One of my favorite TED Talks is that of Nigerian writer Chimamanda Adichie. The TL;DR version of her talk is: if you tell the story of a group or individual as only one version, and tell it repeatedly, we risk creating misunderstandings. Therefore, when we listen to stories, Adichie asks us to critically think about the issues of power (or the Igbo word to describe this concept nkali) and to ask ourselves to think about:
1. how it’s told
2. who is telling it
3. when it’s told
4. how many stories are told
The purpose of her talk was to address stereotypes, but the concepts that she describes are very much applicable considerations for any citizen sociolinguist or researcher. Be it wonderment or arrest, we must be cognizant about how the conversations we have could contribute to already established narratives. Arkham and Buchanan (2015) warn about the challenge of anticipating implications, but it shouldn’t pose as a barrier for trying.
In thinking about Alice Goffman’s work and using this Dangers of the Single Story (DSS) framework, we can see how one aspect that has been found problematic with On the Run conflicts with what Adichie asks us to reflect. Specifically, worth examining is “how it’s told.” As citizen sociolinguists, much like any researcher, we are expected to be transparent and as objective as possible because of the responsibility we hold in being the transmitter, collector, and/or sharer of stories.
In the criticisms received, it appears that Goffman had taken certain liberties in her storytelling to fit her narrative. Specifically, critics point to the manhunt for her roommate Chuck’s killer and that her admission to this event occurring in the appendix which Goffman later reframed and seemingly diluted the incident as a mourning ritual. Was this reframing because she got caught in the rupture and wanted to protect Mike, the person avenging Chuck’s murder, or herself; or was it a clarification of the misunderstanding? What was Mike’s interpretation of the event? Given the different perspectives this incident could take, Goffman should have had better care in disseminating how the story was told, perhaps she would not have received so much heat..
Another point of criticism in Goffman’s book is the lack of acknowledgement of positionality and the boundaries she crosses. In thinking about the DSS lens, this falls under "who is telling the story". Goffman was really invested in this project and in their lives, but to the point where the lines were quite blurred. Lewis-Kraus (2016) has us reflecting on how would reconciling social distance in a “rigorous yet respectful” way would look like and acknowledges how this question has always been a conundrum for ethnographers in general and not just in this instance. However, it’s distracting though with attention falling on Goffman. By thinking about “who tells the story,” issues of power become more apparent and we can begin to shift our focus to who ultimately benefits from it. If the focus begins to shift on the researcher instead of the work itself, and then those to whom it was supposed to benefit end up getting lost.
Arkham and Buchanan (2015) advocate for a process-based model that look at each case individually as opposed to holding these cases to overarching legislation that might not appropriately serve researchers/participants. In taking this stance, it may be helpful to incorporate various lenses with one such being DSS to inform ethical concerns. Adichie warns us that the consequences are very much real: “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.”
Questions:
- Adichie’s concept of nkali comes from Igbo meaning greater than another. Are there any instances that come to mind where power or nkali perpetuate the single story be it in research or in your daily life?
- How can citizen sociolinguistics challenge or perpetuate nkali? Take an example and use the DSS lens to examine it. In other words, think about: how it’s told, who is telling it, when it’s told, and how many stories are told. You might not be able to answer all of these questions and that’s okay.
- After having read Goffman, Arkham and Buchanan, and Lewis-Kraus, my thoughts went to Adichie's TED talk, but what about you? What are your takeaways in thinking about the ethics of citizen sociolinguistic research?
Hey Maria!
ReplyDeleteI feel that it is so fitting that you mention DSS along with our readings this week. Your post pulls at my heartstrings especially so because Thanksgiving is next week and it is that time of year again when my students and I discuss the ethics surrounding “The First Thanksgiving”. We unpack and view from both sides the event and misconceptions/misrepresentations that entail that “feast” and who were present on that day. This week’s readings along with the DSS are very much seen and heard when we talk about this subject. To be totally honest, I tend to sociolinguisticly arrest people when they use the term “Indians” which is used so often this time of year. The specifics of that word stem from a single-story by Columbus in that he found “Indians” living in the “new world”. He chose not to call them Native Americans, Indigenous people, or even have the respect to ask them what they called themselves. No, he just ignorantly made up Indians because he thought he was in India. This single specific story has been “corrected” over time, yet due to perpetual use, it became so far ingrained in people that they continue to use the term “Indians” even when they know better. I find this fascinating, yet also disheartening.
Also, along the same lines, history is almost always told in school or in stories from the white perspective. It makes me think of whose story is it to tell? This white-only viewpoint can receive backlash and raise authenticity questions (as it should) just like Goffman received from her research as well.
Altogether, I see there to always be two sides of the coin. I applaud Goffman for giving us the ethnographic perspective in her book, however I do understand her critics comments and even the ones that seem to put her almost in jail! With Christopher Columbus, I appreciate him identifying land other than Europe because I am happy to live here in America, yet I do believe the way he did things could have been more ethically evaluated. As explained, there can not only be one side of the story!
Hi Maria!
ReplyDeleteLoved reading your post, and I thought the way you connected Adichie’s DDS to citizen sociolinguistics was fantastic! It appears to me, through this week’s readings and your post as well, that a significant ethical concern within fields that primarily conduct ethnography is that of participant representation. Reading your discussion reminded me of an interview I read a while ago online with Boots Riley on his film Sorry to Bother You (https://pitchfork.com/features/interview/boots-riley-breaks-down-the-savvy-radicalism-of-his-directorial-debut-sorry-to-bother-you/). Regarding a scene in the film where the main character, a young African American man named Cassius, contemplates his place in the universe, Riley comments:
“That existential crisis is something you rarely see portrayed by black characters; the idea that people think about their own existence and that they have hopes and dreams is taken away from people of color in their representation. You take, say, even a movie where a character is a dope dealer: He’s bad, or even if he’s good—he’s not a full human, thinking about who he is in the scope of time. But everybody does that!”
What he gets at, I think, is the unique complexity and specificity of human social experiences that are often removed from the stories and representations of marginalized communities. What make us similar, despite any imposed social identities, are those complexities and specificities. This also connects back to the situated contexts that inform the ethical research process described by Arkham and Buchanan.
In connecting DDS with citizen sociolinguistics, I find this one case from a few months ago fascinating (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-08-22/words-like-convict-and-felon-would-be-out-in-new-san-francisco-criminal-justice-language-proposal) Back in August, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a proposal that effectively changes the criminal justice system language used by the city government, such as replacing the word “felon” with “formerly incarcerated person” or “juvenile delinquent” with “young person with justice system involvement”. The reaction to this proposal was mixed and subject to mockery in some situations. Obviously, politicians are not academic “experts” of language (although they might have consulted some in this situation!), but reading the bill, we can very plainly see embedded within the text the alternative language ideologies that reject dominant narratives of criminality in U.S. society. This is an example of citizen sociolinguistics that actually holds a lot of local institutional power, and it certainly challenges the systemic dehumanization of those involved with the criminal justice system!
Thank you, Maria. I agree with the other commenters that DDS provides a really useful lens for our readings this week. The questions proposed by Adiche seem deceptively straightforward but are a necessary for any critical analysis and yet too often overlooked. (Adiche in her talk also addresses the important question ‘to whom are these stories told?’) It is possible that Alice Goffman herself did not ask herself these questions before embarking on her project. But even if she has, as a member of a privileged class of storytellers, she might simply presuppose the right to and value of telling her story. It is the sociocultural, economic, political feedback loop that has been existing since well before our digital present.
ReplyDeleteYour post reminded me of the efforts of a community organization in Berlin. After more than a decade of advocacy to rename the streets of the -unofficially called- “African neighborhood” in Berlin, the names of German colonialists are finally being replaced with the names of Herrero and Nama resistance fighters. While these efforts were met with the expected resistance, they have also inspired similar initiatives all over Germany which is only lately coming to reconciliation with its colonial past. A digital mapping project by students of the Technische Universität Berlin Berlin als postkoloniale Stadt kartieren highlights how street names, monuments, names and purposes of institutions, museum collections, government offices tell the stories of deeply problematic historic legacies that are embedded in the very landscape that we inhabit. This project, to me, is an example of how the medium (cartography) that was used to conquer and erase, is used again but this time to reveal and make visible what is hidden in front of our eyes.
Hi Maria!
ReplyDeleteThanks for your post.
Your first question made me think of my last visit to one of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) centers here in Philly. I remember that right before I went in, a lady and her child went ahead of me, and as they were approaching the front desk, some sort of officer came to help them, and said something in Spanish to them right away… Maybe the officer new these people from before, but at that moment I could not stop wondering how she “knew” to speak Spanish to them. Maybe it was a mere coincidence… or maybe not. Maybe it was their looks, or the assumption that if you are in one of these centers you are Hispanic.
Then, it was my turn, and I was very curious to see what language she was going to use with me. The officer sort of looked at me from head to toe and asked in English to see my appointment information. I explained why I was there and then she ushered me in.
For a few minutes I payed attention to this officer’s use of Spanish and English, and in a very natural way she seemed to “know” what language to use with the people that were coming in. In a way, I felt happy that bilingual officers were there, but I was very confused in relation to the “profiling” that was going on.
A few minutes later, I was called to be fingerprinted. A new officer had my records on a computer, and noticing that I am from Chile, she decided to speak Spanish to me. I decided to respond only in English… to see what she would say. In the end she apologized to me for speaking Spanish, and said that she assumed I spoke it because I was from Chile. I told her not to worry and at the end I also said a few things in Spanish.
I think that your comment on the danger of single story is pretty much on point I appreciate you sharing it, because approaching someone from a single-story perspective not only leads to misunderstandings, but also to the representation that they are at fault, or that they somehow lack something, which has tons of implications both in someone’s private and public life.