The idea of a culture being labeled as either an “oral culture” or a “written culture” had never occurred to me prior to the readings for this week, and I agree with Chamberlin’s argument within his book, “If This is Your Land, Where are Your Stories”, as well as Courtney MacNeil’s from her article, “Orality”, that defining a culture as being “oral” or “written” is a mistake.
Chamberlin argues against this notion of being either “oral” or “written” by pointing out that cultures are not truly one or the other. Yes, some cultures lack a written alphabetic language, but that does not mean they do not contain other forms of writing. He pinpoints examples as being “woven and beaded belts and blankets, knotted and coloured strings”, as well as carvings, paintings, and other ways to symbolize and leave messages (Chamberlin, 19). So-called “written cultures” are not purely written, either. Although I would most certainly belong to what some would mistakenly label a “written culture”, I am also highly involved in several oral traditions that Chamberlin points out, and some that he does not. As a retail worker I participate in a very set conversation with each customer, each of us participating in the verbal dance that is, I’m sure, very familiar to us all.
“Hello! How are you today?” “Good, you?” “Good.”
Although the rest of the conversation may go off in a different direction, this beginning scarcely changes, and I would argue that it is almost certainly one of the “oral traditions” that Chamberlin mentions, as it fits with his other examples of churches, schools, and parliaments (Chamberlin, 20).
MacNeil picks up this idea within her article, and proceeds to discuss how integral and central orality as “a means of human communication”, which is certainly needed within virtually any culture (MacNeil, “Orality”). She also argues against the depiction of orality as being “isolat[ed] from literacy, or as subservient to it” (MacNeil, “Orality”). Chamberlin runs across the same thought by bringing up the mistake that some make by placing cultures without a written alphabet as primitive (Chamberlin, 19). Either of these beliefs would appear to be a mistake, as just because two cultures differ in terms of how their stories are recorded, or their agreements made does not place one above the other. Cultures are not something that can be weighed, tagged, and placed into a box, they are something that needs to be experienced in order to begin to understand. Those who try to place cultures into such basic categories as “oral” or “written” do not understand the depth that cultures go, as they cannot be one or the other, traditions from both will appear if someone looks hard enough.
It is for the distinct benefit of some that this duality occurs, as can be seen from the start of Laurie Green’s article, “Oral Culture and the World of Words”. Green is dyslexic, and therefore struggles with reading and writing, but still pushed towards a career in the clergy, which involved a fair amount of both. She pushes for equal portions of oral and written work in schools in order to get the best results (Green, 335). As I have a few family members with dyslexia, this article was of particular interest to me as I have seen them struggle firsthand, and have to wonder whether a more oral-based education would have aided them.
This discussion on the oral and the written within various cultures led me to look inward to try to decide whether I sway more towards one than the other. The first thing to pop into my mind is the that I, like many others of my generation, am almost constantly glued to my cell phone. At first glance this would seem to sway me towards the oral, as the primary use of the phone was once for speaking, but now I find I am just as often reading articles or texting, showing that even an object as common as a cell phone is still subject to the push and pull of both the oral, and the written. Naomi S. Baron describes the relationship between the two in her article, “Do Mobile Technologies Reshape Speaking, Writing, or Reading”. It’s an interesting article that fits in well with the idea and modernity of this course, and after reading it I find myself applying the ideas about mobile technologies towards the social media of our society today, including this blog. Although this blog itself is written, while typing it up I have been listening to a variety of material, and spoken to one about its content. Not even while working on a written piece can I get away from the oral.
Works Cited:
Baron, Naomi S. “Do Mobile Technologies Reshape Speaking, Writing, Or Reading?” Mobile Media and Communication 1.1 (2013): 134-140. Web. 14 Jan. 2015.
Chamberlin, J. Edward. If This is Your Land, Where are Your Stories? Finding Common Ground. Vintage Canada. Toronto. 2004. Print.
Green, Laurie. “Oral Culture and the World of Words.” Theology 102 (1999): 328-335. Web. 14 Jan 2015.
MacNeil, Courtney. “Orality.” The Chicago School of Media Theory. The University of Chicago. 2007. Web. 13 Jan 2015. <http://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/mediatheory/keywords/orality/>
Thanks for your awesome blog post, and I definitely connected to it in several parts and was intrigued by some of the issues you brought up.
I love how you phrased the retail work setting as a “verbal dance”, becoming perhaps a separate culture in itself other than that of oral or written? I work in retail as well, and I’m sure we all have our fair share of stories in terms of our relation to an oral, textual, or even, I argue, physical communication with our customers. As much as I strongly agree that oral and written cultures are close knit and interdependent, there’s a part of me that believes there to be a sense of a “physical culture” as well. One that is more solely comprised of a physical communication of ideas and thoughts between people, separate from that of oral or written. What do you think about this potential for a third culture of physicality? And does this ‘dance’ like feature of this type of communication lend itself to useful story-telling?
Secondly, ‘weighed, tagged, and placed into a box’ is how you described our communication cultures shouldn’t and can’t be, and I agree with you completely. It’s often when we try to compartmentalize the way we communicate and tell stories does our understanding lack in depth. Instead, if we think of the way in which stories interact with the multiplicity of cultures (oral, written and perhaps physical), we can begin to see how useful and provocative a truly immersive story-telling experience can be. Think about new video campaigns and youtube videos with text on screen, oral narration and a kind of visual physical demonstration on screen by objects or people. Isn’t this when we get ‘the most’ out of something?
Lastly, your concluding part about the cell phone usage got me thinking about a sense of how tactility and how the attractiveness of tactile technologies has become a huge influence in our everyday society. We feel the need to consistently ‘touch and feel something, speaking perhaps to a sense of my aforementioned need for a ‘physical’ culture as well? There’s something about us communicating with our physical body in a very tactile way that makes our experience with something, or even somebody, that much more intimate.
All in all, your blog post got me thinking about story telling as an endless multi-dimensional experience, as opposed to an old school of thought surrounding cultures separated and disjointed. Keep up the good work!
Thanks for your comment, Jeff!
I completely agree with the third culture of physicality, I have always been a big ‘hand talker’, and I know sometimes my ideas are almost completely composed of motions when the right words just won’t come to mind!
New marketing campaigns are definitely taking advantage of using both oral and written features to, as you said make ‘the most’ out of their time. It’s a smart move, as some people respond better to one than the other, but it’s almost certain that the average person will be most affected by a mixture of both.
As for the physical part of technology, I agree that it is partially due to an increase in intimacy, but I would argue that it also comes down to ease of use, as well as repetitive motions forming habits. Half the time when I pick up my phone it’s not even due to a specific need, it is actually more due to habit than anything else!
Thank you for your thoughts, Jeff!
– Christie
Hi Christie, yes, a most thoughtful answer to my question – thank you. Your blog looks good, and I am happy to see you are inspiring some dialogue – be sure to answer your comments as they come in. I enjoyed reading Green’s article, as I too am dyslexic. And truth be know, I could not have achieved a PhD without a computer to correct my spelling and alert me to mistakes. Before the computer, I spent more time editing my work than I did writing! Thanks and enjoy.
Hello Prof. Paterson!
I will be sure to respond to the comments a bit quicker next time, sorry!
I am glad the Green article was alright, I was interested in it, but I felt it might have been a bit too much of a stretch. Thank you for sharing your own experience! 🙂
– Christie Smith
Hi Christie!
My name is Laura Landsberg, I’m not sure if you’ve taken a peek at my blog but I wanted to “formally” introduce myself.
I really enjoyed reading your blog, you discussed some very interesting points. Just like you and Jeff, I have a job that entails greeting customers – I had never thought of the introductions to be oral traditions (but they sure are!).
While reading your last paragraph, I couldn’t help but wonder, do you think that with the emergence, the continuation and heightened use of technologies that require more of a written emphasis than oral, that orality and oral tradition will diminish? I only wonder this because as you pointed out, cell phones were initially used for phone calls whereas now they are mainly used for texting, emails, social media conversing – all of which have a heavy emphasis on writing rather than orality. What would this mean for writing and oral traditions in the future?
Also, this is another quick thought I had. Since we are discussing media, where do you think youtube videos (as in tutorials) would come into play? Would they be considered apart of oral works? To me, I believe that with oral traditions, there must be at least two people present, one who is speaking and another who receive the information. With tutorials, youtube videographers speak into a camera and online viewers receive the information. Can this be considered apart of oral tradition?
Thanks for your thoughts!
Laura Landsberg
Hello, Laura!
As per the cellphone question, I am not sure that oral traditions will diminish, but they will certainly change. There is something that seems far more intimate about calling someone than texting or emailing them, so I believe that the purpose of a phone call itself has shifted.
The youtube question is a great one! I agree with your assessment of oral traditions, and I too think that the youtube videographer and the viewers complete the circuit, so to speak, and certainly allow the videos to be included as oral works. It is interesting to view how although a medium such as youtube is so entwined with visual and verbal pieces, the written comments play a large role, as well.
Thank you for your comment!
– Christie
Hi Christie,
Thank you for a very intriguing and thought provoking blog. I particularly enjoyed how you contextualized the ideas in the book with your own experience in retail. Viewing retail conversations as oral traditions got me thinking about my own experience in customer service and corporate culture in general.
I worked a few customer service jobs, my first one being a grocery clerk at Safeway when I was 16. Later, I worked as a waiter. While the two jobs were very different in terms of the culture and atmosphere of the workplace (the first being a very controlled while the other very informal), I was still drawn to and used these boxed conversational lines. I was never formally taught to speak or act a certain way, but I remember taking on that role, it almost came naturally- perhaps from years of experiencing these oral traditions from the customer’s side.
Having oral traditions in retail, or any customer service interaction makes functional sense. It assures that there are no surprises, both for the customer and the employee, so long as they stick to this intangible reservoir of ‘acceptable’ texts. The oral traditions of the customer service world (at least in my experience) are therefore very restricting. This of course mirrors other aspects of working in customer service- especially if you’re working for a large corporation. Large companies, like Safeway, don’t give their employees much agency and the ability to be creative in their work as the system is structured in such a way so employees are easily replaceable. It makes sense to me then, that oral traditions reflect the culture- the two symbiotically work and construct one another.
When I worked as a waiter, I initially used the oral traditions from my previous job. It didn’t take long for me to realize that my new place of work was much more conducive to individual agency. I started to become more liberal in my ‘verbal dance’, which reflected the culture of the restaurant. I am basing my analysis on my own experiences. What do you think? Do you think that the existing oral traditions of retail reflect the institution, or is it something else?
Cheers,
Arel J.H.
Hello Arel!
I agree with you 100% concerning the role and effect of the institution on the oral traditions in a workplace. A lot of that has to do with existing employees and their ways of doing things rubbing off on new ones, I would think, but some of it must also come from what you described of a former customer parroting back what they have experienced as they fall into their new role.
I had not really considered the differences to take into account depending on what job the oral tradition is taking place at, thank you for your input!
– Christie