“Tell me the truth,” everyone demands. Not many will demand the written truth.
Keith Thor Carlson, in Orality about Literacy: The ‘Black and White’ of Salish History, argues that the oral stories of the Salish are just as authentic as the written stories of the Europeans. It is simply another way of knowing.
This type of knowing is just as concerned with authenticity and truth as the European or Western ways of knowing. Carlson explains that in both societies, “it is understood that poorly conveyed or inaccurate historical narratives pose dangers, not only to the reputation of the speaker but to the listening (or reading) audience” (58).
So why is it that orality is often situated outside of authenticity in Western culture? The Salish people are well aware of the dangers of misrepresenting a story. Salish stories bring into the world the spirits of historical actors spoken of and “if a story was imperfectly recalled it was wrong for [Salish historians] to ‘guess’ meaning, to pad, improvise, paraphrase or omit. It was better not to tell” (qtd. in Carlson 59).
This feeling of inauthenticity comes back to what J. Edward Chamberlin describes as a “kind of thinking” (19) – not a kind of a fact or a kind of truth.
It is important to realize that every day, we tell the truth. When confronted, we must tell before we write and even when we write, I believe it is a type of post-orality. When writing, we make drafts and we make changes. We move words around and add in sentences. We come back to it days later and realize something was wrong and we change it.
It is not concrete or as the saying goes, “written in stone” when something is written. Changes can be made before “publishing” and even then, after things are published, interpretations continue beyond that. The reader comes away from it and can add on to this written content with the experiences they have gathered and lived through.
One of the assumptions I take from levelling literacy over orality is the idea that literacy lasts. But as Carlson retells the stories of Mrs Peter and Henry Robinson, paper can be burned and lost. Writing on stone can be broken or misplaced. It can erode and become illegible.
I believe orality, like Carlson says, is yet another way of knowing. As I sit in lectures, I don’t often question my professor’s spoken information. I’ve learned from them and oral Salish stories operate in a similar fashion. The act of speaking is the very same act of writing something down. Once spoken, Salish stories become truths and go out into the world in this way through time and space.
It is interesting to apply this notion of writing the truth to technologies today. Texting is an integral part of our society today, especially among peers, friends, and family. It straddles the border between oral and written language. Although it is written, it is written as if spoken at times. And most of the time, fingers go so fast, nobody takes a second look to what is being typed and interesting things happen.
So yet again, texting is just another way of knowing. Just like writing down stories or telling out loud stories. They are just as authentic. And can equally be untruthful. Not everything written is truth, nor is everything said. But I believe, one should not be considered more advanced or more authentic than the other.
References
Carlson, Keith Thor. “Orality and Literacy: The ‘Black and White’ of Salish History.”Orality & Literacy: Reflectins Across Disciplines. 43-72. Print.
King, Thomas. “Godzilla vs. Post-Colonial.” Unhomely States: Theorizing English-Canadian Postcolonialism. Peterbough, ON: Broadview, 2004. 183- 190. Web. 04 april 2013.
I’m going to through some difficult questions your way! Hope you don’t mind (if anyone else sees this, feel free to weigh in). Is there such thing as truth? What is truth? Is it subjective?
Nice comment about texting, by the way. The internet’s ability to give voice to so many polar and whacky individuals really challenges the authority of literacy. We can no longer trust what’s in print. The author is just someone else with an opinion.
That is one difficult question!
I do think it is subjective. Everything you do, you do emotionally. So the way you do things, think, and look at things affects the “truth” of the situation. I’ve been through many times where my sister will say something to me and I would think it sounded mean but she would think the opposite.
Facts and numbers on the other hand… I think there is a level of subjectivity to that too. If you don’t like statistics, then any statistic you see or hear, you won’t treat it as “truth” or go find another statistic that will render it less truthful. And we always hear theories that are treated as truths being disproven all the time, right?
I like how you discussed the act of “telling” the truth and how we can still go back and change and edit things we have written. I think another point to add about telling the truth and orality is that not only is there pressure for the teller to recall the story correctly, but also now, for the listener, to pay close attention to the details of the story. The audience is then responsible for how they hear information to pass it on to future listeners.
Yes, I like the point you made about the audience needing to remember well enough in order to re-tell the story. It reminds me of translations and how certain words or phrases mean different things in different languages. And it becomes the translator’s job to pick and choose which words to use or not to use.
Thank you for the comment!
Wonderful post to read, thank you! I find it interesting that oral history and stories seem to fall outside of the realm of reliable in Western culture. That is, if it’s not written down, it seems it a) didn’t happen b) can’t be true or c) is too far from the truth after being transferred and conveyed to many different people. All false though, really, when looking at the importance and emphasis put on the accuracy of oral narratives in First Nations culture. Where does your view of this fall? Do you believe in the idea of interfusional literature that Zara wrote about in her blog, where both written and oral can come together in an effective way to preserve the importance of oral narratives?
Definitely interesting that you touched on texting – it is so much a part of everyday society now, and makes telling a stretch of the truth, or not the truth at all, very easy. Texting has almost eliminated the need to talk on the telephone – I can’t tell you the last time I used a landline, or even my cell, to call a friend instead of firing off a quick text (usually with wonderfully awkward iPhone autocorrect mistakes).
Thank you!
Gillian