After watching the video of the TED talk “The Danger of a Single Story” I was really struck by the message. In this talk Chimamanda Adichie speaks about how she is a storyteller-a novelist, but recognizes the danger in a story. A “single story” as she calls it, is a one sided way to look at a situation, person, etc., based on incomplete knowledge of the subject. This is thus dangerous because you make judgments and perceptions without receiving the full picture. I think that this is an incredible view about the world that we live in today. Many people have their opinions of something and subsequently shut their minds to other perceptions or ideas about that thing. And it’s not just to say that these people are closed minded, but there is also the fault that we might hear something on the news or in passing about a topic and that shapes our entire idea about that topic instead of really delving into other facts about it. For example, in the news recently there has been talk of the Ebola “Crisis” resonating around the world. Many who listen to the media cry for immediate attention to the spread of the disease become frenzied with fear of this disease. They do not research Ebola itself, where they would find that Ebola is curable, but instead listen to the panic that the media creates about the disease that causes so many deaths in Africa where they do not have the medicines necessary to contain it. This danger is mostly ignorance in not researching the matter at hand and willfully believing things heard or read without questioning the story.
Another danger of the single story is power. Adichie says, “it is impossible to talk about the single story without talking about power.” The power she is mentioning is the power to use the single story to persuade, much like the media portrays Ebola as an imminent threat to American citizens. Single stories degrade the whole story into one point of view, giving the author power. After reading Arendt, we were opened up to the idea of public and private spheres and the political ideology of her spheres. The public sphere, where every decision made is to benefit the whole, cannot exist in a world with single stories. Arendt’s public sphere political model is based on the cooperation of all persons towards the betterment of society. A single story devastates this ideology by blocking out important facts about a subject and therefore creates bias because of the negligence to the rest of the story. I agree with Arendt’s model and I strongly believe in the benefits of a society that works for the good of everyone, while keeping a democratic methodology. However, the largest problem in Arendt’s theory is exactly what Adichie speaks about: the presence or use of the single story. I believe that politicians work towards their own private agendas and often do not consider the good of the general population, which government officials should never do. A world where people work towards a better life for everyone and not just themselves is certainly ideal, but not realistic based on human nature. Arendt, however, is not suggesting an entirely perfect world where everyone works towards the exact same goals like robots without discussion or dissoi logo. Arguments and discussion make you think and arrive at possible solutions or actions that could work wonders or reveal a single story. This would give credibility to the ideas and the notion that it is for the good of all people, but another concern would be trying to make everyone agree on the same issues. What if by using this ideology, nothing gets done because of arguments? I suppose if something is obviously beneficial, it would be passed, but would the smaller issues become locked in discussion? Everyone in the government would have to be completely committed to understanding every part of a story.
Another danger of the single story is power. Adichie says, “it is impossible to talk about the single story without talking about power.” The power she is mentioning is the power to use the single story to persuade, much like the media portrays Ebola as an imminent threat to American citizens. Single stories degrade the whole story into one point of view, giving the author power. After reading Arendt, we were opened up to the idea of public and private spheres and the political ideology of her spheres. The public sphere, where every decision made is to benefit the whole, cannot exist in a world with single stories. Arendt’s public sphere political model is based on the cooperation of all persons towards the betterment of society. A single story devastates this ideology by blocking out important facts about a subject and therefore creates bias because of the negligence to the rest of the story. I agree with Arendt’s model and I strongly believe in the benefits of a society that works for the good of everyone, while keeping a democratic methodology. However, the largest problem in Arendt’s theory is exactly what Adichie speaks about: the presence or use of the single story. I believe that politicians work towards their own private agendas and often do not consider the good of the general population, which government officials should never do. A world where people work towards a better life for everyone and not just themselves is certainly ideal, but not realistic based on human nature. Arendt, however, is not suggesting an entirely perfect world where everyone works towards the exact same goals like robots without discussion or dissoi logo. Arguments and discussion make you think and arrive at possible solutions or actions that could work wonders or reveal a single story. This would give credibility to the ideas and the notion that it is for the good of all people, but another concern would be trying to make everyone agree on the same issues. What if by using this ideology, nothing gets done because of arguments? I suppose if something is obviously beneficial, it would be passed, but would the smaller issues become locked in discussion? Everyone in the government would have to be completely committed to understanding every part of a story.