Comparative Commentary: The Reluctant Fundamentalist and Robin Cook

The patriotic fervor and spirit that every nation in our world exhibits is what gives the Earth its eccentricity and color. Extract 3, an extract from the novel The Reluctant Fundamentalistby Moshin Hamid, published in 2007, is a prose extract that works to condemn the unjust perspective that Western states often take on Pakistan, as corrupt and underdeveloped, and illustrates instead the many accomplishments and cultural richness of Pakistan, absent in Western representations. Whilst the reader of this text may be any reader of novels, Hamid positions the reader to challenge ethnocentric and dogmatic Western cultural perspectives on Pakistan. Text 4 is an extract from a speech given in London by Labour Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook. Cook intends to champion the plurality of multi-ethnic societies (such as his own), suggesting that inward migration has had, and continues to have, a positive and enriching impact in constructing British identity. Although the speech is addressed specifically to the Social Market Foundation, Cook is aware that his speech will be reported more widely. Hence it can be argued that Cook’s speech is addressed to British society more generally, as it endorses multiculturalism, and challenges insular, racist sentiment. Both texts – text 3 and 4 – work to confront racist ideologies, and position their own nations positively. Hamid is dissenting, mocking limited and skewed perspectives of Pakistan and its history. Cook positively supports movement and migration, claiming that British identity is a result of waves of immigration through history.

Both Hamid and Cook are patriotic and positive about their countries. While both texts rely on historical referencing to make their claims, Hamid makes comparisons to emphasize the richness of Pakistani culture, Cook in text 4 utilizes imperatives to achieve the same purpose. In text 3, Hamid’s narrator discusses an array of historical examples to bolster an affirmative Pakistani identity by revealing some of Pakistan’s great accomplishments. For example, Hamid describes the people as ‘conquering kings’ who ‘built the Royal Mosque’, ‘Shalimar Gardens’, and ‘the Lahore Fort with its mighty walls’. By referring to these rich accomplishments of Pakistani society, Hamid challenges the narratee and the reader to confront their ignorance of Pakistan. Cook, too, references iconic historical detail to argue his position. He mentions for example Richard the Lionheart [who] ‘proudly sits astride his steed’, ‘a symbol of British courage and defiance’ outside the British Parliament. Richard the Lionheart works, here, as a form of synecdoche to symbolically represent British cultural identity. However, Cook then reveals that Richard spoke French, not English, and was in effect freed from prison by Britain’s Jewish community. Cook is championing cultural diversity, suggesting that national identity is fluid and varied.

Voice is important in both text 3 and 4 to establish national sentiment. Synthetic personalization is important in establishing Hamid’s narrative, as he establishes a discourse of ‘them and us’, one which inverts traditional notions of Western superiority. In the first paragraph, he refers directly to the American narratee as ‘you’, perhaps implicating all Westerners. The narrator then switches in the second and third paragraphs to using ‘we’; here, he speaks not only for himself, but also collectively for the nation of Pakistan. Moreover, the narrator is insistent, imploring his narratee to ‘listen’. The use of imperatives and exclamation marks highlights urgency in the speaker to counter Western notions of Pakistan. Similarly, Cook uses synthetic personalization to win his audience to his view. He refers to ‘our Parliament’, ‘our past’, ‘our future’, and ‘our cultural diversity’ to win hearts and minds, suggesting that his audience are participatory in the greatness of British society. Whilst Cook tends to promote inclusion, Hamid refers more often to cultural difference through comparison. For example, his narrator says that ‘the kebab of mutton, the tikka of chicken, the stewed foot of goat, the spiced brain of sheep’ are ‘predatory delicacies […] imbued with a hint of luxury, of wanton abandon’. The narrator compares this particularly hedonistic feast to ‘vegetarian recipes’ of India and ‘sanitized, sterilized, processed meats so common in your homeland’, suggesting that the West, like its cuisine, is pale and insipid in comparison to the richness of Pakistan. Cook also speaks with the intention of challenging perspectives. In the high modality of his imperatives, Cook argues that ‘the modern notion of national identity cannot be based on race and ethnicity, but must be based on shared ideals and aspirations’. This contrast device, signaled by the conjunction ‘but’, is supported by Cook’s argument that some of the most successful societies, like the United States and Canada, are ‘immigrant societies’. Thus, whilst Hamid argues for cultural uniqueness, Cook argues for cultural plurality, but both use comparison to make their case.

Both texts 3 and 4 have the purpose of persuading an audience. In text 3, the audience is the American narratee and the ‘Western reader’. In text 4, the audience is the Social Market Foundation, and, more obliquely, the British public. Syntax, word choice, and structure are all important in both texts, as the speakers try to persuade their audience. There is a lot of lengthy sentences in text 3, some spanning over four lines in length, which work to convey the conviction of the speaker, and of his emotion and deep attachment to Pakistan. Sentences such as ‘we were not always burdened by debt […] but saints and poets and – yes – conquering kings’ scorns rigid American views of Pakistan, emotively providing a perspective that is unreported in Western media accounts of Pakistan. Cook is persuasive too, but his sentences tend to be shorter and more direct. His speech is pre-written and intended, unlike Hamid’s narrator who speaks spontaneously. Cook, for example, says ‘but it reaches into every aspect of national life’ is succinct and powerful. The brevity of Cook’s expression is perhaps easier for a listening audience to remember and ‘hold on to’. Since this is a speech, Cook uses a range of rhetorical devices to persuade and win his audience. Frequently, as mentioned, he uses contrast devices. For example, Cook says, ‘this pluralism is not a burden we must reluctantly accept. It is an immense asset that contributes to the cultural and economic vitality of our nation’. This seems to be a version of a strategy sometimes called ‘intellectual outlaw’, where Cook seems to say ‘common opinion is often this, but I am offering you this (better) alternative’. Thus, Cook challenges widespread public opinion. Cook also uses colloquial language, normal in speech. His words are simple, often monosyllabic, and he begins sentences with conjunctions such as ‘and’ and but’. Also, Cook seems to know his audience and uses simple examples from popular culture, such as ‘Chicken Tikka Masala is now a true British national dish’, to illustrate his argument. Statistical data too – ’30 ethnic communities of at least 10 000 residents each’, and over 300 languages – is easily grasped by Cook’s audience as he attempts to persuade them of his view.  Hamid’s narrator, like Cook, addresses his audience very deliberately. Although some of the comment about Pakistan’s ancient culture may be unfamiliar to his listener, he also talks about ‘man’s knowledge of cholesterol’ and Pakistan’s ‘temperamental cricket team’, comments that are intended to be humorous and challenge Western notions of Pakistanis as ‘crazed and destitute radicals you see on your television channels’.

A major and significant difference between the texts is the view taken on national identity, although both celebrate respectively Pakistani and British national identity. Hamid, in challenging common assumptions is particularly patriotic, often revealed in flamboyant and hyperbolic assertions, referring to Pakistanis as ‘conquering kings’ and their cuisine as ‘predatory delicacies’. Metaphors and personification of this kind is deliberately ostentatious. It is intentionally defamiliarizing, but also reveals the speakers immense pride in his own national heritage. Hamid’s diction also shows great emotion. Words such as ‘carnivorous’ ‘predatory’, and ‘prey’ provide a vivid semantic field to suggest that Pakistan is a rich and ancient society. Hamid’s speaker’s evocative language is maintained as he compares the ancient history of Pakistan with the more recently evolved history of the United States, described pejoratively as ‘a collection of thirteen small colonies, gnawing away at the edge of a continent’. Here, Hamid personifies the United States as something marginal and insignificant, compared to the strength of ancient Pakistani society. Fundamentally, Hamid’s narrator argues for the essential and unique nature of Pakistani identity. Cook, like Hamid’s narrator is patriotic, drawing on a proud historical past to establish the greatness of Britain’s present. However, Cook is not arguing that Britain’s greatness is built on its uniqueness, but that it is a result of cultural convergence over time. Cook says that ‘the idea that Britain was a “pure” Anglo-Saxon society before the arrival of communities from the Caribbean, Asia and Africa is fantasy’. Here, Cook implicitly challenges racist beliefs of cultural and national purity, suggesting that Britain’s past, its greatness, and continued success depends on cultural blending over time. In this way, although Hamid and Cook are both patriots, they celebrate cultural identity is quite opposite ways.

Both texts 3 and 4 require considerable contextual awareness to be understood. Both the novel extract and the speech are products of their time, and reflect the politics of global migration in the late 20^th and early 21^st century. Without this textual awareness, the texts would be challenging to understand. For example, in text 3, Hamid makes inferred references to India and America, and readers need to draw on their existing knowledge to understand this. It may be too simplistic to claim that Hamid, a novelist, has a ‘message’. However, to the extent that he is didactic, it seems ironic that he refers to Pakistan’s ancient heritage. Pakistan has many ancient communities, but the state of Pakistan was formed in the 20^th century from many separate tribes (I know. I am Indian!). It is possible for the reader (and the American narratee) to reject the claims made by Hamid’s narrator. He is selective in his detail. For the modern reader in the West, it is quite possible to equate Pakistan with many negative things, such as terrorism, the oppression of women, and the failure of democracy. Equally, listeners to Cook’s speech may reject his argument. It is probably hard to argue that Britain is a country of many ethnicities and cultures, but it is also possible to claim that immigration in the present day is problematic, and that societies function better when they are cohesive, sharing a ‘common’ culture, rather than plural. Thus, both Hamid and Cook aim, in different ways, to persuade, but oppositional perspectives are possible.