White Teeth Zadie Smith's White Teeth and the 'us vs. them' post-colonial discourse of identity

One of the difficulties of constructing an identity through the post-colonial discourse of race, religion and ethnicity is the difficulty of filtering out the discourse of the oppressor, the 'us vs. them' binary that defines colonialism. Colonialism is constructed upon a series of binaries, of 'savage vs. civilized,' 'English vs. native,' 'white vs. non-white,' and of course 'good vs. bad' and 'pure vs. impure.' The logical response for the rebellious colonized peoples of the world who wish to oppose colonialism would seem to be to vow to become everything that colonialism is 'not.' To be against colonialism is to celebrate a pure, native culture, before it was impinged upon by colonialism. However, to do so is impossible -- no identity is 'pure.' Even native cultures themselves are fusions and hybrids, and tensions exist within the culture as well as between the 'natives' and the oppressive power. The idea of a pure, entirely 'un-English' postcolonial identity is just as constructed as the idea of English identity itself. And the idea of pure identity excludes individuals rather than includes other people in a very damaging fashion, in a way that is just as damaging as the 'us vs. them' colonial mindset.

This can be seen in the character of Millat Iqbal in Zadie Smith's novel about English and East Asian identity and inter-generational conflict entitled White Teeth. Millat wants to create an identity that is entirely un-English and is only connected to his Bengal roots abroad. He throws himself into the Islamic radical movement of his London neighborhood, without appreciating the irony that this philosophy is part of his colonial situation, of having to live in England. The idea of a Bengali identity is contested, but in different terms, in East Asia, between warring Hindu and Muslim, Indian and...

British colonialism has had a largely negative influence in its outreach all over the world. But becoming an Islamic radical does not erase colonial influence from an individual's character. In fact, the idea of Islamic radicalism that spans across nations is spawned by colonialism itself, as it would hardly be intelligible to many native Muslims living on the South Asian subcontinent, much less to Bengalis, Indians, or Pakistanis who had lived before colonialism. Only Muslims exposed to the West construct their religious identity as opposed to the West.
Another difficulty of assuming an identity based upon the binaries created by colonialism is, once this is done, now personal and social conflicts cannot be separated. The tensions that exist between fathers and sons, and sibling rivalries become expressed in the political discourse. It becomes harder to admit that a son needs love or distance from his father, when he has defined who he is as a human being entirely against his father's religious values. Millat, for example, is rebelling against his father, whom he sees as excessively controlling. He, like any other adolescent, desires to define himself against his parent. This actually makes him very much like any Western adolescent, but Millat is so fanatical in his religious, pro-Islamic beliefs he cannot appreciate the irony of his situation.

The idea that adolescents must create their own break-away identities and move on from their parent's homes, values, and cultures, is a fairly recent ideological development in human history. Whether he can admit it or not, Millat is a part of the culture that has produced him. He yearns to break from his parents because Western culture idealizes the autonomous adult who is free of parental influence. To find a stable identity, Millat creates an ideology that makes him different.…