Watch the following TED talk:
"The Danger of the Single Story," by Chimamanda Adiche
You are tasked with completing an exercise in framing, which will help you develop analysis and synthesis. Let's say there's a family on vacation in Washington DC. The family splits up on the first day- two older siblings go to a pub and watch a soccer game while the rest of the family goes to several museums. The older siblings take several photos with other patrons at the bar and enjoy lots of talk and conversation with several soccer fans from various countries discussing the law, politics, ethics, and philosophy.
The younger siblings and the parents take pictures of the family at several museums in front of displays and outside the Washington Monument. Loads of pictures are taken, and the experience is framed as family togetherness. Mom and Dad argue that family togetherness is key to literacy learning, and the shared family experience at museums underpinned good literacy learning. The older siblings argue that their experiences in networking, making connections, and meeting new people is key to literacy learning, which they experienced at the pub. Notice that each side of the family is making a claim- and these claims are not in direct opposition to one another, but they are different frameworks that lead to specific claims.
Consider the argument(s) presented in the Chimamanda Adiche paired with claims presented by Brandt. How do these claims relate to one another? How do the claims overlap? Brandt, for example, claims that opportunities for literacy sponsorship often affect how far one may have to reach to obtain literacy learning. Brandt uses comparison between lived experiences of Dora Lopez and Raymond Branch as evidence supporting the idea that literacy learning is stratified, with opportunity determined by factors like socioeconomic standing, race, ethnicity, and gender. How might the point Chimamanda Adiche makes about the danger of a single story leading to over-generalizations connect with an argument Brandt is making? How might you use Adiche's argument to frame the lived experiences of individuals from this week's readings? How might Malcolm X's, Sherman Alexie's, or the experiences of family literacy learning from "Becoming Literate: A Lesson From the Amish," complicate, extend, or challenge claims presented by Brandt and Adiche?
Image this assignment as an invitation to compare claims and supporting evidence and explore further possibilities for complicating and challenging the claims that others make. Remember in Brandt's text, the second section focuses on ways that competition, economic forces, and politics can shape literate practices and the emergence of new kinds of literate skill sets. Brandt used the example of Dwayne Lowery, who was once a successful negotiator supporting unions against governments, struggled when litigation came to underpin negotiations, and instead of traditional verbal negotiations, legal briefs became the standard format for disputes between labor and government. Lowery struggled to learn how to write legal documents, which eventually forced him out of work. How might some of the experiences presented in other readings, your own experience, or experiences you have read about or seen elsewhere, complicate, extend, or challenge Brandt's point that literacy demands are affected by economics, politics and competition?
The examples from the two paragraphs above are great places to start thinking about how introducing new evidence (the experiences of others as presented in other stories) can reshape or extend arguments. These also give you a starting point for thinking through the ways that new evidence might complicate, extend, alter, or challenge a framework for a different argument. You are NOT, however, bound to using these two claims. Brandt makes a different claim in the third part of her piece that you might also use for this discussion.
Earning full credit on this requires that you demonstrate some abilities to synthesize to show that you can look critically at the structure of claims and supporting evidence. Less credit is earned for attempts to synthesize that are not comprehensively developed, but one can earn in the B range for synthesis attempts that fall short. Postings that mostly summarize content without doing synthesis will earn Cs or Ds. Depending on the depth of the summary and the writer's ability to demonstrate understanding of key claims, either a C or a D will be awarded. Putting forth little effort and delivering a simple paragraph will earn a mark of F and those who don't post will earn zeroes.
The Importance of Knowing More Than One Story
ReplyDeleteAmerican writer Mark Twain once said, “The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.” Twain lived over one-hundred years ago, but his statement still rings true today. Being able to read is an important skill in and of itself, but being willing to read allows people to learn about more than one side of a story. Author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie explains that literacy can help the world better understand certain situations and be aware of more than one point of view. She explains that only knowing one story and taking it at face value can lead to ignorance. Her message also connects with Professor Deborah Brandt’s story about Dwayne Lowery due to his need of learning more than one skill in the workplace. Adichie shows that knowing more than one story is important, and Lowery carries this out by learning more than one skill.
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie explains that knowing more than one side of the story will help put an end to ignorance. It is easy to look at one point of view of something and believe it instantly, but it is more important to be well-educated and read more than one source. Adichie explains that her college roommate assumed that she lived in poverty in Africa. If her roommate had taken the time to read and research Africa, then she would have been more educated about Adichie’s background. Reading will help develop critical thinking skills because people will read about a situation from more than one point of view. When they see that there is more than one explanation for something, then they can think critically about both sides and find the best answer. Dwayne Lowery found himself in a situation similar to Adichie’s roommate. He taught himself how to communicate effectively in union disputes, but the world of business is steadily changing, so he had to adapt. He put the effort in to teach himself how to write complicated case briefs. Had he stuck with what he knew, face-to-face communication, he would not have been able to advance in his career. Adichie shows that knowing more than one story is helpful, and Lowery shows that by learning more than one skill.
Both Adichie and Lowery used hard work to advance in literacy. Adichie spends time reading and learning about a topic from more than one source. That is definitely more time-consuming than taking one source at face value, but she is able to have stronger knowledge due to her hard work. Lowery lived out Adichie’s message of knowing more than one thing because he taught himself how to write legal briefs. Even though that may have been time-consuming and difficult, his efforts helped him advance in his career. Adichie and Lowery are similar because they embrace hard work and taking the time to develop their literacy.
In today’s society, it is rather important to be literate and understanding. However, when one is unfamiliar to reading and writing, it is going to be difficult to be relevant is society. You would have to dedicate much of your time towards studying and becoming proficient to advance one’s literacy goal. Chimamanda Adichie and Malcolm X are prime examples. Despite the fact that there is a culture and geographical gap, the struggles they had to go through are similar. Both gained insight into real world issues through reading. However, Adichie’s story extends and further clarifies some themes related to Malcolm X’s situation. It is implied she wanted to wipe away any ignorance and stereotypes when we meet new people. Adichie’s method to resolving this issue is straightforward: do not rely on one source; develop a wider range of knowledge on the topic and come to your own conclusion.
ReplyDeletePreconceived notions can lead to misunderstanding and disconnect, as we see this exemplified in Chimamanda Adichie’s experiences as well as Sherman Alexie’s. Though this aspect is less prevalent and hinted in Alexie’s account and more in Adichie’s, both examples still provided excellent reference. It seems that it is human nature to accept an idea or belief rather than question it. Adichie recalls how her roommate assumed she lived in poverty and lived that typical ‘African’ life. When most people try to describe Africa in general terms, they seems to associate it with poverty, disease, and low quality living. Though I have been guilty of thinking the same way as a younger person, I know that this is not necessarily true. Adichie and Alexie are no more different than any of us. Both were given opportunities to advance themselves socially and individually and they took advantage of that. Using what they learned and gained throughout their life, they contradicted these preconceived notations. In this case, having a sponsor in one’s life can propel them up the social ladder and positively.
Brandt’s claim in regards towards Carol White’s position is a special situation and greatly differs from Adichie’s experiences and Brandt’s other claims. Due to White’s sponsor that she finds in her workplace, her aims may not seem rational to a non-secular person. At the same time, this conflicts with Adichie’s literary adventure. Adichie reaches out to various sources to read, even mimicking her own stories after books she has read. By doing so, she was making an impact, if she knew it or not. She is learning the danger of stereotyping and using more than one source to make a judgement. Adichie develops a rational approach towards her literary adventure, as she is able to attend university in America. If Carol White was placed in Adichie’s situation, there would probably be a different outcome. However, there is not a definitive way to advance in literature. Both are unique and serve their community through their coming up from their sponsors.
I was really impressed that you were able to make sure a strong connection and find similarities between such different individuals in your first paragraph. They lived through different time periods and on two different continents, but just because their background is different does not mean their message is. I also like that you used something personal in your post. You referenced Adichie's ignorant roommate and admitted that you had thought of stereotypes as well. That makes your post much more relatable because I think we all make assumptions but are not always willing to admit it. I would just add a title to your post next time.
DeleteLiterary Development
ReplyDeleteChimamanda Adiche and Brandt’s claims relate in that they both discuss the literary experiences of different people of different walks of life. Even though Brandt’s claim is about how people were affected by their literary sponsor and Adiche’s claim is about how literature affects the reader’s mindset; they both talk about literary experiences and how people are affected differently by them. Adiche’s point of the single story connects to Brandt’s argument by showing how one leads into another; Brandt’s claim that opportunities of literacy sponsorship affects how much effort one puts forward into literacy learning leads into Adiche’s claim because the reader is introduced to a certain type of literature, and since this is the type of literature the person is introduced to it is the only style, genre, or point of view that the person would come to know which turns it into “The Danger of the Single Story”. The two claims overlap in that Brandt implies the single story because each one of her examples shows how a person is subjected to literacy learning through a single way and many people she interviewed had different paths based on their standings in society. Malcolm X’s method to literacy learning shows how someone with limited resources based on their surroundings can make the most out of it and become extremely educated. However his experience also shows Adiche’s point because he became obsessed over specific books about black history since that was what he was learning from those he was involved with at the time. The example of “A Lesson From the Amish" shows how a group of people could have access to different literary elements but choose not to reach out and learn them because they are set in their ways and see from their point of view causing them to miss out on other views and thinking that they could possibly relate with which is a perfect example for Adiche’s single story claim. Even though both claims are true because some people are more privileged and others only know certain version of things; today it is easier to be more educated because information is more readily accessible to anyone who reaches out to find it, however that still requires those people to make the effort and try to educate themselves.
I never thought about the fact that the information Malcolm X was might have been biased because of the certain types of books he read. I like how you demonstrated both sides of the argument very well. I also liked how you used "A lesson from the Amish" to support Adiche's argument of ignorance because not many did.
DeleteFor many years it has been normal for people to at some point in their lives deal with stereotyping. Although Adiche does not directly mention stereotyping, her speaking about a “single story” is very similar to people making preconceived judgments of others. We attach others to a single story based on the color of their skin or where they come from. It could be a lack of education or simply ignorance. Adiche describes the single story people give to Africans. People assume because of what they hear on the news that all Africans are poor and struggling. But that’s clearly not the case. If people would educate themselves more on other cultures, than the issue of stereotyping would not be as prevalent.
ReplyDeleteAdiche and Brandt relate in a way that they both look into the backgrounds of people. But unlike Adiche, Brandt describes how people with a more difficult past have to go that extra mile to become successful. An example would be Malcom X. Malcom X taught himself how to read while he was in prison. He may not have been given the resources to be successful as a child but he was ironically given them in prison. Malcom X stayed up late reading books from the library and copying the dictionary to teach himself. Therefor Malcom X is a prime example of someone Brandt would be describing.
Brandt tells of people who are not given opportune resources while Adiche describes people that are but have their intelligence questioned because of stereotypes. Because our world has changed so much, people are given more and better opportunities no matter their past. But Adiche’s topic of “single stories” and stereotyping is something that is still prevalent and often causes tension in different societies. Adiche wants people to see past the “single story” and realize that not everyone is the same just because of similar traits or similar backgrounds. It is important to remain open minded in a constantly changing world.
I thought it was really interesting that Adiche never mentioned the term "stereotype". Like you said, what she said about "single stories" was basically the same thing as stereotyping because, based on one story that they heard, people were making judgments about a whole group of people, but Adiche never actually said the word "stereotype".
DeleteIt was a nice point mentioning that there were stereotypes. Adiche also stereotyped when she wrote books as a child, se assumed everyone drank ginger beer and lived a certain way even though she had no other knowledge of how else the characters in her story lived.
DeleteAs I listened to the wise words of Chimamanda Adiche throughout the talk, a thought kept on popping up in my head. This thought was that the world is comprised of many different cultures that overlap in some ways more than others but why are we always taught a single story from our sponsors? When presented with new books or stories from our sponsors or the people we learn from, every book has its own single story. In literacy a single story is what the writing is trying to explain or teach the reader. Throughout my life, Adiche’s life, and Dwayne Lowery’s life we have all been told single stories. When we are told these stories, its seems as if we believe what they are saying and think of that certain thing in only one way, which was Adiche's main concern with literature.
ReplyDeleteWhen we grow older people are given different genres of books or articles from our sponsors. These single stories can shape the way readers interpret a certain area, a type of person or even an item. In Brandt’s writing,"Sponsors of Literacy," it is discussed how as time goes on peoples literate skills have grown to become vulnerable as literacy starts to change. Brandt is stating how every week, month or year more novels are being published, newspapers are published and magazines are sold. In these pieces of writings each story is different because with time things change or progress causing the reader to either lack a sense of knowledge or gain knowledge from the new information presented. When Adiche was younger she read British books but as she started to read more novels from America her perspective on single stories changed, allowing her to realize that she should create her own.
In the conclusion of Adiche’s argument it is expressed how strongly she feels towards not just listening to one single story but too read and learn more than what the author is trying to portray. Just like Adiche, Professor Brandt believes that in the workplace an employee or person shouldn’t just learn one skill but thrive off of others and learn many. When Dwayne Lowery started to work for the union he was surrounded by all types of people, mostly lawyers and educated co-workers. All the people that Lowery spent his time with influenced his literary skills in some way. The lawyers brought around documents that he was able to see and learn from and the educated coworkers gave Lowery a sense of smartness and facts about certain topics. Throughout his time spent in the union, Lowery became a well-structured talker, knew how to work grievances and put together negotiations. Later on, Lowery had to step out of his comfort zone and fight cases by writing briefs that he was unsure how to write. With the help of old briefs in his file cabinet, Lowery was able to work through this change, strive and meet more sponsors. This change for Lowery benefited him in many ways, just like how I am meeting new sponsors that will help me grow and succeed throughout my college experience and life after.
Knowledge and Sponsers
ReplyDeleteIn a world where it is critical for one to be literate in order to succeed, there are many different conflicting claims that display a range of emotions on the topic of literacy. Chimamanda Adiche expresses a valid point on the importance of expanding one’s knowledge through reading literature to understand more than “one story”. She points out that knowing more than one story of a situation, will help minimize ignorance in society. These claims connect with similar points that Deborah Brandt made in her reading, with displaying the connection of a couple individuals, Dwayne Lowrey and Malcom X.
Dwayne Lowrey was a becoming an unfit worker in the advancing world, as he once was a successful verbal negotiator, but when it came to writing legal documents, he struggled. Brandt brings up this example because it displays the importance of being able to adapt to certain situations and creating opportunities for yourself. If Lowrey gave up after he realized he was unable to successfully write out wordy case briefs, he would have not ended up where he did. This example connects to Chimamanda Adiche’s American roommate, who assumed that she was poor and unknowledgeable, just from acquiring the information that Adiche was from Nigeria. Adiche’s roommate is similar to Lowrey in that if she read up and became more aware of the situation before assuming the worst, she would have had the opportunity to advance herself in intelligence and literacy.
Brandt also brings up the well-known activist, Malcom X. Malcom X had no knowledge of literacy before he entered the prison system. After he was in prison, he decided to use his time effectively, and learn how to read and write. Even though Malcom X grew up in an environment that was not supportive of the importance of literacy, he took the worst situation, and turned it around to benefit him. He ended up being a recognized writer, and helped with a very important movement. Malcom X’s situation relates to Adiche’s situation because they both take the time to learn and research topics in order to become intelligent on those topics so they can write stories that are not one sided, and they can gain different views from many perspectives.
In today’s society people are coming into the problem of only knowing one story. This displays an obstacle with how literacy affects everyone’s stances on certain issues. Now that literature is becoming readily available on many different platforms in the world, it is our duty as citizens to read the different types of genres of literature and become knowledgeable of all the situations, and problems of the world. Ignorance has a direct correlation with literacy, and an individual should not fall into that category with the advances in the world today. Having opportunities and sponsors are what helps people succeed in life. Lowrey had his co-workers to help guide him through his new learning experience, as well as Malcom X had his driving force of being stuck in prison to help motivate him to become knowledgeable. I agree with Brandt’s statement that sponsors are an important part of the development of literacy, and I hope to develop my literacy skills as life goes on.
I agree with your statements a lot. In today's society it its really important to be literate. The way you compared Malcom X and Adiche's situation really made it easy to understand. I also agree that sponsors are an important part of literacy because they help you "perfect" the reading and writing aspect of your life.
DeleteOvercoming Stereotypes
ReplyDeleteOne of the most important claims that Adiche made was that many people create these false images in their heads of what certain societies are like, and, while these images may be true of some parts of a society, the majority may be completely different. In Brandt’s writing, she talks about how people from different backgrounds have different opportunities presented to them. The connection I made between these two is that even if you come from a poor background, or you come from a place where people think of you a certain way, you can always overcome this somehow. You can always find a way to prove people wrong and overcome the stereotypes.
Adiche gave many examples of things happening in Africa that disproved the African stereotype. And Brandt told Dora Lopez’s story where she overcame the stereotype that just because she didn’t come from a wealthy family, she couldn’t be as successful as someone like Raymond Branch. Malcolm X overcame the stereotype and showed that coming from a poor place doesn’t mean you can’t read and write. All of these accounts show that anyone can be successful no matter what other people think.
In the TED talk, Adiche said that people who could read would read if literature was affordable and available to them and I agree with her. However, many times, as we saw in the case of Dora Lopez and Malcolm X, people who aren’t as privileged with the resources have to reach further than others. Sometimes I think people get discouraged when literature is not readily available to them. Those who have the motivation to go out and get what they want are the ones who end up being the most successful, no matter where they come from.
I honestly agree with you when you say people need motivation in order to be successful. Without motivation, what can we accomplish?
DeleteThe claim you made in your writing really stood out to me. The claim was that" Those who have the motivation to go out and get what they want are the ones who end up being the most successful, no matter where they come from." For the past 18 years of my life I personally have always had the mindset that things don't always come easily, you need to work for them. I agree that no matter who you are, you can accomplish things just like everyone else even with certain circumstances.
DeleteChimamanda Adiche portrays intensely how a singular story, or point of view, can distort or even hide the truth about certain subjects. This can lead to irrational conclusions about people groups, such as Adiche’s former belief that young Nigerian children have no place within literary works. Deborah Brandt argues that not only can any kind of person have a place in a story, but everyone can achieve immense amounts of literary merit, regardless of race, gender, or opportunities provided.
ReplyDeleteBrandt also decides to stray away from the dangers of a single story by providing and comparing two almost opposite origins of remarkable writers. The first is about Raymond Branch, the son of a successful professor who grew up with full access to the mainframe of Stanford University. The second was Dora Lopez, born on the border of Mexico, within a financially insecure environment, to a family that could hardly read or write. Both amounted to literary success, although one had a much less of an advantage than the other, much like Adiche’s life story as a novelist from Nigeria.
Adiche embarrassingly admits to being guilty of making assumptions towards Mexicans. She concluded, from the stereotypical portrait the media and politicians have painted, that Mexican people are usually lazy immigrants. This of idea is countered when Brandt provides a clear picture of the matter with the story of Dora Lopez. Her story shows a hardworking and determined Mexican-American that is self-taught, and has a drive to be successful. Yet today we live in a society that believes the first thing they hear, and chooses to ignore any other information. This leads quickly to profiling individuals for what we choose to believe about them rather than who they actually are. However, the more we acknowledge additional stories, the more we can move towards a world that is less discriminative and more accepting.
You brought up some really interesting points in your post. I thought more about Adichie's message than Brandt's originally because it was easier to understand, but I did not realize how uplifting Brandt's message was until reading your post. A lot of the people she interviewed did not grow up with great education or resources but were able to change their situation through hard work. Brandt does give more examples of different reading situations than Adichie, which I did not consider until reading this.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere are no right or wrong claims... Just opinions
ReplyDeleteAs I began to listen to Chimamanda Adichie, I realized that she was never sponsored by ANYONE or ANYTHING when it came to literature, in my opinion. She began reading at around the age of two or four. She began to write at about age seven. She was never pushed to read by any means. As she began to read and write, she ended up enjoying it and it stuck with her throughout her life. Deborah Brandt explained to us that you must be sponsored by something or someone in order to become literate. That wasn’t the case in Chimamanda’s story. I believe there is no general way someone can become literate. What I am trying to say is that everyone is different and we all learn differently as well. Brandt was giving us different instances where others became literate through many distinctive sponsors. I think those instances were just evidence that support the idea that everyone is brought up to literature differently. This does not mean that one claim is wrong and another is right. This just means that “one cannot simply live off one story,” similarly stated by Adichie. This just means that we cannot hear one side of the story and interpret life on that ONE STORY. We must hear two sides of the story so that we may build off of that. We must hear two sides of the story so that we are able to put ourselves in the shoes of others. My dad used to tell me, “You can’t be so one-sided”. If you are one-sided, then you lose the opportunity to collaborate with others as well as their ideas. So I believe that as scholars we can build off of Brandt’s and Adichie’s stories in order to generate our own story.
I did not even bother to think about Chimamanda Adichie's lack of sponsorship in her life. That further proves Brandt's point that those who lack opportunity can still amount to great literary feats.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFredrick Douglass was an African-American uneducated slave. Probably the worst conditions possible for someone during the late 1800’s. However, through education and reading he became a leader of the abolitionist movement and brilliant orator. Many of the success stories you see in history are incredulous to believe. Literacy in Brant’s view is: stratification of gender, race, and socioeconomic statuses hinders people from obtaining literacy and sponsors. That statement however, couldn’t be more false and more right. Chimamanda Adiche’s argument depends on becoming literate by looking at many eclectic sources and if not they become narrow minded. My claim is through reading and promoting traits such as perseverance, one can become literate even in a society of stratification of opportunities.
ReplyDeleteAdiche reiterates many times this idea of a “single story.” This is essentially a self-fulfilling prophecy in psychological terms: they hear from a young age this is all you’re going to become and are expected to be. I have heard many stories of brilliant people who come from poor families and persevere the limited access they have to get sponsors. What’s definitive about Brant’s case is the ease of finding a quality sponsor is better from one family to the other. That doesn’t mean that other factors such as the culture people are brought up in will tip the scales. Dora Lopez, born into a Spanish Speaking, Mexican American family is an example. Her only sponsors were books she got from employee discount at a bookstore her mom worked at, a summer school program for computing, and the college where she worked as a translator. Raymond Branch was a white male born to many advantages and a professor family which easily gave him access to great sponsors. As one can see, she did have a harder time finding sponsors than Raymond which partly proves Brant’s point. Malcolm X’s story is an additional testament to how Brant’s viewpoint is similar and different from Adiche’s. He was stratified by his race and upbringing for the time period, but though reading what was probably a million books became literate and motivated enough to become an important historical figure and make something of his life.
Moving on to Brant’s second point, there is an idea in macroeconomics called structural unemployment that supports Brant’s idea of competition. This is when people are pushed out of their jobs through new technological practices and skillsets being utilized. Dwayne Lowery learned to argue for people in union disputes. Unfortunately, business changed and new skills were required: writing twenty page legal briefs. So he just put his face to the books and learned it. Brant is right in the way that competition and advancement of technology forces people to learn new skills. Lowery was forced to retire in 1995 after a good twenty years of work. Brant however does concede in her third point that individuals have the capacity to learn new material. Showing examples in Carol White and Sarah Steele, two women who applied what they already knew to adapt to the growing shift in work.
These brilliant and adept writers have two different viewpoints that aren’t wrong but aren’t entirely right. Adiche’s viewpoint came from years of reading a variety of source material and enabled her to look at a problem less biased. Overall, both women give prime examples to support their logic which makes it hard to say one or the other is better.
Never Underestimate
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting that Adiche never used the world “stereotype.” Her entire speech was on preconceived judgement, but not once did the word “stereotype” come out of her mouth. She used what she called a “single story” as the description of making a judgement on an entire race before knowing true facts about ones race or ones life. Us as humans tend to digest literature about different races in a way that discriminates each one in our brains. It is as if we are blind to the fact that it is even happening.
In Brandts writing, she discusses how different upbringings or sponsors can alter ones literacy skills. Dora Lopez for example, came from a not so wealthy family, but still became just as successful as Raymond Branch, who was born into a pretty wealthy family in southern California. Both were born in the same year, but different places. Raymond and Dora ended up at the same midwest university town with their families. This shows that even coming from two different sides of the economical spectrum, one can still end up just as successful as the other. A “single story” is not EVERYONES story. Dora Lopez was born in a Texas border town with a poor family and overcame that “single story” of Mexican-American being uneducated and unable to read and write. Adiche admitted to feeding into a single story of her house boy’s family being poor and living in poverty. Once she met the family, her view changed completely. One story does not determine an entire race’s story.
Malcolm X was born in Omaha Nebraska in 1925. He lived in a series of foster homes as a child. He went from not knowing how to read and write at all, to teaching himself everything he knew. Referring to Adiche’s “single story” claim, Malcolm X was thought to never be as educated as he became. His eighth grade teacher told him that because of the color of his skin, he would not be able to become a lawyer in his future. After hearing that, Malcolm dropped out of school, got himself involved in criminal activity, and was sentenced to prison. Malcolm X was now thought of as an African American criminal. Brandt does explain that coming from a difficult upbringing, it is more of a challenge to reach the same heights as someone who came from a not so difficult childhood. Malcolm X was able to teach himself to read and write while being his own sponsor. He was inspired by jail cell walls and lonely nights to educate himself on everything he knows. He stayed up long nights in prison to study the dictionary and copying word for word onto paper. He read his own handwriting back to himself and it soon became all he could think about. Like Adiche said, a single story can’t determine an entire race. Malcolm X proved everyone wrong. He came out of prison smarter than he was when he went in. Both Adiche and Brandt claim that it does not matter where you're from, what your race is and if you are male or female. It’s all about a personal goal and where you want to see yourself.
I like how you talked about Adiche's claims about a "single story". They can be very deceiving and do not represent an entire race. It's important to realize that are so many different types of people in every single race and they should never be generalized. Malcolm X is a perfect example of this.
DeleteA single story can change our perception of the people around us. Adiche makes a point of how everyone comes from different backgrounds. It is wrong to look at only one side, that is how stereotypes are created. The only way to avoid the stereotypes is to educate yourself before making judgments. Adiche says in her speech that if she learned about both sides of the immigration debate before she went to Mexico she would have had a better understanding of their culture. She would have realized they have low, middle, and upper classes just like America, Africa, and the rest of the world. She also says if her mother had told her that the family was hardworking and not just poor, then she wouldn’t have underestimated or judged them. If you take the time to do the research and learn about both sides of the story, then most stereotypes will disappear.
ReplyDeleteHowever, doing the research requires literacy and motivation. Adiche believes that everyone who could read would read, but Brandt believes because of people’s different backgrounds everyone has to reach farther to achieve literacy and therefore need motivation. Brandt uses the stories such as Dora to explain that even though she’s not from a wealthy family she can achieve her goals and succeed because she was hardworking. Brandt shows through all the stories in her piece that no matter your background you have to work hard to achieve literacy.
I like how you brought up perception and stories, as I did the same thing. I agree with how you mixed the two pieces of work, showing the main point from either without losing the effect they bring. Adiche still had her struggle with understanding the difference between social classes and Brandt still had her connection between hard work despite social classes. The way you structured your response each work built off the other, making for a unique tie between the two.
DeleteDifferent story, same heights
ReplyDeleteAfter watching Chimamanda Adiche’s ted talk I realized her claims are very similar to the claims Brandt presented. They both discuss how every single one of us grows up learning what we are surrounded by. For example, as children we are read books by our parents/guardians and we assume that the stories we are read are really what life is like. Adiche talks about a “single story” and our views on different races seem to be somewhat stereotypical. Brandt discusses how different people from different parts of world, levels of income, and upbringings can equally become as literate and successful in the future as one another. Adiche’s point was that we seem to believe what we hear about other races besides our own instead of learning about them for ourselves. A “single story” can be deceiving because it does not represent an entire race, but only represents a small percentage of people in that specific race.
Dora Lopez was born in 1969 into a low-class family who had little access to resources and information. Lopez was a Mexican American who grew up living with her grandparents. Later in Lopez’s life her and her family had moved to a mid-sized university town in the Midwest in around 1970. Raymond Branch was born in 1969 into a high-class family who had all the resources and information any family could want. Branch was a European American who had been born in Southern California. In 1970, Branch and his family had also moved to the same town as Dora Lopez. This ties into Brandt’s claim on how starting with barely any resources and information makes it more difficult to gain the skill to become more literate and successful in the future. Lopez starting with almost nothing and still ended up at the same level of success and strength in literacy as Raymond Branch, who had all the access in the world growing up.
Adiche talks about how a single story can steer someone’s mind into thinking one way about a race. For example, Malcolm X came from Omaha, Nebraska. He was an African American who was born in 1925. He grew up in an orphanage and would switch foster homes very often. Malcolm grew up knowing nothing, which led him to dropping out of school in 8th grade. In 1945, he became involved in criminal activity and ended up going to prison. In prison, he got his hands on a dictionary and taught himself everything and anything from that single dictionary. Growing up Malcolm X did not have the support from others due to his race. He was underestimated by so many, including his teachers. This shows that anyone from any race has the power to be successful and has the ability to become anything you want to be.
Its crazy that Dora and Raymond came from two different sides of the economical spectrum, but still ended up equally successful. I agree Malcolm X was underestimated by his teacher and pretty much all of the white community, but he came out of prison smarter than he went in which also fascinates me. The fact that he taught himself to read and write just shows that Adiches point about a single story does not connect with an entire race.
DeleteMotivation or Accessibility?
ReplyDeleteFraming is key, as the perspectives derived from one can reach further than simple explanations. This is evident with Chimamanda Adiche’s work, as she showed how only understanding one side of the argument leads to brash conclusions. Adiche even mentioned her own struggle within such concept; how she used to believe young Nigerian children had no place within literary works. If she stuck with that belief, it would have been a self-fulfilling prophecy. She stated that if literate people had affordable and easy access to materials, more would read. Deborah Brandt was framing literacy through the use of sponsorships and the use of stories of various characters as examples. Dora Lopez was one of them; as she grew up completely deprived of a literarily inclined environment. Lopez was compared to Raymond Branch, who came from a polar opposite environment. Nevertheless, through their hard work and sponsorship from sheer motivation or peers, both became remarkable writers. So it’s not necessarily the access and affordability that is the issue, but the mix of both Adiche’s and Brandt’s points. Without some form of access and affordability, one can’t become more literate than what they are. Without some form of motivation, one won’t become more literate than they are.
I have to say I found the whole motivation and hard work themes to be the key points to these two pieces. Adiche's piece seemed to focus more on working from the bottom to the top in order to become successful in literacy. Whereas Brandt was more about the differing paths these individuals had to follow in order to achieve literacy. Though very different in terms of content, these pieces both focused on the path to literacy and how people came to that point in life.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn reading through the many thoughts and self-supported opinions of both Brandt and Adichie, I have realized and gathered several of my own. Diving into Brandt's work is, at the surface, quite literally "textbook", in style. Once you look past her elaborate descriptions, you can strip her thoughts to the bare bones and see she is explaining, in short, success can be had no matter the background, so long as you're willing to work hard enough for it. This is both a concept worth teaching, and an excellent mantra to adopt. However, I look into her elaborations of this message with her interviewees and see their stories as solid proof of her argument. One that stuck out to me particularly was in Brandt’s side-by-side comparison of Raymond Branch and Dora Lopez. You see two vastly different subjects in both background and field, though both connect in their success in literacy. With Raymond Branch coming from a well-established family and having the world of technology and information right at his fingertips, to the under-dog, Dora Lopez from a family who did not have all the extras in provisions for her, both found their own literary success.
ReplyDeletePlaying on this example most of all, we can look at Chimamanda Adichie’s thoughts and see that there is an aura of understanding. Her ways of explaining how easily an individual takes to the ‘one story, know all’ idea, show just how important Brandt’s piece truly is. In her elaboration of this in her own life, we hear that her roommate made assumptions based on where she was from that were insultingly generalized. Her note of this and her own life being a prime example of background being nearly meaningless for possibility of success, fit in directly to Brandt’s thoughts. On the other hand, the pair’s work can be held together by acknowledgement of the more generic theme. When Brandt shows her many interviews and the lives observed within them, she gives way to being the exact reason Adichie is performing her piece. Adichie wishes to show the importance of “getting a second opinion”, if you will. Hearing many stories and gathering a multitude of examples, stories, and data, can provide the world and its people with actual fact rather than basing entire situations on one or two stories.
While Brandt and Adichie may not have written or performed their pieces directly for one another’s, the two works do match up in thought process and observation. In both of the womens' literature, they emphasize the importance of knowing your facts and giving a large sampling of real-life examples to back this up. They push for their audiences to understand that while ignorance may be bliss, knowledge is power. To dig deep and research further, is to further understand what it is you are learning. Both have an underlying message, in my thoughts, that you should not just accept what you are shown in one way. Challenge the ideas and messages you are handed, look further into what they represent, and by all means, be curious!
There’s More to the Story
ReplyDeleteWhile watching Chimamanda Adichie through out the Ted Talk i was amazed to see the passion she has for the cultured world in which we live. There are so many different stories and things we can learn, yet we are only presented with one single story. By reading these stories we learn about one specific topic when in reality there is so much more to our world. Adichie believes that the way we perceive literature is incorrect, in a sense. She gives the example about herself as an African American not being able to use a stove. This was a valuable story, as it shows people listening to one story and making an automatic judgement. People in today’s time are unable to see past one story, as Adichie would put it.
Brandt and Adichie are closely related in that they both are able to look deeper into a person rather than such surface level judgements. Brandt explains that people who have had a harder time and/or were judged in the past have to strive to be greater. Both of them used literacy to strive in this day. Lowery was able to prove Adichie’s points of understanding more than just one thing as a whole. Lowery was able to teach himself how to write legal briefs, and although this is a time consuming process, he was able to be even more successful than he could ever imagine. Both Lowery and Adichie think that the main key to success is determination and work ethic. They both emphasize how important it is to try your hardest and go deeper than surface level learning.
I agree all the stories from both Adichie and Brandt show just how important determination is to success in not only literacy, but in life.
DeleteI agree with your points, Sarah. Your note of how Adichie gives examples through her own life is an excellent observation. I noted the same instances in my post as well. I feel that it gives her and the audience a sense of understanding when she provides her own life experiences. This is matched by Brandt's sharing of other's stories in literature. I would, however, disagree with your analysis of her feeling we are "incorrect". I think that Adichie merely wants to expand on the concepts and information we already have in place. She wants, in my opinion, to share with others, the blind spots of the literary world.
DeleteAnother thought I would disagree with is the portion where you stated Brandt says that people who have it worse off end up striving to be great. I think she was more so hinting at that people who have it worse off have to work harder to achieve that said greatness. I do, however, agree with your comparison of Adichie and Lowery's story. He had to learn the trade presented to him, but by using things he already knew, he was able to achieve his early career successes.
The Power of Sponsors and the Reality of Discrimination
ReplyDeleteThe claims presented by both Chimamanda Adichie and Deborah Brandt illustrate the influential power of literacy and how it shapes our judgement and alters our perception. However uniquely different, both claims provide underlying evidence that supports this idea of literacy discrimination amongst different social hierarchies and the influential capability of literacy sponsors. In Brandt's piece she tells the story of variety of characters in order to justify her claim, whereas Adichie uses her own personal experiences as her primary from of evidence in order to establish her claims. Yet with key differences in the structure of their arguments, there are still similarities to be found within the claims that they make. For example, in Brandts piece she juxtaposes the life of a lower class young women named Dora Lopez to that of someone with greater opportunity in order to prove only that her background didn’t affect her ability to succeed. Which is much like the point Adichie makes when she explains the story of her house boy servant and how her generalization of his family led her to believe less of their ability to make something. In both arguments there is also the familiar claim of literacy sponsorship how it influenced both the life of Adichie and the lives characters portrayed in Brandt's piece. For Adichie, the sponsorship of English children's books influenced her to create stories that paralleled to those of her youth, even though they were irrelevant to her actual reality. In Brandt's writing, she accompanies this idea of sponsorship with a character named Dwayne Lowery, who used his literary resources around him in order to propel his career. In both cases literary sponsors acted as key influences to do something they where otherwise unaware or unexposed to before. The sponsors in each situation acted as an introduction to another world that was, in its own way, beneficial for both.
When an idea becomes beneficial to oneself, then it is considered an opinion. However, when the idea becomes beneficial to others, the idea does not become a fact, but it becomes the truth. When it comes to the idea of literacy, those who read more tend to know more and those who do not are the one's who keep the argument going. In Brandt's idea that everyone must have had some sort of revelation when it came to literacy, Brandt speaks about how we receive these influences from either another person being a sponsor or from oneself through hard work and dedication. If we were to learn our ways from someone else, however, who's to say that one is better than the other but just having different skills for the same opportunity. Adichie, however, says that if one person learns as much as possible from another knowledge point, then you will have a biased view of the world and the things in it. A perfect way to simplify this would be to think about words. If someone was taught many words, then that person would be knowledgeable for many words but know a simple definition of every word. However, if one were to teach a small amount of words but also in depth definitions to these words, then they would be a genius in these few but in no other words. All of that means that one should not give confidence to what one person may teach, but more confidence to what many people teach even if it may be minute.
ReplyDeleteNow, when it comes to whose perspective to follow, Brandt or Adichie, then it would be in the eye of the beholder. When they speak about their past or the pasts of other people, they may have facts on their lives, but they cannot justify the fact that the opinion of literacy comes from the individual. It is true that a person who reads well has more knowledge of a person who reads "good" but whose to say that they are different. For example, Malcolm X came from a humble but horrid background, being African American in the time of racial injustices and constant hate crimes. However, he put it upon himself to familiarize himself with the education that some people would brush off. On Brandt's point of view, he became a knowledgeable something out of nothing like Dora Lopez. However, in Adichies point of view, because he was so overwrought with the knowledge that he obtained was used to influence a whole race to dislike another race, like what White people were doing to African Americans.
Where every idea mention combines is with the idea of "The Literate" where those who receive some of their knowledge from many are smart, but where those who received all of their information from few are "illiterate". Being smart is not the goal in life when it comes to literacy. What makes you apart of the Literacy movement is for you to expose yourself to everything in the world, for those who know learn but for the who learn truly understand what literacy really is.
Your analogy comparing the depth of words versus knowing many words is rather clever. It is a perfect example that simplifies one of the ideas that Adichie was trying to get at. It transitions and ties in well with your assertion that Brandt and Adichie have different perspectives towards Malcolm X's motive for becoming more literate. Your examples and descriptions are well thought out and you focus your response toward concrete ideas. The ending remarks are thought provoking; there is certainly a difference between being smart and actually understanding the concepts and ideas.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteChimamanda Adiche is a Nigerian woman that began reading at a very young age. She also became interested in writing at a young age as well. Because of single stories, many would think that a native African woman would not be interested in literature or have an education. Adiche states that single stories only give us one point of view. When we find out that what we have been thinking for a while is actually only a small part, or an incorrect part, of what we have know, we become very surprised. She used the example of her college roommate being surprised at the fact Adiche spoke English perfectly and knew how to use a stove. Reading and literature gave Adiche the power to realize there is more than one side to stories. Brandt's claim that literacy sponsorship affects how far one may have to reach to obtain literacy learning relates to Adiche's speech in many ways. For example, the more you allow yourself to read and learn through different perspectives, the more understanding you become of the world. Brandt claims through the different comparisons of the people she wrote about that literacy makes you grow as a person. If a person only knows what they hear in the media or what they have been told from a young age, they will only understand what they know. Both state that it is important to have literacy sponsors, but Adiche claims that knowledge of many different point of views is more important that having one strong sponsor. Adiche and Brandt also claim that socioeconomic class has an impact on literacy. In Adiche's speech, she stated that there was a point in her life where basic food items, such as bread and butter, disappeared from her dinner table; yet even though this occurred, she still had knowledge through literacy; It made her want to excel in life. Brandt's example about Sarah Steele, a lower middle class woman, also shows that socioeconomic class does have an impact on literacy. If Steele would not have had a strong sponsor in her life, she would have never learned valuable literacy skills, and would have been a typical lower middle class wife. Through her strong sponsor, Steele was able to excel in her job and help her family. Over-generalizing an single story makes someone very closed minded. Having a strong sponsor in your life is important, according to Brandt, but having strong knowledge of other sides of stories is just as important, according to Adiche.
ReplyDelete