Immigration, Assimilation, and Radicalization Theme Analysis

Hanif Kureishi’s “My Son the Fanatic” explores the tensions between a Punjabi immigrant father, Parvez, and his second-generation, British-born son, Ali. Parvez has spent his adult life assimilating into English culture and society after immigrating from Pakistan, and dreams that his son will complete this transformation. He is therefore appalled when Ali abandons his studies to become an accountant and instead devotes himself to a radicalized version of Islam and espouses hatred of the West. Parvez believes his son needs to be saved from these bad choices and ideas, but the story complicates this simple narrative. It does this first by showing how Parvez’s own move away from Islam was motivated by his negative experience in religious school as a youth, just as Ali’s newfound devotion to a radicalized Islam is motivated by his negative experience of being a Muslim in England. The story’s ending—when Parvez is so enraged by his son’s behavior that he physically attacks him. to which Ali responds, “who’s the fanatic now?”—further blurs the line between assimilation, which is seen in the West as the socially acceptable course for immigrants, versus the socially maligned course of radicalization. That blurring, in turn, highlights that assimilation is itself a choice that is more complicated and harmful than it initially appears.

Parvez’s desire for assimilation is at least in part motivated by a reaction against his Islamic religious background. When Parvez was growing up in Lahore he went to a religious school where he had to study the Koran. At one point in school, a Moulvi (Islamic scholar) attached a piece of string from Parvez’s hair to the ceiling so that he’d be yanked back awake if he started to fall asleep in class. This “indignity” turned Parvez against religion forever, a path away from religion that mirrors those of his fellow first-generation Punjabi immigrants to England. He and his friends, for instance, scoff at the local mullahs in London for what they perceive as their hypocrisy for “thinking they could tell people how to live, while their eyes roved over the boys and girls in their care.” For Parvez, distancing himself from Islam and his native culture is also critical to his desire to fully assimilate into English culture and society. In one particularly symbolic moment, he forces his wife to cook pork, representing a departure from his past culture, and justifies this departure by insisting “We have to fit in!” Beyond cultural behavior, fitting in is also directly tied to financial success for Parvez. As a first-generation immigrant his opportunities have been limited, and he’s been forced to make immense sacrifices—working ten-hour days, forgoing hobbies and holidays—in order to try and guarantee that Ali will have access to better opportunities and upward mobility as the second-generation. This is why Parvez views Ali, born and raised in England, as the key to full assimilation. His own hard work has set Ali up to get a white-collar job as an accountant, which will in turn allow Ali to easily provide for a future family. For Parvez, “Once this happened, [he] would be happy. His dreams of doing well in England would have come true.” For Parvez, being first-generation has locked him out of such opportunities, and therefore he sees the complete assimilation of his son as perhaps the only path to acceptance and opportunity for his family in England.

However, Ali’s experience of growing up in England as the son of Pakistani immigrants has driven him to adopt a radicalized version of Islam that directly conflicts with this father’s dreams of assimilation. Having been born and raised in England, Parvez’s view of the country is radically different from his father’s. Just as Parvez believes Islam is full of hypocrites, Ali believes that “the West was a sink of hypocrites.” Despite his extremism, Ali makes many valid critiques of the West, including that it is materialistic, individualistic, and concerned with pleasure and enjoyment at the expense of other things. The critique which perhaps reveals the most about his experiences growing up as the child of immigrants in England comes when he asks his father: “‘The Western materialists hate us’…How can you love something which hates you?’” This critique suggests that, beyond just recognizing the West’s political disdain for the Islamic world, Ali has himself felt the effects of prejudice and discrimination despite his having been born and raised in England, which has then contributed to his desire to distance himself from it. The implication is that Ali’s experience as a second-generation immigrant has allowed him to see that full assimilation is never possible, and that the West will always view Muslims and immigrants as outsiders.

In the West, assimilation is the accepted and highly encouraged path for immigrants to take, while radicalization is condemned and feared. In the final scene, “My Son the Fanatic: complicates this idea by blurring the line between assimilation and radicalization not to advocate for radicalization, but rather to highlight the fact that assimilation is not as harmless a choice as it appears. Parvez’s devotion to the course of assimilation leads him to attack his own son, and between punches Ali asks: “So who’s the fanatic now?” Ali’s searing, final question reveals the fanaticism behind assimilation. Parvez turns on his own son, which is symbolic of the ways in which assimilation requires that immigrants turn their backs on their own culture in order to gain acceptance in their new homes. The assimilationist decision to dilute or even abandon one’s culture is a radical choice in its own right, and Kureishi suggests that neither extreme—assimilation or radicalization—should be the path that immigrants choose or are forced to take.