In her TEDtalk, novelist Chimamanda Adichie “warns that if we hear only a single story about another person or country, we risk a critical misunderstanding.” She highlights this issue by recounting her personal experience of being viewed as uneducated and backwards as a Nigerian by people she encountered in the West. Indeed, cultures and lives comprise of numerous stories, and to rely solely on one set of lens would lead us to a dangerous conclusion of the lives of people we do not fully understand. This concept of the “single story” was taken up for discussion by several of my classmates in their previous blog posts, where they identified either representations of the “single story”, or attempts to counter it, in various settings. In this blog post, I would like to examine their various interpretations of the “single story” and link it to the sociological concept of “stereotype threat” to aid in our understanding of the harms of the “single story” and the importance of asking ourselves: What are we not shown?

The Single Story in various contexts

Anna argues in her blog that Western media is a significant contributor to the single story as a misrepresentation or limited representation of other cultures. She shows how the media does so in the example of the media coverage of Haiti following the devastating earthquake of 2010, as well as the recent (and similar) coverage of Hurricane Matthew. In both situations, Haitians are depicted as “vulnerable people waiting for western aid” and “in need of our aid, unable to improve their own situation without it”. This depiction of Haitians as helpless victims is fuelled by the limited “single story” framed by Western media, which excludes the stories of the Haitian community standing strong and rebuilding together. Anna argues that this depiction is dangerous, as it limits our understanding of other cultures as relying on us for help, which leads to our kind, but blind efforts in helping their cause. In order for us to truly help communities such as Haiti, “we must acknowledge that the “single story” the media has ingrained in our mind about Haiti is not accurate”. Here, we turn to Elena’s blog, where she shows us how Dany Laferriere’s The World Is Moving Around Me provides us with counterhegemonic frames in the wake of the Haiti earthquake. She suggests that Laferriere’s writing is “affected by the negative portrayal of Haiti” by these “single stories”, and “counter[s] that by showing the strength of the people in the midst of a tragic event.” By sharing stories from the perspectives of himself and those who experienced the earthquake with him, Laferriere offers us a different representation of Haiti than that provided by the Western media. He also reminds us that these people exist beyond the earthquake alone by sharing stories of their lives before and after the event. In doing so, Laferriere challenges the perception created by “single stories” of Haitian people living only in disaster and poverty.

Gurveer succinctly summarises the concept of the “single story” as “essentially, the product of stereotypes founded on single sources of information.” Yet, it is important to note that stereotypes alone are not harmful; they are, after all, merely simplified descriptions that we consciously or unconsciously apply to every person in the same category. Everyone is prone to using stereotypes to make quick decisions and intuitive judgements, even if they have good intentions. There is usually some truth in stereotypes, or they wouldn’t work in the first place. The real problem with “single stories” occurs when we rely only on these stereotypes generated by the limited frames provided by the “single stories”. Gurveer applies this concept to the media representation of women – as women are often sexualised, objectified, and presented as “passive and vulnerable” in advertising, the “single story” of women presented in advertising normalises violence against women and desensitises society’s reaction to it.  Thus, women are “not viewed as people, but exist only as possessions belonging to male counterparts.”

Stereotype Threat

Understanding the harm of “single stories” as a result of an overreliance on stereotypes brings us to the concept of “stereotype threat”, introduced by sociologist Claude M. Steele in Whistling Vivaldi. Steele defines “stereotype threat” as “the idea of a situational predicament as a contingency of their group identity, a real threat of judgement or treatment in the person’s environment that went beyond any limitations within.” (59-60) Through his experiments, Steele shows that stereotypes are powerful social constructs that have the ability to influence the performance of people within the group, and this effect is strengthened when they are reminded of their identity and belonging to these groups and stereotypes. For instance, women do poorer on math tests under the stereotype threat that they are worse at math than men. When we identify “single stories” as drawing from and contributing to stereotypes in a cyclical relationship, we see how “single stories” may reinforce the stereotype threat: women feel less self-worth than men; Haitians view themselves as lesser than others even on an even playing field.

Final Thoughts

Through the works of Anna and Gurveer, we see that Adichie’s concept of “single stories” applies to many other media representations beyond Nigeria, such as women and Haiti. And by understanding the harms of “single stories” in the form of stereotype threat, we can better recognise the importance of broadening our lens to other works that challenge these limited frames, through counterhegemonic texts such as that introduced by Elena. When presented with information in the media, we should always remember: What are we not shown?

P.S Remember to check out the blog posts by Anna, Elena, and Gurveer!

Works Cited:

“The Danger of a Single Story.” Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: The Danger of a Single Story | TED Talk | TED.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Nov. 2016. <https://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story?language=en>.

Steele, Claude M. Whistling Vivaldi: How Stereotypes Affect Us and What We Can Do. New York: W.W. Norton, 2010. Print.

In my previous blog post, we examined Ryan Knighton’s presentation of his blindness and society’s response to his condition in Cockeyed through the sociological theories of George Herbert Mead, such as the “Self”, “I”, and “Me”. By analysing such instances of Knighton’s and society’s “I” and “Me” in his book, we learnt how Knighton’s identity as a disabled person is shaped by social constructs and stigmas. In this blog, I would like to expand our use of the sociological lens to focus on how disabled individuals such as Knighton are forced to portray themselves to society, so that we can better understand how society tends to generalise and discriminate against the disabled population.

Goffman’s Impression Management

Sociologist Erving Goffman argues that everyone conducts some form of “impression management”, which he explains as “when an individual appears in the presence of others, there will usually be some reason for him to mobilize his activity so that it will convey an impression to others which it is in his interests to convey” (3). Individuals thus have an incentive to carry themselves in certain ways due to how society would respond. In Cockeyed, Knighton finds himself “playing Blind Man for the crowd” (70) by making his cane visible to the public. He further writes, “Hey, look at me! I’m acting like a guy who needs a stick. Even I don’t think I need one right now, I’ll casually swing it around until it seems useful again” (70). Here, Knighton shows that he needs to manage the image of a blind person by using a cane so that society will treat him with extra caution, even when there is no need for his cane.

The dichotomy Knighton faces in presenting himself as a blind man without an audience can be further explained through Goffman’s “dramaturgical perspective”: individuals are always performing for society (Cole). Thus, an individual’s self consists of the “front stage” and “back stage”: in the former, the individual performs a part while aware of a situation or audience, while in the latter, the performance ends when nobody is watching or when the individual thinks nobody is watching (Cole). Knighton faces a dilemma in continuing the “front stage” act of a blind man when no one is watching because that is his “back stage”, where he should be free from societal expectations and drop the performance. Knighton questions this issue when he asks, “If nobody’s around, and everything is safe, how does somebody enjoy a stick?” (70). Indirectly, he is using a sociological lens to highlight the dichotomy between the front and back stage.

Norm Breaching and Deviance

In Cockeyed, Knighton also describes his friend Jane’s impression management of her deafness, albeit in a different way. By concealing her hearing aids, Jane presented herself as a person free of disabilities, which she preferred. However, rather than help her be more accepted by their bar friends, Jane “inevitably felt outside the group” (88). Ironically, one could argue that had Jane presented herself as a deaf person instead, the group would have been more accommodating and inclusive of her. Instead, her concealment of her deafness as an identity excludes her from the group. This can be understood as a form of deviance: actions that violate formal and informal cultural norms (also known as norm breaching), which in turn lead to some form of punishment. In Jane’s situation, by not conforming to the norm of presenting one’s disability, she ends up being excluded from conversations as a punishment as others cannot react accordingly.

Final Thoughts

By studying the different ways Knighton and Jane are treated for presenting their identity of disability differently, we can see how society forces disabled people to perform their disability if they want to be treated equally. If they conceal it, such as in Jane’s case, or if their disabilities are simply not visible or obvious, they risk being punished by society through exclusion or lack of accommodation, as society has generalised expectations of the disabled and discriminates against those who fall outside of these views. Yet, Knighton’s narrative shows us that the impairments of disabled people can be very different. As such, they should have the right to present it however they choose, and society should learn not to discriminate against these choices.

Further Readings

The idea of invisible disabilities is expanded upon in Anna’s blog, where she highlights that people with invisible disabilities face an additional stigma of skepticism, as society doubts their condition and assume that they are looking for special treatment.

The examples used in this blog are also explored, in conjunction with Jillayna Adamson’s experience as a deaf person, in Gurneet’s blog where she argues that society has a common perception that disabled persons are “ugly” and “look unpleasing”.

Works Cited:

Goffman, Erving. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1959. Print.

Knighton, Ryan. Cockeyed: A Memoir. New York: Public Affairs, 2006. Print.

Cole, Nicki Lisa. “What’s the Difference Between Front Stage and Back Stage Behavior?” About.com Education. N.p., 20 Sept. 2016. Web. 07 Nov. 2016. <http://sociology.about.com/od/Sociology101/fl/Goffmans-Front-Stage-and-Back-Stage-Behavior.htm>.

Adamson, Jillayna. “‘But You Don’t Look Disabled… ‘” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 24 Nov. 2014. Web. 07 Nov. 2016. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jillayna-adamson/but-you-dont-look-disabled_b_6208986.html>.