Explain why the notion that cultures can be distinguished as either “oral culture” or “written culture” (19) is a mistaken understanding as to how culture works, according to Chamberlin and your reading of Courtney MacNeil’s article “Orality”.
To define cultures as either oral or written creates a false dichotomy in which the superior concept of communication is separated into two distinct forms, with written communication often perceived as more elite and legitimate than orality. Courtney MacNeil suggests this divide denies the “possibility for an equivalency between printed and spoken word,” distilling the roles of communication, storytelling, and dialogue into a simplistic categorization. This false hierarchy reduces the complexity of stories and their role in transmitting knowledge, identity, culture, and establishing/solidifying relationships. This divisive model is preceded by a history of Eurocentrism that diminished the value of oral-based cultures through insidious colonization and systemic eradication of oral cultures via forced education in European language systems, especially in English (within Canada, this is salient in discussions of residential schools and their strategies for eradicating indigenous language use). In this conceptualization, orality is reduced to an inferior form of communication instead of being acknowledged as one of the foundational tools for human experience, relationships, and knowledge-sharing, constantly interdependent and engaged with other forms of communication and with the written word.
Cree children in a Saskatchewan residential school (“Language Loss” 2017).
Courtney MacNeil argues that our very definition of orality provides competing understandings of its function, existing both as a medium and as “existing in competition with other media forms.” She writes that the “framing of orality as a ‘preference’ or ‘tendency’ encourages its place within the paragon of the printed and spoken word, and suggests a single-sensory conception of media – that orality exists in a dialectical relationship with literacy, and that communication is a “competition between eye and ear,” drawing attention to the ways in which this viewpoint isolates communication forms instead of positioning them as interdependent upon each other.
To view orality and literacy accurately, we must instead begin to view them not as competitors, but as two components of the larger goal of communication. As Chamberlin writes, there is nothing inherent to spoken or written language that superposes one form over another; both are invented by humans, and are meaningless without the act of collective communities deciding to believe in them: “Building shape and meaning is what we do in our stories and songs. They are built on the arbitrariness of words and images, which is to say they are built on sand; but they are rock solid as long as we believe in them” (8). Chamberlin fundamentally argues that separating oral and written cultures is ineffective because it ignores their shared interest in beliefs, culture, and legacy. He points to the ways in which written language has been co-opted to try and remove the stories and voice of a collective people, as if “one could alter the way they thought and felt,” (18) and suggests that oral cultures “are imprisoned in the present…[and] understand the world in magical rather than scientific terms” (19). The view Chamberlin criticizes ignores the fact that oral cultures have engaged with symbolic representation through pictures, art, maps, woven cloth, beaded garments, hairstyles, clothing, and music throughout history (Chamberlin 19), just as MacNeil suggests modern technological advancements blur the line between dialogue and writing, and add new media to the way we capture stories, through video, radio, film, and, although not addressed by MacNeil, podcasts. These modalities transgress the dichotomy between writing and speech, and in doing so, redefine the way we understand storytelling.
Personally, when reading MacNeil and Chamberlin’s perspectives, I found myself considering podcasts and radio in terms of oral and written culture. Podcasts are a rising media form and walk the line between a very personal experience for the listener, where the story feels almost dialogic, and the necessity of podcasts to be written, edited, scripted and designed to be heard by multiple people. Moreso, many podcasts allow the listener to seek out multimedia forms on websites where individuals can expand on points with hyperlinks, images of featured guests, and discussion forums that allow for a sense of micro-community and expansive learning. I think multimedia forms and podcasts are a modern example of the “unclassifiable” communication forms referenced by Chamberlin and MacNeil.
Works Cited
Chamberlin, J. Edward. If This Is Your Land, Where Are Your Stories?: Finding Common Ground. Toronto, Vintage Canada, 2004.
Janke, Dwayne. “What Residential Schools Did to Aboriginal Languages.” Word Alive, Jan 2017, wordalive.wycliffe.ca/stories/what-residential-schools-did-to-aboriginal-languages. Accessed Jan 15 2019.
“Language Loss.” Stolen Lives: The Indigenous Peoples of Canada and the Indian Residential Schools, Facing History and Ourselves, www.facinghistory.org/stolen-lives-indigenous-peoples-canada-and-indian-residential-schools/chapter-4/language-loss. Accessed Jan 15 2019.
MacNeil, Courtney. “Orality.” Uchicagoedublogs, The Chicago School of Media Theory, 2007, lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/mediatheory/keywords/orality/.
Olamide, Ayedun. “Oral Traditions.” Academia, pp. 1-24,www.academia.edu/32464481/ORAL_TRADITIONS. Accessed Jan 14 2019.
Hi Charlotte,
I also found Chamberlin’s discussion on oral and written formats interesting and nothing I had ever considered before, and after reading your take on the debate, I can’t help but wonder how we can erase (or begin to lessen) the separation between the oral and the written. For example, have certain types of media that are becoming more popular helped to bridge the gap between oral and written story telling? Are vlogs and podcasts the early stages of establishing the equivalency that Courtney MacNeil says is denied?
Hi Cassie,
I certainly think technology is helping us bridge the gap between the two forms, with radio, podcasts, video and documentaries, television, and other media forms like virtual reality, theatre, and comic occupying a space somewhere between oral and written language. I wonder if it is necessary to try to merge the two forms, or rather if we should be focusing on changing the way we perceive these forms as distinctive, different modalities versus a continuum on which we communicate the stories we need to tell. I think technology has allowed a wider spread of voices to be heard, and has certainly given consumers greater choice in the way they wish to engage with storytelling. as we shift to multimedia storytelling, we allow ourselves to engage in immersive storytelling to a larger audience and at a distance, bringing in new dimensions to how we engage in story as a whole. These technological changes that allow us to share an immersive story, also retain a necessary level of distance; it is difficult to engage in dialogue or ask questions of, say, a foreign filmmaker or the voice of a podcast you consume in the way you can speak to someone telling a story face to face.
Hello Charlotte,
I really enjoyed reading your thoughts on this topic as I chose to write about these are subject for my post this week. I completely agree with your statement that written and spoken forms of storytelling denies the possibility for both components to be seen as one entity, or two components of the overall goal of communication. I really enjoyed your example of eurocentrism diminishing the importance of oral based cultures and communication in our world, notably in African culture as well as the eradication of indigenous language use in residential schools. We don’t tend to discuss the “distortions and falsehoods of Euro-American scholars who not only denied our historical heritage but also excluded us” (Oral Traditions) in our education system or in our overall discourse as human beings. It is important to acknowledge the power that both written and oral communication has to cause ignorance and miscommunication in our society. This highlights how irresponsible it is to claim that either orality or writing is more powerful than the other. That being said, do you believe in your own life one form of communication has proven to be an easier or more clear form of communication for you? Or, do you think that they are both important in their own respective ways and aspects of life?
Hi Alexandra,
Thank you for your thoughts! I am looking forwards to reading your opinions on this in your post as well. I think the way you’ve phrased the irresponsibility of privileging certain communication forms over others as having the power to “cause ignorance and miscommunication” is a very important factor to consider when analyzing any form of media and communication; it is not only about what we say, but what it implies, and how we say it (both through modality and content) that matters.
In my own life, I have found that in academic settings I tend to favour writing. Our work this week has me wondering how or when I decided that, but my draw to reading and writing has extended into academia. I find that writing gives me the space to be intentional about the structure and phrasing of my thoughts in a way that speaking doesn’t, and often allows for more reflection; I think we rarely take the time to sit and slowly consider our thoughts, opinions, and the way we communicate them in speech in the same way we do when writing an argument or reflection piece. However, in my day-to-day life I certainly use speech more than writing; I am quite talkative with my loved ones, and highly value the time I can spend discussing interesting or funny topics with people I care about. There is certainly a type of intimacy in a conversation with a friend that can’t be replicated in writing. I have found that in moments where I’ve had to have difficult conversations, or important ones, I often take time to write out my thoughts beforehand and notice the act of writing can help me find clarity in my own experiences that eases later conversation, however. They certainly both have their strengths!
Hi Charlotte!
I’m glad that I’m not the only one who found the idea of “written culture” to be rather Eurocentric. Growing up, one of my elementary school teachers was of Indigenous descent, and she would place a large emphasis on orality and storytelling as she taught us about her culture. Thus, I’ve always thought of Indigenous stories as being embedded and transformed through what I suppose Chamberlain would call “oral culture.” However, both oral culture and written culture can be counted as standalone categories, as media is carried and presented differently in both. The exact same piece may not evoke the same response across platforms solely because of how it is presented (in writing vs verbally told). It’s a fine line, however, as orality and written culture is closely interlinked. Although each has their own nuances, they also function well together.
Hi Charlotte,
I found your comparison of podcasts and radio to oral cultures very interesting. I definitely agree that it is more similar to oral cultures as they are more dialectic, however as you also mentioned they are edited. I think what makes oral stories so significant is that they are not edited and the interaction with the audience is in realtime, and can then change the story as it progresses. As you mentioned, there are hyperlinks that allow listeners to seek additional information, however that will not change the story whereas a question to a live story has the ability to the next time it is told.
Really great post!
Sandra