The real risk is a single story, homogenization at the cost of diversity.
Nigerian novelist Chimamanda Adichie, in her brilliant TED talk, put it succinctly: “Show people as one thing over and over again, and that’s what they become.” She was pointing to the risks and dangers of a single story. People have many layers of existence, and the mind creates meaning for survival, in other words a unique story for each, and that too multilayered. In fact, the brain seems to be doing exactly this, creating stories in the head, but always based on the context and condition of the person.
But as society scales up, from individuals to nations to religions, the validity of multiple stories seems to be ignored, and a single story is perpetrated. Even this is not truly single, power groups at all levels push their own stories, and the subsequent power struggle is the history of the world. The single story of the educated and cultured white civilization was effectively used to rule the “uncultured” Black Africa and India, among many other cultures. Their native wisdom and inherent qualities were put on an inferior pedestal, and the white man reigned supreme because he reintegrated what belonged to native cultures into his own story. Thus, the myths and knowledge of a given culture were represented back to them after being recycled, until eventually one forgets one’s own story. Africa still remains “Africa”, and India still moves on bullock carts in the minds of a few.
The real risk of a single story is not just homogenization, but the creation of an inferior psyche that erodes cultures, weakens diversity, and makes people doubt their own strength
The risk of the single story is the inferior psyche it creates, making one start doubting one’s own cognitive strength, something each mind inherently has. This resource comes from culture and its roots, and later through exchanges with others. But having lost the ability to accept and exhibit multivaried stories from within, cultures tend to adopt the story presented to them and thus lose their identity. The British ruled the world with this single story, and then it was America’s turn. Nations too eagerly converted to the American “model of happiness”, and that became the single predominant contemporary capitalistic story. The source of religious conflict also lies in this insistence on a single story and the rejection of multiple possible stories.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the conflict India is facing.
Everyone may be a “civilizational Hindu” in the subcontinent, according to a few ideologues, but they contradict themselves when they claim that all diversity was accepted within the framework of Hinduism, atheist to polytheist, each was free to choose their own God and form. Why leave this inclusive, liberal way of life that allowed people to decide and formulate their own story? Why embrace the socio-political hazards of monotheism? Why kill the eternal Indian spirit of knowledge that emanates from questioning and agreeing to disagree?
The inability to accept diverse stories is the seed of hatred and systemic violence, which spikes overtly during disagreements. Delusion and hatred rule minds, and intolerance is the order of the day, with victims becoming perpetrators, as is evident across the world.
But who is the evil?
India’s conflict today reflects the danger Chimamanda Adichie warned of when nations abandon multi-storied traditions and embrace a single narrative, intolerance and systemic violence take root.
The few who want power and misrepresent? The large population that easily drifts in opinion? Or is it self-hatred that turns outward?
Then it all depends on whether one gets a benevolent Mahatma Gandhi or a Hitler. Peace becomes a hostage to these destructive or constructive channelizations.
The human race still remains a pathetic decision maker and seems to distract itself from deeper philosophical issues.
Should we rant and blame God for this?
It is the lack of accountability for our behaviour towards others that breeds micro power struggles. They are micro in the scheme of space-time. The blame on the other and the need to prevail is the source of conflict.
The Mahabharata says that self-restraint is the greatest good. Only this can generate respect for the other, but it requires mental training. It is a choice, but the only answer to violence.
Inadvertently, debates in India fall into this single story frame. Traditional and newfound nationalists claim that Indian history is a single story from the Left-liberal intellectual lens and hence distorted or biased at the least. Agreed, but an alternative story of this great civilization is not forthcoming, except through fanatic assertions. The same is true with communal tolerance. We tend to ignore our stories of coexistence over the ages in spite of a few aberrations, and believed the single story in ’47, and still do, without realizing that the original war was between Christianity and Islam. Will the liberal, multistoried, free-flowing Hindu change to something else? This is what believing in stories does.
Extend this to our daily lives, the way we disrespect our languages and the culture that has evolved around whatever is “English”. And I don’t mean only the language here. This may not be us. But the response to this is not our story of living, but a reactionary borrowed violence to curb it. The resultant friction is destructive to the national psyche. We should not get trapped into enforcing a single story again.
The need for reexamining our multitude of stories of existence and thought should not be ignored, lest they finish us. Not with the arrogance of our great past, but by recontextualizing, reinterpreting, and repositioning it in the contemporary world. This will restore our tolerance for diversity, when my story will be as valid as the other person’s. That will be our true redemption and freedom.