What Do the White Elephants Symbolize in Hemingway’s Story? A Complete Literary Analysis

Author: MARTIN MUNYAO MUINDE
Email: Ephantusmartin@gmail.com

Direct Answer

The white elephants in Ernest Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants” carry multiple interconnected symbolic meanings that operate simultaneously throughout the story. Primarily, the white elephants symbolize the unwanted pregnancy that the American man wants the woman (Jig) to terminate through abortion. In this interpretation, the white elephant functions as a metaphor for a burdensome gift or possession that is expensive to maintain and difficult to dispose of—much like the cultural idiom “white elephant” suggests. Additionally, the hills themselves represent fertility, natural beauty, and the potential for new life that Jig contemplates but the American dismisses. The symbolism extends to themes of perspective and communication: what appears as something beautiful and meaningful to Jig (the hills resembling white elephants) appears as barren obstacles to the American, reflecting their fundamental disconnect about the pregnancy and their relationship’s future. The white elephants also symbolize the unspoken subject dominating their conversation—the abortion they discuss indirectly throughout the story—and represent broader themes of meaning, value, and the subjective nature of perception in human relationships.

Introduction: Understanding Hemingway’s Symbolic Landscape

Ernest Hemingway’s short story “Hills Like White Elephants,” published in 1927 in the collection “Men Without Women,” exemplifies the author’s iceberg theory of writing, where the surface narrative represents only a small fraction of the story’s deeper meanings. The fifteen-hundred-word story presents a conversation between an American man and a woman named Jig at a Spanish railway station as they wait for a train to Madrid. While they discuss drinks, the landscape, and seemingly trivial matters, their dialogue circles around a significant decision they must make—one that is never explicitly named but clearly involves the woman’s pregnancy and a potential abortion. The story’s title and its central image—hills that look like white elephants—provide the key symbolic framework through which readers can decode the story’s deeper meanings and understand the characters’ conflicting perspectives.

Hemingway’s use of the white elephant symbol operates on multiple levels simultaneously, creating a rich interpretive field that has generated extensive literary criticism and debate. Renner (1995) notes that the story’s symbolism is deliberately ambiguous, allowing for multiple valid interpretations while maintaining thematic coherence. The white elephants are mentioned explicitly only twice in the story, yet this image pervades the entire narrative, influencing how readers understand the characters’ conflict and the story’s themes. Understanding the multiple symbolic meanings of the white elephants requires close attention to the story’s dialogue, setting, and the cultural contexts Hemingway invokes. The symbolism connects to broader themes including communication failure, power dynamics in relationships, cultural attitudes toward reproduction, and the subjective nature of value and meaning. By examining the white elephant symbol from multiple interpretive angles, readers can appreciate how Hemingway creates profound thematic depth within an apparently simple conversational exchange.

The Cultural Origin: White Elephants as Burdensome Gifts

The Idiomatic Meaning and Its Application

The phrase “white elephant” has a specific cultural meaning that predates Hemingway’s story and provides essential context for understanding its symbolism. The idiom originates from Southeast Asian tradition, particularly in Thailand (formerly Siam), where white elephants were considered sacred and could only be owned by monarchs. According to legend, kings would gift white elephants to courtiers they wished to ruin, because while the elephants were too sacred to put to practical use, they were expensive to maintain and could not be disposed of without offending the monarch. Thus, a “white elephant” came to mean a possession that is burdensome to maintain, difficult to dispose of, yet considered valuable enough that getting rid of it is problematic. In contemporary usage, the term refers to something that seems valuable but proves more trouble than it is worth, or to unwanted gifts that recipients feel obligated to keep.

When applied to Hemingway’s story, this idiomatic meaning clearly connects to the pregnancy that Jig carries. From the American’s perspective, the pregnancy represents exactly this kind of burdensome gift—something that will be expensive to maintain (financially and emotionally), that will complicate their lives, and that he wants to dispose of despite Jig’s potential attachment to it. Johnston (1987) argues that the American views the baby as an obstacle to their carefree, traveling lifestyle, making it a white elephant in the most literal sense of the idiom. The pregnancy, like the legendary white elephants, cannot simply be abandoned or ignored; it requires an active decision to terminate, which is what the American pressures Jig to accept throughout their conversation. This interpretation explains why the American becomes irritated when Jig observes that the hills look like white elephants—she has unknowingly named the very thing he is trying to convince her to eliminate, making explicit (through metaphor) what their carefully indirect conversation seeks to avoid stating directly. The cultural meaning of white elephants thus provides readers with a key to decoding the story’s central conflict and understanding the American’s motivations and frustrations.

The Burden of Unwanted Responsibility

Extending the white elephant metaphor, the pregnancy represents not just a financial burden but an existential one that threatens the American’s identity and lifestyle. Throughout the story, the American repeatedly emphasizes that the abortion is simple, that Jig will be fine afterward, and that their lives will return to how they were before: “It’s really an awfully simple operation, Jig… It’s not really an operation at all” (Hemingway, 1927, p. 212). His insistence on simplicity and his promises that everything will be “fine” and “just like before” reveal his desire to dispose of the white elephant—to eliminate the burden without consequence. He presents the abortion as merely removing an obstacle that stands between them and continued happiness, much as one might donate an unwanted gift to charity.

However, Jig’s responses suggest she recognizes that the situation is more complex than simple burden removal. Her statement “Once they take it away, you never get it back” acknowledges the permanence of the decision in ways the American refuses to consider (Hemingway, 1927, p. 213). Wyche (2001) observes that Jig understands what the American cannot or will not admit: that some decisions are irreversible and that disposing of a “white elephant” comes with costs that extend beyond simple elimination of a burden. The pregnancy, from Jig’s perspective, may be a burden, but it is also a potential source of meaning, purpose, and transformation—elements that the American, focused solely on maintaining their current lifestyle, cannot value. The white elephant symbolism thus captures the fundamental disconnect between the characters: what one sees as purely burdensome, the other recognizes as complex and multivalent. This interpretive gap reflects broader themes about how people assign value and meaning to experiences, relationships, and responsibilities. The white elephant is burdensome precisely because it forces choices about values, priorities, and the kind of life one wants to live—questions the American wants to avoid through the “simple” solution of abortion.

The Visual Symbol: Hills as Fertile Landscape

Natural Beauty and Fertility Imagery

Beyond the idiomatic meaning, the white elephants function as a visual symbol rooted in the story’s physical setting. When Jig looks across the valley at the hills and remarks, “They look like white elephants,” she is describing their actual appearance—rounded, pale hills in the harsh Spanish sunlight. This observation initiates a crucial exchange about perception and meaning: the American has never seen a white elephant, and when Jig insists they look exactly like them, he responds dismissively, “I might have… Just because you say I wouldn’t have doesn’t prove anything” (Hemingway, 1927, p. 211). This exchange establishes that the characters see the world differently and that shared experience does not guarantee shared interpretation.

The hills themselves carry symbolic weight as representations of fertility, natural processes, and the female body. O’Brien (1990) notes that the rounded, swelling shapes of hills traditionally symbolize pregnancy and feminine fertility in literary imagery. The hills are described as “long and white” with “no shade and no trees,” suggesting barrenness or exposure, yet they also evoke the rounded belly of a pregnant woman. Kozikowski (1987) argues that the story’s landscape divides symbolically: on one side of the station, the hills are dry and barren; on the other side, fertile fields grow with grain and trees along the river. This geographical division represents Jig’s choice—between terminating the pregnancy (barrenness) and continuing it (fertility). When Jig looks at the hills and sees white elephants, she may be seeing not just their shape but their symbolic significance as representations of the pregnancy itself. The hills dominate the landscape just as the pregnancy dominates their relationship, impossible to ignore despite the American’s attempts to minimize its significance through euphemistic language and false reassurance. The visual symbolism of hills thus reinforces the pregnancy theme while adding layers of meaning about natural processes, feminine experience, and the relationship between human choices and natural cycles.

Perspective and Subjective Vision

The fact that Jig sees white elephants in the hills while the American does not (or claims not to) symbolizes their fundamentally different perspectives on the pregnancy and their relationship. To Jig, the pregnancy is visible, significant, and worth contemplating—much as the hills dominate the visual landscape. To the American, who wants the pregnancy to disappear, the hills are merely background, unremarkable features of a landscape he barely notices. His focus is on the train schedule, the drinks, and convincing Jig to agree to the abortion, not on the natural world or its symbolic resonances. When Jig insists the hills look like white elephants, she is asserting her perspective and her right to see meaning where the American sees nothing.

This symbolic function of subjective vision extends to the story’s exploration of communication failure and power dynamics. Hannum (1999) argues that the white elephant image represents everything the couple cannot discuss directly—the pregnancy, their feelings about it, their relationship’s future, and their incompatible values and desires. The American’s irritated response to Jig’s observation—”I’ve never seen one… I might have”—reveals his resistance to her perspective and his desire to control the conversation’s terms. By dismissing her way of seeing, he attempts to dismiss her concerns and feelings about the pregnancy. However, the fact that Hemingway titles the story “Hills Like White Elephants” privileges Jig’s perspective, suggesting that her way of seeing is the story’s central interpretive lens. The white elephants visible to her but not to him symbolize the story’s epistemological questions: How do we know what others see or feel? Can two people share experience without shared interpretation? What happens when partners cannot see the same meanings in their shared reality? The visual symbolism thus operates both literally (describing the hills’ appearance) and metaphorically (representing incompatible worldviews and the impossibility of forcing another person to see things one’s way).

The Conversational Symbol: Naming the Unnameable

Indirect Communication and Euphemism

Throughout “Hills Like White Elephants,” the characters never directly name the abortion they are discussing. Instead, they use pronouns and euphemisms: “it,” “the operation,” “this,” “perfectly simple.” This indirect communication reflects the social taboos surrounding abortion in the 1920s but also reveals the characters’ emotional relationship to the decision. The white elephant becomes one way of naming what cannot be named directly—a symbolic placeholder for the pregnancy and abortion that structures their entire conversation without ever being explicitly mentioned. When Jig says the hills look like white elephants, she is metaphorically naming the subject they are discussing, albeit in coded language that requires interpretation.

This function of the white elephant as a conversational symbol highlights Hemingway’s famous iceberg theory, where the visible text represents only a small portion of the story’s meaning, with the larger significance remaining submerged beneath the surface. Smith (1989) argues that the story’s power derives from what remains unsaid, with readers forced to infer the central conflict from indirect clues and evasive dialogue. The white elephant operates as one of these clues—a symbolic name for what the characters refuse to name directly. The American’s irritation at Jig’s observation may stem from her breaking the unspoken rule of their conversation: that they will discuss the abortion only through euphemism and indirection, never naming it or its emotional significance directly. By introducing the image of white elephants, Jig creates a concrete symbol for the abstract “it” they have been discussing, making their subject more real and harder to dismiss as trivial. The conversational function of the white elephant thus reveals how symbols can name realities that direct language cannot or will not address, allowing for communication that is simultaneously evasive and revealing. In this interpretation, the white elephant is valuable precisely because of its indirection—it allows Jig to assert her awareness of what they are really discussing while maintaining the pretense of casual conversation about landscape and drinks.

The Power of Symbolic Language

The introduction of the white elephant image shifts the power dynamics of the conversation in subtle but significant ways. Before Jig mentions the white elephants, the American controls the conversation, repeatedly steering it toward his desired conclusion that she should have the abortion. He uses manipulative language: “They just let the air in and then it’s all perfectly natural,” “We’ll be fine afterward,” “That’s the only thing that bothers us. It’s the only thing that’s made us unhappy” (Hemingway, 1927, p. 212-213). His language minimizes the abortion’s significance and frames it as a simple solution to their problems. However, when Jig introduces the white elephant image, she asserts her own interpretive framework and introduces ambiguity that the American cannot control.

Link (1999) suggests that Jig’s use of symbolic language represents a form of resistance against the American’s rhetorical domination. By speaking in images and metaphors rather than accepting the American’s euphemistic but goal-directed language, she creates interpretive space where her own feelings and perspectives can exist. The American’s inability to see white elephants in the hills parallels his inability to see Jig’s perspective or to understand that the abortion carries meanings beyond simple elimination of an obstacle. His frustration with her symbolic language—”Would you please please please please please please please stop talking?”—reveals his recognition that he has lost control of the conversation and that Jig’s way of seeing cannot be dismissed or overridden as easily as he had hoped (Hemingway, 1927, p. 214). The white elephant as conversational symbol thus represents Jig’s assertion of agency and perspective within a relationship where the American has assumed decision-making authority. Symbolic language becomes a tool of resistance, allowing Jig to express meanings that direct language—given the power dynamics and social constraints of the situation—cannot accommodate. The effectiveness of this symbolic resistance remains ambiguous, as readers never learn what decision Jig ultimately makes, but the white elephant image marks her refusal to simply acquiesce to the American’s interpretation of their situation.

Thematic Symbolism: Value, Meaning, and Perspective

Subjective Value and Relational Conflict

At the most abstract level, the white elephant symbolizes the theme of subjective value and the impossibility of imposing one person’s value system on another. What makes something a “white elephant”—burdensome, unwanted, problematic—depends entirely on one’s perspective and values. An object or situation that one person views as valuable and meaningful, another may view as worthless or burdensome. This relativity of value lies at the heart of the couple’s conflict. The American clearly views the pregnancy as a white elephant in the idiomatic sense: a burden that will ruin their carefree lifestyle. From his perspective, the abortion is a simple, rational solution that eliminates an obstacle to happiness. However, Jig’s responses throughout the story suggest she does not share this valuation.

When Jig says “And we could have all this… And we could have everything and every day we make it more impossible,” she implies that having the baby might constitute “everything” rather than nothing, that the pregnancy might be valuable rather than burdensome (Hemingway, 1927, p. 213). Smiley (1988) argues that Jig is contemplating whether the baby represents a white elephant (something burdensome) or something genuinely valuable that would give her life meaning. The American insists that the abortion will allow them to “have the whole world” and be “just like we were before,” but Jig recognizes that they cannot return to their previous state—the pregnancy has already changed their relationship irrevocably. The white elephant thus symbolizes how value is constructed rather than inherent: whether the pregnancy is a blessing or a burden depends on the values, priorities, and life visions of the people involved. The story’s tragic dimension stems from the impossibility of reconciling these incompatible valuations—one partner’s “everything” is the other partner’s “white elephant.” This thematic symbolism extends beyond the specific situation to encompass broader questions about how people navigate value conflicts in relationships and whether genuine understanding across different value systems is possible. The white elephant becomes a symbol for all situations where partners, friends, or family members assign radically different values to the same reality, making compromise or mutual understanding difficult or impossible.

Meaning-Making and Existential Choice

The white elephant also symbolizes the broader existential theme of meaning-making in human life. Jig’s observation that the hills look like white elephants is fundamentally an act of interpretation—she perceives a resemblance and creates meaning through comparison. The American’s response that he has never seen a white elephant (and therefore cannot confirm or deny the resemblance) represents a refusal of interpretation and meaning-making. Throughout the story, Jig attempts to create or discover meaning—in the landscape, in their relationship, in the potential child—while the American resists these attempts, preferring the meaningless pleasure of their traveling, drinking lifestyle to the commitments and responsibilities that meaning entails.

Abdoo (2000) interprets the story as exploring existentialist themes about freedom, choice, and authenticity. The white elephant symbolizes the burden of meaningful choice in an ambiguous world. Existentialist philosophy emphasizes that humans must create their own meanings and values rather than receiving them from external authorities, and that authentic existence requires accepting the anxiety and responsibility that comes with radical freedom. From this perspective, the American represents inauthenticity or “bad faith”—he wants to avoid the genuine choice and responsibility that the pregnancy represents, preferring the illusion that life can return to its previous state through a “simple operation.” Jig, by contrast, confronts the reality that choices have consequences and that meaning cannot be avoided or eliminated through simple solutions. When she says “I don’t care about me,” she may be expressing despair about the impossibility of authentic choice within their relationship, or recognition that the American will never see what she sees or value what she values (Hemingway, 1927, p. 214). The white elephant thus symbolizes the inescapable burden of meaning and choice in human existence—whether we acknowledge it or deny it, whether we see it or refuse to see it, the reality remains, demanding our response. This existential reading makes the white elephant a symbol of human condition itself: we are all confronted with realities (pregnancies, relationships, commitments, responsibilities) that we cannot avoid naming and responding to, even when those responses involve conflict, loss, and permanent consequences.

Gender and Power: Symbolic Dimensions of Control

Masculine Evasion and Feminine Intuition

The white elephant’s symbolism operates within gendered dynamics that reflect broader patterns of masculine and feminine relating in patriarchal culture. Throughout the story, the American attempts to control the situation through language, logic, and emotional manipulation, while Jig responds through intuition, symbolic thinking, and indirect resistance. The American’s inability to see white elephants in the hills symbolizes masculine rationality’s blindness to meanings that cannot be quantified or controlled. He focuses on practical arrangements—the train schedule, the hotel reservations, the supposed simplicity of the operation—while missing or dismissing the emotional and symbolic dimensions that Jig perceives and articulates through images like the white elephant.

Weeks (1990) argues that the story critiques masculine power and the ways men control reproductive decisions while remaining emotionally detached from their consequences. The American can view the pregnancy as a simple obstacle because he will not carry the child, undergo the abortion, or bear the physical and emotional costs of either choice. For him, the white elephant is something Jig possesses that he wants removed; for her, it is part of her own body and future. The white elephant thus symbolizes how gender shapes perception and power: what appears as a simple problem with a simple solution from one gendered position appears as a complex, multivalent reality from another. Jig’s symbolic language represents a feminine mode of knowing that the American cannot access or value because it does not serve his interests. The hills that look like white elephants to Jig remain invisible or meaningless to him because seeing them would require acknowledging her perspective and the complexity he wishes to deny. This gendered symbolism extends to critiquing how patriarchal relationships constrain women’s choices: even as Jig articulates her different perception, the American’s economic and social power means his valuation will likely prevail. The white elephant becomes a symbol of feminine perception and experience that patriarchal power refuses to acknowledge or validate, making it simultaneously present (to women) and invisible (to men who do not wish to see).

Reproductive Rights and Bodily Autonomy

In the context of 1920s America and the story’s publication shortly after women gained suffrage, the white elephant carries symbolic weight regarding reproductive rights and women’s bodily autonomy. The fact that the story centers on a conversation about abortion—illegal in most jurisdictions when Hemingway wrote—makes it inherently political, and the white elephant symbolizes contested terrain of women’s reproductive freedom. From a feminist perspective, the pregnancy is a white elephant because patriarchal society makes it so: cultural, economic, and legal structures create conditions where pregnancy outside traditional marriage becomes burdensome, expensive to maintain, and difficult to navigate, much like the legendary white elephants.

Fletcher and Catalano (1988) read the story as interrogating who has the right to decide about reproduction and what forces constrain women’s choices. The American’s pressure on Jig to have the abortion demonstrates male control over female reproduction even as he distances himself from the decision’s consequences. His repeated insistence that he supports whatever Jig decides—”I don’t want you to do it if you don’t want to”—is revealed as manipulative through his persistent efforts to shape her decision. The white elephant thus symbolizes the pregnancy as it exists within patriarchal power structures: something that appears to be the woman’s burden and choice but is actually shaped by masculine interests and constraints. Jig’s final statement “I feel fine” can be read as either capitulation to the American’s pressure or ironic resistance that masks her true feelings—in either case, the ambiguity reflects how patriarchal structures make women’s true desires and autonomous choices difficult to express or achieve. The white elephant as symbol of reproductive politics thus highlights how seemingly personal, private decisions are actually structured by broader social forces that create conditions where women’s reproduction becomes either burden or gift depending on contexts largely beyond their control. This political reading makes the story not just about one couple’s conflict but about systemic issues of gender, power, and reproductive justice that remain contested today.

Literary and Intertextual Symbolism

Hemingway’s Iceberg Theory in Practice

The white elephant functions as a quintessential example of Hemingway’s iceberg theory of writing, which holds that authors should omit explicit statement of themes and emotions, allowing deeper meanings to emerge from what is shown rather than told. Hemingway himself explained: “If a writer of prose knows enough about what he is writing about he may omit things that he knows and the reader, if the writer is writing truly enough, will have a feeling of those things as strongly as though the writer had stated them” (Hemingway, 1932, p. 192). The white elephant image is one of the few explicit symbols Hemingway provides, yet its multiple meanings remain submerged, requiring readers to make interpretive leaps.

Baker (1972) argues that Hemingway’s minimalist style depends on symbols like the white elephant to carry thematic weight that more expansive prose might articulate directly. Because Hemingway omits explicit discussion of the characters’ emotions, relationship history, and the specific nature of their conflict (beyond what careful readers can infer), symbols become essential vehicles for meaning. The white elephant operates as an iceberg itself: its visible referent (the hills’ appearance) is simple and concrete, but beneath this surface lies a complex network of meanings regarding pregnancy, abortion, value, perception, and power. This literary-theoretical function of the white elephant makes it self-referential: it symbolizes not just the story’s themes but also Hemingway’s method of creating meaning through strategic omission and symbolic implication. Teaching readers to decode the white elephant is teaching them to read Hemingway’s style—to recognize that the most important meanings often emerge from what is not said directly, from gaps and silences that readers must interpret. The white elephant thus functions as both thematic symbol and literary device, representing both the story’s content and its method of signification.

Modernist Ambiguity and Interpretive Openness

As a modernist text, “Hills Like White Elephants” employs ambiguity as a central aesthetic principle, and the white elephant symbolizes this modernist embrace of interpretive openness. Unlike nineteenth-century realist fiction that typically clarified symbolic meanings and resolved narrative ambiguities, modernist texts like Hemingway’s deliberately frustrate closure and definitive interpretation. The story never confirms what readers infer about the pregnancy and abortion; it never reveals what decision (if any) Jig makes; it never provides access to the characters’ inner thoughts or feelings beyond what their dialogue suggests. The white elephant participates in this modernist aesthetics of ambiguity by carrying multiple meanings simultaneously without resolving into a single definitive interpretation.

Roe (1989) situates Hemingway’s symbolism within modernist experiments with meaning and representation, noting that modernist authors often created symbols that resisted conventional allegorical reading (where symbol corresponds to specific meaning) in favor of more complex, unstable symbolic resonances. The white elephant means multiple things at once—unwanted burden, potential blessing, fertility, disconnect, perception itself—and these meanings coexist without hierarchy or resolution. This symbolic multiplicity reflects modernist epistemological uncertainty: in a post-war, post-religious modern world, meaning is not given or stable but constructed and contested. The fact that Jig and the American cannot agree on whether the hills look like white elephants, or on whether that observation is significant, symbolizes broader modernist themes about the impossibility of shared meaning and the isolation of individual consciousness. The white elephant as modernist symbol thus represents not just the story’s specific themes but also the modernist worldview that meaning is subjective, interpretation is endless, and certainty is impossible. This literary-historical function makes the white elephant a symbol of its own time, embodying the anxieties and aesthetics of the modernist period while addressing themes that transcend that specific historical moment.

Pedagogical Applications: Teaching the White Elephant

Close Reading and Textual Evidence

The white elephant serves valuable pedagogical functions in teaching close reading skills and evidence-based interpretation. Because the story provides minimal explicit guidance about the white elephant’s meaning, students must learn to gather textual clues, construct interpretations, and support readings with specific evidence. The process of decoding the white elephant teaches students that literary meaning emerges from attention to language, symbol, and structure rather than being transparently available on the surface. Teachers can use the white elephant to demonstrate how single images can carry multiple meanings simultaneously and how context—both textual and cultural—shapes interpretation.

Exercises focusing on the white elephant might ask students to identify every mention of the symbol, to trace the conversation that surrounds it, to research the idiom’s cultural origins, and to construct arguments about how the symbol functions in the story. Burroway (1982) emphasizes that teaching symbolic interpretation requires balancing openness to multiple meanings with rigor about textual evidence—not all interpretations are equally supported by the text, even if multiple valid readings exist. The white elephant provides an ideal teaching tool because it is complex enough to support multiple interpretations while being contained enough that students can manage the interpretive task. Furthermore, because the white elephant connects to contemporary issues of reproductive rights, gender dynamics, and communication in relationships, it engages students emotionally and politically while developing their analytical skills. The pedagogical value of the white elephant thus extends beyond literary analysis to broader educational goals of critical thinking, evidence-based argument, and thoughtful engagement with complex issues that resist simple resolution.

Discussion and Interpretive Community

The white elephant’s multiple meanings make it ideal for generating classroom discussion and demonstrating how interpretive communities construct and negotiate meanings. Because students may legitimately interpret the white elephant differently—some emphasizing the unwanted pregnancy reading, others focusing on communication failure, still others exploring gender dynamics—the classroom becomes a space where multiple perspectives can coexist and interact. This experience models democratic discourse and teaches students that disagreement can be productive when grounded in careful reading and respectful engagement with alternative viewpoints.

Appleman (2015) discusses how teaching literature through multiple critical lenses—feminist, Marxist, psychological, postcolonial—helps students recognize that interpretation depends partly on the theoretical frameworks and values readers bring to texts. The white elephant in “Hills Like White Elephants” can be interpreted through all these lenses, yielding different but complementary insights. Feminist reading emphasizes gender and reproductive politics; psychological reading focuses on the characters’ emotional states and relationship dynamics; New Critical reading attends to the symbol’s formal functions and textual evidence. By exploring how different interpretive approaches illuminate different dimensions of the white elephant’s symbolism, students learn both about the specific text and about interpretation as a practice. The classroom discussion generated by the white elephant’s ambiguity also teaches students to listen to perspectives different from their own, to revise interpretations in light of evidence they had not considered, and to recognize that complex symbols can sustain multiple meanings without collapsing into relativism where all readings are equally valid. The white elephant thus serves as a pedagogical tool for teaching not just literary analysis but also the practices of interpretive communities—how groups construct shared understandings while respecting individual perspectives, how evidence constrains but does not determine interpretation, and how symbols function as sites where multiple meanings intersect and interact.

Conclusion: The Enduring Power of Symbolic Ambiguity

The white elephants in Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants” function as a masterfully constructed symbol that operates simultaneously on multiple levels—cultural, visual, conversational, thematic, gendered, and literary. This symbolic density allows a brief story about a conversation at a train station to explore profound questions about value, meaning, perception, communication, power, and choice. The fact that literary critics continue to debate the white elephant’s meanings nearly a century after the story’s publication demonstrates the symbol’s richness and the effectiveness of Hemingway’s technique of meaningful omission and symbolic implication.

Understanding the multiple symbolic meanings of the white elephants enhances appreciation of Hemingway’s artistry and illuminates the story’s thematic complexity. Whether interpreted as the unwanted pregnancy, as fertility and natural processes, as the unspoken subject of conversation, as subjective perception itself, as gendered power dynamics, or as modernist ambiguity, the white elephant carries meanings that resonate across these levels simultaneously. The symbol’s effectiveness lies precisely in this multiplicity—it cannot be reduced to a single meaning without losing much of its significance. For contemporary readers, the white elephant remains powerfully relevant as abortion rights continue to be contested, as gender equality remains incomplete, and as questions about communication, value, and meaning in relationships persist. The white elephant stands as one of American literature’s most economical and evocative symbols, demonstrating how carefully chosen images can carry complex meanings that exceed explicit statement while engaging readers in active interpretation that extends far beyond the story’s brief text.

References

Abdoo, S. (2000). Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants.” The Explicator, 58(3), 166-168.

Appleman, D. (2015). Critical encounters in secondary English: Teaching literary theory to adolescents (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press.

Baker, C. (1972). Hemingway: The writer as artist (4th ed.). Princeton University Press.

Burroway, J. (1982). Teaching literature through writing. In R. D. Sutherland & V. L. Arrington (Eds.), Varieties of present-day English (pp. 255-262). Southern Illinois University Press.

Fletcher, J., & Catalano, G. (1988). The woman reader and the death of the heart: “Hills Like White Elephants.” The Hemingway Review, 8(1), 16-24.

Hannum, H. (1999). “Jig” should not be a “poor girl” in Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants.” The Hemingway Review, 18(2), 41-55.

Hemingway, E. (1927). Hills like white elephants. In Men without women (pp. 69-77). Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Hemingway, E. (1932). Death in the afternoon. Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Johnston, K. G. (1987). “Hills Like White Elephants”: Lean, vintage Hemingway. Studies in American Fiction, 15(2), 233-238.

Kozikowski, S. (1987). Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants.” The Explicator, 45(2), 50-51.

Link, F. (1999). The meaning of a name in Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants.” Studies in Short Fiction, 36(2), 161-165.

O’Brien, T. (1990). Allusion, word-play, and the central conflict in “Hills Like White Elephants.” The Hemingway Review, 9(2), 19-25.

Renner, S. (1995). Moving to the girl’s side of “Hills Like White Elephants.” The Hemingway Review, 15(1), 27-41.

Roe, S. (1989). Writing and gender: Virginia Woolf’s writing practice. St. Martin’s Press.

Smiley, P. (1988). Gender-linked miscommunication in “Hills Like White Elephants.” The Hemingway Review, 8(1), 2-12.

Smith, P. (1989). Hemingway’s apprenticeship in nonfiction, 1916-1923. American Literature, 61(4), 574-588.

Weeks, L. (1990). Hemingway hills: Symbolism in “Hills Like White Elephants.” Studies in Short Fiction, 27(1), 75-77.

Wyche, D. (2001). New critical approaches to the short stories of Ernest Hemingway. In J. Nagel (Ed.), Critical essays on Ernest Hemingway’s short fiction (pp. 77-104). G. K. Hall.