Gogol's Namesake

Immigrants moving to the United States are faced with the pressing question of whether or not to assimilate into American culture. Many of those involved in diasporic situations feel that adapting to the social norms of their new surroundings is an act of betraying their roots in which their heritage and all preexisting traditions will be lost. Jhumpa Lahiri’s novel The Namesake highlights this struggle through the eyes of the Ganguli family. The novel ultimately shows us that one can simultaneously belong to two cultures, in this case Indian and American culture. Many scholars are hung up on the fact that protagonist Gogol must belong to one culture or the other. Heinze’s “Diasporic Overcoat?” suggests that Gogol puts on an “overcoat” through the switching of his name to represent the switching of his identity across various relationships and social situations. In doing so, he says “by implication one is never totally free of an overcoat, there is no such thing as a pristine and authentic identity… (Heinze 197-198)” This quote demonstrates Heinze taking a stand and stating that there is no fixed identity. I suggest that Gogol does indeed obtain a national and cultural identity. The characterization of Gogol’s identity can be viewed as a spectrum that is continuously changing. At one end of the spectrum is his Indian cultural identity and the other is his American. At different points in his life Gogol has different degrees of American and Indian cultures present within him. So rather than arguing Gogol has no set identity, instead his identity is classified by his movement along his hybrid cultural spectrum.
Other scholars that write on the issues of cultural hybridity focus on the idea that the person involved in diasporic situations are caught some where between their two given cultures. The author of an article applying concepts of cultural hybridity in music, particularly Arabian Jazz states that those with hybrid identities create a new “imagined