The danger of a single story

In 2009, the Nigerian novelist Chimamanda Ngozi gave a technology, entertainment and design (TED) talk called ‘The Danger of a Single Story,’ which has attracted nearly thirty million views on YouTube; and has influenced many debates about the single-storied narrative that is often told about Africa. In her talk, Ngozi warned about the stereotypes, the robbing of dignity that happens when we pay attention to only a single story about a person, a group of people, or a place. She says, and I agree, that there is never a single story.
Tanzania has just laid to rest the body of the late President John Magufuli – and Tanzanians continue to mourn his demise. It is undeniable that the days of his life - and the days following his death - were filled with different and sometimes opposing narratives about his legacy. Of course, this is expected of any political leader... Or any person for that matter. But it is worth a little while thinking about whether and how these narratives could be influenced by a single story.  The general population’s political stance is often very fluid. People may stand for one political ideology today and stand for another tomorrow. Our political standpoint is often influenced and strengthened by the amount of contact we have with certain political ideas. That is why politicians invest a lot in campaigning – to try as much as possible to pull to their side those who lack a strong political standing. In other words, those who haven’t delved so much into finding out why they support/don’t support a certain political ideology, but have only relied on bits and pieces of information that conveniently comes their way. Understandably, there is enough to deal with in people’s daily lives, limiting the amount of time they spend seeking information to support/challenge their political stance.
With that in mind, it is very likely that many people on either side of the competing narratives about the legacy of the late Dr. John Magufuli only have a single story about him, because either; they have consciously or otherwise only paid attention to a single story, or they have only passively waited for information to find them and unfortunately, most or all the information they receive is based on a single story. But the fact will remain, there is never a single story.  Challenging the single story
Challenging the single story means that we must make conscious decisions to interrogate our beliefs and narratives – are they based on multiple or a single story? The ultimate control over what narrative wins the day is on us, the story tellers, to make a deliberate decision to seek and pay attention to the multiple stories that exist about a person, a group of people or a place.
We live in a technology ubiquitous world where information reaches us from many and various sources: radio, TV, social media, etc., which make a good resource in interrogating ourselves. Are we paying attention to all sources or are we selecting only those that confirm our narrative? The key focus is that even in our different political standpoints, we must strive to remain objective. To see and tell what is for what it is, based on our assessment of multiple stories.
The other way to challenge the single story is to go a bit deeper to understand the underlying motives of our sources of information. Are they biased? What’s at stake for them that may influence what and how they give information? Of course, we may not have access to such underlying motives. But again, the solution is deliberately seeking multiple sources to corroborate what we opt to believe and perpetuate.
Yet still, neutral is also a position. We will sometimes not have enough multiple stories to be able to decide on what or who to believe. In a world where neutral or lukewarm is intolerable, we must remember that in all scales of judgement, a neutral position exists, it is there for a purpose, and it is better than a strong position that is based on a single story.