenon applies not only to communicating responsibility, but to the human factor as well. These principles help to explain the paradox in the writers’ antithetical experiences. In Thoreau’s case, the sheer physical disconnect between himself- an isolated inhabitant of a cabin on Walden Pond- and the authority over him- the government- dilutes the government’s influence on him. Thoreau only actually meets “this American government, or its representative, the State government, directly, and face to face, once a year- no more” (206). The key term: “face to face”. The government lacks that human factor- the most primitive and direct means of influence through eyes and ears and mouths. Without it, one cannot effectively assert authority, regardless of the magnitude of strength. Thus, Thoreau disobeys. Additionally, in the absence of this human factor, the state “never