Many Stories Matter
Identifying and Resisting the Dangers of a Single Story
Stories matter. Many stories matter. Stories have been used to dispossess and to malign. But stories can also be used to empower and to humanize. Stories can break the dignity of the people, but stories can also repair that broken dignity.
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie
Informational power is the ability to influence others through the control and dissemination of information. While informational power can be used for good, it also carries inherent dangers, especially when it is used to silence victim-survivors and enable abuse. One of the most significant dangers is the perpetuation of a single story. When one narrative dominates the discourse, it can perpetuate stereotypes, marginalization, and the silencing of another’s voice. In this post, I discuss the power to name and define, the dangers of a single story, how power is used to control the availability and accuracy of information, and ways we can resist the single story.
Naming and Defining
The right and ability to name and define is a reflection of power. A name can be given to honor or humiliate. A name can also be taken away as a means of dispossessing personhood, perhaps the most valuable of all that could be robbed from another. Historical accounts of violence against people groups demonstrates how the power to name has been used to control and debase. For example, the Law on Alteration of Family and Personal Names which required Jewish people in pre-war Nazi Germany to identify themselves in ways that would separate them from the rest of the German population.1 Another example is how enslaved individuals brought to America were stripped of their names, rights, and identity.
Enslaved individuals often had their names selected for them by their enslaver. Freedom provided the opportunity to make a choice: pick a new name or retain their previous one. Many individuals chose to adopt a new name that represented their new status and desire to control how others addressed them.2
Similarly, the right and ability to define a narrative, to deliver a story to an audience, is a manifestation of the power that individual or group has over information. When power is misused, either to cause harm or to cover-up harm, those who hold the microphone and the attention of an audience might use their power to ensure that only a single story is told.
The Danger of a Single Story
Chimamanda Ngoni Adichie’s talk on “The Danger of a Single Story” speaks to the power of stories: the power to break and the power to restore.
Adichie demonstrates how impressionable and vulnerable we can be when faced with a single story, especially when that single story is being told by those we trust. Unfortunately, people in power can wield a single story to their own advantage by managing the image their audience forms of a given situation. A primary interest of the deceptive individual or team is to define a situation for others so they cannot define it for themselves. This requires managing the flow of information and preventing others from acquiring details that would challenge the single story.
You can think of it as a performance being played out in front of an audience. The actors put on a show to influence the audience to respond in accordance with the actors’ own plan for them. Sustaining audience interaction and approval by whatever means necessary can become a driving force behind decision-making. I’ve seen the danger of a single story and the harm it can cause when leadership puts image management before truth.
Controlling the Availability and Accuracy of Information
The power to promote a single story stems from an ability to control the availability and accuracy of information. Understanding these two areas of information has helped me identify when a single harmful story is potentially being pushed and how to resist that harm.
Sometimes the narrative is controlled by giving the impression there is no information to make available. Silence can be a form of deception when it keeps dark secrets hidden while acting as if there is nothing to be said or made known. Silence is sometimes a strategic choice to keep certain truths buried. Non-disclosure agreements, warnings against gossip, threats, and other tactics have been used to ensure only a single story is told.
Control over the availability of information could also look like cutting an audience off from other stories and perspectives, such as the voices of victim-survivors, whistleblowers, or those with expertise on the subject. Communities that enable abuse shut down stories that threaten the approved narrative. Non-existent or highly-managed forums ensure that dissenting voices are not heard and challenging questions are not asked. People are expected to trust that they have been given all the answers they need.
The surest way to keep a secret is to make people believe they already know the answer.
Frank Herbert, Children of Dune
In addition to controlling the availability of information, those in power may also control the accuracy of the information that is shared. This might include over-communicating some aspects and under-communicating others. Often, the information that is omitted or under-communicated is considered threatening or disruptive to the image of those in control. Erving Goffman labeled this “disruptive information.”
A basic problem for many performances, then, is that of information control; the audience must not acquire destructive information about the situation that is being defined for them. In other words, a team must be able to keep its secrets and have its secrets kept (p. 141).
Even if information is made available or a detailed account is presented, it can be difficult to know what is accurate when those in power maintain strict control over what is permitted to be known. I created the following diagram to depict these layers of control.
It can be very difficult to identify and resist the misuse of this type of power. One reason is because many of the tactics used by those who intend to deceive might fall just short of what could be easily called an outright lie. Intentional omissions, ambiguous statements, and clever deflections all prevent the discovery of truth while still giving the appearance of transparency. They cast shadows instead of light. By keeping people from a truly accurate understanding, they can ensure the single story they tell becomes the single story believed.
In his book on ethical leadership, Craig Johnson writes:
In sum, leaders cast shadows not only when they lie but also when they mismanage information and engage in deceptive practices. Unethical leaders
deny having knowledge that is in their possession,
withhold information that followers need,
use information solely for personal benefit,
violate the privacy rights of followers,
release information to the wrong people, and
put followers in ethical binds by preventing them from releasing information that others have a legitimate right to know.
Patterns of deception, whether they take the form of outright lies or the hiding or distortion of information, destroy the trust that binds leaders and followers together.3
By keeping attention focused on one story, other available sources of information can be kept from view. By obscuring details and blurring events, disruptive truths might remain in the shadows. For instance, when those in power tell the story of a leader falling prey to temptation during a lapse in judgment, and not of a leader who abused power to engineer circumstances to isolate a vulnerable person that was targeted and preyed upon, they tell an entirely different story. These single stories can enable offenders and bring further shame and harm to victim-survivors.
Resisting the Single Story
There is no blueprint to resisting abuses of power and deception. Every situation is different and numerous factors need to be considered, such as those related to personal safety, ethics, and impacts on others. Beginning with an understanding of how information is misused can give insight into the types of questions that might be asked. Questions like:
Would victim-survivors or others with information tell a different story?
Has there been a safe opportunity for those stories to be told?
What information do we have a right to know?
What information is not being shared and why? Are those reasons legitimate?
Is there an opportunity to ask such questions? Why or why not?
Exploring questions related to the availability and accuracy of information can serve as a guide for navigating the single story.
There are also times when people challenge the single story by telling their own story or coming forward with information. These are also actions that must take into account safety considerations and the varied circumstances each person faces. Resisting the single story might look like supporting those who choose to tell their story.
One of the ways I’ve seen the single story resisted is when those in positions of power choose to break from the approved narrative presented by their team. Deception is granted safe passage when those with a responsibility to speak against it choose to remain silent. A dissenting voice can cast light where there are shadows. As more people resist the single story and individual actions transform into collective action, those who control through deception will find it more difficult to manage and isolate the flow of disruptive information. A river of voices is much more difficult to contain. If those stories can break through, perhaps truth and accountability will also flow, bringing with it the hope of repair.
Stories matter. Many stories matter. Stories have been used to dispossess and to malign. But stories can also be used to empower and to humanize. Stories can break the dignity of the people, but stories can also repair that broken dignity.
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/timeline-event/holocaust/1933-1938/law-on-alteration-of-family-and-personal-names
Johnson, C. E. (2017). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership (6th ed.). SAGE Publications. P. 19.