Response to "The Danger of a Single Story"

The danger of the single story is simply that you do not have enough concrete evidence to have one main idea. The world around us, especially in literature, is limiting what we know by only putting one perception of an idea or a nation or a person, not giving us a chance to think for ourselves. We, as the audience, are so pulled into the storyline, that we forget that we are only listening to an opinion. We are only focusing on one side of the story. What if we got the chance to hear from the other side? Would our perceptions be the same? Unfortunately not, instead we limit ourselves by just believing the one piece of literature we read. The words are so enticing that, instead of letting our imaginations go off or letting us think for ourselves on that certain subject, the connotation of the context leads us to believe that whatever is said must be the truth. I am guilty and ashamed in the fact that, when I read about third-world nations, that is the only idea I have of them. I picture places like Haiti to have nothing but poverty and starvation because that is what I hear and what I read about in the newspapers. I hear of the devastating times in the world and it is hard to see those places as otherwise. Seeing this video makes one realize the importance of narratives and stories. How else am I to know that what I originally read is not the whole truth? Adichi says in her lecture, "The single story creates stereotypes and the problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue, but that they are incomplete." This main idea describes a lot of what we are surrounded by in our normal lives. We create stereotypes so easily because of things we hear and read. We feel pity for those that may not need it all the time like we think because we have been induced with the information that they are an incapable people, people starving for what we have. And how do we as apart of our Western literature make single stories? Adichi says that it is simple: "Show a people as one thing, only as one thing, over and over again, and that is what they become." It is impossible for us as an audience to fully understand what is going on until we hear from every side in the situation, leaving us vulnerable to be seduced by one idea over any other. In our own history books, we don't see quotes from any people on the other side. We only are shown the "important" facts. Facts "that make us who we are today". Who we are today is not founded upon one main idea or story. We were built up upon several different stories with so many different sides and perspectives. I wonder what would happen if all those ideas went into our history books. Would we actually have the same ideas as we do now? Would we believe in the same things? We could participate in so many more educational debates if we knew more than we do now because we wouldn't be building off of one main idea. Instead, we would be putting so many more ideas underneath our belts and our own opinions could be solidified through other facts and perceptions. However, more of the same ideas come at us in different ways, and suddenly that is the only way we can see it. A solution? Don't be satisfied by one idea. Look up different views and find out as much as you possibly can before you settle on an opinion on one subject. I enjoyed and was extremely fascinated by Adichi's speech because it made me think and have more of a craving to know more. Everyone should have that craving so that we are not a limited generation where we create stereotypes so easily and are so quickly seduced by one idea that the thought of anything else would be impossible. Let us instead be the ones who set the example, who set the bar higher than the rest by refusing to rely on one side of the story and needing to know more so that our own opinions are just that and not just what we hear, see, or read from a single story.