Prompt: 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.”
Memory is rhetorical. That is why a speech can be so powerful, whether it is spoken by a politician, priest, or activist. Being able to practice, and then change words on a whim according to the audience, is the driving force behind any great speech. Someone may say, “How are they coming up with all this now?” They are not.
Considering the intersection between an impassioned sermon, and the holy books on a preacher’s mind, it is hard to believe the ‘binary’ between orality and literacy. The former is often considered primitive compared to the latter, because it denotes an inability to read or write. In other words, the written word is “absolutely necessary for the development not only of science but also of history, philosophy, explicative understanding of literature and of any art, and indeed of language itself,” whereas oral tradition is the marker of “tribal man” (Ong 15; McLuhan 26).This false dichotomy espoused by the Toronto School of Communication is what Foley calls the “Great Divide” (Macneil).
As the perceived difference between orality and literature is framed as ‘the key to evolutionary progress,’ it is fitting to note another ‘Great Divide’–the one between science and religion. From the inception of the Scientific Revolution, science was deemed blasphemous by religious folk. Galileo was imprisoned for his advocacy of a heliocentric universe – with the sun at the center. However, the thing that shook the world the most was probably Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. Upon hearing about Darwin’s theories, the wife of the Bishop of Worchester said, “Descended from apes! My dear, let us hope that is not true, but if it is, let us pray that it does not become generally known” (Soma).
Nonetheless, it was not necessarily his belief that we descended from apes that was the most insulting (although that was certainly up there) but that he insisted evolution was a “blind process,” and therefore divorced from God’s plan–according to other interpretations. “Survival of the fittest” was coined not by Darwin, but by Herbert Spencer, who assumed there was an end goal… which sounded a lot like upper class Europeans (Soma). This is important to know, because it reinforced the ethnocentrism used to justify colonialism.
There are other big, well-known conceptualized binaries–mind vs. body; nature vs. nurture–which are often resolved in a not-so-exciting way: “They are both right, you cannot consider one without the other.” It is like the one Chamberlin draws on: “civilized” vs. “barbaric”; Us vs. Them; Somebodies vs. Nobodies. The Greeks called Persians “barbaric” because they didn’t speak Greek, but they both had language (9-12). Not ‘people’ under law, the Gitskan were told that their land was being claimed, and countered: “If this is your land, where are your stories?” (1).
Beowulf is the most famous Old English epic poem, and it celebrates the power of storytelling as much as it does the feats of its titular character. The only existing manuscript is very Christian; before then, it was memorized by bards and recited, and was probably entirely pagan. Whether the pagan or Christian predominates is an interesting discussion in of itself, but suffice to say, both are needed to understand the story.
Chamberlin often references the Odyssey and Iliad, and this is well-taken, because it wasn’t until the 20th century that it was recognized as a part of oral tradition. It was just assumed that they were written by Homer. But in order to have as much knowledge of Mycenean culture as he did, Homer relied on oral tradition rather than Linear B tablets, a script that went out-of-date hundreds of years before his time. Like Beowulf, they use stanza, repetition, dramatic pauses, and rhythmic meter to aid memorization and the power of oration. That power is palpable in one’s inner voice.
“Hector, tamer of horses…”
As Chamberlin says, “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” (151 qf. Paterson). This reminds me of two words–tulku and tjukurrpa; ‘song’ and ‘dreaming’–not known, but understood by those strangers (13-14). Dreams may be just random pieces of memory, but one thing is clear: Each and every night we tell ourselves stories; we weave at day, unweave at night.
Works Cited:
Chamberlin, Edward J. If This Is Your Land, Where Are Your Stories? Finding Common Ground. Toronto: Vintage Ground. 2004. Print.
Chamberlin, Edward J. “A New History of Reading: Hunting, Tracking, and Reading.” For the Geography of a Soul: Emerging Perspectives on Kamau Braithwaite. Ed. Timothy J. Reiss., 145-164. Trenton: Africa World Press, 2001. 151 qf. Erika Paterson’s “Lesson 1:2.” 2015. Web. 22 May 2015.
Macneil, Courtney. “Orality.” The Chicago School of Media Theory. Uchicagoedublogs. 2007. Web. 22 May 2015.
McLuhan, Marshall. “Playboy Interview,” 26 qf. Courtney Macneil’s “Orality.” 2007. Web. 22 May 2015.
Ong, Walter J. Orality and Literacy, 15 qf. Courtney Macneil’s “Orality.” 2007. Web. 22 May 2015.
Soma, Kiran. “Human Behavior 2.” University of British Columbia. West Mall, Vancouver, BC. 1 Apr. 2015. Lecture.
“Minoans and Myceneans: Overview of Greek History.” UCSB.edu. Web. 22 May 2015.
Tietjen, Mary C. Wilson. “God, Fate, and the Hero of ‘Beowulf’.” The Journal of English and Germanic Philology 74.2. (1975): 159-171. Web. 22 May 2015.
Hey Evan!
You have some really interesting references and thought-provoking points. McLuhan has an interesting theory about language, the alphabet and words: everything is meaningless. Anything and everything only has meaning because we (people) provide anything and everything with meaning. For example: if we think about the alphabet in terms of its existence it is truly meaningless. That is, until we provide each letter with a role (a place in a word, a specific sound).
I love that you draw upon the other binaries that exist in our world, particularly “nature vs nurture” as this binary is so unbelievably controversial (especially in the world of psychology).
So, who’s more “barbaric”? The literate human race that has created meaningless symbols to represent their need for meaning and their means for communication, or the oral culture that relied on communication, repetition, memorization (and ultimately rhetoric) to convey language and communication?
Awesome blog 🙂
🙂
Hi Evan, great post! lots to chew on. Thanks for bringing up the historical connection between evolution and ethnocentrism. Chamberlin mentions at one point an early-1900s Australian politician who said that evolution mandates the “progress of the white man” over other races (p. 53). But using evolution to justify conquest is like Newton celebrating his theory of gravity by leaping from a roof. There is still a lot of work to be done in poring over modern ideas in search of this type of bias.
I also like your discussion of Homer and how it connects to our understanding of orature. Features of speech like rhythm and cadence prove to be just as important in the written word as in the spoken, which shows how these media are intertwined. This duality seems to be represented most strongly in the figure of Homer himself, who is often seen as a bridge between spoken myths and written ones.
Look forward to reading more from you. Cheers!
🙂
Hi Evan. I am fascinated by your bold claim with which you opened your article: “Memory is rhetorical”, partly because I am currently taking a course in classical rhetoric! In the vein of Socratic dialectical method, perhaps you might define what exactly do you mean when you say that memory is rhetorical, but for the moment I will assume that you mean to say that memory is based in language. I don’t think that all memories are encoded in words, although they to be the biggest component, but that they can also incorporate all five senses.
Having just done my reading for the classical rhetoric class on Phaedrus, I can’t help but notice that Plato (speaking through Socrates) actually gives speeches greater value over writing. Socrates argues that writing is not sensitive to the audience and cannot adjust its content to suit the personality of the listener. Furthermore, he argues that writing simply remind the reader of the truth that they already know and have acquired, and without having known that truth the letters on the page do not make any sense or have no power to persuade. Perhaps there are more examples of esteemed thinkers and philosophers in the Western tradition who also give greater value to oral traditions than letters?
I love how you mention Plato spoke through Socrates, because that is kind of an intersection between literacy and orality. His most famous works are Socratic dialogues between his teacher Socrates, and a younger, less wise person. Phaedrus is one example, which I am admittedly not so familiar with not being a Philosophy student myself, but my favourite may be The Republic, or at least the Allegory of the Cave. As the Allegory of the Cave shows that our realities are shaped by our own experience, perhaps forming ‘false realities,’ so it’s often referred to in Psychology (my major).
Which brings me to my next point: I meant that memory denotes experience; but you are absolutely right that it incorporates all five senses. With Plato’s Socrates, he is using his experience to carry forth his rhetoric, but by using dialogues he makes the other side of the argument no less important, as he shows a shift in understanding one may see between teacher and student.
Memory creates an impression of experience, which may not necessarily be fully formed in the case of rote memorization encouraged in many schools – but it’s always a start; and a way to fill in our realities. Memories are faulty, but often profound, and can move us through dreaming.
I used the examples of politician, priest and activist to show how memorization can ensure an ease of language with which one can inspire people, and create the impression of experience. But the storyteller is the most pertinent example I tried to leave implicit, because that experience is powerful whether its stories passed down from generation to generation in Indigenous tribes, or even spooky stories around a campfire delivered by an older supervisor.
Even when we’re reading memories inform our imagination. I agree that all memories can’t be encoded in words, but that allows one to bring their own experience to the forefront. When I was younger, I loved stories with a lot of description in them, but I think as we get older we like more sparse description around dialogue, so we can allow our experience to take over.
Thanks for your comment, it really got me thinking.
Evan,
Let me say that I appreciated your distinction between Darwin’s theory of evolution and Herbert Spencer’s “survival of the fittest.” The tying together of these two thoughts seems to have justified a lot of terrible actions in the past, and certainly gives a sense of validity to opinions like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcSyaR5PwCo
I think that by confusing survival and evolution is one of the worst things we can do as an educated society and something that seems to be still quite rampant in the world. I think it’s a major point of why we still have such income inequality in North America, that we all believe we can get it all by being the best & fittest, and live like kings, instead of realizing that we need to evolve this way of thinking and radically change how wealth is distributed… John Oliver makes a pretty good segment about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfgSEwjAeno
As for your final quote, I was struck when reading the book at how important ‘song’ and ‘dreaming’ actually were. When first mentioned in the book, they almost could have been anything – dignity, pride, outrage, history – but the fact that they were these beautiful concepts that were more important than all of that really struck me. What is the value of language without that beauty?
Best,
-J
Hey Jamie,
Sorry your comment didn’t appear right away. I thought I removed moderation but it held your comment in queue because it had 2 hyperlinks (so annoying).
That Buffy clip made me laugh. But it was a really nervous, sad laugh. Overall, my expression was much like theirs’.
The idea of “survival of the fittest” is true in some ways, but not really what evolution is. Or at least not the full story. “Survival of the fittest” gives way to the “nice guy finishes last” kind of thinking, and the testosterone-fuelled world that we live in that over-compensates in masculine values. When in reality, being an “alpha male” is not necessarily a good thing, and social affiliation and love often wins out. In animals, males with the most testosterone may die early and have the least reproductive success because they were too eager to hunt rather than care for their own young, leaving them vulnerable to predators.
Here is a video that illustrates this very well. Around the 4-5 minute mark, everything changes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4UMyTnlaMY
You bring up income inequality, which is a very good point because socioeconomic status is perhaps the biggest predictor of health, and kind of represents the hierarchy we live in… even though money is kind of like a game we’re playing, where we’re pretending pieces of paper actually have value.
But I’m also thinking about feminism. As a male, I’m sometimes uncomfortable with the term because I think “equalism” would be a better one, but it represents how for the balance between masculinity and femininity to be restored the latter needs a push. I say “restored” because before agriculture men and women were equal. If anything, women were more valued because the practice of gathering was more sustainable than hunting. It wasn’t until the advent of the plough that things started changing, because pulling the plough required a lot of strength and endurance. However, with the technology we have now, it’s kind of ridiculous there’s inequality between genders.
(Here’s a tentative source, but if I find the video I have in mind I’ll post it: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/14/early-men-women-equal-scientists)
Last night, I saw Mad Max: Fury Road, which has a really strong female lead (Mad Max is basically regulated to supporting character). It can be seen as a feminist metaphor and, set in an androgen exploding post-apocalyptic world, it’s well taken. Some have criticized it for being “too white,” but personally, I found the white body paint to be a purposeful overcompensation that grossed me out. You should see it if you haven’t already (maybe I’ll just suggest movies to you from now on haha).
Best regards,
Evan
🙂