L'objectif de cette thèse est d'étudier trois romans écrits par des auteurs anglophones du Pakistan ou de l'Inde, à savoir Bapsi Sidhwa, Bharati Mukherjee et Hanif Kureishi. On pourrait être tenté de placer les trois écrivains de cette étude dans la catégorie «littérature des immigrants». Ils écrivent tous à un moment de migration de masse lorsque l'idée de «choc culturel» parmi les peuples occidentaux commence à être plus évidente. Les trois écrivains sont affectés par des thèmes qui apparaissent seulement de manière marginale dans le débat évoqué ci-dessus, l'accent étant principalement mis sur les difficultés culturelles et sociales des femmes dans la société indo-pakistanaise. Quant à Kureishi, la polarisation mentionnée ci-dessus suppose un accent très différent, impliquant la situation d'un Asiatique né et élevé dans la société occidentale. Dans cette évaluation globale du contexte idéologique et historique commun aux trois écrivains, il sera important d'examiner les attitudes spécifiques adoptées par chaque écrivain par rapport à son expérience personnelle. L'objectif principal de cette étude sera donc thématique, en se concentrant sur les préoccupations spécifiques de ces écrivains et sur la manière dont cela se manifeste dans leur représentation particulière des tensions en jeu. / The objective of this thesis is to study three novels written by English-speaking authors of Pakistan or India, namely Bapsi Sidhwa, Bharati Mukherjee and Hanif Kureishi. One might be tempted to place the three writers of this study in the category of "literature of immigrants." They all write at a time of mass migration when the idea of "cultural shock" among Western peoples begins to be more evident. All three writers are affected by themes which appear only marginally in the debate evoked above, much of the emphasis being on the cultural and social difficulties of women in Indo-Pakistani society. As for Kureishi, the polarization mentioned above assumes a very different emphasis, involving the situation of an Asian born and brought up inside Western society. Within this overall assessment of the ideological and historical context common to all three writers, it will thus be important to examine the specific attitudes adopted by each writer in relation to his or her own personal experience. The main focus of this study will therefore be thematic, centering on these writers’ specific preoccupations and the way this is seen in their peculiar depiction of the tensions at stake.

My paper examines how American authors of the South Asian Diaspora (Indian-American or South Asian American) can be read 1) as simply American and 2) without regard to ethnicity. I develop this argument using American authors Jhumpa Lahiri, a first generation American of Bengali-Indian descent, and Bharati Mukherjee, an American of Bengali-Indian origin. I borrow from Deepika Bahri's materialist aesthetics in postcolonialism (in turn borrowed from members of the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory) and include theoretical insights from Rey Chow, Graham Huggan, and R. Radhakrishnan regarding multiculturalism, identity politics, and diaspora studies. Huggan and Radhakrishnan's insights are especially useful because their work deals with the South Asian diaspora, in England and the United States, respectively. After setting up a theoretical framework, I critique reviews and essays that privilege hyphenated, "Indian," or "South Asian" identity, and the resultant reading paradigm that fixes these authors into an ethnic minority category. I then trace aesthetic and thematic content of short stories from both Lahiri's Interpreter of Maladies and Mukherjee's The Middleman and Other Stories to demonstrate how these stories resist this ethno-cultural pigeonholing. My analysis exposes how ethnic and multicultural identity politics supplant aesthetic criticism and transform ethno-cultural identity into an aesthetic object, even if done as a celebration of hybridity or liminality as a putatively liberating space (hyphenated identity as embodying that space). Though my purpose is not to undermine the meaningful artwork and criticism instantiated in or about the "in-between" spaces of American culture, I demonstrate that an over-emphasis on ethnicity and culture (culture "other" than the majority culture in the U.S.) in fact stifles the opening of the American literary canon. Ethnicity and culture become ways of limiting the hermeneutics available to literary criticism because they become the only ways of reading, instead of one lens through which American literature is read.