PASSAGE ONE

(1)The Burmese sub-inspector and some Indian constables were waiting for me in the quarter where the elephant had been seen. We began questioning the people as to where the elephant had gone and, as usual, failed to get any definite information. I had almost made up my mind that the whole story was a pack of lies, when we heard yells a little distance away. There was a loud cry of “Go away, child! Go away this instant! ” and an old woman with a switch in her hand came round the comer of a hut, violently driving away a crowd of naked children. I rounded the hut and saw a man’s dead body sprawling in the mud. The people said that the elephant had come suddenly upon him round the comer of the hut, caught him with its trunk, put its foot on his back and ground him into the earth. As soon as I saw the dead man I sent an orderly to a friend’s house nearby to borrow an elephant rifle.

(2)The orderly came back in a few minutes with a rifle and five cartridges, and meanwhile some Burmans had arrived and told us that the elephant was in the paddy fields below, only a few hundred yards away. As I started forward practically the whole population of the quarter flocked out of the houses and followed me. They had seen the rifle and were all shouting excitedly that I was going to shoot the elephant. It made me vaguely uneasy. I had no intention of shooting the elephant — I had merely sent for the rifle to defend myself if necessary — and it is always unnerving to have a crowd following you. I marched down the hill, looking and feeling a fool, with the rifle over my shoulder and an ever-growing army of people jostling at my heels. The elephant was standing eight yards from the road, his left side towards us. He took not the slightest notice of the crowd’s approach. He was tearing up bunches of grass, beating them against his knees to clean them and stuffing them into his mouth.

(3)I had halted on the road. As soon as I saw the elephant I knew with perfect certainty that I ought not to shoot him. It is a serious matter to shoot a working elephant — it is comparable to destroying a huge and costly piece of machinery — and obviously one ought not to do it if it can possibly be avoided. And at that distance peacefully eating, the elephant looked no more dangerous than a cow. I thought then and I think now that his attack of “must” was already passing off; in which case he would merely wander harmlessly about until his owner came back and caught him. Moreover, I did not in the least want to shoot him. I decided that I would watch him for a little while to make sure that he did not turn savage again, and then go home.

(4)But at that moment, I glanced round at the crowd that had followed me. It was an immense crowd, two thousand at the least and growing every minute. It blocked the road for a long distance on either side. I looked at the sea of yellow faces above the garish clothes — faces all happy and excited over this bit of fun, all certain that the elephant was going to be shot. They were watching me as they would watch a conjuror about to perform a trick. And suddenly I realized that I should have to shoot the elephant after all: The people expected it of me and I had got to do it; I would feel their two thousand wills pressing me forward, irresistibly. And it was at this moment, as I stood there with the rifle in my hands that I first grasped the hollowness, the futility of the White man’s dominion in the East. Here was I, the white man with his gun, standing in front of the unarmed native crowd — seemingly the leading actor of the piece; but in reality I was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind. I perceived in this moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys. He becomes a sort of hollow, posing dummy, the conventionalized figure of a sahib. For it is the condition of his rule that he shall spend his life in trying to impress the “natives”, and so in every crisis he has got to do what the “natives” expect of him. He wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it. I had got to shoot the elephant. I had committed myself to doing it when I sent for the rifle. A sahib has got to act like a sahib; he has got to appear resolute, to know his own mind and do definite things. To come all that way, rifle in hand, with two thousand people marching at my heels, and then to trail feebly away, having done nothing — no, that was impossible. The crowd would laugh at me. And my whole life, every white man’s life in the East, was one long struggle not to be laughed at.

(5)But I did not want to shoot the elephant. I watched him beating his bunch of grass against his knees, with that preoccupied grandmotherly air that elephants have. It seemed to me that it would be murder to shoot him. At that age I was not squeamish about killing animals, but 1 had never shot an elephant and never wanted to. (Somehow it always seems worse to kill a large animal.) Besides, there was the beast’s owner to be considered. Alive, the elephant was worth at least a hundred pounds; dead, he would only be worth the value of his tusks, five pounds, possibly. But I had got to act quickly. I turned to some experienced-looking Burmans who had been there when we arrived, and asked them how the elephant had been behaving. They all said the same thing: he took no notice of you if you left him alone, but he might charge if you went too close to him.

PASSAGE TWO

(1)Criminology has treated women’s role in crime with a large measure of indifference. The intellectual tradition from which criminology derives its conception of these sexes maintains esteem for men’s autonomy, intelligence and force of character while disdaining women for their weaknesses of compliance and passivity. Women who conform as pure, obedient daughters, wives and mothers benefit men and society. Those women who don’t, that is, are non-conforming, may simply be one who questions established beliefs or practices, or one who engages in activities associated with men, or one who commits a crime. These women are doubly damned and doubly deviant. They are seen as “mad” not “bad”. These behaviors frequently lead to interpretations of being mentally abnormal and unstable. Those doing the defining, by the very act, are never defined as “other”, but are the norm. As “men” are the norm, women are deviant. Women are defined in reference to men. In the words of Young, “sexual difference is one of the ways in which normal is marked out from deviant”. So why do these differences exist within the criminal justice system and society as a whole? In order to understand why offending and punishment differs between genders it is important to acknowledge and analyze past perceptions, theories and perspectives from predominant sociologists and criminologists of that time towards women in society.

(2)Up until the turn of the century, women were primarily perceived as sexual objects and expected to remain within male dominated ideologies such as homemaker, carer and nurturer taking second place after men. Women who strayed from the norm were severely punished, void of any opportunities to explain their actions. Perhaps interventions from Elizabeth Fry in the early nineteenth century campaigning for women to be housed in separate prisons from men and offered rehabilitation could be marked as the starting point for intense studies being conducted into relationships between women and crime. The conception at that time was that women must be protected from, rather than held responsible for their criminal actions. Unfortunately, such intervention only caused coaxing rather than coercion, that is, women became segregated even more as individual members of their community.

(3)Later in the late nineteenth century, Lombroso and Ferrero wrote a book called, The Female Offender. Their theories were based on “atavism”. Atavism refers to the belief that all individuals displaying anti-social behavior were biological throwbacks. The born female criminal was perceived to have the criminal qualities of the male plus the worst characteristics of women. According to Lombroso and Ferrero, these included deceitfulness, cunning and spite among others and were not apparent among males. This appeared to indicate that criminal women were genetically more male than female, therefore biologically abnormal. Criminality in men was a common feature of their natural characteristics, whereby women, their biologically-determined nature was exactly opposite to crime. Female social deviants or criminals who did not act according to pre-defined standards were diagnosed as pathological and requiring treatment, they were to be “cured” or “removed”.

(4)Other predominant theorists such as Thomas and later, Pollack, believed that criminality was a pathology and socially induced rather than biologically inherited. As Thomas says, “the girl as a child does not know she has any particular value until she learns it from others”. Pollack believed, “it is the learned behaviour from a very young age that leads girls into a ’masked’ character of female criminality”, that is, how it was and still is concealed through under-reporting and low detection rates of female offenders. He further states, “in our male-dominated culture, women have always been considered strange, secretive and sometimes dangerous”. A greater leniency towards women by police and the justice system needs to be addressed especially if a “true” equality of genders is to be achieved in such a complicated world.

(5)Although it may be true that society has changed since the days of Lombroso and Ferrero, past theories appear to remain within much of today’s criminal justice system. Women have so many choices of which they didn’t before. It would appear naive to assume that women and crime may be explained by any one theory. Any crime for that matter, whether male or female, may not be explained by any one theory. It is an established and non-arguable fact that males and females differ biologically and sociological influences, such as gender-specific role-playing appears to continue within most families. It’s a matter of proportion not difference.

(6)Many argue, the main culprit for aggression as seen in many men is testosterone (睾丸激素). This hormone appears responsible for much of the male crime, even in today’s society of increased knowledge on the subject. In contrast, extensive research over the past twenty-five years done on the testosterone/ aggression link focusing on prenatal testosterone predisposing boys to be rougher than girls, concluded it was very difficult to show any connection between testosterone and aggressive behaviour. Cross-cultural studies of ninety-five societies revealed fourty-seven percent of them were free of rape while at least thirty-three societies were free of war and interpersonal violence was extremely rare. Based on these studies, it may be evident to suggest that sociological factors and environmental influences appear to have greater credibility in explaining criminal behaviour, whether male or female.

(7)As most women commit crimes of a lesser violent nature such as shop-lifting, leniency is given to them from law enforcement officers and judges. It is true that many women use their “femininity” to their advantage which makes it very difficult to argue equal rights for both sexes. This unequal position of women in society is due to social oppression and economic dependency on men and the state needs to be addressed. Offences by women remain sexualised and pathologised. In most ways, crimes women commit are considered to be final outward manifestations of an inner medical imbalance or social instability. Their punishment appears to be aimed principally at treatment and resocialisation. The victimisation of women in medicine seems to be “for her own good” or “in her best interests”.

(8)Changing social and economic conditions, environmental influences, cultural traditions and physiological factors must be taken into account when dealing with crime. It has only been over the last thirty to forty years that women have empowered themselves and fought for equality within all areas of society. After so many centuries of oppression and inequality, these changes cannot be expected to happen overnight. It is essential that society be well informed in the quest for justice. Creating a framework that is truly equitable requires a proper understanding of life beyond the courtroom door. The world is infused with “gender bias” and no single explanation exists for human behaviour or passivity or aggression. A complex interplay of cultural and biological factors makes people as individuals. Behaviour may be changed. All have the potential for aggression and compliance. The view that women are “other”, inferior and unstable because of their hormones and emotions makes it all too easy to see them as unstable, irrational, neurotic and “mad”.

PASSAGE THREE

(1)In his classic novel “The Pioneers,” James Fenimore Cooper has his hero, a land developer, take his cousin on a tour of the city he is building. He describes the broad streets, rows of houses, a teeming metropolis. But his cousin looks around bewildered. All she sees is a stubby forest. “Where are the beauties and improvements which you were to show me?” she asks. He’s astonished she can’t see them. “Where! Why everywhere,” he replies. For though they are not yet built on earth, he has built them in his mind, and they are as concrete to him as if they were already constructed and finished.

(2)Cooper was illustrating a distinctly American trait, future-miudedness: the ability to see the present from the vantage point of the future; the freedom to feel unencumbered by the past and more emotionally attached to things to come. “America is therefore the land of the future,” the German philosopher Hegel wrote. “The American lives even more for his goals, for the future, than the European,” Albert Einstein concurred. “Life for him is always becoming, never being.”

(3)In the years to come, America will still be the place where the future happens first, for that is the nation’s oldest tradition. The early Puritans lived in almost Stone Age conditions, but they were inspired by visions of future glories, God’s kingdom on earth. The early pioneers would sometimes travel past perfectly good farmland, because they were convinced that even more amazing land could be found over the next ridge. The Founding Fathers took 13 scraggly Colonies and believed they were creating a new nation on earth. The railroad speculators envisioned magnificent fortunes built on bands of iron. It’s now fashionable to ridicule the visions of dot-com entrepreneurs of the 1990s, but they had inherited the urge to leap for the horizon. “The Future is endowed with such a life, that it lives to us even in anticipation,” Herman Melville wrote. “The Future is the Bible of the Free.”

(4)This future-mindedness explains many modern features of American life It explains workaholism: the average American works 350 hours a year more than the average European. Americans move more, in search of that brighter tomorrow, than people in other lands. They also, sadly, divorce more, for the same reason. Americans adopt new technologies such as online shopping and credit cards much more quickly than people in other countries. Forty-five percent of world Internet use takes place in the United States. Even today, after the bursting of the stock-market bubble, American venture-capital firms — which are in the business of betting on the future — dwarf the firms from all other nations.

(5)Future-mindedness contributes to the disorder in American life, the obliviousness to history, the high rates of family breakdown, the frenzied waste of natural resources. It also leads to incredible innovations. According to the Yale historian Paul Kennedy, 75 percent of the Nobel laureates in economics and the sciences over recent decades have lived or worked in the United States. The country remains a magnet for the future-minded from other nations. One in 12 Americans has enjoyed the thrill and challenge of starting his own business. A study published in the Journal of International Business Studies in 2000 showed that innovative people are spread pretty evenly throughout the globe, but Americans are most comfortable with risk. Entrepreneurs in the US are more likely to believe that they possess the ability to shape their own future than people in, say, Britain, Australia or Singapore.

(6)If the 1990s were a great decade of future-mindedness, we are now in the midst of a season of experience. It seems cooler to be skeptical, to pooh-pooh all those IPO suckers who lost their money betting on the telecom future. But the world is not becoming more French. Several years later, this period of chastisement will likely have run its course, and future-mindedness will be back in vogue, for better or worse.

(7)We don’t know exactly what the next future-minded frenzy will look like. We do know where it will take place: the American suburb. In 1979, three quarters of American office space were located in central cities. The new companies, research centers and entrepreneurs are flocking to these low buildings near airports, highways and the Wal-Mart malls, and they are creating a new kind of suburban life. There are entirely new metropolises rising — boom suburbs like Mesa, Arizona, that already have more people than Minneapolis or St. Louis. We are now approaching a moment in which the majority of American office space, and the hub of American entrepreneurship, will be found in quiet office parks in places like Rockville, Maryland, and in the sprawling suburbosphere around Atlanta.

(8)We also know that future-mindedness itself will become the object of greater study. We are discovering that there are many things that human beings do easily that computers can do only with great difficulty, if at all. Cognitive scientists are now trying to decode the human imagination, to understand how the brain visualizes, dreams and creates. And we know, too, that where there is future-mindedness there is hope.

PASSAGE ONE

PASSAGE TWO

PASSAGE THREE