Lu, Zou, Lim, Bhasin, Fan, Leung, Cheng. 1
Renee, Jieyi, Nidhi, James, Tony, Kirk, Eric
Professor Phillip Webster
English Lang and Lit HL
March 21, 2014
As the world becomes increasingly globalized and interconnected, the changes to
and biased opinions toward the cultural identities of various nations become more and
more evident. While text 1 consists of a monologue extracted from the novel The
Reluctant Fundamentalist, written by Mohsin Hamid, text 2 is a speech delivered by the
Labour Foreign Secretary of UK, Robin Cook. Both texts take place in the 21st century,
but while text 1 is a work of ficiton, text 2 is a work of non-fiction. The narrator featured
in text 1 is a passionate local denizen of Lahor, Pakistan, who is perusading his American
guest to join him in an authentic Lahori dinner. Morevover, his secondary audience
includes all Americans and Westerners who may have one-sided views of Pakistan. On
the flip side, the speaker of text 2 is an Englishman who delivers his speech at the Social
Market Foundation, while indirectly addressing the conservative or xenophobic group of
British citizens who may be opposed to visa laws. While both texts perpetuate the
cultural identity of their country through the use of symbols, tone, literary conventions
and rhetoric technique, they sway their intended audiences toward different messages on
national pride.
Food is a powerful symbol in both texts that conveys national ideals that highlight
identity, and is a tool used to highlight their respective cultural perspectives. The speaker
refers to Pakistani dishes and that "pride is visible in the purity of the fare on offer;" and
that no "worthy" restaurateur would put a "western dish on his menu." The excerpt
highlights the pride in the cultural purity through food, and this conveys his definition of
national identity. It shows that the speaker in text 1 views Pakistani cultural purity not
only as a source of pride, but of a source of superiority over other cultures who are not as
authentic. Furthermore, the speaker of text 2 refers to "Chicken Tikka Masala" as a "true
British national dish" because of it's popularity and also because it's a "perfect illustration
of the way Britain absorbs and adapts external influences." This conveys the speakers
view on a dish that is usually thought of as foreign, but he highlights how much Chicken
Lu, Zou, Lim, Bhasin, Fan, Leung, Cheng. 2
Tikka Masala is part of Britain, as it is a part of its original influences. This shows how
the speaker's view of national identity and honor comes not from cultural purity, but from
cultural pluralism and adaptivity.
Nonethless, both texts are portrayed in the first person to evoke an emotional
resonance from their audience. Both texts use a first person point of view, the use of this
is to allow the audience to connect with the speaker and be able to empathize with the
speaker. Both texts also use standard English with no idoims or slangs because of their
formal occasions, as Text 1 is an excerpt from a novel and Text 2 is an exceprt from a
speech delivered to a government thinktank. The use of standard English also gives the
speaker a more formal authority. Text 1 speaks in a monologue style, the speaker does
not allow the American to speak. The speaker emphasizes his standpoint with phrases
such as "we Pakistanis", by constantly using "we" instead of "I", he shows his passion
and loyalty to his country. Text 2 uses first person to evoke a sense of unity with the
audience using first person as well such as "our economy" and "our cultural diversity",
this allows the audience of the speech to get the idea of the speaker being united and
representing everyone.
Different tones are also used in text 1 and text 2 to express the pride that the
speakers have for their country. In text 1 an aggressive and defensive tone is used
throughout the text to express the anger the speaker feels towards the stereotypical view
that many have of Pakistan. This is shown in line 20, when the speaker utters "we are not
the crazed and destitute radicals you see on your television channels but rather saints and
poets and-yes-conquering king." This quote shows the anger the Pakistani narrator has
towards the way his country is perceived. By having such a defensive tone it helps further
explore the speaker's nationalistic feelings toward his country. In text 2, tone is also used
to express the pride the speaker has for London being a multicultural city. In contrast to
text 1, the speaker of this text uses a rational and unbiased tone to persuade his audience.
This is shown in line 15, " it is an immense asset that contributes to the cultural and
economic vitality of our nation".
Through the use of rhetorical devices, both texts justify their authenticity in their
racial positions. Text 2 starts off with the speaker identifying separate pieces of his
nation's history. "London was first established as the capital of a Celtic Britain by
Lu, Zou, Lim, Bhasin, Fan, Leung, Cheng. 3
Romans from Italy....etc." By establishing that the speaker is knowledgeable about the
history of London, the entire first paragraph of text 2 is an appeal to ethos, to increase his
validity in his position. Additionally, by mentioning participants from other than of
British nationality in the history of London, the different countries is a direct appeal to
logos to persuade the audience directly that "Today's London is a perfect hub of the
globe." In text 1, the Pakistani host mentions the racial stereotype of their country as held
by the westerners in paragraph 3, "...we were not the crazed and destitute radicals you see
on your television channels..." This statement draws in the part of the audiences that have
seen the news with those specific details and have started to identify and label the country
as "crazed and destitute radicals". This is an appeal to pathos because it basically guilt
trips the intended target of the phrase into listening further to the speaker's message.
The purpose of the two texts deviate in their different settings. Text 1 is spoken by
a local Pakistani to an American, with the purpose of letting the American reappraise
Pakistan. Meanwhile, Text 2 is spoken by a Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, as an attempt
to convince the Social Market Foundation that cultural diversity is beneficial for Britain.
Pathos is more abundant in Text 1 while Logos is more abundant in Text 2. Both texts
have different cultural perspectives, as Text 1 is concerned largely with getting outsiders
to reappraise their country, while Text 2 is concerned about the importance of cultural
diversity. Both text discusses about each group’s cultural identify of their country
through the uses of different literary techniques that are mentioned above. Writing
techniques such as symbols and motifs are included in each text. They both let their
intended audiences toward different purpose on national pride through the uses of
symbols, tone, literary conventions and rhetoric technique.