Directions: Please view "The Danger of a Single Story" by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie and comment in this blog space on the ways in which we judge others/authors/characters by a single story. Think about people that you have judged by one moment. How do you define them? Now, think about novels. How have you judged authors/characters by a single reading? Have you had any experiences where your opinion changed for people and authors?
Next, peruse my global website. Feel free to comment on something you found interesting and would like to ask me for more information. You may also share the site o social media if you find something that touches you. I appreciate the feedback.
"The Danger of a Single Story"
by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie
Culture. The word originated with the definition"to cultivate land," and evolved into a "cultivation of the mind." Today the word is ambiguous, referring to our attachment to a place, traditions, and beliefs. It also has ominously been used to discuss an "otherness" through stereotypes.
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie shares her experiences with the notion of culture in "The Danger of a Single Story" in an important TED Talk that will explain the importance of global intelligence.
"Mr. P. Goes Global"
by Eric Pellerin
I, as an American, have subconscious stereotypes in regard to other areas of the world. It’s only natural considering the stories I was told growing up, those about America’s economic, political, international and military successes, as well as its position as a global superpower. As a kid these stereotypes were much worse. Through early history classes I was taught to believe I lived in the best nation in history and that Americans were the untouchable leaders of the world. It wasn’t until I began reading more advanced literature in mid-elementary school and middle school that my opinion of America shifted. One specific novel, “A Hope in the Unseen” by Ron Suskind, was told from the perspective of a young black teenager named Cedric Jennings who, despite living in “the best nation in the world”, had an extremely difficult, trial-filled upbringing living in southeast Washington D.C. The book essentially opened my eyes to a different story, one besides the traditional stories about patriotic white men I’d been reading my whole life, and, like Chimamanda when she visited Mexico, made me very ashamed. I had assumed that all Americans had similar opportunities to succeed, which was not the case for Cedric and certainly not the case for most minorities living in the US. He ended up working his butt off to get into Brown, a major accomplishment for a young boy in his economic and social position, but could never stop working after that considering his disadvantage having gone to underprivileged schools in the center of a major city his whole life. At the time my whole life had been spent in a wealthy suburb surrounded by a loving family and equally intelligent, hardworking students attending one of the best school districts in the state. I would have had no idea what other kids were going through if not for this book. Literature has the immense power to shift perspectives simply by sharing stories about topics that readers are unfamiliar with. My single story, that of America’s greatness, blinded me from understanding the clear disparities that existed and still exist in my country.
ReplyDeleteIt’s so easy to overlook the qualities of a person or story in favor of simplifying it into one simple stereotype. Doing so hurts the receiver of such opinions, but it gives those who are simplifying the receiver more power. Some of these may not have malicious intent, in the end, it still has an effect on the person receiving it. Adichie had said that by showing “a people as one thing, over and over again,... that is what they become”. Eventually, the majority of people will know them as that one thing.
ReplyDeleteI’m the kind of person who keeps grudges easily. As soon as someone treats me in a way I interpret as mean or rude, they’ll continue to appear as mean and rude to me. I’ll talk of them as if they are only mean and rude. In reality, though, there are so many others that may not think that. On a much minor scale, I’m doing the same as what others had done to Adichie. There uis so much more than that, and “all of these stories make me who I am. But to insist on only these negative stories is to flatten my experience and to overlook the many other stories that formed me”. Since each and every person is a collection of various qualities, there is no specific definition to a person or even a group. With the use of a single story, we “create stereotypes, and the problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue but that they are incomplete”. By judging a single author or novel by one single thing it does or does not achieve, it is severely limiting the reach that that novel or artist does. Take, for example, whether or not a book has an ending and closure. The lack of such never makes it a bad piece of work, but by failing to recognize that it’s a specific choice made by the author, we can never fully understand the capabilities that it can show.
I can do the same thing that you mentioned, about planting huge misconceptions about people if they are rude or mean to me in one instance. I know that it be a bad example of what that person is like, but if we don't know that person well at all, then what else do we have to go off of? I think there's justification in your thinking in that sense.
DeleteI like how you related the single story to yourself by explaining your grudge holding. By latching onto a specific story about someone you become blind to other experiences you might have with them, good or bad.
DeleteI agree wholeheartedly with the idea that failing to look past the stereotypes assigned to a group of people/culture won’t let us grow as individuals, therefore resulting in a lack of understanding between people and a great divide between others. In order to create a solid judgement, whether it be a person, a culture or a character in a book, one must take the time to truly know them for who they are.
DeleteWe are sometimes quick to judge because we can't find a way to sympathize with people. It leads to that one sided perspective you mentioned. As individuals, I think we should learn to be more sympathetic to one another because we really can't know what is truly going on in someone's life from just one story.
DeleteIn today's world we stereotype and judge people on many things, big or small. During high school we stereotype people based on how they look, the extracurricular activities people do, and even who they hangout with. It “Robs people of dignity”, and how they really are. Like she said during her ted talk yu single story people based on how they are portrayed and what the look like through the glass. But, if you go into the room you can see a different type of person than what you are used to seeing. You get to see people's emotions and their personality rather than seeing what’s on the outside you get brought in and can see what’s on the inside. When I judge people, it is based off of what other people tell me and their opinions on them, how they act, and what their values are. When reading novels you see how characters get portrayed. For example in To Kill A Mockingbird you see that Atticus and his character does what is right no matter what the consequences or how people will think of him after he does it. His character is someone who just wants to do the right thing. And then you see Boo Radley and his character develop at the beginning of the book people think of him as a weird guy who is scary then by the end everyone finds out that he is a really nice guy and that he cares for others.
ReplyDeleteThe Ted Talk made me think about two concepts: how “winners” write the history books and how judging people by one moment is much more often than we realize. In my democracy in literature class we talked about a comic that displayed two strangers walking toward each other on the street. The comic had thought bubbles above each person’s head, displaying how each person was sizing the other up. The point of the comic was to bring to light how we often judge people by only what we can see. This is the danger of a single story. When we first meet someone, or pass them on the street, we judge them by what we can see in that moment. If I see someone struggling to pick up the pills that have fallen out of their purse, I may assume that they are addicted, and I might feel pity for them. But that is just based on my single story, and had I known that person was actually returning those pills because her son was overprescribed, my judgement would be false. Without the different perspective, or even the whole story, our judgements can be false or unfair. With this in mind, the dangers of a single story are extremely prevalent in history. It is only in the past couple hundred years that we have written history in more than one perspective. Before this, history was written by the people that “won”. These people have all the power, and have no interest in showing their bad sides, and is therefore often biased. For example, if you only ever read Columbus’ diary, you would not know of the horrible acts performed. But, by reading about the other side of the story from people such as De Las Casas, your view of Columbus might change because of the new perspective. “The Danger of a Single Story” shows just how important a second or third perspective can be.
ReplyDeleteI'm familiar with the comic you quoted, "Street Calculus", and I think that it was a very appropriate citation. I also think that your hypothetical on the mother with prescription pills was an excellent and realistic example of how seeing someone in one instance can spoil our perception of them in the future. To further expand on your point about Columbus, where do we draw the line in truth and falsity when we are discussing stories? How do we ever reach definite facts when there are so many stories that contradict each other, all with their own biases?
DeleteWatching this TED Talk revealed to me just how many single stories I have about so many people and groups of people. Ashamedly, I have a single story about Lawrence. Even though Andover borders Lawrence, I do not know much about the people who live there, so I categorize them by stereotypes. Adichie said that the single story of Sub-Saharan Africa from Americans’ perspectives is “of negatives, of differences, of darkness,” but then she explains that while they are not untrue, “they are incomplete.” The aspects of Lawrence that I often forget are that the community is very tight-knit and open to one another. I think that in Andover, we should learn a thing or two from our neighboring town.
ReplyDeleteBefore I even read “Unaccustomed Earth,” I had a single story about Jhumpa Lahiri just because she was Indian. I assumed that I would not connect with her writing because her culture was so different from mine, but I was wrong. “Unaccustomed Earth” opened my eyes to see what Mr. Pellerin meant when he wrote in his blog, “people are the same everywhere.” I understand why Hema does not want her mom to pack her lunches, and I also understand the confusion that accompanies being an Asian in America, but an American in Asia. Though Lahiri’s characters are Indian, the struggles they experience as first, second or third generation immigrants are equally as real to many other people living in America, including me.
One of the most interesting points that Mr. Pellerin made in his blog was, “This freedom of religion extends far beyond their written documents...In the United States, we certainly have freedom of religion in writing, but we tend to handle it differently in the classroom...In Indonesia, global minded education is a cultural norm in which people take a great deal of pride” (“Preparing Myself for the Journey”). My question for Mr. Pellerin is how did you see this in action in the schools you visited? Another quote that stuck out at me while reading was, “We have, in place, certain U.S. freedoms that the Atmajaya staff wished to have, yet we in the U.S. still seem to have the same issues, or new ones pop up...At the end of the day, no matter what is on the page, we seem to have the same struggles and successes” (“Atmajaya University”). I loved how he frequently mentioned that the more globally-educated you are, the more you realize how similar everyone really is.
I definitely had a similar experience with "Unaccustomed Earth", where I though race would diminish connection I might otherwise have, but it turned out to be my favorite because of how I could easily I could relate the story of my family with some of those that she wrote.
DeleteHonestly, it's even better to be going into a book without knowing how you'd relate to the author because so much can surprise you. At first glance, it seems as if there's nothing between oneself and the author. By reading their work and understanding their message it's easier to remove that single story saying that there's nothing to connect the two. Struggle is universal, especially for children. Everyone finds the same problems as everyone else sooner or later. It's interesting to think that such a connection can be tied between two people who have never met.
DeleteWhat you are saying here is extremely relatable. In books I tend to assume I will not be able to connect with an author if their culture, religion, ethnicity, etc. is different from mine since their "single story" is probably very different from mine. However, I think what Chimamanda wants to teach us here is that looking past the "single story" and making an effort to read more can eliminate the natural biases we hold on a daily basis.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen growing up, I faced the exact same predicament that Adichie did. I drew Aryan, peached colored characters that had darker skin only where there were shadows. Always rosy lips a pointed chin. In the coloring crayon set I bought, there was one light orangish-pink tone labeled "skin" while the darker tones were labeled "brown" or "dark brown". And so I grew up with that single story. We as humans sometimes pity characters for their "conditions" or make assumptions based on "incomplete" stereotypes, that a character has to wait to be saved by a white foreigner in shining armor. We also judge the "authenticity" of a story being told, and whether it holds up to our preconceived notions. I came to America expecting everyone to be white with a so-called "American accent" that my relatives in India had spoken of. Instead, I was greeted by the whole world, Indians like me, Mexicans, Chinese, Italians, Japanese, Ashkenazi Jews, and so many more. Accents differed between states and even regions. When reading novels, I judge some of the characters just at a glance until delving further into the "secondly" part of their story. I judged Winston to be a character is deserving of empathy with the rise of a power regime in Airstrip One. Afterward, I read about how he fetishized women. I judged the Nurse from Romeo and Juliet as just a ditzy character solely serving as comic relief. Then I read her talk with Lady Capulet and how she had an immense maternal love for Juliet. I judged Daisy as a strong-willed woman trapped in an inescapable marriage. And then I read about how she left Gatsby to die for manslaughter she committed.
ReplyDeleteThe more we read about people and characters the more we understand them and their many stories. It seems you and Chimamanda have a lot in common so I'm curious to know how you feel your stories connect? Both of you grew up with a single story of America, so how did that story change when you ended up moving here?
DeleteI loved reading your story because it comes from the perspective of someone who did not grow up in America. I never even thought about how the "light orange-pink" crayon was called "skin," while "brown" was just "brown." Starting with the crayons we use as children, we subconsciously develop a single story about groups of people.
DeleteEveryone is guilty of judging a book by its cover whether we want to or not. When we are put into new experiences with new people often times we seek to find differences in those around us instead of the similarities. A first impression is incredibly impactful and important. Often times it is very hard to recover from a bad first impression or it takes a long time to change another’s view on yourself. The first day of school for example is incredibly stressful because you are thrust into a room with people you may or may not know which is uncomfortable in itself but then also expected to make yourself appear as this perfect person so that you give off the right first impression. The fear of coming off as weird, or anything else with a negative connotation is sometimes so much that we make “mistakes” and people see through the facade of your perfect complexion and see the real you. Many wish to hide the real us at least for the first few weeks so that they are able to start off with a fresh slate and as a defense mechanism start to focus on others and judge the things that make them different from us just as Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie said in her Ted Talk. In a similar way, people often judge the characters/authors in novels after reading it only once. For example, I was extremely upset after finishing the Divergent Series by Veronica Roth only to find out that the main character Tris ended up dying instead of one of the villains in the book because she sacrificed herself for him. Initially, this ending made me mad, I felt as if the whole series had been ruined simply by this one act of heroism because Tris could not live the rest of her life with her boyfriend Tobias. For weeks on end, I could not understand why Veronica Roth would choose to do such a thing, to save a character who in my mind did not deserve saving. It wasn’t until I re-read the series the following summer that I finally understood why the book needed to end that way. The entirety of the series followed Tris and her selflessness and desire to good in the world which is why it was essential the final book ended the way it did. After re-reading the novels, and discovering a different side of the story I now love and appreciate the ending.
ReplyDeleteAwhile back I was introduced to something called the ‘Seven Second Impression’ which essentially hypothesizes the theory that someone is able to understand a person within seven seconds of meeting them. Whether it be by the way they walk, what they wear, or their dialogue, assumptions are constantly being made whether we want them to be or not. Adichie’s single story theory reminded me of the seven second impression and the common thread they share- the brain’s instant reaction to make assumptions.
ReplyDeleteWe find ourselves in situations where our expectations don't match reality, such as Adichie’s inference when she thought that happiness and talent didn’t exist where poverty is. This is where the fault of the Seven Second Impression and the Single Story lies. Our brains make connections to what we are familiar with hearing. The Seven Second Impression and the Single Story are similar to hearing one word. When you hear a word, your mind is overwhelmed with memories and tries to bring up what you know from it. Like when Adichie said “If I had not grown up in Nigeria and if all I knew from popular images, I too would think that Africa…” Assumptions are made when our brain lacks a deep understanding. When you have a deeper understanding, like what Adichie knew of Africa, she knew more than just “African music”. Similar to how Adichie didn’t have a deep understanding of poverty and made an assumption of what she had heard. Adichie’s Single Story encourages us to develop a deeper understanding of the world surrounding us, culture or not.
Understanding Adichie’s argument against the Single Story allows us to analyze our decisions closer and truly see how the single story rob people of their dignity.
I thought it was very interesting how you intertwined the idea of the seven second impression into that of the single story, for they are both incredibly dangerous. One word can never describe the truth.
DeleteGrowing up, it seems we are always told, “Don’t judge a book by its cover” or “Be kind- you never know what else is happening in someone’s life.” Despite these reminders, there are times in our lives that humans fall in the trap of the single story. The danger of a single story boils down to the act of judgement. The judgements often emerge from false information that has been exaggerated, or from one encounter we had where the full truth is not revealed. Growing up in the United States, and particularly in New England, we tend to have judgements about other parts of the country not being as “advanced” as us, or not as “smart.” This single story is a false judgement from news stories we hear, or ideas we have heard growing up. The development of technology has allowed us to have constant news updates and immediate contact with the rest of the world. This allows us to have multiple stories if used correctly. However, the easy access to technology today can also allow us to create false judgements based on certain stories that are spread or information that is distorted in a way to create judgments from people. The phrase “Don’t judge a book by its cover,” or the danger of a single story, was not just a phrase our parents told us when we were young to learn new words. It has an important message that we learn as children, but need to continue to remember throughout the rest of our lives to always have multiple stories.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your thought that not judging a book by its cover is something that we need to learn in our childhood and carry out into our adulthood too. I thought it was interesting that you brought up the fact that since we live in New England, and I would say since we live in Massachusetts, we often tend to think of other states and parts of the country as not as smart as us. We live in a state with some of the best public school education and great ivy league colleges and this often makes people from Massachusetts think that they are better than communities from southern states or midwestern origin. This is a grave mistake because there are so many intelligent people all around the US no matter what part of the country you are in. Categorizing regions as rednecks, farmers, cowboys or intellects demotes who people truly are from a specific reason. I also like how you brought up the fact that we may hear multiple stories about an event online from different media outlets but it is also our job to judge these different stories and decide which are true and which are not.
DeleteI like how you talk about hearing inspirational quotes like "Be kind- you never know what else is happening in someone's life" while growing up and how despite hearing that constantly, it's not something that automatically comes to mind before we make an assumption about someone else.
DeleteThe term “don’t judge a book by its cover” is a motto that many people say, but not everyone can follow. The book cover is only one part, one cannot judge the book in its entirety based on its cover. The same goes for people; your first impression of them or the story you heard about them, do not define them as a person. People are quick to judge each other based on a certain story is probably because it is easier to assume confronting the person and asking if the story is true. Because confrontation sometime causes drama and tension, no one wants to deal with that. Going back to novels, I admit to disliking authors and characters after one reading. Most of the time it is because of the author’s writing style and the character’s actions. It was not until I read why the author chose to write like that, that I understood more about the author as a person. The same goes for characters. The more I read, the more I understood the reasons behind their actions. In some way, only seeing a person from one point of view, as Adichie said, “it robs people of dignity.” How are they going to shape their personality if all people will see is a single story? It is impossible. People’s stories can be empowering and life-changing, but they have more than one story. If their first story was not the best, maybe their second one will change your perspective. So a story can rob people of dignity, but Adichie also mentioned that “stories can also repair that broken dignity.”
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to know everything about one person or piece of literature or character after meeting them or reading about them just once. Not every perspective gives the full story. I like the book cover idea too––it's what you see on the outside that stands out, but that doesn't mean that there's only more of that inside and on the pages. There could be something even greater or worse.
DeleteIt’s funny how frequently history repeats itself. Historical motifs never die, and moreover, they never fall into deep slumber. Since its conception, there has been a great hatred in this country towards the Mexican people as a whole. Maybe some have neighbors who are Mexican, but of course the people that you love and bond with are different from the others, an exception to the rule. Adichie even mentions that at the time, “‘There were endless stories of Mexicans as people who were fleecing the healthcare system, sneaking across the border, being arrested at the border.’” This was in 2009. Today, this argument is repeated to a tee, as it has been for decades. Mexicans have been scapegoats for America’s problems, and only the factors in which they are blamed for have changed. The reinforcement of a certain set of beliefs over millennia have a way of sneaking into our brains, cementing themselves into our very neurons. This narrative is splashed across newsies, twitter, and interwoven within political slogans. One people become a problem, and the solution is get rid of them, not change us.
ReplyDeleteI have most certainly judged other people. As Adichie puts it, “’But I must quickly add that I too am just as guilty in the question of the single story.’” It is inescapable. Part of it comes from the natural tendency humans have to put themselves on a pedestal, and look above all their subservients down below. However, just because something exists doesn’t mean that it should be the norm. People have so many aspects that they don’t share with the world, and one characteristic that may be perceived as flawed to one doesn’t define them. When you get to know others, not just in a superficial sense but in actuality, judgement of them tends to cease. One can only hope that their judgment of a particular trait lessens, as a behavioral trait doesn’t vanish in one instance.
In “Brave New World” by Aldous Huxley, John is of the descent of the modern world, yet was raised on a Native American reservation, so when he arrived in the modern world it was too much. However, I felt that though Huxley told a compelling story, the tragic end of John seemed too forced. This reminded me of what happens to various monks in Asian countries whose begging for rice is seen as a tourist attraction, whose way of life is not seen as equal to tourists. John’s way of life seemed very spontaneous, and he was unable to follow through, and he felt unrealistic. Maybe this way a way for Huxley to emphasize a point, but I felt the characters to be incomplete. Hopefully if I encounter any of Huxley's work in the future, I will be motivated to pick it up, and learn a lot more from him.
Throughout life, sometimes it may seem as if it is human nature to merely except the first or most prevalent story about a particular place or people. Whether it be race, culture, or merely believing rumors since they are the only source of information, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie makes it clear in her Ted Talk “The Danger of The Single Story” that this unilateral worldview is incredibly harmful and limiting. By opening our minds to the innumerable stories people have to offer, we are able to have a much fuller understanding of the universe around us. In my opinion, the book Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontë showcases this danger in startling poignancy, despite being published in 1847. One of the titular characters in the book, Heathcliff, is constantly mistreated merely because he is poor and looks like a “gipsey”. Upon being first brought to the house, Nelly Dean recalls that the entire family besides Mr. Earnshaw, “entirely refused to have “it” in bed with them, or even in their room; and I had no more sense, so I put “it” on the landing of the stairs, hoping it might be gone on the morrow.” This utter inhumanity towards a child, simply because he bore the looks of a gipsy, is a potent warning against believing a single story. Since gypsies at the time had a reputation for being untrustworthy and dangerous, merely because he was similar in appearance to them, the Earnshaws immediately identified him as such, regardless as to whether or not these assumptions were true. As a result of a single story, Heathcliff became bitter and twisted beyond recognition.
ReplyDeleteI really like your use of Wuthering Heights in this response. I think that maybe in some cases, when people are misidentified as something, part of them does begin to identify with that thing. I have not read this book, but I wonder if Heathcliff began to feel that he deserved this treatment because he started to believe the stories others were crafting about him. It's interesting to think of the effect that one story has not only on the close minded audience, but also on the person themselves.
DeleteThe story of our lives is one that is complex and diverse. However, keeping track of such an ever-changing and convoluted system of relationships is, quite frankly, hard. It is human nature to group, to divide and subdivide, to categorize. In turn, it is only natural to label these categories.
ReplyDeleteThroughout history, mankind has grouped itself into various camps; the human story, on the whole, is one of tribalism. It is the prerogative of man to value his social group, his tribe, above all else for, throughout the vast majority of history, it is this adherence to his tribe that has kept him safe. Hand in hand with tribalism is isolationism; historically only the brave few adopted a xenophilic (literally translated as love of the unknown) lifestyle. The vast majority have devolved into xenophobia, fearing outsiders, the unfamiliar, the unknown. This mindset has evolved to look down upon unknown people, beliefs, and cutures. In turn, these perceived lesser cultures have been labeled, perhaps unjustly, according to the prevailing beliefs of the labeling culture. This, in turn, creates a vicious cycle, one in which tribes become ever more xenophobic based upon their previous xenophobic evaluations of the outside world. Analogously, cultures become increasingly isolationist because they are afraid of the outside due to the fact that all they know about the outside are the parts that they believe they should fear. The only way to stem the tide of fear and isolationism is to look beyond the single story; by seeing more than the percived ‘scary’ aspects of a culture and adopting a more holistic viewpoint compassion can be fostered.
The discussion of isolationism always brings to light the tribes and cultures that are still cut off from the world today. One culture that comes to mind lives on an island in the Indian ocean. This culture is known for its hatred of outsiders, and for being extremely violent at every encounter. In response to this, the Indian government has put laws in place that ensure the safety of the island by not allowing people to make contact. This practice of mutual isolationism is dangerous, and if it were to be spread on a more global effort, the international community would become fractured. For example, if a single story of China caused the United States to cut off all ties with the world, the global economy would become unstable, if not ultimately destroyed. To combat this we must, as a civilization, put aside the differences that arise from a single story, and instead listen for the whole story. We must learn the who, what, where, when, why, and how from all sides. We must listen to multiple perspectives if we want any chance of keeping general global stability. Too often a single story can be a rumor, and we must not act hastily or we may do something that cannot be taken back or repaid.
DeleteChimamanda Ngozi Adichie explains a very powerful message of what it means to ‘only tell a single story’ and how it can create cultural stereotypes which in many cases are untrue. She explains how these single stories often misinform people and how almost all of us are guilty of telling or believing a single story. I also feel like I often judge interactions with new people from foreign places based on what I have heard from popularized stereotypes. This seems to be a very prevalent problem in our society and as Adichie stated, “they make one story become the only story”. Associating people with broad attributes demotes their true personalities, morals and characteristics which truly show us who that person is.
ReplyDeleteI feel as though this belief in a single story can influence us in literature too. For instance in To Kill A Mockingbird all of the kids had elaborate stories of the wicked persona of the local recluse Boo Radley. He was someone mysterious and someone who all of the kids feared greatly. This came to be the only story that readers knew of him for almost the entirety of the novel. It wasn’t until the very end that we learned a new story about Boo Radley. He in fact is someone who shy but caring and watches over the kids in the town despite their cold shoulders toward him. He’s even the one who defends Scout against Bob Ewell. The telling of a single story can be quite faulty because whether in literature or in real life, you don’t truly understand who a person is unless you see them through multiple stories.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteExactly as we had discussed in the last class, my perception of America as a country has shifted and changed throughout my life. As many other mentioned in younger grades we are often fed a single story of our country. The Pilgrims never die, smallpox does not exist, and Christopher Columbus is just such a good guy that we had to give him a holiday. Obviously as I grew up I realized that beyond what makes our country great are its flaws. But only through learning both sides of the story can we see through to the truth. I define our country as realistic, because no country, no story, no person, is without flaw.
ReplyDeleteRoahl Dahl is best known to me and probably most others in the class as a children’s book writer. Many of us grew up with big friendly giants and chocolate factories. However, overshadowed by his successful career as a children’s novel author are his many short stories, some of which contain very dark and mature plots. After reading “The Landlady” I realized how I had restricted an author’s creative abilities to a single genre. Even in reading the same book at different times I have changed my opinion for certain authors. In fifth grade “To Kill A Mockingbird” was the most boring, monotonous, and meaningless book that I had ever read. Come eighth grade, my classmates and I had matured enough to understand what would become many of ours’ favorite book. The novel I read in fifth grade was no longer the same story and Harper Lee was no longer the same person in my mind.
There is an old Chinese idiom that I was told as a kid. There is a frog in a well, and all he knows is the circle of sky that drifts above him every day. One day a turtle comes along and tells him of the ocean, of the beach, and the vastness of the sky. The frog cannot believe that there is more sky and land than the circle above him and the stone beneath him. The global website was refreshing to explore. While I do not read blogs it is always nice to remember that America is not the only place and culture in the world. It’s nice to stick my head out of the well and see what else the world has to offer.
I really enjoyed you Chinese idiom, and it was definitely thought that it was a nice segue into increasing our global awareness. It reminds me of the metaphor of a cave, where people who were forced to live in a cave for their whole life and fed illusions didn't believe one of their number who was allowed to leave the cave and see the world.
DeleteIt must be somewhat difficult to be a children's book author and only write about things that aren't that deep. One has many more feelings beyond simple messages, and to create something that deviates from a given course is challenging, for many will question the purpose of it, as it is so different from the expected.
For me, the book that expanded my view on Roald Dahl was his autobiography. I too knew him only as a children's book author, and then I got to read about him fighting on the Greek front and northern Africa as a fighter pilot.
DeleteI agree that growing up in the United States has altered our view of our country and the rest of the world. Though we have access to other places in the world, it is still like we live in a bubble full of American patriotism and hierarchy. As you said, we are taught the single story of the United States when we are young, so when we grow up it is difficult to change our perception and point of view. Do you think by changing what we are taught when we are young, more Americans would have an open, unbiased view to the rest of the world?
Delete@EddieChae
DeleteThanks for the comment, I'm glad you enjoyed the idiom. Your metaphor reminded me of Plato's allegory of the cave which I learned about last year in AP Lang.
I'm sure it is still possible to write and portray serious and "mature" issues through a children's book as many shows such as "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood" and Disney's "Cornelius Fillmore" have. My point was more that Roald Dahl was restricted to a specific genre as an author, not so much that the genre didn't allow him to express important ideas.
When I was younger and sitting in traffic with my Mom, we would play a game where we would narrate the life stories of the people in the cars outside our windows. We each looked at the driver or passenger in the car and detailed their lives: How old are they? Where were they from? Where were they going? Married, single, or “it’s complicated”? What’s their occupation? Do they have kids? For hours we would write people’s lives, laughing, debating, and enjoying the power of the blank slates and story creating opportunity we had available to us on all sides. It is crazy to think that an individual can be identified in so many different ways. It all depends on the audience and the circumstance. To one person, I am just a girl who they saw in the grocery store one day. To thousands at a concert, I am just another attendee. To the family I saw at the beach last weekend drawing in my sketchbook, I am just an artist. To another, I am a mere shadow in the back of vacation photos. One story or occurrence, no matter how impactful, cannot sum up a person’s whole being. There is much more to my story than these tiny glimpses of me are allowing people to see.
ReplyDeleteI think that "The Danger of a Single Story" by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie is very accurate in its claim that no story can be complete if all involved sides are not represented. When studying the history of the United States, for example, it is apparent that the majority of information has been recorded by white, middle class males. The only information given from other demographics about their history can be found in letters, where the details are often blurred. Most history textbooks about the US are catered towards white men, and not many other demographics are represented in full. Without equal representation of opinions and perspectives of the history of the US, I cannot say I am comfortable with this retelling of our country’s history.
I found your entry to be quite striking because when I was younger my mom and I would talk about the exact same thing. Whenever a car went by she'd tell me, "Every person inside every car has a story to tell". Even though we were both very young, this small act seems to have planted the first seed of multiple stories in our brains, thus chipping away at the single story bit by bit.
DeleteYes, I agree we take up a different role to a myriad of people. My one label of "student" cannot define me. We are much more than any one onlooker can hope to imagine just like the onlooker themselves. This is why colleges stress for recommendations from different figures or urge students to choose teachers hat know them beyond only a single "role".
DeleteIt is crazy to think about the fact that in other people's mind's we are nothing more than people just going about a simple task and in the eyes of most that is all we will ever be known for. Someone who sees you at a public beach most likely will not even remember you the next day, you will simply just be grouped in with all the other fellow beach goers. The only time we will truly be remembered by strangers is if we do something out of the ordinary whether it be good or bad. If we hold the door open, the person who received this act of kindness will surely think about it all day long and be thankful for your generosity. If we get in a fight while in public we will surely be remembered by all the people around us as those who were screaming and yelling over spilled milk. Yet there is so much more to us than just someone who is upset that something was spilled, there is a person who has layers and layers to them yet all a stranger will ever see is the person who freaked out in public.
DeleteIt’s unfortunate how easy it is for one to judge others based on limited information about them. I’ve seen assumptions made about a person about pretty much everything, from what sports they play, to how good their grades are. I think we are all guilty of this to some degree, although I’m sure we aren’t proud of ourselves for it. In literature, it’s even easier to stereotype, as the characters we are judging aren’t real, so we don’t feel as bad expressing opinions about them. I’ve definitely picked up a book to judge a character as annoying, dumb, or not very tough within the first few chapters, only to see continuous growth throughout the rest of the story. Similarly, in the real world, I have definitely formed assumptions unconsciously about people I didn’t know very well, only to be surprised when I had a class with that person and I learned more about
ReplyDeletethem.
I certainly don’t think judging someone or something off of one story is correct, but I can see why it happens. If one’s eyes have not been opened up to the other side of the story, then the only thing they can really do is make assumptions based on what little they have already heard.
I agree with you will on how people make assumptions about people off of what they have heard but, there are other ways people make assumptions based off of who they hang out with, what they wear, and how they spend their free time. That gets in the way of really knowing a person and maybe if you just spend time and talk to them you'll see that they are really nice and could be a good person
DeleteMy default instinct is to form quick judgements of people when I first meet them, I’ve noticed. It actually takes some effort to pull myself back and ask if they’ve had a bad day or are out of their comfort zone if I make a negative one. I assume things about people based on everything from their appearance, mannerisms, speech, etc, and then I try to forget those things. As far as novels go, the most famous example of a misjudged character I have went through is Snape from Harry Potter. He was presented as a vile person intentionally, as well as his entire house. Yet, it turns out that in part he was acting, that he was driven not by hate but by love. As for authors, my feelings on Orson Scott Card were generally positive. I enjoyed his writing, but felt conflicted once I found out he expressed homophobic ideas in real life. While this type of thing usually has to do with separating the author from his writing, in a way, someone's writing is one point of view you can use to judge them. Then you have characters with multiple interpretations, but who aren’t changing whatsoever in the context of their own stories. Take Terrence Fletcher from Whiplash. To some people, he is an effective teacher, even if his means are unsavory. To others, he is a villain, who terrorizes his students and ruins their lives for his own gain. While I could see why someone could see either, and their mind could change from one to the other, I was always of the opinion that he is a villain.
ReplyDeleteI agree, I think that naturally we are quick to make assumptions whether we like to or not. I think that being able to analyze people, places and situations quickly is just one of those traits that has been essential to survival in the past, but now is backfiring a little.
DeleteI think, as you noted, perspective plays a huge role. The way one views a story wil obviously influence their perception of that story’s subject. I think that this makes the single story all the more dangerous; without multiple reference points two people can be shown the same story and have two completely different opinions. I liked your use of Tarence fletcher as an example for you and I were fed the same evidence but came to wildly different conclusions. I always admided hes persistent pursuit of perfection and that any ‘tyrannical’ behavior was a result of that. I find it super interesting, and a little concerning, just how different our opinions can be. I think that it is telling that we come to these conclusions without seeing Fletcher's home life, his relationship status, beyond jazz we don't even know his interests. To me, it's yet another warning against the single story.
DeleteIn today’s world, we constantly judge people based on the single story that society broadcast’s. This ultimately creates eternal stereotypes on a group of people that mostly always end up negatively affecting these individuals. We see how these stereotypes are systematically implemented in things such as college admissions, household lease distributions, and many other things. An experiment called “ A Class Divided” shows an experiment on a group of children who were told that certain eye colors were superior than others and their reactions and actions were observed in response to this idea. Here we can see how the kids who were chosen to be at a disadvantage and oppressed by the dominant or ‘better’ group performed worse when given a test than when they were they switched to be in the dominant group. The kids performance greatly changed when they were then considered the ‘better’ group as they said that now they were stereotyped as the ‘smart’ ones as well as having many other characteristics that the oppressed group supposedly didn’t have. Through this study, we can see how stereotypes not only affects an individual on an emotional level but as well as a mental level as onde they begin to believe the lie. This then opens the question of, is there a such thing as a positive stereotype? My thoughts are that there are no positive stereotypes as any stereotype puts a certain pressure on a group of people to behave and act a certain way and when they don’t society claims them to be not “authentic” enough as Adichie has stated you begin to judge “people as one thing, over and over again,...that is what they become”. Stereotypes are inevitable as we are always going to judge people by differences but we shouldn’t just be informed of that single story. As most people I have judged a book by its cover, when first reading Tim O'Brien's In the Lake of the Woods, I thought to myself “oh this is just going to be another book based on the Vietnam War“ but it was much more than that as it really captivated the reader by strategically exposing certain bits of information to make the audience ponder on Kate’s sudden disappearance.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your comment on stereotypes and how we cannot focus only on the single story. Even if stereotypes are inevitable we can open our minds to looking past the stereotypes at how they view themselves. How can we define someone and push them into a specific category without knowing them.
DeleteGrouping people together with restrictive stereotypes is what has caused division within our society. Hate and ignorance begin with the unfair judgements that we place on people. If we learn to read into the different sides of people’s stories we can become educated and understanding in order to battle stereotypes. In the Ted Talk “The Danger of a Single Story” Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie discusses how, “The problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue, but that they are incomplete.” Without knowing the complete story and every side we cannot make assumptions that accurately represent a person. We all jump to conclusions when we get information on a person or subject even though we rarely know if the source is reliable. It is necessary to see our own cultures represented in the media, but it is even more crucial to have exposure to how other individuals live their lives.
ReplyDeleteJudgement not only blinds us from learning about other people and other ways of life, but it also impairs our vision as reader. Before we pick up a book we have prematurally made up our minds about the author and the book itself. Any new information still has our lingering bias attached to it and it is our decision as individuals how much of the authors opinion we will absorb. While the reader has a bias before reading a book, the author has worked their own opinions as well. We cannot avoid these biases but it is important that we address them and are open to accepting that we cannot change anyone else’s. Our opinions can create closed minds that are only able to see the side of the story that we want to see. It is easier to sit in ignorance and avoid the whole story which may make us feel guilty or sad. However, we must push past this closed mindset so we can learn to listen to people with a different story. A wider representation of cultures in literature and the media creates a more educated world that will be able to accept cultures and opinions that differ from our own.
We are predisposed to judge others at first glance. It is impossible to come across someone and make zero internal judgements about them. We make these judgements because of past experiences and/or because we have been exposed to stereotypes and run on a pre-programmed brain due to the things we’ve heard whether it be by someone else or the internet. We are constantly reminded to “not judge a book by its cover”, but it is impossible to not do so. What we can change, however, is how we react to this quick judgement. Whether we decide to hold this person to this judgement or get to know the person for who they are. There are various occasions in which I have judged others based on their appearance as it is normal to do so, but when I put myself in a position to get to know them, I was able to look past the appearance and enjoy them as a person. The same goes for characters in a story. We judge characters off of the first impression we get when they are introduced, ut our opinions of them constantly changes as their character continues to build up.
ReplyDeleteI agree. It seems as though we are all "pre-programmed" to react to certain groups in certain ways, and I found it very interesting and poignant when you said that we have the power to look past these judgements and get to know people for who they really are, not how are biased brains depict them.
DeleteA: We judge others all the time and constantly. I judge people all the time, and I understand that it’s unjust and immature, but I cannot help myself. It is natural to judge. I will be judged for this blog post, maybe because it has my name attached to it or maybe because my ideas seem naive and lame. I understand that this is not a good instinct to have. How do I know this? It’s because I have been hearing the same “don’t judge others” message since I was in the 3rd grade, and so has everyone else. Of course I’ve changed the way I judge people. I judge based off of character now, not how someone’s face looks, nor the pitch of their voice. Judging people based on superficial aspects is just a very plain form of naivety; something many people are wise enough to find out early on. When you define people based on tangible things, you miss out on all the intangible things, almost always the parts that are most worth finding. I’m sure that there is some underlying metaphor for literature hidden in this, how perhaps someone’s perception of one book can spoil their impression on any other books written by that author. For example, there is so much more to a novel’s characters than the first impression that is made. It is completely naive to assume that the characters in a novel will not develop any further than when they’re first introduced, which is why it’s important to not make these judgement calls so early on in pieces of literature. This is why it is important to get through the first few chapters of a book before passing judgement on the author or piece itself. Personally, if I just dropped a book based on my perception of the first few chapters, I never would have finished any of my summer reading books in the history of summer reading assignments.
ReplyDeleteIn your blog about the global education trip, I thought your info about the influence of the dutch colonization was very fascinating. I have learned about the effects of colonization before, and I think that this could be used as an excellent example. Colonization can cause very adverse effects in the places that they take over. Ironically enough, you mentioned some of these effects in a blog post made later. Some of these include a flattened economy, trying to reclaim peace, and unstable job markets. I think that there is a great connection between those two posts, and I found that especially fascinating. What do you think about these ideas? Do you think I’m on the right track or just way off?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI strongly disagree with your view towards judgement. I don't think it is "unjust and immature" to judge, and I do not agree that judging others is "not a good instinct to have". You say that it is natural to judge, which I agree with, so I say it is how you act ON your judgement that is much more influential rather than the simple fact that you habitually judge others.
DeleteTotally forgot that we have been constantly told " don't judge others" but as you said its inevitable you just have to make the decision to not judge them based on rumors and appearance but by their character.
DeleteI wouldn’t say that judging others is unjust and immature as most do this without realizing they do so. It is something that is pre-programmed in all of us and something one uses in order to decide whether one is safe or not. If one sees a man walking down the streets late at night wearing all black, are you not more careful when you walk around them? It may be that they aren’t doing anything wrong, but neither are you. You are simply concerned for your safety, but how you act on these “suspicions” is up to you.
DeleteDennis, I am not sure whether you are arguing that judgement is a good instinct or if you are neutral towards it. I'm going to get technical to defend my point. I do not believe judgement is good because it is detrimental to either yourself or the people around you. Think about Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics; he describes that things that are inherently good are beneficial to other people, and that things that hurt you or others are not good. I do not mean to say that Aristotle's word is dogmatic, but it is a philosophy that I appreciate greatly. I don't think that just because you can act on your judgement negates the nature of judgement, that would make no sense. That is like saying that considering murder is not a bad thing because you're not acting on it. Hypothetically, judgement makes you naive to someone bad, or it makes you naive to someone who is good. It is a detriment to our nature, but it is a key part of our nature nevertheless.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete