Paper 1 Exemplar

          The pride men and women take in identifying with a particular home country is greatly associated with love one has for their country.  Traditionally, love for what separates their culture from others.  Often, when separating cultures and lifestyles, people reject the foreign and unknown or simply criticize it.  Because, when people view your culture as “pure” and un-influenced by foreign entities you can either provide reasons for loving your culture, or reasons to disapprove others.  Text 3, taken from the novel The Reluctant Fundamentalist by Moshin Hamid demonstrates this perception towards ones home country and foreign countries.  Unlike the traditional views of the Pakistani characters in Hamid’s novel, Text 4, an extract from Robin Cook’s speech to the Social Marketing Foundation identifies with more modern perceptions encouraging pride in a “multi-ethic” England.

            While both text types seem to be of a persuasive nature the unique characteristics of a novel and speech highlight a great many differences involving the purpose of the texts.  Using traditional Pakistani foods, the character of Text 3 seems to be conversing with an American with a specific aim to have him eat “authentic…Lahore cuisine.”  Using persuasive language, the author includes diction praising both the “purely carnivorous feast” the market has to offer, as well as the historic manner of eating, drawing no concerns with “man’s knowledge of cholesterol.”  The word “prey,” describing the luxurious carnivorous feast associates an animalistic mentality towards eating.  However, the aims of the character may differ from that of the author.  Moshin Hamid, while describing his cultures pride in food, intends to somewhat contradict the values of the Pakistani character.  The text type, unlike a speech, allows the author to create a certain mood in the reader as the result of the character’s attitude.  The Pakistani character is incredibly opinionated and cynical towards the food in the United States, resulting in the reader’s opinion of whether he is correct or not.  The speech’s characteristics, on the other hand, enable the text to be to the point and clear on the intention of the speaker.  Robin Cook is speaking to the Social Market Foundation in London, which advises the governments on binding social policy to economics.  He immediately rejects the idea of a “pure” British nation and informs the audience on the several nations which founded Britain.  Primarily, “established” by the “Romans,” then by “Germans.”  This, unlike text 3, informs the reader that “the idea” of a “pure Anglo-Saxon society” before the arrivals from other nations is a fantasy.  

            Robin Cook using logos attempts to persuade the Social Marketing Foundation that “this pluralism” is no burden on Britain, but a benefit for the economy and the general living of the British population.  Statistics such as “home to over 30 ethnic communities” of at least 10,000 residents each and the fact that over “300 languages” are spoken in Britain.  This not only attempts to persuade the Social Marketing Foundation, but also enables Robin Cook to use statistics without a calculating tone.  He mentions “300 languages” are spoken by “families” while eating at “home.”  This demonstrates a modern British culture where no matter the food or the language that it remains “home.”  Cook, in addition to discussing the economic benefits of a “multi-ethnic environment” that invites multinational companies, he mentions that a multi-ethnic society enriches the mind and broadens the “cultural horizons.”  A cliché such as this is particularly useful when addressing a foundation because it insinuates that unlike the “young Britons” many people still don’t understand what the broadening of a cultural “horizon” truly insinuates, so a recognizable statement is used.

            When considering what a multi-cultural environment allows in ones  views towards other cultures, we find that quite the opposite is illustrated by the Pakistani host.  Insinuating an “old Anarkali” is a traditional location he mentions that despite Pakistani’s lack of sporting glory and wealth, “We Pakistanis take an inordinate pride in our food.”  The word choice of “we” unlike Cook’s speech separates the traditional or “pure” Pakistanis from other countries.  He also suggests that this view is shared with all Pakistanis twice stating that not one “worthy” restaurant would consider placing a Western dish on his menu.  This further implies that if a restaurant were to do so, they would be deemed “unworthy.”  The continuous repetition of “we” as he explains “we built” this city and its pride structures.  As he proclaims his nations people saints, poets, and conquering kings, he is sure to mention his distaste for America, depending on our “foreign aid and handouts.”  Here we see that when the Pakistani character sees “foreign aid” and multi-ethnic “colonies,” gnawing away at the edge of a continent, Cook sees multi-ethnic communities happy and at home.  Hamid’s book was written in 2007, but would seem that the character holds America’s past with relevant modern times.  Where he seems to be criticizing the States, Cook is applauding them as a “successful country in the modern world.”  That the experience of the United States shows how “cultural diversity can be a source of enormous strength.”

            When considering that perhaps Moshin Hamid may have intended the reader to disagree with his characters views, we find that the intentions of both texts are to promote multi-culturalism in modern society.  Looking at both texts, we can see the Hamid’s character is a prime example of a non-multi-cultured person who rejects the idea of mixing cultures and takes pride in his culture, separating it from others.  Yet in modern society, we find the same tikka of chicken, described as a non-western dish by Hamid’s character, becomes a British national dish.  Both texts, while showing opposite views on multi-cultural societies share a common result in the appreciation of what a multi-cultural society permits.  Because, in the end, we can all appreciate and share all cultures, foods, and customs.