There is something tempting about the neatness of a single story. The Nigerian author, Chimamanda Adichie speaks of the dangers of having one, simplified perception of anything. She cautions that one of the greatest disservices you can do another person is to minimize their existence to something one-dimensional. She refers to the homogenizing stereotype of Africans as “incomprehensible people, fighting senseless wars, dying of poverty and AIDS, unable to speak for themselves, and waiting to be saved, by a kind, white foreigner.” A preconceived notion of someone reduces the complexity of their character and experiences. I would like to think this is not a habit I have developed, but it’s all to easy to adopt such assumptions.

In Bangladesh, I have been thinking about the consequences of a single story when it comes to our understanding of poverty. Having a single understanding of a culture, an issue, or an experience, is an easy trap to fall into when ‘doing’ development. In the context of this internship, I have been considering the single story in the case of microfinance.

Microfinance projects have been replicated worldwide as an attempt to alleviate poverty. Their considerable popularity is, in part, due to the successes witnessed in Bangladesh, where microfinancing was first formalized. The evidence certainly suggests that microfinance has been able to improve livelihood of many of the country’s poor. However, it should also be acknowledged that it is a technical fix, which was designed within a local context. As a result, replication elsewhere does not necessarily guarantee similar success. Microfinance, like any development solution, cannot be a one-size-fits-all model. Indeed, over time, the merits of microfinance more generally have been the subject of considerable debate. For instance, that microfinance is not an effective tool for targeting the most destitute.

Adichie speaks of the inseparability of the single story and power; she says that power doesn’t only allow someone to tell story of another, but to define them through the telling of that story. In the development industry, the way that we tell the story of the poor also limits our ability to appreciate their complexity. The development industry has adopted microfinance as a solution that can be, and has been, adapted nearly anywhere. In doing so, we are telling a single story of what it is to be poor: to merely lack access to finance. Microfinance offers certain benefits, but it does not address the more institutional and structural causes of poverty. By framing the obstacle in this way, we are failing to acknowledge the complexity of poverty’s social and political causes. As Adichie explains, “the problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue, but that they are incomplete. They make one story become the only story.”

In limiting our definition of poverty, we overestimate the influence that one intervention can have. Microfinance might be of benefit to a great number of people, but it will never be the solution. By assuming the contrary, we are closing ourselves off to the good that can come from understanding the failures of micorfinance and the ways in which it must be adapted and altered to better suit different cirucmstances. The single story, in the case of microfinance, can lead to stagnation.

“The consequence of the single story is this: 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.”

The danger of a single story – Chimamanda Adichie speaks at TED, 2009 – http://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story.html

Category: Bangladesh, On location // Add Comment »