Three Talks, One Conviction: Story, Gender and Truth in the Voice of Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

A reflection on three talks by the Nigerian novelist, as listed on Dilip Barad's teacher blog

Introduction

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, author of Purple Hibiscus, Half of a Yellow Sun and Americanah, is as influential a speaker as she is a novelist. The blog post assigned to us gathers three of her talks: on the importance of story and literature, on feminism, and on truth in a "post-truth" era. They seem to address three different subjects, but I think they are one argument told three ways. Each asks who gets to tell the story, whose version becomes "the truth", and what it costs when a single, comfortable version is allowed to stand unchallenged.

A note on sources: I could not open the YouTube pages directly, so the first two sections draw on these well-known talks as I know them, and the third was matched to its video through published coverage. Please check the points below against the videos and your class notes, and add anything your sir emphasised.

Talk 1: "The Danger of a Single Story" (Importance of Story and Literature)

Adichie opens with her childhood in Nigeria, where she read British and American children's books and wrote stories in which characters were white, played in snow and drank ginger beer, though she had never seen snow and Nigerians drank mango juice. The books had taught her that literature was about people who were not like her. Only when she discovered African writers such as Chinua Achebe did she realise that people like her could exist in literature too.

Her central point is that a single story creates stereotypes, and the problem with stereotypes is not that they are always untrue but that they are incomplete. They make one story become the only story. She gives examples from both sides: as a child she saw the family of her house help, Fide, only as poor, until she visited his village and saw their beautifully woven basket. Her American college roommate, in turn, expected her to be unfamiliar with modern life and to listen to "tribal music", because her idea of Africa was one of catastrophe. Adichie also confesses that she once held a single story of Mexicans, shaped by American media, until she saw the ordinary humanity of people she met.

She links this to power. Stories, she says, depend on the principle of nkali, an Igbo word meaning "to be greater than another": how they are told, who tells them, when and how many are told all depend on power. Power is the ability not only to tell the story of another person but to make it the definitive story. Her closing message is hopeful: stories can dispossess and malign, but they can also empower and humanise, and when we reject the single story we recover "a kind of paradise".

My reading: This is a lesson in Cultural Studies, since it shows how representation shapes reality. It also connects to postcolonial literature: the colonial gaze tells one story about Africa, and the writer's task is to add the missing ones.

Talk 2: "We Should All Be Feminists"

In this talk (given at TEDxEuston), Adichie begins with her childhood friend Okoloma, who called her a feminist when she was about fourteen, as an insult. She did not know the word, but she decided to embrace it. Over time she noticed how loaded the word had become: people said feminists were unhappy, angry, un-African, or hated men. She responded by choosing to call herself a "Happy African Feminist Who Does Not Hate Men and Who Likes Lip Gloss and High Heels for Herself and Not for Men".

Her examples make the argument concrete. In Lagos, a waiter greets her male companion and ignores her. A parking attendant thanks a man when a woman has paid. Women are told to shrink themselves and to aim for success but not too much success, so as not to threaten a man. Girls are raised to see marriage as an achievement, while boys are not raised to see it that way. She stresses that gender matters everywhere, and that we teach boys to be afraid of fear and weakness, which hurts men too.

She also insists on the point that culture does not make people, people make culture. If a culture does not recognise the full humanity of women, we can and must change it. Her simple definition of a feminist is a person who believes in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes.

My reading: The talk works because it uses everyday scenes rather than theory. It also links to the first talk: "feminist" itself became a single story, a stereotype of an angry, man-hating woman, and Adichie retells it by adding the missing stories.

Talk 3: On Truth in a Post-Truth Era (Harvard Class Day, 2018)

The third video, per the published coverage, is her address to Harvard's graduating class of 2018, whose message can be summed up in the line "above all else, do not lie". She said that at no time had it felt as urgent as now to protect and value the truth, at a moment when truth seemed up for grabs and journalists debated whether to call a lie a lie. 

Harvard Gazette

Several ideas stand out from the reports of the speech:

Context and intent matter. She stressed that intent and context matter when we judge words and actions, and that mistakes should not be confused with malice. Outrage is right for malicious behaviour, but not every error is malice. 

The Singju Post

Truth is personal as well as political. She said it is hard to tell ourselves the truth about our failures, fragilities and uncertainties. She also observed that ignorance acknowledged is an opportunity, while ignorance denied is a closed door.

Truth is not always rewarded. She explained that she is not asking people to tell the truth because it will always work out, but because they will sleep well at night, and she urged them to keep a good "bullshit detector". The anecdote she used was of pretending to admire a famous writer's work and being caught out. 

Know the other side. She told graduates that even if there is no value in the other side, there is value in knowing what its position is. 

Use privilege for change. She urged graduates to challenge the status quo, use their power and privilege to change cultural institutions and champion new storytellers. 

My reading: In a period of fake news and manufactured "alternative facts", she treats honesty as a civic duty and a personal discipline. The concern for truth links back to the first talk, since a single story is often a half-truth presented as the whole truth.

Connecting the Three Talks

Talk What is being challenged Adichie's remedy

Danger of a Single Story Stereotypes about Africa and other groups Tell and read many stories

We Should All Be Feminists Gender roles and the stigma around "feminist" Change culture, since people make it

Truth in a Post-Truth Era Lies, half-truths and comfortable ignorance Honesty, courage and a good detector for falsehood

The pattern is the same. In each case a simplified, powerful version of reality is treated as natural, and she responds by insisting on complexity, humanity and honesty. She is also consistent in tone: she does not shout, she tells stories, uses humour and appeals to ordinary experience.

Conclusion

Adichie's views come together in one idea: the way we tell stories shapes the world we live in. A single story about a continent, a gender or a political moment narrows our understanding, and it takes deliberate effort, in reading, in speaking and in telling the truth, to widen it. As students of literature, these talks remind me that reading is not only pleasure but a form of ethical practice, because each new story we read is a challenge to a single story we may not know we hold.

Before you post: Add anything from your class discussion (the context your sir explained), embed or link the three videos, and put key points in your own words. Tell me if you want it shorter, in a different tone, or with a specific word limit.

The Sponge and the Squeeze: Marginalization, Power and Disposable Lives from Hamlet to the Modern Workplace

Part 1: Questions for Reflection and Analysis

Question 1: Marginalization in Hamlet

Describe how Rosencrantz and Guildenstern represent marginal figures in Hamlet. How does Hamlet's reference to Rosencrantz as a "sponge" reflect their expendability in the power dynamics of the play?

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are minor courtiers whose whole function is to serve someone else's plot. Claudius and Gertrude summon them to spy on Hamlet, and the two are so interchangeable that the royal couple thank them by swapping their names. They have no backstory, no private motives and no lines that distinguish one from the other.

In Act 4, Scene 2, Hamlet calls Rosencrantz a sponge that soaks up the king's favour, rewards and authority. Once the king needs what the sponge has absorbed, he simply squeezes it dry. A sponge has no will of its own and is valued only for what it can be made to give up. It is a compact image of expendability: they are useful until they are not, and then they can be discarded.

Their end confirms this. Hamlet rewrites the sealed letter so that they are executed in England, and he shows little guilt afterwards. Their deaths are reported in a single line at the end.

Question 2: Modern Parallels to Corporate Power

The passage compares Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to modern workers impacted by corporate downsizing and globalization. How does their fate in Hamlet mirror the displacement experienced by workers when multinational companies relocate or downsize?

Both cases involve people whose value is defined entirely by their usefulness to the powerful. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern carry a sealed letter without knowing it orders their own deaths. Employees in a restructuring are often the last to know a decision has already been made about them, and the announcement is framed in the abstract language of "realignment" and being "future-ready". Nobody asks the individual whether the plan should proceed.

The parallel is closest in the way the decision is impersonal. Hamlet does not hate them, and Claudius does not consult them. When a multinational relocates a plant or trims headcount, the worker is likewise not being judged on merit. They are a line item in someone else's strategy. The people who bear the cost are rarely the people who benefit from the decision.

Question 3: Existential Questions in Stoppard's Re-interpretation

In Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, Stoppard deepens their marginalization by questioning their existence and purpose. Why might Stoppard emphasize their search for meaning in a world indifferent to them? How does this mirror the feeling of powerlessness in today's corporate environments?

Stoppard takes the two characters who are barely present in Shakespeare and puts them at the centre. He makes their marginality the subject rather than a background fact. They do not remember their past, they are unsure which of them is which, and they wait for instructions they do not understand. A coin lands on heads ninety-two times in a row, which suggests that the rules of their world have stopped making sense.

Stoppard stresses their search for meaning because a world that is indifferent to them is the truth of their situation. They are surrounded by events that matter (a court, a murder, a prince's madness) but cannot find where they fit. That is a familiar feeling in corporate life: hitting targets and following procedures without understanding the larger purpose, and sensing that decisions about your future are being made in a room you cannot enter. Their inability to say when things went wrong, or whether they ever had a choice, echoes the modern worker asking how a career ended without any moment of decision.

Question 4: Cultural and Economic Power Structures

Compare Shakespeare's treatment of power in Hamlet to Stoppard's reimagining. How does each work critique systems that marginalize "little people"? How might Stoppard's existential take resonate with contemporary issues of job insecurity and corporate control?

In Hamlet, power is dynastic. The story is about who rules Denmark, and everyone else is either a piece on the board or a casualty. Shakespeare does not obviously critique the marginalization of the "little people", but the play shows it clearly. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern die without ceremony, and the tragic weight falls on the royal family. The audience is invited to mourn Hamlet, not them.

Stoppard, writing in the 1960s, reverses the focus. He gives the minor figures the stage and lets the audience feel what it is like to be an afterthought in someone else's story. His critique is quieter and more philosophical than political: these men are not oppressed by a particular villain, but by a structure that gives them no way to understand or change their fate.

This resonates with job insecurity today. Contemporary workers often face precisely that absence of a visible villain. Layoffs are attributed to markets, technology or global strategy, and no single person appears responsible. The powerlessness comes from the system, and Stoppard's absurdist tone captures it well.

Question 5: Personal Reflection

How does the marginalization of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in Hamlet relate to the modern experience of being seen as a dispensable "asset"? Reflect on how these parallels shape your understanding of Cultural Studies and power dynamics.

Being treated as a dispensable "asset" means being valued for output rather than as a person. Reading Rosencrantz and Guildenstern this way shows me what Cultural Studies does well: it asks who is centred in a story, who is pushed to the edges, and why that arrangement feels natural. Seeing that the two men are only "minor" because the play is told from the prince's side made me realise that marginality is often a matter of perspective, not of worth. It also shows that power operates through narrative as much as through force. Whoever tells the story decides whose loss counts.

Part 2: Creative Engagement

Option 1: Comparative Analysis

In Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern exist to be used. Claudius employs them to spy, Gertrude blesses the errand, and Hamlet turns them into instruments of his own strategy. Their names are nearly interchangeable, and Shakespeare gives them no interior life. Hamlet's image of Rosencrantz as a sponge that absorbs the king's favour, only to be squeezed dry when the king needs it back, sums up how power treats them. They are conduits, not people. When Hamlet swaps the sealed letter and sends them to their deaths in England, the play barely pauses. Their execution is reported in a line, and Hamlet's conscience stays largely untroubled.

Shakespeare's tragedy belongs to those who hold or contest the throne. Its moral centre is Hamlet's struggle with revenge, mortality and duty. The small figures around him are collateral. This is not necessarily a flaw in the play, but it does reveal a hierarchy: some lives are the subject of tragedy, and others are its cost.

Stoppard's 1966 play takes that hierarchy and makes it visible by inverting it. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern now stand at the centre, and the royal drama drifts in and out at the edges like a play they keep stumbling into. The result is disorientation. They cannot recall how they came to be travelling, they are unsure of their own names, and they interpret the world through games such as coin tosses and word puzzles because nothing else makes sense. When the coin lands heads repeatedly, their rational framework collapses, and with it their confidence that the universe is governed by rules they can grasp.

Where Shakespeare shows marginalization through outcome (they die and are barely mourned), Stoppard shows it through experience. His characters feel the absence of agency. They are summoned, sent, and directed without ever being told the purpose. The Player, who leads a troupe of actors, tells them that they are performers who are watched and defined by their roles, a hint that all of them are already inside a script. Their final realisation, that they cannot identify the moment when they might have refused their fate, is the play's bleakest note: powerlessness is not a single event but a slow accumulation of small compliances.

Both plays critique systems that use ordinary people, but they do so differently. Hamlet exposes the hierarchy by omission: the "little people" fall silent while the great ones speak. Stoppard exposes it by amplification, giving the silent ones voices and letting the audience discover that their inner lives are as confused, funny and frightened as anyone else's. His dark comedy also suggests that the powerful are not much better placed. Everyone is on a stage, following a text they did not write, but only some get the consolation of a meaningful part.

This matters for contemporary readers because Stoppard's absurdism fits the modern workplace. Employees are asked to be flexible, loyal and "aligned" with strategies they had no part in shaping, and they can find themselves discarded without ever seeing the decision being made. Stoppard's play suggests that the real tragedy is not just the death or dismissal, but the years spent unable to tell whether one's life had any significance to the people directing it. Reading the two plays together, we see how a Renaissance court and a modern corporation can share a logic: value flows upward, risk flows downward, and the person at the bottom is the last to find out which is which.

 Monologue Writing

Create a short monologue for either Rosencrantz or Guildenstern, incorporating modern corporate language to highlight their disempowerment.

(Guildenstern, alone at a glass desk, a sealed envelope in front of him.)

GUILDENSTERN: I was told this was a "touchpoint." A quick alignment. Nobody says what we are aligning to. Rosencrantz thinks it's a promotion, because they used the word "opportunity," and he has never once suspected that word.

They said we were "high-potential resources." I checked. A resource is what you use up. I'm not sure they hear it. I'm certain we don't.

We've been "onboarded" into a mandate nobody will put in writing. We "circle back" to a Prince who never quite replies. We "leverage our relationships" with a man who has never learned either of our names. Last week the King thanked me warmly and called me Rosencrantz. Rosencrantz was standing beside me. I said "thank you." What else would I say? That's the mechanism: you accept the wrong name because correcting it feels like a performance issue.

They tell us the organisation is "in transition." Everything is in transition, always, and the only people who never get to transition anywhere are the ones holding the envelope.

(He turns the envelope over. Does not open it.)

I keep looking for the moment I could have said no. There must have been a meeting, an email, a small yes that became the whole of my life. But every yes was so reasonable. That's the design: the trap isn't a cliff, it's a staircase.

They'll call it a "restructure." They'll offer us a "package." There will be a farewell message with the word "grateful" in it, and it will be sincere, in the way that a sponge might be thanked.

(Beat.)

Rosen Ros (He stops.) I'm not going to check which of us it is. It doesn't seem to matter, and that's the whole problem.

 Research Report

Investigate a recent case of corporate downsizing and write a brief comparison with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's fate in Hamlet.

Case: Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), 2025

TCS, India's largest IT services firm, announced it would lay off about 2 per cent of its global workforce (12,261 employees), with most of those affected in middle and senior grades. Reports described it as the most significant downsizing in the company's five-decade history, hitting largely non-client-facing staff such as project managers in older delivery models and specialists in legacy technologies. TCS framed the move as part of becoming a "future-ready organisation", with investment in new technologies, AI deployment and a realigned workforce model. 

Several details make the comparison with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern instructive:

Language of abstraction. The official rationale was strategic and impersonal. The people affected appear in the statement as a "workforce model" being realigned, much as the two courtiers appear in Claudius's plans as tools for observing Hamlet.

Timing against profit. The announcement came shortly after TCS reported a Q1 FY26 net profit of Rs 12,760 crore, up 6 per cent year on year. Like the sponge, those affected were let go not because the enterprise was failing, but because their particular usefulness had ended.

Slow, phased exit. The CEO said the layoffs would not be immediate and that affected employees would be identified in phases through the year, with support such as extended insurance, outplacement and counselling. This is a gentler procedure than Hamlet's forged letter, but the structural point is similar: the decision is taken above, and the individual learns their status through the process. 

Contested consent. Unions alleged that some exits were forced resignations. That echoes Stoppard's theme that compliance can be manufactured, so that removal looks like a choice.

Pressure before the cut. One report described a stricter bench policy under which employees could be terminated for exceeding 35 unallocated days a year, a reminder that a person's continued place can depend on being visibly "in use".

Where the parallel breaks down. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are killed, while TCS employees receive severance and notice, and TCS clarified that AI is not directly replacing jobs. There is also an ongoing debate about how far AI and automation drive such cuts, so the causes should not be oversimplified. The comparison is about structure (who decides, who is informed, whose value is measured) rather than about equivalent harm. 

Conclusion. The TCS case shows that Stoppard's absurdist insight still holds: many people learn about decisions that reshape their lives through announcements made in the language of strategy, and the search for someone accountable ends in a system rather than a person. Shakespeare shows the cost in a single line about two dead courtiers, and Stoppard asks us to imagine what those two lives felt like from the inside.

Sources for the TCS case: The News Minute, PTI/The Week, Moneylife, and IANS (July 2025). Add your own play editions and citation format as your instructor requires.