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”.
The notion that cultures are either written or oral is completely false, especially in the context of current day, where new media forms such as television and podcast rely completely on written language to be produced, and are permanent. The overlap of written and oral culture is particularly clear in these media forms that have both qualities of oral culture and written culture, but do not fall completely into either category. For example, an episode of a television show needs written word to produce the scripts, schedules, advertisements, and much more, while it also relies on the orality of its cast to communicate to the viewers. In addition, viewers of the program can watch the episode orally, by just listening to what the cast says, or with written language, by using subtitles. Subtitles allow television programs and movies to be more accessible to people with hearing loss or who are deaf, which is another example of how interwoven written and oral culture are. Some people in society may have disabilities or that allow them to only communicate through one form of either written or oral culture. However, as a society, we have made much of everyday life accessible for people with these disabilities by interweaving oral and written culture even further, by allowing the same program on television, for example, to be viewed with either, or both, written and oral language. Even without the example of new media forms, written culture and oral culture overlap in our everyday lives. Much of our everyday communication is orally based, such as our general greetings or getting to know a co-worker, for example. However, we tend to document information we find important, such as medical records, birth certificates, much of history, and maybe even our own feelings or experiences in a journal entry. In cultures that were considered written cultures throughout history, all did not completely rely on written word alone, they also used oral communication. The use of the terms primary orality and secondary orality seem to illustrate the interlinked complexities of the discussion, highlighting that different cultures may use written and oral word in different ways, but that they use both. The term ‘oraliture’ describes the need for both oral and written word in Haiti, observed by Edouard Glissant. The use of new media such as television shows, social media, and podcasts combines oral culture and written culture even further, complicating the discussion even further.
Work Cited
Courtney MacNeil, “Orality.” The Chicago School of Media Theory. Uchicagoedublogs. 2007. Web. 19 Feb. 2013.http://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/mediatheory/keywords/orality/
Hi Claire,
I found your discussion of orality and literacy really insightful, especially when you ruminate on the intercconections of these two forms. The dichotomy of oral culture/written culture has always seemed confusing to me.
I’m curious; do you think that oral stories are “ruined” once they have been transcribed? Many folklorists believe that it would be impossible to capture a folk tale or oral story by transcribing it and locking it into one form. One of the beauties of oral stories is that they are always a little bit different, and utilize many story-telling aspects outside of written language to express the story, through tone, environment, pace, etc. Do you think oral stories should be written down and “saved” for posterity, or should they be left to evolve and transform?
I think that that’s a difficult question! I do agree that oral stories could be more beautiful if they are simply left as oral so they can be more fluid in their details, however, these can only be enjoyed by whoever is physically told the story, which to some may be part of the beauty. I don’t necessarily have an answer for you, because I agree with both parts. I think it would be interesting to speak to a folklorist and author about this!
Hi Claire!
What I found the most engaging about your post was near the end, where you mentioned:
“The term ‘oraliture’ describes the need for both oral and written word in Haiti, observed by Edouard Glissant.”
This term is super thought provoking an I encourage you to compare it to Chamberlain’s thoughts on orality as well as MacNeil’s.
It’s amazing how you’ve taken into account those who may have a disability such as being blind or being hard of hearing. Our world is inclusive and accommodating but still poses certain barriers for these people in terms of what stories and information they can and cannot consume based off of what is available to them. Therefore what they know will be sorely based on what has accommodated them throughout their life, limiting the stories that could help frame their personal experiences. What do you think about that?
Cheers,
Arianne
That’s a great point! I hadn’t thought about that! I think this observation demonstrates the need for both oral and written in a very specific context! It’s unfortunate that not all stories are available by both!
Hi Claire,
I enjoyed your post and your perspective on the definitions of oral culture. I completely agree with you. We can no longer define different forms of storytelling in one specific way because technology has altered that for us. What are your opinions on indigenous storytelling, a largely oral form, and attempts to transform it into a tangible written or visual form? Do you think it could alter the ways stories and perspective of Canada are created?
I think it definitely alters the way stories are presented! From what I know about Indigenous storytelling, the stories details can be changed by the storyteller, depending on how they wish to tell the story, how long they want it to be, and other aspects. They control the story. The general ideas and plot remain the same but sections can be lengthened or shortened, gone into more or less detail depending on the tellers preference. Putting these stories into written word causes the stories to lose their malleability, as they will be the exact same every time it is read.
Hey Claire!:)
I quite enjoyed that you also chose to discuss subtitles. Theres a South Korean movie called Parasite that’s getting a lot of attention lately (It won a Golden Globe and a SAG award!). In his speech when accepting the award, the director said that “once you overcome the one inch tall barrier or subtitles, you will be introduced to so many more amazing films.” I think that there is a bounty of literature, new stories and histories that would be accessible to so many more people if it were able to be shared in the same way that you can add subtitles to movies. Do you think that the way in which a story, or literature, is delivered, whether it be audio/visual/written has a significant effect on the impression (or for a lack of a better word, impact) that the piece has on its audience?