The question:
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”.
Right, well before we can begin to look into why such a notion may be nonsensical we best start by attempting to define the concept that is culture. Not an easy task. Culture has not one concrete definition and is rather very dependant on the individual and how they may choose to define it. Personally I cannot even attempt to define culture except as a synonym for the term ‘everything’. You may want to limit it to human achievement, but you don’t have to. Bees have achieved a lot, other primates too. Looking at the question at hand you can see that some may choose to categorize culture into two distinct types. That works too, maybe. No definition is going to make everyone happy and we just have to accept that. But, for the sake of this assignment and because I happen to agree with Chamberlin, I will attempt to persuade you that the oral versus written argument may not make a whole lot of sense.
So, here in Vancouver, what are our cultural boundaries? Does Vancouver have a culture, or Canada? Is it divided further into race or language or sexuality or hair colour? Again, no definitive answer. But to claim that certain cultures are “written” and others are “oral” clearly is too simple a concept. Chamberlin provides us with a decent example of how this logic is flawed when he gives us the example of “central institutions” within the category of “written cultures” (Chamberlin, 19). Courts and churches and schools are obvious places which rely heavily on written cultural documentation. Churches have some kind of widely accepted scripture, courts have written laws, and schools have textbooks from which children read and learn some elements of culture, one would assume. But these institutions are also centres for oral traditions or at least some kind of passing of knowledge by way of speaking. Imagine a school or a church or a court without teachers, judges, lawyers, and clergypeople. And they do not only recite, rather they emit culture.
Chamberlin seems to be suggesting that culture(s) are intrinsically and simultaneously oral and written and cannot be one or the other. He states that “speech and writing are so entangled with each other in our various forms and performance of language that we are like Penelope, weaving them together during the day and unweaving them at night” (Chamberlin, 149). I would add that culture is more than just saying stuff and writing stuff down. Emotion and other senses come into play to some degree which varies person to person. Another aspect of culture is time and evolution. Over time culture changes and adapts and these changes do not make it lesser. Technology brings yet another aspect that must be considered when defining culture and this has been true from the time that the concept of culture was born and even before that because culture cannot be defined and exists whether we define it or not (in my definition).
This “Great Divide” which MacNeil outlines, is nothing more than an attempt to break culture down into more manageable pieces. But and Chamberlin notes, oral and written cultures are intertwined and inseparable. There is no defining moment in which culture ceased being oral and began being written. Rather, culture is on a continuum that is ever-changing and evolving. Take a look at what we might call Canadian culture. Does Canada have culture or are we too multicultural to have culture as some would argue? For me, culture includes things like food and music, art and humor among others. Many of the things I consider to be culture do not come from a text or at least don’t have to. Yes, breaking culture down can be useful in some instances but the reality is that culture has no boundaries.
Works Cited:
Chamberlin, J. Edward. If This Is Your Land, Where Are Your Stories?: Finding Common Ground. Toronto: Vintage Canada, 2004. Print.
Chamberlin, J. Edward. “A New History of Reading: Hunting, Tracking, and Reading.” For the Geography of a Soul: Emerging Perspectives on Kamau Brathwait. Ed. Timothy J. Reiss, 145-64. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press. 2001. Web. January 21, 2016
Macneil, Courtney. “Orality.” The Chicago School of Media Theory. Uchicagoedublogs. 2007. Web. January 21 2016.
