Maalouf And Mukherjee Analysis
Maalouf and Mukherjee: The Path to Self-Identity
The two articles "Two Ways to Belong in America” (Bharati Mukherjee, 1996) and "Deadly Identities"(Amin Maalouf, 1998) are two articles that are different in its own way. Although both the authors discuss about their experience as immigrants; their supporting points vary and Maalouf’s is organized better than Mukherjee’s article. Maalouf's article is well organized and supports their argument using various justifications. Even though both Mukherjee’s article “Two Ways to Belong in America” and Maalouf’s article “Deadly identities” shared their experience as immigrants, Maalouf’s article was more appealing because of his title, his perception and his tone towards identities.
In similarity, the …show more content…
Maalouf has a clear view as Maalouf (1998) argues that he does not have different identities but only one identity which is made of all the components that shaped into unique proportions. Maalouf has a more homogeneous view of identity where an individual can mix and merge into a new single identity that is far more complex. However, Mukherjee (1996) points out that she and Mira differ in ways in which they wish to communicate with the country which they have chosen to live. Mukherjee is more delighted to live in America as an expatriate Indian unlike Mira as an immigrant American. Mukherjee has a more narrow-minded view in general where there are only one path and one identity. Mukherjee (1996) argues, “In one family, from two sisters alike as peas in a pod, there could not be a wider divergence of the immigrant experience.” …show more content…
They both talk about their experiences of coming from different backgrounds and then starting a new life in another. Maalouf starts with a calm and reasonable tone, and tries to patiently explain himself why he feels so passionate about having a sense of identity rooting from different backgrounds or cultures. He believes that the person he has become is based on his connection and experience between the two countries. So Maalouf gives the message that there’s nothing wrong with having an identity; rooting from distinctively different countries, cultural backgrounds, and traditions. But the society is what seems to play a significant role in the decision-making to determine where we come from. I get the sense that Maalouf implies that the society has this stereotypical view of different parts of the world, which however makes it difficult for people to “accept” where they are from. Instead of labeling people based on their place of birth or their country of origin, the world would be a much better place if people looked past that. It’s a choice of the individual, and that is their identity. There is nothing anyone can do or say that can question
The two articles "Two Ways to Belong in America” (Bharati Mukherjee, 1996) and "Deadly Identities"(Amin Maalouf, 1998) are two articles that are different in its own way. Although both the authors discuss about their experience as immigrants; their supporting points vary and Maalouf’s is organized better than Mukherjee’s article. Maalouf's article is well organized and supports their argument using various justifications. Even though both Mukherjee’s article “Two Ways to Belong in America” and Maalouf’s article “Deadly identities” shared their experience as immigrants, Maalouf’s article was more appealing because of his title, his perception and his tone towards identities.
In similarity, the …show more content…
Maalouf has a clear view as Maalouf (1998) argues that he does not have different identities but only one identity which is made of all the components that shaped into unique proportions. Maalouf has a more homogeneous view of identity where an individual can mix and merge into a new single identity that is far more complex. However, Mukherjee (1996) points out that she and Mira differ in ways in which they wish to communicate with the country which they have chosen to live. Mukherjee is more delighted to live in America as an expatriate Indian unlike Mira as an immigrant American. Mukherjee has a more narrow-minded view in general where there are only one path and one identity. Mukherjee (1996) argues, “In one family, from two sisters alike as peas in a pod, there could not be a wider divergence of the immigrant experience.” …show more content…
They both talk about their experiences of coming from different backgrounds and then starting a new life in another. Maalouf starts with a calm and reasonable tone, and tries to patiently explain himself why he feels so passionate about having a sense of identity rooting from different backgrounds or cultures. He believes that the person he has become is based on his connection and experience between the two countries. So Maalouf gives the message that there’s nothing wrong with having an identity; rooting from distinctively different countries, cultural backgrounds, and traditions. But the society is what seems to play a significant role in the decision-making to determine where we come from. I get the sense that Maalouf implies that the society has this stereotypical view of different parts of the world, which however makes it difficult for people to “accept” where they are from. Instead of labeling people based on their place of birth or their country of origin, the world would be a much better place if people looked past that. It’s a choice of the individual, and that is their identity. There is nothing anyone can do or say that can question