from Alt-Everything

Ruler/Dependent Archetypes in 20th Century Imperialism

Prior to the outbreak of World War I the exploitative conditions for Imperialism were carefully guarded by the powers that controlled Europe, until emerging nationalist movements in the Hapsburg and Ottoman Empires disrupted the equilibrium of the Austrian-Hungary and Istanbul regimes. The subsequent imbalance contributed to the evolving nature of ruler/dependent relationships. Monarchical methods of governing through kin and patronage were dying, as nationalistic ideals deflated centuries-old paradigms of human interaction. Societal pressures, sparked by revolutionary political ideas, made the drift to egalitarianism unavoidable, and would by the mid-twentieth- century, overtake England and France.

The mutual dependency of the Empires and their subjects began to erode as Hapsburg and Ottoman expired. The pretenses of the ruling class then turned buffoonish and unreal as Imperialists and their subjects began to lose traction. Imperialists developed crises of consciousness as the masses lost dependency. Imperialists and their subjects saw the falsehood of socioeconomic and political deference within the old system. Many of the old tenets of those relationships were eroding. The resultant imbroglio of the European psyche gave war impetus within idealized conceptualizations of the form and meaning of freedom before the rise of fascism.

To understand the broader implications of the ruler/dependent relationship and the process of decolonization in the history of the European twentieth century, one may turn to Burmese Days, George Orwell’s 1934 novel depicting the erosion of British Imperialism in Southeast Asia. It is important to look at stories such as Orwell’s to appreciate how the impact of Imperialism must ultimately be reduced to moral tales about individuals. In Orwell’s novel, individuals become the barometer of the meaning of the author’s political world view, which matters less than the meaning of his characters’ lives in the political landscape of the colony. In this sense, Burmese Days is a story about the erosion of the old ruler/dependent relationships among the novel’s corrupt colonial administrators, their businessmen friends, and the locals.

The novel is simple and compelling. Its characters are rendered archetypal. The protagonist is a lonely, white British timber merchant named James Flory. The thirty-five year old Flory despises the racism of his white acquaintances while living in a town sparsely populated with Englishmen. His best friend is a native local doctor whose deference to white men embarrasses Flory. His girlfriend is a local whore, whom Flory abuses. Early in the story, the mostly older and less culturally sensitive members of the town’s European Club are disappointed to hear that they must select one local to join the Club. The order has come from London and is obvious tokenism. Nonetheless, Flory’s doctor friend and another native, the highest ranking local magistrate in the community, plot to win the position. In the meantime, an attractive niece of one of the European Club’s members arrives in Burma and Flory falls for her. His love for her is idealized, as she is no more sensitive to the plight of the locals than her uncle or the other racists in the town. Flory loses track of his moral self in pursuit of her. He loses the girl, his friend is ruined by the political gamesmanship of his rival for the coveted club membership, and Flory kills himself.

Obvious metaphors abound in the archetypal rendering of the novel’s characters to suit Orwell’s model of Imperialism. Flory, like a disgruntled abolitionist in the American Revolution, loathes the injustice he sees everywhere around him. Yet he is powerless to make a difference within the constructs of the political situation that has him tethered to the old ruler/dependent paradigm. He is bothered by his doctor friend’s sycophantic acceptance of whites and London’s politics, but Flory is incapable of changing the man’s world view. The doctor foolishly collaborates with the spirit of Imperialism, hoping to gain favor with the powerful men who rule his people. Later in the century, a man with a similar moral compass would have fit in comfortably at Vichy.

Flory loathes himself for the treatment he deals his whore and he soothes his rancor by tipping her well. The gender politics occurring in the novel are profound, as the girl returns again and again to take the money. She is utterly dependent on Flory’s cash.

The novel’s love story is a further entanglement of idealism and reality for the protagonist. In this case, Flory’s love interest is neither as bright nor as sensitive as he believes. Yet, his loneliness won’t allow him to see her as one of the despised enemies he has constructed in his view of Imperialism. His flawed view of her is his own fault and indicative of how human frailty can repeatedly derail idealism, because Flory’s opinions of his countrymen matter little to them or to the politics of his nation. As a white man in Burma, the ruler/dependent paradigm has clearly marked his position and understanding of himself, even if he is unwilling to accept its ramifications.

With the onset of the love story, the selflessness that has given his existence a comprehensible form is destroyed. His love interest’s ultimate rejection matters to him because he hasn’t really understood what she represents in the political world he has created inside his head. Flory is convinced her politics have no significance, but for her they do. She is appalled by his love and acceptance of the mores and culture of the Burmese. He is blind to the individual power, or ego, she holds as the niece of an important Imperialist. She has learned her uncle’s politics and accepts them as the complete truth. She looks in horror at Flory, whom she equates with the savage locals.

Two aspects of the ruler/dependent formulation then clash in the love relationship. First, the niece is dependent on her uncle’s world view and is inoculated against transcending it. Second, Flory is, without recognition, dependent on the Imperialist in the young woman’s social conditioning, just as his friend and whore are dependent on him. His inability to see as much leads to tragedy, a kind of war upon himself that culminates with his suicide. In the end, he has not done as well psychologically as the other characters in the novel in coping with the erosion of the ruler/dependent paradigm.

Burmese Days is a bus stop along the road leading to the end of British Imperialism. Its psychological sketches track the erosion of the ruler/dependent relationship in a very short time frame, which amounts to a glimpse of the degradation implicit in Imperialism from Orwell’s perspective. The end of the novel places the individuals who were dependent on Flory in new circumstances, wherein they lose the benefit of their former dependency. Flory’s doctor friend is forced to take a lesser post and work long hours to survive after losing the coveted position in the European Club. The whore rues not saving more of Flory’s money, for her looks are fading and she is losing her desirability. Flory’s love interest turns her amour to a fellow Imperialist from the Club.

And the highest ranking local magistrate who managed to join the European Club over the loud protests of its members? So thorough were his political machinations, and so ruthless were his applied desires for status and power, that in the decolonization period after World War II on through today, he would have made a perfect dictator. Orwell the visionary even made him as fat and disgusting as a cartoon dictator—the perfect archetype.


TS