中文摘要 维迪亚达•苏莱普拉萨德•奈保尔是一位后殖民主义作家。与大多数同类作家不同，奈保尔并未一味地痛斥宗主国对殖民地的盘剥，而是秉持相对冷静客观的笔调，以人物的困顿和坚韧为题材描绘殖民地时期人们的精神体验，展现文化混杂形态下个体的身份认同危机。其经典著作《毕司沃斯先生的房子》尤其体现了这一点。 本文拟从成长小说和霍米巴巴的混杂性理论的双重视角释读这部后殖民主义作品，寻绎混杂文化语境下个体成长历程的特殊性。实现身份认同(identity)是成长小说和后殖民主义理论的共同论题，在小说中则表现为主人公毕司沃斯先生对房子的执着追求。但是，在这一过程中毕司沃斯先生的成长受到文化混杂性的影响（主要是印度传统文化和西方文化），注定是分裂的，同时也是无法完成的。具体来说，由于混杂性中文化差异(cultural difference)的介入，毕司沃斯先生经历了两类成长，第一类成长出现在印度传统文化内，第二类成长发生在西方文化内。然而，毕司沃斯先生在这两类成长都没有完成向混杂文化环境的回归：印度传统文化内的成长受无家状态(unhomeliness)的掣肘，西方文化内的成长则遭遇模拟(mimicry)的阻滞。 奈保尔浓墨重彩地刻画了毕司沃斯先生寻找房子时的内心世界。主人公勇于寻求自身在混杂文化中的定位，却在这种文化形态下手足无措，不可避免地被本土文化和西方文化边缘化。这部小说的悲剧性和魅力源自毕司沃斯先生特殊成长历程的必然性。 本文进一步指出，奈保尔将成长小说这一传统文学形式和文化混杂性糅合为一体的手法亦拓展了成长小说的表达空间。

Abstract Vidiadhar Surajprasad Naipaul is a postcolonial writer. Yet unlike most of the postcolonial writers who are prone to condemn the colonial cruelty and misery, Naipaul harbors a comparatively unbiased stance on the colonial subjects’ predicament and their perseverance in order to represent such postcolonial issues as psychological experience and identity crisis in the culturally hybrid surroundings. Admittedly A House for Mr. Biswas is one of his typical novels that elaborate on the issues. Having recourse to both the Bildungsroman and Homi K. Bhabha’s theories of cultural hybridity, the present author explores the particularity of Mr. Biswas’s Bildung in a culturally hybrid milieu, on the basis of the overlap between the connotation of identity in the Bildungsroman and that in postcolonial fiction. In the novel, the image of a house is the icon of identity. In the process of identity-quest, the negative effects of cultural hybridity, which mainly includes traditional Indian culture and Western culture, intervene. Thus Mr. Biswas’s Bildung is predestined to be fragmented and incomplete. As far as fragmentation is concerned, cultural difference splits Mr. Biswas’s Bildung into two types. One occurs in traditional Indian culture, and the other, Western culture. Mr. Biswas never achieves his incorporation into, or accommodation to, the culturally hybrid society. Both types are incomplete due to “unhomeliness” and “mimicry” respectively. Vividly portrayed is Mr. Biswas’s psychological state in his efforts to acquire a house. The protagonist is dauntless to pursue his due identity, but he is disoriented in the presence of cultural hybridity, and inevitably marginalized both by his original culture and Western culture. Both the tragic quality and the glamour of the novel proceed from the inevitability of the particularity of Mr. Biswas’s Bildung. The present author further points out that Naipaul enlarges the literary scope of the Bildungsroman by combining the subgenre with cultural hybridity.