The Inhumanity of Incomplete Storytelling

“The Danger of a Single Story”
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

https://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story

“I've always felt that it is impossible to engage properly with a place or a person without engaging with all of the stories of that place and that person. The consequence of the single story is this: It robs people of dignity. It makes our recognition of our equal humanity difficult. It emphasizes how we are different rather than how we are similar.”

-Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie TEDGlobal 2009

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s TED Talk called “The Danger of a Single Story” was truly inspiring and eye-opening as it addressed modern literature, culture, and humanity. Adichie’s main argument was that having a “single story” or one view of a place or a person is a limiting, inhuman way to live because it forms incomplete, flattened understanding. She opened with her childhood of reading Western literature and how it affected the way she understood literature. When she discovered African literature, she was freed from having a single story of what books were supposed to be. She learned that characters did not have to be foreign, but could in fact be about girls like her with “skin the color of chocolate.” Through her personal encounters as a Nigerian woman going to an American university, she stressed the important part of storytelling as being able to see both the good and the bad; the differences and similarities. In this, she discussed how Americans view Africa as a continent full of conflict, poverty, and starvation. While there are many problems such as these in Nigeria and other African nations, Adichie beckoned that there is also beauty and wonderful people doing amazing things that are glossed over in single stories. In the realm of storytelling, she discussed the role of power and how it affects how and when stories are told. Adichie claimed, “Power is the ability not just to tell the story of another person, but to make it the definitive story of that person.” When stories are told in singularity, stereotypes are not necessarily formed out of wrong information, but incomplete information. Adiche wrapped up with a call that “stories matter” and a reminder that “Stories have been used to dispossess and to malign, but stories can also be used to empower and to humanize.”

    Adichie is very poignant in getting her point across as she is blunt in the shortcomings of American culture without stepping on any toes by also explaining her similar experiences with a single story. From the very beginning, Adichie uses ethos to establish her credibility as an educated storyteller by referencing her childhood growing up on a university campus with highly educated parents. In addition to later attending an American university, she explained how she was reading and writing from a very young age which gave her credibility in terms of her experience with storytelling. She also utilized logos as she provided many examples and personal experiences with the consequences of both being the perpetrator and victim of a single story. Her roommate's idea of African women and her own view of Mexico were potent examples of how single stories deprive both parties of the beauty that could be found through storytelling if all aspects are presented: good and bad, base and beautiful. Finally, Adichie used pathos in her call for people to seek more than a single story as it relates to humanity as a whole. By showing the regained dignity and unity that storytelling can provide, she was able to tap into the emotional desire humans have for community and respect.

    “The Danger of a Single Story” is moving and powerful as it shows how storytelling can connect and empower people rather than divide. I picked this talk because it is honestly one of my favorite TED Talks because it is so real in addressing the tendency of humans to settle for single stories of people and places. I believe this issue is only getting worse as social media surrounds us with the “echo chamber” (as we discussed in TOK) and incomplete information that is taken as truth. I myself have fallen into the grasps of single stories as they are displayed at my fingertips as cheap, quick knowledge. As I reflect on this talk, I desire to stop cheating myself and others by viewing the world in this limited fashion. Storytelling is so important yet lost in our world of 140 characters or less. My minor complaint about modern culture aside, this TED talk really emphasizes how whole stories are beautiful and uniting, while fragments are limiting and dehumanizing. I feel like the concept that is most applicable in this case is the idea of lenses and perspectives. The benefit of the application of different perspectives such as Freudian, historical, gender, etc. in analysis is that it allows us to create a fuller picture that digs deeper into the story and adds dimensions. Perspectives defeat surface level analysis which is similar to the idea of a single story. Single stories are surface level because they do not display the numerous, beautiful dimensions of a people, place, or culture.

The Man Behind the Slyish Cast

The two mysterious characters Jekyll and Hyde carry strange similarities and stark differences. In comparing Enfield’s description of Hyde and the description of Jekyll in chapter three, one similarity is the implication of a darkness within. The description of Hyde is much more straightforward in this as Enfield claims that “he gives a strong feeling of deformity” despite the fact that he cannot point out any physical deformities. This implies that there is a darkness within the character of Hyde that is displeasing to others as they sense something is wrong. In the same way, Jekyll hides something behind a “slyish cast” that is not as easily uncovered beneath his kind and caring demeanor. Additionally, when “young Hyde” is brought up by the lawyer, Jekyll’s face distorts from the previous handsome description to “pale to the very lips” with a “blackness about his eyes”. This again implies the dark connection between the two characters and this description of Jekyll could be seen as his face deforming to reveal the importance of appearance in mirroring the characters thoughts and feelings.

In contrast, Mr. Hyde is described in a vague and fearful manner. Enfield's active voice when describing Hyde consistently brings us back the strange subject of Mr. Hyde’s appearance and how that affects the way Mr. Enfield understands him. While also providing shorter sentences, active voice makes the subject, Mr. Hyde, take responsibility for the action of being deformed and displeasing. This is an interesting way to describe someone because Enfield is very direct about his views of Mr. Hyde rather than merely commenting on how the man seemed to be. Additionally, the description of his appearance remains steady in it’s horrifying nature and Enfield's inability to point out the reason for the horror. However, the voice and idea development of Dr. Jekyll’s character is spoken in a lengthy manner with fluid description. Dr. Jekyll is described in detail as “a large, well-made, smooth-faced man of fifty” as well as a man with “every mark of capacity and kindness.” This contrasts greatly with Hyde’s description of appearance because it implies a kind, honorable man while Hyde’s lack of physical description implies a mysterious figure as it remains the dark unknown. Another contrasting element is that the other characters around Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde have very different responses. It is evident in Mr. Enfield’s characterization of Mr. Hyde that he is fearful of this negative creature and bothered by his inability to directly point out way he received such a negative, deformed feeling from Hyde. While Jekyll’s “slyish cast” is questioned, he is described in a much more positive manner to outsiders as “you could see by his looks that he cherished for Mr. Utterson a sincere and warm affection.” Such deep affection and sincerity is not even hinted at in Mr. Hyde’s personality.

Jekyll I wake to the sunlight I won’t fear to face them I will pleasantly stroll with a smile And hyde what can’t be seen He is within me... A weakness He plucks at my sanity I must rid myself of him Yet

Hyde I emerge in the moonlight I won’t fear to face myself I will freely roam as I am And do as I please He is within me... A weakness He tugs at my freedom I must rid myself of him He won’t.

The purpose of this poem is to show the opposing qualities of the two characters and foreshadow Hyde’s ultimate takeover of the two minds of one body. The intended effect is that the audience will see that ignoring the darker sides of us doesn’t solve the problem but can make them more appealing as something real rather than a societal mask. In a way, one could argue that displaying yourself as perfect was just as prevalent in the Victorian Era as it is now with social media. When nobody sees that you are hurting, nobody will know when you need help; just as Jekyll suffered with Hyde.