In the 20th century, world wars led to the collapse of the imperial system, leaving behind massive global inequality, as well as interconnected “modernity global “world system” that still exists today. This process has led to large-scale immigration from former colonies to Europe, a trend that has given rise to fears that immigrants from “foreign cultures” may not integrate and may change the national identities of these countries in ways unwanted. The philosophical concept on which this belief is based is “cultural determinism,” the belief that “culture rather than nature or biology determines who we are on an emotional and behavioral level.” Although some prominent scientists believe this notion lacks “scientific validity,” it appears to be widely shared, as it forms the basis of the “growing success” of anti-immigration populism in Europe and elsewhere. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Cultural determinism is undoubtedly the main theme of Zadie Smith's 2000 debut novel, White Teeth. Although it predates the most recent wave of xenophobia in the West, its exploration of the phenomenon of cultural determinism has become more relevant than ever. This postcolonial family drama spans much of the 20th century and portrays the life stories of three generations of immigrants in London, intertwined with those of non-immigrants. Throughout the novel, the protagonists must face the prejudices and identity conflicts that arise from the cultural deterministic mentality of their environment. They eventually realize that their struggles define their identity and not their culture; the struggle between assimilation and staying true to one's roots creates a new hybrid identity. In particular, Smith uses the literary device of irony to make humorous yet significant comments on this issue. Specifically, Zadie Smith uses irony to show the falsity and evil of cultural determinism, suggesting that instead of being predetermined by culture, identity undergoes constant transformation and numerous factors influence it. Analyzing the use of irony in the novel requires a precise definition of irony. When defining irony, it is important to recognize that “literary critics have come up with dozens of names that describe different types of irony and different ways in which irony is used. The uses of irony change over time.” The analysis will mainly examine three types of irony: verbal, situational and cosmic. Scholars define verbal irony as "the expression of one's meaning using language that normally means the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect," while situational irony refers to "someone's actions based on a expectations that lead directly to the desired outcome". to be avoided,” and cosmic irony “blames God or fate for playing a role in our struggles.” Perhaps the bitterest situational irony is that immigration to Britain, which Hortense Bowden and the Iqbals saw as an opportunity for a better life, comes at a high cost: the loss of their children's cultural roots. Hortense Bowden tries to raise her daughter Clara to be deeply religious, which leads to her becoming the target of bullying at school. Perhaps in an effort to fit in, she resists her mother's intentions for her to become a Jehovah's Witness by marrying a secular English war veteran named Archie Smith. Samad Iqbal has a similar experience, complaining that "these days I feel like I'm making a deal with the devilwhen you come into this country... it drags you in and suddenly you're not fit to come back, your kids are unrecognizable, you belong somewhere that doesn't exist." This irony draws attention to a conundrum that many immigrant families face. Avoid l ostracism by non-immigrant peers requires a certain degree of assimilation of immigrant children, but sometimes forces them to alter, and therefore sacrifice part of their identity. Although they are increasingly alienated from their country of origin, the societies hosting them they still see as “entangled with their parents' immigrant identity as the Other.” A poignant example of this occurs when the British Chalfens ask Millat (Samad's son) and Irie (Clara's daughter), who are practically assimilated into British society, where they “originate” from. The ironic image of hopeful immigrants who belong nowhere illustrates how defining immigrants by their often visible migrant background often results in exclusion, identity crises and mental anguish. Additionally, Smith uses situational irony to expose how some people justify cultural determinism with falsified historical narratives. As part of the Harvest Festival, Millat, Magid and Irie visit the home of an elderly war veteran named J.P. Hamilton, who welcomes them politely at first. However, the situation worsens when he scares children with racist and brutal war stories from the Congo, telling them that the only way he “could identify a Negro was by the whiteness of their teeth. And they died because of it… their stomachs open, their entrails on their feet.” But most importantly, he accuses them of lying about Samad's military service. When Millat proudly declares that his father also fought in the British army, the former replies that “he must have been wrong. Surely there were no wogs that I remember… what were we going to feed them?” Clearly, Mr. Hamilton is revising history to produce historical evidence to support his colonial-era racist attitudes. For his narrative to be valid, he must deny any facts that undermine it, which means denying the children's connection to England and accusing them of rewriting history. This irony ridicules the (perhaps deliberate) logical fallacy of deducing “facts” from a preconceived narrative, rather than constructing a story based on the facts. Smith implies that many people who support cultural determinism do so. Likewise, the ironic circumstances of Samad's decision to send one of his sons back to Bangladesh suggest that Smith parodies the notion of cultural determinism. Samad understandably resents the course his life has taken, having gone from a successful young man from a respected Pakistani family to a crippled immigrant in an unhappy, abusive relationship. As a result, he takes refuge in pleasant sins, violating the Islamic religious laws he holds dear. Initially, Samad just starts drinking, but eventually begins an adulterous relationship with his children's attractive music teacher, which even many secular people would consider immoral. Interestingly, as Samad “becomes more and more immoral, he wants his children to be traditionalists.” He concludes that his recent sins are “symptomatic of what the West is doing to his character, and this is what he wishes to save his children from.” According to him “it was the roots that saved, the ropes that are pulled out to save drowning men, to save their souls. And the further Samad went towards the sea, ... the more determined he became to create roots for his boys on the shore, deep roots that no storm or storm could dislodge”. As a result, he decides to postponeone of his children back. Cultural determinism clearly fails when applied to Samad, who grew up in Bengal but hardly respects his culture. Ironically, Samad subconsciously trusts that raising a child in Bengal will automatically imbue him with lasting traditional values. Furthermore, the situational and cosmic irony of the contrast between Samad's intentions for his children and the actual outcomes has the effect of ridiculing Samad's cultural determinism. When Samad sends Magid back to Bangladesh, he hopes she will develop a comfortable, traditional identity, believing he is acting in her best interests. Unexpectedly, however, Samad's decision jeopardizes Magid's safety. The ethnic violence of 1985 in Bangladesh, where “body parts were taken from Muslims by Sikhs, from Sikhs by Hindus” and “a thousand people died” in a few days, in addition to a cyclone that destroys the city where Magid lives, leaving “ bodies floating in the Bay of Bengal… ten thousand” means he lives in constant danger. There is a poignant situational irony in the fact that Samad's good but unrealistic intentions put his son in danger. At the same time, Samad idealizes him, saying he is “capable of anything, a natural leader, a natural Muslim, a natural leader.” His opinion of Millat is equally clear: he is the second son, late as a bus, late as a cheap shipment, the slow bus, the boy catching up, who missed that first ride along the canal of childbirth, and now simply a follower by genetic predisposition. , by Allah's intricate design, the lost two vital minutes that he would never recover, not in those all-seeing parabolic mirrors, not in those glassy orbs of divinity, not in his father's eyes. However, contrary to Samad's initial assessment and, to his horror, Magid becomes an atheist intellectual who strives to be as English as possible. He becomes so English that others see him as a “white-trousered Englishman,” a stereotype of the Englishman. Although both twins are successful in their own ways, ironically, Millat fulfills his father's expectations of Magid by doing something traditional and religious. He becomes a natural "leader", highly respected by his fellow youths, takes an interest in Islamic scriptures and takes leadership of KEVIN, an Islamic fundamentalist group (Samad disapproves of this, but it nevertheless shows that Millat feels some form of obligation to catch up what it perceives to be its roots). Therefore, Samad's attempt to influence his children's lives by immersing them in different cultures fails. They develop this way because they take different paths in life, not because they grew up to have clearer roots. This cosmic irony shows how viewing people's identity primarily through the lens of cultural determinism, as Samad consistently does, is too reductive. The allegory of the so-called FutureMouse, which dominates much of the final section of the novel, reduces the anti-cultural-determinist essence of the novel to an ironic image. Marcus Chalfen, an eminent geneticist who “came within a whisker of the Nobel,” genetically engineers a laboratory mouse so that it develops a brain tumor and dies after a certain period of time. This experiment is the emblem of determinism, inspired by the vision according to which "every phase of an organism's development can be predetermined: reproduction, eating habits, life expectancy" and that if "you eliminate the random, you govern the world". At the end of the novel, all the main characters gather in the room where Chalfen presents the project, both to watch and to protest (in particular, Millat organizes a protest with some of his colleagues KEVIN). Understanding complicated eventsthat follow requires context. When Samad and Archie are soldiers in World War II, they get stuck in a Bulgarian village with a group of Russian soldiers. Determined to demonstrate their heroism after effectively deserting, they participate in the capture of a doctor named Ferret who had been conducting medical experiments for the Nazis, "choosing who will be born and who will not, raising people as if they were so many chickens, destroying them if the specifics are not correct." After some discussion, they decide to kill him and Archie reluctantly agrees to do it himself. He takes him out of sight, but due to his hesitation and distracting himself by throwing a coin, the doctor grabs his gun, wounds him and runs away. Samad, who heard the shot, believes Archie's lie that he killed the doctor. More than fifty years later, he recognizes the same man on stage with a group of geneticists involved in the FutureMouse project, and realizes that his lifelong friendship with Archie was built on a lie. He proceeds to curse Archie, while Millat, who has brought a hidden gun into the building, takes aim at the doctor. Archie throws himself into the path of the bullet, is wounded in the thigh a second time and falls onto the glass case containing the FutureMouse, shattering it. In the general chaos that follows, the mouse escapes. The irony of the situation is that the mouse was bred to demonstrate that life can be predetermined, but circumstances ultimately set him free, changing the course of his life in a way not intended by his creators. Another interesting level of situational irony appears in the fact that Archie saves the life of Ferret, whose job is to predetermine life by randomly modifying the experiment whose purpose was to eliminate randomness. Therefore, total predetermination appears impossible. By extension, with this great analogy, Smith describes as fallacious the belief that cultural upbringing predetermines human social behavior. Furthermore, the ironic and unlikely inspiration for Millat's attempted murder of the doctor highlights the complexity of the effect of his environment on the formation of his identity. One of Iqbal's ancestors was Mangal Pande, a leader of the 1857 Indian rebellion against the British (a character who remains little known in Britain, despite Samad's constant efforts to spread his story). As Millat prepares to shoot the doctor at the FutureMouse presentation, the narrator explains that “Millat is not following instructions, at least not the ones that are passed by word of mouth and written on pieces of paper. His is an imperative hidden in his genes and the cold steel in his inside pocket is the answer to a claim made against him long ago. He's a Pandy at heart. And he has mutiny in his blood.” Thus, the scene marks the end of Millat's long search for himself. He discovers or decides, depending on his philosophy, a rebellious identity, a return to his roots. Ironically, though, his inspiration is Al Pacino from The Godfather. Remember that "no matter how long you freeze the split second of Pacino's reflection, no matter how often you replay the doubt that crosses his face, he never does anything other than what he was always going to do." Something that has no relation to his roots inspires his vow to live them. While Millat's identity formation was influenced by the largely Western cultural conditions in which he grew up, his interpretation of his environment, which reinforces his desire to reclaim his ancient and seemingly glorious roots, matters far more. Perhaps, this interpretation of the film itself comes from some environmental influence, however, a cultural determinist stereotype could hardly explain this effect.