Reardon 1
Brendan Reardon
English 369
Dr. Weaver-Hightower
12/19/13
Influences in British Literature
The resonance left from British imperialism in South-Asian countries often presents itself as a
recurring thematic in contemporary British literature. In her article, "South Asians in Post-imperial
Britain: Decolonisation and Imperial Legacy," Shompa Lahiri explains “how the legacies of empire
became manifest in British attitudes and policies towards South Asians in their midst, as well as South
Asian responses to the British and Britain during the era of decolonization” (200). Lahiri then goes on to
present two literary archetypes that spawned as a result of cultural assimilation: one presented by Kamala
Markandaaya and the other by Salman Rushdie. In Markandaaya’s vision, the development of a character
is the direct result of active forces imposed by imperialism, illustrating “how the oppressive vision of
imperial domination continue[s] to fester in the minds of the post-imperial domination” (210). Lahiri then
goes on to offer a point of contrast through Salman Rushdie, explaining that Rushdie “uses the
displacement rising out of the colonial encounter as a positive opportunity for reinvention and freedom to
break free from the contstraints imposed by a unitary identity” (211-212). The application of these two
theories are opposed in that Rushdie diminishes the effect of imperialism by categorizing it as an
distraction, a scapegoat typically ascribed to be the main cause of a character’s oppression, while
Markandaaya constructs imperialism to be a primary detrimental force that constrains the character’s
development.
This construction of these separate influences is crucial to the understanding of Zadie Smith’s
“White Teeth,” Hanif Kureishi’s Something to Tell You,” and George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant”,
as each of these texts that exhibit a pattern in which young adult characters undergo a process of identity
formation as a result of cultural detachment. The typical reader may subscribe to Markandaaya’s theory,
Reardon 2
and accredit these transformations to the external intercultural influences brought upon as a byproduct of
imperialism, instead of transformations are not influenced by imperialism, as expressed by Rushdie’s
ideology. In this paper, I will argue that the transformations undergone for each young character in Zadie
Smith’s “White Teeth,” Hanif Kureishi’s Something to Tell You,” and George Orwell’s “Shooting an
Elephant” spawn as a result of the universality of basic human nature, rather than the discriminatory
cultural influences faced by the characters as a byproduct of imperialism.
Zadie Smith’s novel “White Teeth” explores a dilemma in which young protagonists, dislocated
from their culture of origin, are forced to make decisions in the process of an identity crisis. “White
Teeth” is a useful text, because it provides the reader with a two sources of comparison through identical
twins Magid and Millat. Because of their inevitable separation, the reader is able to make the distinction
between which influence is greater on Millat and Magid: the cultural influences brought on as a result of
British imperialism, or the basic human desire to rebel against authoritative structures. A typical reader
may misinterpret the rebellious nature of brothers Magid and Millat to be the byproduct of the pressures
associated with cultural detachment. This can cause one to view the relationships in the novel to be
created as a result of English imperialism. However, an intricate study of Millat and Magid reveals the
fact that the detrimental forces associated with imperialism are minor contributors to the development of
the twins Magid and Millat. Instead, the rebellious nature of Magid and Millat is a product of natural
adolescent development, occurring regardless of external environment or ethnicity.
The cultural influences brought upon by imperialism are generously overstated by the
ostentatiously intransigent father of the twins, Samad. This may cause the reader to subscribe to Samad’s
theory that the rebellious nature of his sons is the direct result of their immersion in British culture.
Samad quickly blames the defection and rebellious nature of his sons a byproduct contingency with
English Imperialism. Samad complains to his wife “You say you are thankful we are in England, that’s
because you have swallowed it whole. I can tell you those boys would have a better life back home”
(Smith166). Samad constructs a binary relationship between England and Bangladesh, evoking within the
Reardon 3
reader a dualistic approach to the novel in which England is an evil influence and Bangladesh is
objectively good. Samad continues to say “This country’s no good. We tear apart in this country” (167).
Samad’s conviction towards English culture can unfortunately manifest within the mind of the reader,
causing the blame for his son’s inadequacies to be placed on England as a whole. Samad then relates this
concept to himself, describing a moment he reached while in a state of divinity. Samad claims “I knew
what it meant, this deed. It meant I wanted to write my name on the world. It meant I Presumed. Like the
Englishmen who named streets in Kerala after their wives, like the Americans who shoved their flag in
the moon. It was a warning from Allah. He was saying: Iqbal, you are becoming like them” (418-419).
Samad’s views and actions characterize British influence to be politically and theologically evil.
Despite of this notion, a close analysis of the decisions made by the characters Magid and Millat
can lead one to argue that Samad’s views are simply projections of cultural radicalism, and the effects of
imperialism effect Magid and Millat very little when compared to the normal social pressures faced by
adolescents. Samad hypothesizes that by sending Magid back to Bangladesh, he will be unaffected as a
foreigner in England, developing into a son appropriate of a traditional Bangladeshi. Samad’s theory
initially seems to be fortuitous, supporting the effects of imperialism, as Millat acts out in class,
sardonically saying to a teacher “Shakespeare. Sweaty. Bollocks. That’s three. Don’t worry, I’ll let myself
out” (352). Millat participates in other actions deemed to be negative by Samad, such as drinking,
smoking, and frequently experiencing underage sexual encounters. The initial theories presented by
Samad, as well as Millat’s rebellious nature, may persuade the reader to view British influence as a
negative influence on the development of adolescents. Despite the evidence that points to this notion, the
rebellious nature of Magid and Millat is actually generated as the result of a universal adolescent desire to
rebel against authoritative figures.
The true motivation for Millat’s rebellious nature is revealed through Irie. Irie identifies the peril
of Millat to be something that is not the result of a specific external force, but rather an internal obsession,
revealing “What was the root cause of Millat’s feelings of inadequacy? Magid. He had been born second
Reardon 4
because of Magid. He was the lesser son because of Magid” (382). Irie identifies Millat’s seemingly
negative tendencies to be the result of envy for another sibling. This diminishes Samad’s argument that
Millat actions are merely the manifestation of his adopted British values. Rather, Millat is acting out due
to his envy for paternal admiration, a feeling generated in children regardless of culture. Samad feels
compelled to blame English culture for the corruption of his son. This notion is ironic, as it is the deeply
rooted traditions of Bengali culture that causes Millat to disobey his father, rather than the adaptation of
English tradition. It isn’t until Millat reaches a moment of anagnorisis when he admits his true motives
for acting out, claiming “Thing is people rely on me. They need me to be Millat. Good old Millat. Wicked
Millat. Safe, sweet-as, Millat. They need me to be cool. It’s practically a responsibility” (224). Once
again, Millat’s rebellious nature is his way of succumbing to the basic human need to fit in with his peers,
rather than a desire to become British. Millat is directly influenced by the societal pressures of being an
adolescent, rather than the specified influences of being a foreign man in English culture. The evidence
revealed through character’s Millat and Irie disprove Samad’s theory that the primary influence of the
twins is culturally specific. Instead, Millat’s primary source of influence is the desire to not only fit in, but
to be regarded as important.
Samad’s notion that the adaptation of British culture is the primary source of influence for Magid
and Millat is disproved once again when Magid returns from Bangladesh. When Magid returns, it
becomes clear that the development of Millat and Magid remain parallel with one another, regardless of
the culture in which they were raised. This disproves not only Samad’s theory on intercultural influence,
but the influence of the byproducts of imperialism supposedly inflicted upon the characters in “White
Teeth”. Magid remains rebellious of his father’s wishes, ordering a bacon sandwich, serving as an offense
to a fundamentalist Muslim such as Samad. “I should like a bacon sandwich. Yes that is it” (372). In
response to this, Samad expresses his disdain for Magid’s development, lecturing “Oh yes, ridicule me.
My own son. Do you never read the Qur’an? Do you not know the duties a son owes his father?” (374).
Samad inevitably rejects his son that was raised according to his principles: “’And so,’ said Samad,
Reardon 5
unable to suppress the drama queen within his soul, ‘I must disown you’” (376). While Samad initially
accredits British culture as being a corruptive element for his sons, his sons remain corrupted in his eyes
despite being raised in two completely different cultures, dismantling this theory. Instead, Magid and
Millat maintain an innate human desire to rebel, illustrating that the development of the twins follows a
universal pattern. Samad sent his sons to live in two different cultures, one foreign and one that
accommodates his ethnicity, yet both of his sons reject his principles, illustrating the triumph of basic
human nature over cultural influences.
Hanif Kureishi’s “Something to Tell You” follows a story of development and identity similar to
Smith’s “White Teeth”, while offering the reader a new perspective as a source of contrast. In “Something
to Tell You”, the main characters are also torn between two opposing cultures: the Pakistani culture from
which they originate, and the British culture that they have come to adopt. However, while the setting of
“White Teeth” takes place entirely in England, “Something to Tell You” chronicles the narrator’s return
to Pakistan.
As in “White Teeth”, the presence of British culture is constructed to be the primary source of
influence for the adolescent characters. The narrator, Jamal, explains (in regards to his homage to
Pakistan) “Mother had wanted us to come here. She was sick of worrying about Miriam when she wasn’t
at home” (2838). Once again, the traditionalist views of the earlier generation construct British culture to
be a contaminant, and the only way to cleanse the characters is to return them to their original culture.
These traditionalist views on post-imperialism influences are perpetuated, as they are presented directly to
the narrator, and, consequentially, to the reader as well. The effects of imperialism have resonated within
Jamal, leading one to invest in his concern and recognize the impact of British influence, as Jamal claims
“The British had gone, there’d been a vacuum, and now the barbarians were taking over” (Kureishi 840).
Jamal’s thoughts towards British influence are confirmed through external influences in his life,
reinforcing the impact of intercultural imposition. The narrator’s aunt lectures him in a scene described
later in the story: “When I wondered what it meant for my aunt to teach English literature in such a place,
Reardon 6
to people who had never been to England, she said, “they’ve gone, the British. Colonialism restrained
radical Islam, and the British at least left us with their literature and their language” (2841). The narrator’s
aunt conceptualizes the aftermath of British imperialism, relaying the devastation to her nephew, possibly
altering his perspective and placing a certain amount of importance on the effects of imperialism. The
external influences placed on the narrator are not limited to pedagogical figures in his life, but his peers as
well. Jamal provides the reader with a corresponding viewpoint on British influence through his
girlfriend, Najma. “She liked to deride the wet for its ‘corruption’ and ‘excess’. It was a dirty place, and
she couldn’t wait to move there, to escape the cul-de-sac which was Pakistan” (2844). While Najma
apparently finds a source of appeal in British culture, she peaks of the British culture as though it is a
forbidden contaminant. This creates a structure in which two cultures can only exist and thrive if they are
separated, a system that was compromised through historical imperialism, and the immediate effect of this
contamination is having an effect on the Jamal’s development.
Despite the influences that surround Jamal in” Something to Tell You," the main source of
influence provided for Jamal is not cultural. Instead, the main source of influence for Jamal and Miriam
are authoritative, in this case, paternal. This illustrates that it is not the British influence that serves as a
source of oppression for Jamal; rather it is the confines placed on him through the culture from which he
originated. In this sense, the negative aspects of British imperialism are diminished, and British culture
itself serves as an escape for Jamal. He begins by commenting on an experience he undergoes as he falls
prey to his father’s companions “I was gently mocked by these provincial bourgeois, with my father
watching me carefully to see how I coped. What sort of man, half here and half there, had I turned out to
be? I was an oddity again, as I had been at school” (2839). Jamal simply wants to fit in, regardless of
culture, serving as commentary on human nature, rather than the influences forced upon him by specific
cultures. Jamal is depicted as going through an identity crisis, and while he recognizes his multi-cultural
background to be the primary source of his suffering, this epiphany was initiated and realized not through
cultural influences, but an authoritative influence, in this case a paternal one. Jamal’s manifested
Reardon 7
inferiority was spawned due to his disdain for the authoritative influence in his life, rather than any
particular culture influence. This causes Jamal to question his identity due to the hierarchal system that
surrounds him, rather than the culture that he exists in. This concept is extended, as Jamal notes his
father’s disdain for his studies. “He called me a “bum” . . . or, when he was particularly drunk, ‘fucking
useless lazy stupid’. I tried to defend myself. I was not bringing shame on the family. I did want to do
some kind of intellectual work and even considered doing an MA” (2842). Once again, Jamal wasn’t
afflicted by his Pakistani descent when living in Britain, even making aspirational claims about his future
successes. It isn’t until he returned to his country of origin until he finds himself feeling like an outcast,
with his main source of oppression being his father. Jamal recognizes this soon after, commenting “I felt
worthless, and glad he hadn’t been around in London: one of us might have killed the other” (2842).
Jamal then indirectly comments on the need for cultural interaction, constructing imperialism to be an
accepted necessity rather than a negative influence. He explains, “I began to see how much Dad needed
his liberal companions who approved of Reagan and Thatcher” (2839). Jamal views ideological adversity
as a necessity of human nature, rather than a destructive force that places confines on cultural harmony.
During a conversation with Najma’s husband, Jamal makes one final observation towards cultural
assimilation, and how it proves to be a lesser force when compared with the depravity of human nature.
Jamal reflects on the instance, saying “I took the husband out for a drink and had to listen to him
complaining about the excessive price of prostitutes in Britian. I could only say that Britain might turn out
to be more expensive than he thought” (2847). Jamal draws one final comparison towards the exaggerated
effects of imperialism. Instead of constructing it as something that tainted the innocence of a culture, the
narrator traces the negative aspects of that culture as something that existed independently in both
cultures, serving as commentary on the universality of human nature. This reinforces the idea that Jamal’s
primary source of influence was not the resulting effects left by imperialism. Instead, Jamal is developing
independent ideals through his observations on basic human nature.
Reardon 8
The actions of Jamal’s sister, Miriam, also serve as evidence against the effects left by
imperialism. The exportation of the two siblings is first described to the reader through Jamal, saying
“She was sick of worrying about Miriam when she wasn’t at home, and arguing with her when she went
there to crash.” (2838). Similar to in White Teeth, the effects of cultural influence are falsely recognized
by the authoritative system, and a return to the original homeland is recommended as a sort of
“cleansing”. Despite this change in environment, Miriam continues to reject the standards placed before
her by either society: British or Pakistani. Jamal explains (in regards to Miriam) “When asked where
she’s been, she’d reply, “Sightseeing.” I had some idea of what these sights might be when she told me
that her favourite thing in Karachi was to go to the beach and there, under a palm tree, split open a
coconut and pour half a bottle of gin into it” (2845). Unfortunately, the mother’s solution proves
inadequate, supplementing the theory that the cultural influences of ethnical relocation as a result of
imperialism are not the primary causes of individual transformation, as the rebellion against authoritative
system is consistently present in human nature.
George Orwell’s “Shooting and Elephant” serves as a particularly useful text, as it follows
indulges the reader in the mind of a British man in a foreign culture. This provides the reader with a fresh
perspective and a point of literary contrast, as the two previously mentioned works have been South Asian
citizens in England. George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” depicts Orwell as a young European police
officer and his experiences as a police officer while stationed in Burma. Orwell’s initial commentary is
heavily coated with themes of imperialism, potentially distracting the typical reader in his attempts to
recognize the primary source of influence on the narrator. Orwell begins by conveying his feelings
towards imperialism, saying “I thought that the greatest joy in the world would be to drive a bayonet into
a Buddhist priest's guts. Feelings like these are the normal by-products of imperialism; ask any AngloIndian official, if you can catch him off duty” (Orwell 2568). Orwell is generalizing his own feelings
towards the Burmese. In doing so, Orwell makes his perspective symptomatic of English attitude towards
the Burmese, constructing his hatred as something that is potentially applicable to English in general.
Reardon 9
Orwell continues to develop this dualistic approach by saying “I was all for the Burmese and all against
their oppressors, the British” (2567). By moving his focus to a political scale, Orwell expresses his
support for the Burmese, while reinforcing the dichotomy shared between the two cultures.
While cultural influence presents itself as a recurring thematic throughout “Shooting an Elephant”
as expressed through Orwell himself as a narrator, a detailed analysis of the text reveals that “Shooting an
Elephant” serves more effectively as commentary on the developing human psyche, and how it functions
when confronted with the authoritative positions and social pressures faced by young adults. Orwell
quickly comments that “All I knew was that I was stuck between my hatred of the empire I served and my
rage against the evil-spirited little beasts who tried to make my job impossible” (2567). This passage
defines Orwell as a rebel not against a particular cultural entity constructed by imperialism. Instead,
Orwell’s places himself in an adversarial position against the authoritative systems around him, regardless
of culture, supplanting his initially political position with his own feelings of rebellion. Orwell mentions
both cultures in his description, constructing his innate desire to rebel against authority to be not
culturally specific, but a byproduct of human nature and the need for independence during adolescence.
The scene in which Orwell shoots the elephant reinforces the notion that Orwell’s primary source
of influence is not cultural, but social. Orwell begins by relating the nature of the Burmese to the English,
saying “It was a bit of fun to them, as it would be to an English crowd” (2569). Orwell is entertaining the
idea that the narrator’s influence is not culturally specific, but rather a byproduct of human nature itself.
Orwell perpetuates this theory by admitting “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”
and continues to say “The people expected it of me and I had got to do it” (2569). Once again, Orwell is
not acting out of his duties as an Englishman in Burma, but rather as a young adult faced by the societal
expectations he initially wanted to reject. Orwell continually reiterates his true motives for the decisions
he makes, expressing his fear that “The sole thought in my mind was that if anything went wrong those
two thousand Burmans would see me pursued, caught, trampled on and reduced to a grinning corpse. . .
Reardon 10
And if that happened it was quite probable that some of them would laugh” (2570). Orwell’s commentary
plunges directly into the human psyche, revealing that the cultural identification of external sources
influencing him are unimportant, as long as they simply exist. Orwell finally summarizes his motives by
placing an emphasis on the contrast between the authoritative duties as an Englishman, and the pressures
that surface as a result of basic human humility, admitting “I was very glad that the coolie had been
killed; it put me legally in the right and it gave me a sufficient pretext for shooting the elephant. I often
wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool” (2571).
Orwell reveals that he was not acting due to an authoritative responsibility, or as an Englishman in a
foreign land. Instead, Orwell was controlled by fear, a product of human nature. This allows for
“Shooting an Elephant” to serve more appropriately on the development of the human psyche, rather than
the victimization of a culture as a result of imperialism.
Zadie Smith’s “White Teeth,” Hanif Kureishi’s Something to Tell You,” and George Orwell’s
“Shooting an Elephant” each depict young narrators undergoing an identity crisis due to the fact that they
have been culturally and geographically transplanted into a foreign culture. Although the cultural
influences brought on by imperialism are perceived as an important factor to each of these characters,
these are not the primary influences that cause each character to reach their personal crises. This pattern
could present a satirical theme to works of literature dealing with imperialism, in that the traditionalists
use imperialism as a scapegoat in order to feel better about the inadequacies of human nature. This notion
provides the reader with a unique aspect on an anthropological critique on British literature, as well as a
psychological statement towards the human psyche.
Works Cited
Lahiri, Shompa. "South Asians in Post-imperial Britain: Decolonisation and Imperial Legacy." British
Culture and the End of Empire. By Stuart Ward. Manchester, UK: Manchester UP, 2001. 200-14.
Reardon 11
Print.