ETEC540: Text, Technologies Community Weblog

During the readings of Module 2: From Orality to Literacy there were many times Ong challenged my previous thinking and presented ideas that I had never contemplated.

I have previously classified myself as a reluctant writer. I find the writing task laborious and unnatural where I have always struggled to put my words on a page. However, I was exposed to literature at an early age and reared in a literate culture. Through Ong’s work, Orality and Literacy, I have discovered that I have, “personally interiorized writing” and it affects my thinking process (Ong, 1982, p. 56).  My internal dialogue, for example, on this assignment has been working and reworking phrases over the last week. Ultimately I have written and rewritten this assignment dozens of times both on my computer, on paper and in my head. As a result, I have discovered that this internal dialogue and the challenge of writing is part of the writing process.  As Ong describes, “The need for this exquisite circumspection makes writing the agonizing work it commonly is” (Ong, 1982, p. 103). I have come to the conclusion that I am not a reluctant writer but an agonized writer in a literate culture. I now believe Ong’s assertion that, “More than any other single invention, writing has transformed human consciousness.” (Ong, 1982, p. 77)

Ong presented an idea that Plato had thought of writing as an, “external, alien technology” (Ong, 1982, p. 80) Plato’s early Greek culture had not internalized writing and therefore, warily regarded writing as a technology (Havelock as cited in Ong, 1982, p.80). I had never contemplated that writing is a technology because I have internalized writing as part of my culture. There are two reasons why I consider writing a technology after reading Ong’s chapters. First, From writing’s earliest development, “writing (and especially alphabetic writing) is a technology, calling for the use of tools and other equipment” (Ong, 1982, p. 80) The earliest writing technology consists of prepared surfaces and tools such as; wax tablets, animal skins, wood strips, paper, styli, brushes, pens, inks and paints (Ong, 1982, p.81). Viewing writing with a mechanized lens makes it apparent that it indeed is a technology. A second reason that I consider writing as a technology is because writing is a complex product that is “governed by consciously contrived, articulable rules” (Ong, 1982, p.81) and a “coded system of visible marks” (Ong, 1982, p. 83). A writer must know how to use the codes and rules for the reader to understand what is meant by the writer. These codes and rules are learned over years of practice. Knowing that writing is a technology as previously stated Sherry Turkle in her article Wither Psychoanalysis in Computer Culture , “technologies are never “just tools.” They are evocative objects. They cause us to see ourselves and our world differently” (Turkle, 2004, p.18).

Another idea presented by Ong that surprised me was writing, in a predominantly oral culture, was seen as an unwanted phenomenon. This revelation was incredible to me. It had never occurred to me that Socrates believed that writing, “is inhuman, pretending to establish outside the mind what in reality can be only in the mind” (Ong, 1982, p. 78) and that writing “weakens the mind” (Ong, 1982, p.78). What surprised me the most was that Socrates’ objections to writing echo current day objections of personal computers. Neil Postman expresses reasons, like Socrates, to be wary about technology.

Postman in the opening chapter of his book Technopoly uses the story of Thamus to express his concerns about personal computer technology just as Socrates used it to express his concern about writing technology. Socrates uses the story to condemn writing technology but Postman describes that Thamus made a mistake. “Thamus’ error is in his believing that writing will be a burden to society and nothing but a burden“ (Postman, 1992, p. 4). Postman’s critique is that there are some that only view the good of technology and there are some that only view the burdens of technology.  What are needed are arguments both for and against technology (Postman, 1992, p.5) and the acceptance that “unforeseen consequences” (Postman, 1992, p.15) will occur. I have been to this point in my career a one-sided supporter of technology and have rarely reflected the burdens a technology can bring. This balanced approach, viewing both the benefits and burdens of a technology, is something that I need to incorporate immediately into my decision-making.

References

Ong, W. J. (1982) Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. New York, NY: Routledge.

Postman, N. (1992) The judgement of thamus. In Technopoly: The
surrender of culture to technology. (3-20) New York, NY:Vintage Books.

Turkle, S. (2004) Whiter psychoanalysis in computer
culture?. Psychoanalytic Psychology 21(1), 16-30.

The relics of a purely oral culture are evident in today’s world in a myriad of ways. Yet is not until reading Walter Ong’s book, Orality and Literacy, that it is possible to recognize the vestiges of an oral culture for what they are. In most of the world, communication today presents in a much different way than is the case in earlier or remote oral cultures. Chapter Three of Walter Ong’s Orality and Literacy outlines the psychodynamics of orality. Ong compares several characteristics when he examines orally based thought to cultures where writing has been introduced.
One intriguing characteristic is Ong’s comparison of storytellers and bards of the oral culture to the chirographic storytellers of a literate culture. Not only is rhyme and repetition an important aspect of orality, but so is the use of what literate society refers to as clichés. These clichés act as mnemonic devices, or hangers upon which a story can be built. What is particularly interesting is the fact that storytellers in oral societies changed their stories depending on the audience they were addressing. Ong refers to Parry’s research that finds that learning to read and write disables the oral poet (Ong, p. 59). Even though Ong describes true storytelling as non-transferable to a chirographic culture, it could be argued that this is not a characteristic that is unique to oral society. Even in chirographic cultures, storytellers adapt their stories to their audience. This is particularly true of teachers. Once teachers internalize information, it is, in essence memorized. Each time a teacher teaches a concept they become a storyteller, even actor and bring life to that concept. Each time a teacher teaches that concept, the “audience” is different, their mood (student and teacher) and energy levels are potentially different, and the amount of detail may vary according to the response of the audience or the amount of time available. Just because we know how to write, it may not necessarily follow that our ability to tell stories is irreparably damaged. Perhaps our memory does become weaker in that we can refer back to information when we forget. Certainly, the ability to remember Homerian epics has been lost. There are, however, still storytellers in chirographic cultures.
Another point that Ong makes in his discussion of Homeostatis is that only the relevant stories are remembered in an oral culture. (Ong, p. 46) This is true of chirographic societies as well. While history is recorded, it can be revised according to the whims of those in power at a given time, especially if the record puts those in power in an unfavourable light. Those who wrote the Bible told stories to illustrate their points. Sometimes, they couldn’t agree on which version of the story to keep and so you have situations where both versions are recorded. For example, in Genesis there are two creation stories. At the time of Nicea, approximately 300 years after Christ’s death, there was great debate as to the nature of Christ. Those who had less power (such as the mystics) in the church lost their stories in favor of those that were accepted by the then leaders.
One final area that deserves some comment is Ong’s discussion of how an oral culture is empathetic and participatory rather than objectively distanced (Ong, pp. 45, 46). It is true that one can be more objective when writing and even more distanced when reading. It seems, however, that writing can be both distancing and participatory, depending on the purpose of the writing. Conversational writing, in the form of posts in a forum, or tweets in Twitter or even Facebook could be considered to be participatory and even empathetic. Similarly, reading can be distancing just because we enter the world of the writer. If, however, we know there are readers out there because they are responding to our posts, then it seems that reading and writing become entwined and participatory. Reading Ong’s book, however, and writing a commentary are very distancing activities, as described in the section, Orality, Community and Sacral (Ong, pp. 73, 74). Ong’s reference to reading the Bible was particularly interesting because it made the written word oral and so fulfilled the intention of God speaking to his followers rather than writing to them. Thus, writing may well not be quite so isolating. Rather it is an attempt to connect to others.
While all of the characteristics he attributes to both oral cultures and chirographic cultures are very recognizable, it appears that there are possibly a few grey areas. Ultimately, Ong gives a framework for the continuum from orality to literacy. Chapter 3 certainly sets the stage for our further study as we strive to understand the changing spaces of reading and writing.

Reference:
Ong, W. 1982. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. Methuen, London. pp. 31-76.

                                      Internet users in the modern Library of Alexandria

“The “virtual library” is a dream that many share, something many have imagined but none has  seen. The main features of this vision are a vast, ideally universal collection of information and instantaneous access to that information wherever it physically resides.” (O’Donnell, 1994)

The ideal of a virtual library has been with us since antiquity (O’Donnell, 1994).  Cultures that are dependent on writing have always dreamed of preserving their cultural knowledge in one place.  In his article The Virtual Library: An Idea Whose Time Has Passed, O’Donnell (1994) states that we define a library as “a transmitter of culture from one generation to the next” and a place that is inclusive, static and possible.  The relevant question today is how this dream has changed with the net generation’s attempt to digitize our culture.  Will we now deviate off this long held path and go in a different direction?

O’Donnell (1994) compares the history of this dream to the history of the book by tracing their development from the time of the Library in Alexandria.  He traces Greek and Latin writings and the efforts to organize knowledge to support his opinion:  virtual library as ancient fantasy.  Other cultures and viewpoints are missing in this analysis, therefore this “universal” fantasy is only attributed to Western scholarly tradition.  O’Donnell (1994) makes predictions about the “net community that is coming” that, fifteen years later, seem prophetic and he wonders what will survive of the virtual library fantasy.  He suggests that the components of this fantasy will change.  He predicts that the written word will “weaken” in the face of multimedia.  Certainly, online material is highly hyperlinked, tagged, interactive and not static and are new and better versions of the bibliography.  However, the possibility of connections to video and images lessens the reliance on the written word.  Another prediction is the demise of the author as a single authority which we see now in the growth of collaborative sites such as Wikipedia.  Kelly (2006) predicts that digitized books “will become a web of names and a community of ideas” by strengthening relationships. O’Donnell also points out that discourse will not be fixed or last forever.  In the past, an author could not easily go back and change what was written but that is no longer valid in a world of constant updates easily facilitated by the internet.  The key point that O’Donnell makes is that the very ideal of collecting all cultural knowledge in one place will change.  More importantly, he acknowledges that the old models of expert such as professor, publisher and librarian will disappear if people who fill those roles do not adapt.

“The dream of the virtual library comes forward now, I therefore submit, not because it promises an exciting future, but because it promises a future that will be just like the past only better and faster” (O’Donnell, 1994) but he admits the reality of how it will look is unpredictable.  Because the idea of a digital virtual library seems to resemble the familiar old ideal, it has been embraced but O’Donnell points out that this new library is populated by something that does not resemble the scroll and codex of the past.  It is this change that is most significant and he wonders what it will look like.  The content of the electronic virtual library is difficult to determine.  The primary role of librarians in the past was as curator of what was included or excluded so he asks who will make sense of the vast amounts of information.

The answer that we can provide 15 years later is a combination of public and private companies.  The Google book project launched in 2004 has made the dream of a universal virtual library seem possible as they take on the task of scanning books from research libraries that will become accessible to everyone, not just people with the means to travel to the great libraries (Kelly, 2006).  The Million Book Project is being outsourced to India and China with the aim of making digitized texts available to the developing world (Kelly, 2006) which meets the universal accessibility criteria of a definition of a virtual library according to O’Donnell.  The virtual library cannot function without books so the scanning projects fulfill the role of filling the library with books.  The problem (Kelly, 2006, Grafton, 2007) is the issue of copyright and access to digitized books which in a sense means that private companies in conjunction with publishers may be acting as the new curators, in terms of who has access.

The standard codex book is a relatively stable entity.  In the post codex world, text is unstable due to variations in programming language that render them unreadable (O’Donnell, 1998) or incompatible due to the constant change in software and hardware making it possible to lose data (O’Donnell, 1998, Brand, 1999).  Brand (1999) goes so far as to predict a new “Digital Dark Age” where information will be lost because data is not transferred to the new format.  Brand (1999) states that while more and more digital data is accessible on a global level, the access to information over time is diminishing.   Even with the advent of the “cloud”, storage on remote servers is still subject to access to a computer and the internet and the sustainability of companies like Google to ensure continuing access.  But Kelly (2006) reminds us that while printed books are “immune to technological obsolescence” and people do not want to give them up, they sit alone on the shelf.

Grafton (2007) describes the move to digitize everything as another attempt in a long series starting in Alexandria to create “infotopia” to meet the fantasy of a virtual library. In 1994, O’Donnell predicted that the virtual library of the digital age will not resemble the dream that survived from antiquity and that a new vision will arise because text is no longer static and based on a standard codex book.  Still, books in printed form will continue to occupy the physical space in libraries.  Grafton (2007) suggests that digital forms “will illuminate, rather than eliminate, books” and therefore there will be two paths to information: both digital and physical.

References

Brand, S. (1999).  Escaping the digital dark age. Library Journal. (2)

Prpick, S. (Producer)  (2009). The great library 2.0. Ideas, CBC Radio. Retrieved from                 http://www.podcastdirectory.com/podshows/5043003

Grafton, A. (2007). Future reading:  Digitization and its discontents. The New Yorker, Nov 6.

Kelly, K. (2006). Scan this book! The New York Times Magazine. May 14, 43.

O’Donnell, J.J. (1994). The virtual library: An idea whose time has passed. University of Pennsylvania.

O’Donnell, J.J. (1998) Avatars of the word: From papyrus to cyberspace.  44 -49. Cambridge, MA: Harvard             University Press.

Zerubavel, E. (1996). Social memories: Steps to a sociology of the past. Qualitative Sociology. 19 (3).        Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02393273

http://www.flickr.com/photos/emilyjk/889172557/

"Et tu, Brutus?"

Shakespeare clearly understands the power of the spoken word.  In Julius Caesar, Mark Antony’s famous rhetorical speech at the funeral includes several specifically oral qualities that contribute to his power of persuasion.  An “orally attuned audience,” such as would have existed in Caesar’s world, would be listening carefully for cues about points are important while at the same time expecting to participate in the oratory (Connors, 1986; Gilbert, 1997; Schaeffer, 1996).  A speech in primary oral culture is a collaborative affair between speaker and audience even if the audience is not aware of the fact (Garcia, 2001; Gilbert, 1997; Ong, 1980).  As Connors (1986) suggests, a passive oral collective consciousness made people “peculiarly receptive to certain sorts of carefully wrought oral persuasion.”  This allows speakers to manipulate their listeners, even to the point of “bewitching” them (Connors, 1986, McLuhan, 1962).  Mark Antony casts a powerful spell indeed.

Orators were often leaders in their communities and highly regarded (Connors, 1986).   Their words sometimes took on a magical undertone when the audience was highly engaged and entranced by the rhythm of the delivery and the power of the oral-aural experience.  If Brutus had understood this, he would not have made the fatal mistake of allowing Mark Antony to have the last word on the day.  Mark Antony takes advantage of his position on the agenda to great effect and the crowd stirs itself into an angry mob.

In a primary oral culture, the spoken word is a kind of signature on an oral contract.  It bolsters the credibility of the speaker (Ong, 1982).  Mark Antony uses this oral quality to build the good character of Caesar when he says, “…the word of Caesar might have stood against the world.”  When he says, “I am here to speak what I know” he is trying to gain the trust of the audience through leveraging his “oral signature” against Brutus’ without directly attacking Brutus.

Mark Antony capitalizes on the collective consciousness by coming down from the podium to join the crowd around the coffin.  An important aspect of speaking in front of a crowd is physical presence and body language (de Vet, 2008; Ong, 1982).  Mark Antony uses his physical presence to communicate a bond with both the crowd and Caesar, thus cementing his relationship to his audience.  He brings the crowd together to focus their attention on the reality of the dead body of Caesar.  By mixing with the crowd he becomes one of them, underscoring their mutual feelings without actually saying anything. 

Throughout his speech, Mark Antony uses repetition to drive his message home to the audience.  He speaks of Brutus as “honourable” many times and in this way, he exonerates himself from blame for inciting the crowd to violence against Brutus.  His intention is that people will remember how much he emphasized Brutus’ honour.  Another important repeated message is that Brutus thinks Caesar was ambitious.  Mark Antony refutes Brutus’ argument by providing multiple examples of Caesar’s generosity, his empathic connection to his people, and his refusal of a “kingly crown” offered to him by Mark Antony himself.  With formulaic repetition, he exploits the power of the logos.  Every reference to Brutus’ argument that Caesar’s ambition caused his death is followed by an example of Caesar’s goodness.  These “truths” are then followed by a question for the crowd, “Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?”

By questioning the audience in this way, Mark Antony is inviting them to participate in a kind of dialogue which then engages their emotions.  Rather than telling them that Brutus is a murderer, Mark Antony allows them to make up their own minds about Brutus’ actions.  In so doing, he disengages himself from accusing Brutus while planting the seeds of anger.  Mark Antony mentions mutiny and rage in the context of opposing it, but in the process, he puts an idea in their heads that may not have been there before. He says, “let me not stir you up to such a sudden flood of mutiny” when in fact, this is exactly his intention.  Mark Antony again appeals to the crowd’s emotional state by saying, “O, now you weep; and I perceive you feel the dint of pity:  these are gracious drops.”  He allows the crowd to feel sad about the death of Caesar, making them vulnerable to the emotion of anger over the loss of their leader.  Ong (1982) makes the point that engaging people’s emotions helps them remember the story.  It also helps make the story resonate with the audience and brings them over to the speaker’s side (Duarte, 2010).  In the case of Mark Antony, he wants to convince his audience of Brutus’ evilness while distancing himself from that opinion.  Shakespeare very cleverly achieves this for Mark Antony.

Whether Shakespeare deliberately incorporated features of oral culture into his amazing speech for Mark Antony is unknown, but he does manage to capture the essence of primary orality convincingly.  His gift as a talented wordsmith gives us the opportunity to revisit a past that can never be restored.

 References

Connors, R. J.  (1986).  Greek rhetoric and the transition from orality.  Philosophy & Rhetoric, 19(1), 38-65.

de Vet, T.  (2008).  Context and the emerging story:  Improvised performance in oral and literate societies.  Oral Tradition, 23(1), 159-179. doi: 10.1353/ort.0.0020

Duarte, N.  (2010).  Resonate:  Present visual stories that transform audiences.  Hoboken, NJ:  John Wiley & Sons.

Garcia, J. F.  (2001).  Milman Perry and A. L. Kroeber:  American anthropology and the oral Homer.  Oral Tradition, 16(1), 58-84.  Retrieved from  http://journal.oraltradition.org/files/articles/16i/Garcia.pdf

Gilbert, A.  (1997).  Techniques of persuasion in Julius Caesar and Othello.  Neophiologus, 81(2), 309-323.

McLuhan, M.  (1962).  The Gutenberg galaxy:  The making of typographic man.  Toronto, ON:  University of Toronto Press.

Ong, W. J.  (1982).  Orality and literacy:  The technologizing of the word.  New York, NY:  Routledge.

Ong, W. J.  (1980).  Literacy and the future of print:  Literacy and orality in our times.  Journal of Communication, 30(1), 197-204.

Schaeffer, J. D.  (1996).  The dialectic of orality and literacy:  The case of book 4 of Augustine’s de doctrina christiana.  Modern Language Association, 111(5), 1133-1145.

In Postman’s (1992) Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, the argument of whether technology makes people “cease to exercise their memory and become forgetful” is addressed. The need for educators to scrutinize their technology use is very important as we experiment with new ideas and innovations, in addition to a new type of learner. Technological inventions and innovations, including educational technologies, have constantly been developed throughout man’s time on Earth. Some of these technologies are improved over time while new ones replace some of the old, altogether. Postman proposes that we do not immediately accept new technology as it may harm us more than we know, or even think about. The issue of technology acceptance has risen in education circles as we have recently moved into the information era.

Amiel and Reeves (2008) acknowledge the benefits of technology in that “educational technologies are often viewed not only as solutions to real or perceived inadequacies of traditional instruction, but also as tools for reducing the inequities in educational opportunities around the world”. These technologies, including widespread computer use, make it easier for teachers to communicate with students in far off places with little access to traditional education. Classroom and library technologies make information easier to access and support learning at school and at home. However, Amiel and Reeves (2008) note that, “the tool itself will not change the educational system or even implicitly encourage new pedagogy.” New technologies are tools for change but do not create change by themselves. Computer use in classrooms is being researched in schools around the world but educators cannot seem to agree on their place or purpose in the classroom. Further research needs to be done as new technologies are introduced into schools and society.

Computer technology currently plays a support role in education. The degree of the role it plays should be determined through sound pedagogical practice. Amiel and Reeves (2008) state, “Far too often, researchers are tempted to adapt the educational environment to a new technique or device.” In the case of pencil and paper, this adaptation worked well for many years but the shift to computer technology is still on the table for debate. On the downside, Papert (1980) contends the implementation of computers in classrooms may lead to less human association and exacerbate existing class economic distinctions. On the other hand, Spector (2001) observed, “Educators can represent a great variety of complex phenomena in school settings that would have previously required expensive field trips and only limited opportunities for interaction.” Postman (2008) suggests teachers cannot afford to be technophiles as not every new device will produce the results that were originally intended. Teachers should work together with researchers to weigh the advantages and disadvantages to determine the best practices for technology integration in the classroom.

Learners have changed over time with the advancement of technology. As youth have shifted from working on farms to learning in school and being constantly “plugged in” there has been a transformation in learning paradigms. In Plato’s Phaedrus (Postman, 1992), Thamus is concerned that pupils will, “receive a quantity of information without proper instruction.” We are faced with the same dilemma today in the information era. Students constantly have any information they wish at their fingertips through wireless technology and smartphones. Educators have to teach students how to judge between valuable information and the insignificant. A benefit of the internet is that it allows anyone to publish his or her work without discrimination but a downfall is that much of the information posted is unreliable or inaccurate. Teachers play a role in teaching students to be critical of everything they read, especially when it comes to online publishing.

Postman (1992) wrote, “A new technology does not add or subtract something. It changes everything.” He continued to explain how the printing press changed the way we read and distribute information. We have now entered another major change with worldwide internet use. Important questions remain unanswered in regards to the future of educational technology. What are the long-term effects of lengthy screen time? How does technology use affect learning and memory? How do we compensate for inequalities in access to technology, among different demographics? Moreover, how do we pay for the implementation of the most advantageous technologies in schools? Until these and other related questions are addressed, educators need to be cautious in how they implement technology, and sometimes, even force it upon their students. Some technologies like interactive whiteboards have shown to increase class participation and teach to multiple intelligences but they are also in many classrooms where the teacher only views the technology as a touch screen. Without proper professional development, administrative support and constant guidance, profitable tools will go unused. Our 21st century learners expect their teachers to model proper technology use and teach critical thinking skills, which in turn will assist them far beyond the walls of the classroom.

Bibliography

Amiel, T., and Reeves, T.C. (2008). Design-based research and educational technology: Rethinking technology and the research agenda. Educational Technology and Society. 11 (4). p. 29-40

 
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books. p. 19-37

 
Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York. Vintage. p. 3-20

 
Spector, J.M. (2001). An overview of progress and problems in educational technology. Interactive Educational Mutimedia. (3). p 27-37

 
Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. New York. Methuen.

Speech echoes within the self, and is based on immediate thoughts, built upon interior structures and resonating in the present moment of dynamic sound.  Yet, in order to move beyond the “now” and the limitations of immediacy within a limited frame of reference, technology is required.  Technology enables us to extend our bodies and utilize tools to go beyond our current space into the unknown and extend our curiosity.  As ancient societies sought to preserve their memories, develop new methods of learning and understand different cultures, writing was developed, culminating in the invention of the alphabet.

Writing is a technology, requiring tools, particular surfaces, and specialized substances to ensure durability.  It is a transforming invention, since, according to Ong (1982), it reduces dynamic sound to a quiescent space separating the word from the living presence, thereby removing it from the moment of creation and preserving it.  This invented human technology, as defined by both Walter Ong and Marshal McLuhan (Jackson, 2006), is the material representation of language which goes beyond a set of symbols.  Rather, writing provides for the augmentation of storage, preservation and accuracy of language and memory.  It is a profound technology that not only transforms speech, but also all forms of human interaction, thought and sense of existence.  Oral and aural methods of communication are thereby transformed into a visual object, which is external and in contrast to sound, outside of the body.  This enables a transformation of speech, thought and concept of existence.

Ong (1982) writes that, when the ancient Greeks developed the first alphabet which included vowels, they did something of major psychological importance.  Not only did it give them an advantage over other ancient cultures, the transformation of sound into a visual alphabet provided an abstraction from the vocal world into purely visual components existing in a spatial plane where human sound elements were transformed into letters and letter combinations.  This reduction of sound enabled both the ability to translate other languages, but also provided the technology to move beyond pictures or simple symbols with the deconstruction of each element of sound into its simplest element.  It also simplified learning by providing a standardized visual system of elements of sound, which together produced words, thereby impacting perspective.

In Phaedrus, Socrates speaks of his worries that writing will transform perspective.  Hence the preserved image replaces the true image and the sense of what is real is transferred from a primary reality to a technological manifestation. (Churchill, 2003) In this, writing can be seen as one of the most momentous inventions, since by the transference of speech into the visual, thought is also transformed, and with this, perception and understanding.  In societies based on Orality, the voice and ear are the primary senses through which learning and communication take place.  This is the most natural process, since as humans, we learn to talk and listen far earlier than we learn to write.  What is significant about the transformation from Orality to Literarcy is that sight now becomes an integral part of understanding.  Through sight, we are more able to move beyond the internal experience to a more external perspective.  This provides a connection between the objective and subjective fields of perception and understanding of the relationship between the world and an object, and the self in relation to the objective world.

Ong (1982) states that writing transforms interior consciousness.  It does not well up in the unconscious, a characteristic of the immediacy of sound, but rather through an alienation from the natural, resonating once the alphabet and rules of grammar have been internalized.  In this alienation from the natural, there is a sense of estrangement from self, and according to Gendron (2004), in order to write, the author must, in some sense cease to be, and exist in an empty space.  Writing is therefore outside the subject, similar to Heidegger’s concept of the forward and outward projection of the self. (Gendron, 2004)  The technology of writing thus provides the abstract space within which rational thought and self-reflection can take place.  Yet despite the alienation from the natural, there is a relationship between the spoken and written word.

In researching the relationship between speech and writing, Stähler (2003) describes the spoken word as an expression of a thought, and the written word as an image of the thought.  The image created by writing is further from the thought than the speech, and requires space.  Speech is an instantaneous creation of a sound based on a thought, so it does not require space, is much more natural and exists only as long as the sound persists.  Conversely, writing is the manifestation of a memory that goes beyond the “now” and reveals the passage of time.  With a deep awareness of the passage of time, and an acute sense of past, present and future, deeper consciousness is possible.  This transformation of thought and perception reveals the profound impact of writing as a technology on the human mind and existence.

The revolutionary act of creating a visual representation of language is such a profound augmentation of language and memory that it produced incredible transformation in society.  There is much research to support the notion that writing produced modernity, modern science, and even formal reasoning. (Jackson, 2006).  Since formal reasoning depends on the externalization of thought, it cannot exist without writing or the internalization of writing based on a tradition and culture of literacy.  Gendron (2004) describes Blanchot’s concept of self-estrangement as a requirement of writing, by stating that in order, to write, the author must give him/herself over to the work and in some sense become the work.  In this way, writing transforms our reality and we become the words and exist within the text.

The development of the alphabet, wherein words transformed out of sound into a visual sign, is a profound technological development that led to the development of rational thinking, an extension of memory as well as a transformation of perspective and sense of self.  This technology is perhaps the most significant invention in the history of humanity.  Not only did it introduce the modern, but it changed the way in which we experience time, consciousness and our existence.  Writing, as a technology, enables us to extend our thoughts beyond the present moment, express our ideas in a powerful visual form that provides greater depth of understanding, a universal means of communicating sound visually through the alphabet, as well as a separation of the object from the viewer.  This enrichment of human consciousness and intensification of the interior thought processes, coupled with an alienation from self, provide greater insight into what it means to be human as well as the intricacies of human thought, experience, psyche and curiosity.

Works Cited

Churchill, J. (2003). What Socrates Said to Phaedrus: Reflections on Technology and Education. Midwest Quarterly, 44(2), 211.

Gendron, S. (2004). “A Cogito for the Dissolved Self:” Writing, Presence, and the Subject in the Work of Samuel Beckett, Jacques Derrida, and Gilles Deleuze. Journal of Modern Literature, 28(1), 47-64..

Jackson, T. E. (2006). The De-Composition of Writing in “A Passage to India.”. Journal of Modern Literature, 29(3), 1-18.

Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen.

Stähler, T. (2003). Does Hegel Privilege Speech Over Writing? A Critique of Jacques Derrida. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 11(2), 191.

Do people who originate and develop in a solely oral culture ever reach the quality of thought that is achieved by those who originate and develop with writing in a literate culture? Walter J Ong, in his book Orality and Literacy, wouldn’t agree with the aforementioned hypothesis. In Chapter 4 entitled “Writing restructures consciousness” Ong states that writing is artificial is not to condemn it but to praise it. It is utterly invaluable and indeed essential for the realization of fuller, interior human potentials. Writing heightens consciousness. (Ong 2002, p. 81). Ong therefore believes that writing is a technology which has fundamentally changed that way people think, allowing us to become more analytical in our thoughts. People can argue the hypothesis but there is no debating the issue that literacy can only enhance the learning experience and as educators, we can incorporate some of his beliefs into our teacher to help students reach their full potential.

• Introduce writing at an early age to allow the students to acquire the writing skills necessary to permit them to advance to writing critical analysis skills. Ong states that we need to provide as much writing practice, across all subjects, as we can for students to gradually move towards writing critically (Ong 2002, p. 81). Additionally, literacy needs to be stress across the curriculum, not just in the English (Language Arts) classroom setting but also, the maths, sciences, socials studies settings. The more proper writing practice that students are exposed to, the more likely they will be able to achieve the critical analysis stage of writing.
• Allow students sufficient time and feedback required to achieve the critical analysis level of writing. Too often as educators, we are hastily moving through the curriculum and not allowing time for feedback and reflection. Jack Goody points out in his book The Domestication of the Savage Mind, backward scanning makes it possible in writing to eliminate inconsistencies. Unlike oral cultures, writing, once uttered, outered, put down on the surface, can be eliminated, erased, changed (Goody 177, p. 128). Writing is a process that transcends time, allowing the creator to go back to change, edit and rethink. There is no equivalent for this in the oral performance, no way to erase a spoken word; corrections do not remove an infelicity or an error, they merely supplement it with denial and patchwork. Allowing students to plan, organize, write, edit and revise is the benefits writing has and too often enough, students are given that opportunity to fully appreciate this process allowing them to achieve the critical analysis level of writing.
• When an educator is selecting text, he/she must bear in mind that students need be exposed to sound, fact-based literature that is clearly written. Unlike oral work in writing work, Ong states that the author might be challenged only if he or she could be reached but the author normally cannot be reached in any book (note: some authors are available in this day and age through the internet but I digress). There is no way to directly refute a text. After absolutely total and devastating refutation, it says exactly the same thing as before (Ong 1982, p. 78). The more fact based and less opinionated the literature, the more room for student creativity and critical thinking. It’s not to say that the writer’s opinions do not matter or force students to think critically but over exposure to such biases will start to form in the minds of the students. Ong also suggests that writers need to make themselves clear without gesture, without facial expression, without intonation, without a real hearer, you have to foresee circumspectly all possible meanings a statement may have for any possible reader in any possible situation and you have to make your language work so as to come clear all by itself, with no existential context (Ong 1992, p. 102-103). This is the challenge of the writer (and the educator when selecting literature) to make sure that any material that is used by students is written in a way that the message conveyed is exactly the message that was intended

I agree with Ong in the importance of having a literate education system is invaluable and indeed essential for the realization of fuller, interior human potentials and thus, allows our students to acquire writing critical analysis skills that is essential in the 21st century workforce. However, I do believe in the value that orality plays in this too as many of the knowledge acquire for individuals (especially at an early age) comes from the senses of eyes and ears. The challenge for educators is to try an balance the orality and literacy in our education system to maximize the benefits for students to achieve success and obtain information to allow them to critically analyze.

References
Goody, J. (1977). The Domestication of the Savage Mind (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1977)

Ong, W. (2002) Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen.