The Invention of Photography

Posted on October 27, 2012 by learle

By Lynnette Earle & Jerry Mah (access to Word Document)

Introduction 

The invention of photography and its legacy has changed the world. Photography has modified the phenomenology of reading and writing by enhancing the text only experience. A brief history of this incredible invention will help to pave the road of understanding how it has influenced culture, how it has changed the face of simple text, how it can be used as both a research and storytelling tool, and how it is used in general education.

A Brief History of Photography

The optical principle, discovered by ancient Greeks, is the concept of “light passing through a tiny hole will produce an inverted image on a surface opposite the hole” (Friedman & Ross, 2003, p. 3). The same principle was used for the camera obscura (Latin for darkroom) which allowed for an image to be created, but not printed. The very first permanent image was developed in 1826 by French inventor Joseph Niépce (National Geographic Society, 2012). Louis-Jacques-Mandé Daguerre, inventor of photography, in 1838 made a remarkable discovery, using a combination of a silver plated sheet of copper and a chemical process, thus creating the daguerreotype camera (Daniel, 2004a). And in 1839 when Sir John Herschel “coined the term Photography deriving from the Greek “fos” meaning light and “grafo” – to write” (Tolmachev, 2010).

During the 1800’s there were many firsts for photography; 1839 – first photo of a person, 1845 – first photo of the sun, 1847 – first photo of lightning and war, 1850 – first positive photograph prints on paper, 1851 – wet plate process invented, 1858 – first bird’s-eye view photographs, etc. (National Geographic Society, 2012). In 1888, the beginning of photography as known today, began with the release of the first Kodak camera by George Eastman. Twelve years later in 1900, Kodak introduced the Brownie (a box camera with roll film), which sold for only a dollar (National Geographic Society, 2012). “As early as 1905, [Oskar Barnack] had the idea of reducing the negative format and enlarging the photographs at a later stage. He succeeded in turning this momentous idea into reality 10 years later… [when] he developed the Ur-Leica, arguably the first truly successful small-format camera in the world. The small picture format of 24x36mm was achieved at that time by doubling the 18 x 24 mm cinema format. The photographs created in 1914 were of outstanding quality for the time. Delayed due to WW1, the first Leica (a contraction of Leitz Camera) did not enter series production until 1924 and was introduced to the public in 1925” (Leica Camera AG, 2006). Later, in 1947, the Polaroid camera was invented by Edwin H. Land and released to the public in 1948 (National Geographic Society, 2012).

The dawn of the digital camera began in 1975 when Steven Sasson, an American electrical engineer who worked for Kodak, invented the world’s first digital camera, which was about the size of a toaster (National Geographic Society, 2012). From this point on, the digital camera has continued to change shape and evolve, essentially leading to the demise of Kodak itself. The shift that has occurred throughout the history of photography can be seen as a remediation, “in the sense that a newer medium takes the place of an older one, borrowing and reorganizing the characteristics of [photography] in the older medium and reforming its cultural space” (Bolter, 2001, p. 23). The digital camera of today is a remediation of what Daguerre invented in 1838 and will likely remediate into something new in the future.

[http://prezi.com/-dypfilcaail/history-of-photography/]

Photography’s Effect on Culture

Changes in the manufacturing of the printed book became a significant factor in introducing images. As indicated by Bolter (2011), this remediation from a print only culture altered how people interacted with books. Literacy became more than just writing; photographic images demanded new skills in understanding. This demand for new thought processes pertained not only to common people, but to academics as well. Fischman (2001) describes how early scholars dismissed the credibility of images, questioning their viability as sources of information. At the root of this issue, academics appeared to be conflicted in their self-confidence to interpret photographs.

Academics were not alone in this conflict. Although art enjoyed a close kinship and relationship to photography (Benjamin, 1972), there was conflict within the ranks of artists. Early photographers, many of whom were also artists using daguerreotypes as an aid for painting, were beginning to take on photography as a serious art form. This caused friction within the art community, with debate between traditionalists and innovators. Traditionalists holding ground on previously used mediums and innovators developing photography as a new medium; changing how art was interpreted. Wilkinson (1997) speaks to this decline in relations as a disagreement over “aesthetic consensus” (p. 23). Also driving this change was new technology in typography. These changes occurred through the use of minimal words, captions and bold images; ushering in a new age in print and images.

Transitioning from Text to Mixed Media

Malcom (2004b) indicates that the first printed book with photographs was Fox Talbot’s “The Pencil of Nature” using the calotype process in 1844. By using this book, Talbot was able to promote his patented calotype as a proof of concept. During this time period, Daguerre was also working on a different photographic process. Because Talbot’s process was patented and Daguerre’s was not, the daguerreotype became the more popular of the two.

As time progressed, so did changes that enabled photography’s popularity through ease of use and accessibility. According to Way (2006), the 1860s heralded the introduction of photography in newspapers. By the 1940s to 50s, books on photography were becoming prevalent, as was their status as a serious communication tool. Within the next decade, galleries and museums were starting to show photographs as desired art pieces, with universities offering classes on photography.

With both technological and cultural changes, people responded by learning in a different way. Through research, we can see how these visual images help with memory recall. Ong (2002) stated that photographs can serve as an “aides-mémoires” (p.85). In essence, Ong is suggesting that photographs have the ability to be utilized in a manner which symbolically represents multiple meanings, yet also encodes them for the user.

Due to technology’s ability to create changes in the world, photography would not remain as the sole visual medium. This process of remediation from text only, to the inclusion of pictures, would progress to the next step. MacDougall (2009) posits that stereographs were a necessary invention that helped bridge people between photography and cinema. MacDougall suggests that these complex images were able to convey the idea that photographs could take on new dimensions. As cinema started to take shape and gain in popularity, photography’s influence could still be seen in how early films were shot. MacDougall points to a certain “flatness” in early motion pictures; as if these emerging films were framed pictures with motion attached.

Photographs as Research Tools

It would not take too long before photography would become a serious tool in qualitative studies. Szto, Furman, and Langer (2005) point out how Lewis Hine was able to use photographs of children working in harsh factory conditions as a way to enact child protection laws. As a qualitative research tool, Schwartz (1989) reminds researchers to “…be grounded in the interactive context in which photographs acquire meaning” (p. 120). This refers to a common tendency towards ignoring the processes involved in interpreting and making meaning from images. By enabling a broader focus, researchers can gain a holistic view through a series of pictures. Schwartz indicates that the camera is an essential part of an ethnographer’s toolkit.

As a quantitative research tool, for example, photography has been used in research that focused on ethnic and gender differences, Wondergem and Friedlmeier (2012) examined smiles by analyzing yearbook photos. Prior research indicated that in general, women smiled more in photographs (Brennan-Parks, Goddard, Wilson, & Kinnear, 1991); however, ethnicity and age were not addressed. Wondergem and Friedlmeier’s (2012) research confirmed prior research, with girls smiling more than boys. In addition, they were able to extend research by determining that ethnic differences in smiling started to occur by grade eight. These differences only existed for boys, whereas no appreciable differences occurred with girls. In another example, Clancy and Dollinger (1993) concluded that women included more communal and connected pictures. Males on the other hand were more focused on pictures of physical activities and with their vehicles.

As a mixed methods tool, Margolis (2000) was able to gather quantitative and qualitative data by performing detailed analyses of class pictures. In this study, Margolis was able to identify changing class demographics by examining gender, and ethnicity. Other interesting elements were body language and possible indicators of socio-economic status through clothing and presentation. Also telling, were the lack of images noted by the author for certain classes and ethnicities during select time periods. Margolis speaks to the hidden agenda that classroom images sometimes portray; an example used was happy and well cared for Japanese students during their internment in relocation camps.

Photographs in Education

Photographs Tell A Story

Visual images have had a significant impact on learning. In today’s classroom, picture books are a primary tool in the introduction and development of literacy. Samuels (1970) suggests that books targeting students began as far back as the 1650s when Comenius’ Orbis Pictus was used to teach reading.

As students rise through each grade level, textbooks begin to become a common instructional tool. Because textbooks are a nearly ubiquitous tool in education, they are also significant in their ability to drive school curricula (Sleeter & Grant, 2010). As a learning tool, Hammond (1998) suggests that photographs within textbooks are an essential part of instructional design by making “textual information more palatable” (p. 57). By creating these visual learning hooks, text becomes more meaningful when anchored to an image. Photographs are also an important part of illustrating theories or instruction too difficult to describe by text and too detailed to be illustrated.

Despite the importance of photos to be included in textbook content, there is indifference or a lack of care towards how images are integrated. Masur (1998) suggests that mistakes might include; artists misidentified, images in the wrong orientation, and images from a different time period used to illustrate another. Masur contends that if errors such as these were to happen with written text, the textbooks in question would be considered failures. By taking the appropriate measures and precautions, publishers are able to avoid issues.

Hammond extends the need to create better awareness with publishers. Hammond stresses the importance of how photographs are selected, because of the unintentional “hidden curriculum” they may portray. For example, Sleeter and Grant (2010) determined through their study of fourteen social studies textbooks, that minorities were significantly underrepresented in the photographs chosen. With intentional selection, pictures chosen by publishers and educators can help bridge ethnic and cultural boundaries.

Photography in the Classroom

As mentioned in the previous section, photography is seen throughout literature and classroom instructional aids. According to Howard (1916), the use of pictures, images or photographs aid in making what is read a reality and “give a sense-impression of the literary situation through the eye” (p. 540). Howard adds that “Psychological experiments have proved that impressions received through the eye are, for most persons, far stronger than those received through any other sense avenue” (p. 540). Photography, especially today with its ease of use through digital images, is an invaluable tool for teachers to enliven a lesson. However, as Howard points out, these images are “too often neglected or ignored. Yet we all know from experience and observation that a child upon opening a new book will hurriedly turn its pages to find its pictures, and if none are found, the child in disappointment will lay the book aside as “dry” or uninteresting… Texts should be well illustrated, and teachers should be intent upon utilizing the whole teaching power of the illustrations” (1916, p. 542).

The subject taught does not matter, nor does it matter if the teacher is a photographer or not. Photography in the classroom is an excellent way to enhance a lesson. According to Way, “Teaching photography in art class or integrating photography into other disciplines can provide the types of engaging learning activities that both research and practice say are effective” (2006, p. 9). The key to a balanced education for students of today’s visual literacy explosion, is allowing for cross-curricular activities. FlixelPix, a landscape and reportage photographer, outlines in his blog that photography can be used in many subject areas, other than the obvious courses such as art, journalism, and social studies. Photography can also be used in mathematics courses by measuring or calculating symmetry, shutter speed fractions, aperture, the area of a circle, exposure time, and frame rate of moving images, as well as in science or physics courses by understanding how light works and calculating the focal length in photography (2010).

Empowering students with the ability to be active learners by providing them with a camera with which to take pictures has endless learning opportunities. Teachers should be allowing students “to appropriate digital photography and use it as a means to shift from their usual roles as restricted participants… and engage in sophisticated negotiations with their fellow students as photographic subjects and within the norms of classroom behavior” (Ching, Wang, Shih & Kedem, 2006, p. 366). Way (2006) suggests that by permitting students to become image-makers and -readers, they will learn pertinent communication and problem-solving skills in order to better navigate today’s progressively more challenging and visual culture. The use of photography in the classroom allows for both students and teachers to become more visually literate. Ching, Wang, Shih & Kedem (2006) conducted a study about a photo journal project which not only incorporated visual literacy skills, but promoted “student-centered and meaningful technology integration, and it also proved to be effective in promoting students’ reflections” (p. 368). Reflection through photography can be a powerful tool for students and teachers alike.

According to Moran and Tegano, “for teachers, photography is powerful in its ability to portray complex meanings and practical in the ease of manipulation of photographs as a language of inquiry” (2005, para. 15) which is both generative and constructive. By using photography in this manner, Moran and Tegano state that photography can be a powerful research tool in collaborative knowledge construction and a way to improve practice. It is clear that using photographic documentation as a record of student learning, but also as a way for teachers to create questions about their own teaching, will enhance the learning environment. This form of documentation becomes a conduit for creating teacher-student conversations in a metacognitive manner about the learning that has occurred (New, 1990, 2007).

Conclusion

Photography’s impact has been significant on culture, as a meaning making tool, and has greatly influenced the way we learn. Its ability to remediate print expanded the need for new literacies. Beginning with the ancient Greeks’ invention of the Camera Obscura to the modern processes introduced by Kodak, the art and science behind creating visual images has fully permeated our society. Our ability to tell stories, collect visual evidence, and to use it as a research and learning tool, has demonstrated the uniqueness of this medium. Photography has become an essential tool in our classrooms through providing visual literacy, enabling interdisciplinary connections, student collaboration in sophisticated tasks, and the documentation of learning. We have come to discover that photography is an essential part of our lives.

References

Benjamin, W. (1972). A short history of photography. Screen, 13(1), 5–26. doi:10.1093/screen/13.1.5

Bolter, J. D. (2011). Writing as technology. Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print (2nd ed., pp. 14–26). New York, NY: Routledge.

Brennan-Parks, K., Goddard, M., Wilson, A. E., & Kinnear, L. (1991). Sex differences in smiling as measured in a picture taking task. Sex Roles, 24(5), 375–382. doi:10.1007/BF00288310

Ching, C. C., Wang, X. C., Shih, M. L., & Kedem, Y. (2006). Digital photography and journals in a kindergarten-first-grade classroom: Toward meaningful technology integration in early childhood education. Early Education and Development, 17(3), 347–371. doi:10.1207/s15566935eed1703_3

Clancy, S. M., & Dollinger, S. J. (1993). Photographic depictions of the self: Gender and age differences in social connectedness. Sex Roles, 29(7), 477–495. doi:10.1007/BF00289322

Daniel, M. (2004a, October). Daguerre (1787–1851) and the Invention of Photography. Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Retrieved from http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/dagu/hd_dagu.htm

Daniel, M. (2004b, October). William Henry Fox Talbot (1800–1877) and the Invention of Photography. Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Retrieved from http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/tlbt/hd_tlbt.htm

Fischman, G. E. (2001). Reflections about images, visual culture, and educational research. Educational Researcher, 28–33.

Flixelpix. (2010, July 21). Six applications of photography in education. [weblog comment]. Retrieved from http://www.flixelpix.com/blog/six-applications-of-photography-in-education/

Friedman, A., & Ross, D. S. (2003). History of Photography. Mathematical Models in
Photographic Science, 3–6. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-55755-2_2

Hammond, J. D. (1998). Photography and the “Natives”: Examining the hidden curriculum of photographs in introductory anthropology texts. Visual Studies, 13(2), 57–73. doi:10.1080/14725869808583794

Howard, C. (1916). The use of pictures in teaching literature. The English Journal, 5(8), 539-543. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/800985

Leica Camera AG. (2006).Oskar Barnack: His genius revolutionized photography. Retrieved from http://en.leica-camera.com/culture/history/oskar_barnack/

MacDougall, D. (2009). Anthropology and the cinematic imagination. In C. Morton & E. Edwards (Eds.), Photography, Anthropology and History: Expanding the Frame. Ashgate Publishing Company.

Margolis, E. (2000). Class Pictures: Representations of Race, Gender and Ability in a Century of School Photography. education policy analysis archives, 8(31). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/download/422/545

Masur, L. P. (1998). “ Pictures Have Now Become a Necessity”: The Use of Images in American History Textbooks. The Journal of American History, 84(4), 1409–1424.

Mifflin, J. (2007). Visual archives in perspective: enlarging on historical medical photographs. American Archivist, 70(1), 32–69. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40294449

Moran, M. J. & Tegano, D. W. (2005). Moving toward visual literacy: photography as a language of teacher inquirí. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 7(1). Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v7n1/moran.html

National Geographic Society. (Producer). (2012). National geographic image collection: History of photography. Retrieved from http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/image-collection/

New, R. S. (1990). Projects and Provocations: Preschool Curriculum Ideas from Reggio Emilia, Italy. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED318565

New, R. S. (2007). Reggio Emilia as cultural activity theory in practice. Theory Into Practice, 46(1), 5–13. doi:10.1080/00405840709336543

Ong, W. J. (2002). Writing restructures consciousness. Orality and literacy (pp. 77–114). Routledge.

Samuels, S. J. (1970). Effects of pictures on learning to read, comprehension and attitudes. Review of Educational Research, 40(3), 397-407. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1169373?origin=JSTOR-pdf

Schwartz, D. (1989). Visual ethnography: Using photography in qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology, 12(2), 119–154. doi:10.1007/BF00988995

Sleeter, C. E., & Grant, A. (2010). Race, class, gender, and disability in current textbooks. In E. F. Provenzo, A. N. Shaver, & M. Bello (Eds.), The Textbook as Discourse: Sociocultural Dimensions of American Schoolbooks (pp. 183–215). New York, NY: Routledge.

Szto, P., Furman, R., & Langer, C. (2005). Poetry and Photography An Exploration into Expressive/Creative Qualitative Research. Qualitative Social Work, 4(2), 135–156. doi:10.1177/1473325005052390

Tolmachev, I. (2010, March 15). A History of Photography Part 1: The Beginning. Retrieved from http://photo.tutsplus.com/articles/history/a-history-of-photography-part-1-the-beginning/

Wall, C. (2008). Picturing an occupational identity: Images of teachers in careers and trade union publications 1940–2000. History of Education, 37(2), 317–340. doi:10.1080/00467600701878038

Way, C. (2006). Focus on photography: A curriculum guide. International Center of Photography, New York. Retrieved from http://www.quebecpress.com/pmcodes/fop.pdf

Wilkinson, H. (1997). “The New Heraldry”: Stock Photography, Visual Literacy, and Advertising in 1930s Britain. Journal of Design History, 10(1), 23–38. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1315946

Wondergem, T. R., & Friedlmeier, M. (2012). Gender and ethnic differences in smiling: A yearbook photographs analysis from kindergarten through 12th grade. Sex Roles, 1–9. doi:10.1007/s11199-012-0158-y

Posted in Research Paper | 1 Comment

The Invention of the Telegraph

Posted on October 26, 2012 by Rocky Lam

Introduction

Writing is a technology. Although Plato feared that the emerging technology of writing would one day undermine oral literacy, he was correct in that writing alters the meaning of literacy, and it also greatly enhances and expands our ability to communicate more effectively (Bolter, 2011). Before the digital era, there were technologies that are now considered outdated, but once proliferated and connected the world. With the invention of the telegraph, its inception developed a pivotal turning point in how we communicate with each other (Overholser, 2005). Through its development and implementation in the beginning of the nineteenth century in the United States, the telegraph determined how wars were fought and won, the role in how journalists and newspaper conducted business, and the economic growth that was made possible through mass communication. Although new technologies, such as the telephone, fax machine and internet would ultimately overshadow the telegraph, it once remediated technologies of the past, such as communicating on foot or horses, and opened the door for new possibilities in connecting our world, promoting higher literacy and education.

Its Inception­

The telegraph is a joint invention, where there were many developers that contributed to the different parts of the machine. The incorporation of galvanic batteries, coils of wires, moveable magnets, electro-magnets and counting of the signals to compose the alphabet, when all combined, created an entire telegraph, which allowed communications to transcend physical barriers at almost instantaneous speed (Highton, 1852). This said, the notion of transmitting and receiving messages through wires was popularized by Morse on May 24, 1844, who demonstrated the practicability of the telegraph, and would take over more traditional modes of transportation, such as foot, horse, boat and rail (Kielbowicz, 1987). The development of this first modern communication allowed humans to exert control over information and its activities. Bolter (2001) contends that when a newer technology takes the place of an older one, remediation occurs, where a technology borrows, reorganizes and incorporates characteristics of writing and reforms its cultural space. The implementation of the popularized telegraph in the nineteenth century shaped and redefined the social, cultural and political landscape in the United States.

Civic War and World War One

During the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln used the telegraph to great effect in creating the first “modern war”. By beginning to understand the telegraph’s ability to send and receive “lightning messages”, Lincoln communicated his thoughts and executed warfare tactics to allow the Union army to ultimately prevail over the Confederacy (Wheeler, 2008). Indeed, the telegraph acted as an agent of change in how warfare was conducted and won. Ong (1982) points out that writing is artificial, and through practise, writing, with technology, can be used as a tool to transform human thought. Through the continual advancement of the telegraph, humans are able to make this writing tool to be even more rapid and accurate, sending critical messages to the battlefront during the First World War. Telegraph lines were rendered to be incapable of being taped, where the use of codes and ciphers prevented sensitive information from being revealed to enemy units (Vernam, 1926). In many ways, Morse’s unveiling of this technology transformed how we think of wars, where effective use of communication allowed soldiers to stay more informed, and easily move into position and overcome enemy forces.

Journalism and Newspaper

Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth century, nonlocal news came by post. The Baltimore Sun was one of the first newspapers that changed this process, using telegraph in popular culture. It encouraged public acceptance by using telegraph to gather and share information, and using the penny press to distribute news (Overholser, 2005). Journalism thus experienced major changes in literary practices, especially in how business was conducted. Interestingly, the advent of telegraph did not cause the decline of news received by mail. Although telegraph was a new way for transmission of news, it was expensive, and few people had access to the technology. Messages transcribed in telegraph led to “just the facts” orientation in reporting, where stories were summarized, and skeletonized to save expenses (Overholser, 2005). In ways, high costs in transmission restricted competitive newspaper to streamline and standardize stories, making it more objective than before (Kielbowicz, 1987). Therefore, newspapers continued to use more traditional ways to transport news, such as mail, to obtain news from different perspectives across the country. The two ways of communication, as Bolter claims, remediated and complimented each other, ensuring that news reported were accurate.

Mass Communication

In 1844, Congress decided to implement the first U.S. telegraph line along the existing railway line between Washington D.C. and Baltimore. Investors became more aware of this new technology, and implemented more telegraph stations across major cities, such as the line between New York and Philadelphia. Selling news dominated the use of telegraph, where businesses, foreign news and war updates connected the country (Standage, 1998). By 1850’s, Atack, Bateman, Haines and Margo (2010) points to the spread of the rail network and telegraph lines promoted faster and easer access of communication and accessibility across the country. Urbanization was made possible in the Midwest, and allowed individuals and families to connect with each other.  The telegraph was the first of its kind to bridge the worlds of rural and agriculture, and urban and industrial closer. Furthermore, Shaw (1967) argues that the telegraphic wire gave a platform for presidential campaign to influence voters, where the continual expansion of telegraph facilities, decreasing costs of telegraph news brought an expansion of press associate and reader demand for timely wire news. Through the growth and the popularity of the telegraph, its usage became varied and was enjoyed not only by the privileged, but commoners as well. This allowed the US to enjoy mass literacy and communication and connect the country into a unified front.

Rapid Advance of Technology

Ten years after the invention of the telegraph, the telephone was booming. By the turn of the nineteenth century, there is an estimate of near 2 million telephones used in the U.S. (Standage, 1998). Bolter (2001) argues that new technologies are not neutral, but rather a mediating factor in human behaviour and social change. The telegraph and telephone were merely tools in which to communicate from point-to-point. People needed to control and demonstrate the practicality of the technology to ensure the prospect of mass communication. In many ways, the use of the telegraph met the needs of the culture and became a technology that connected people across the nation. It changed into how newspaper presented their information and facilitated economic growth. The introduction of the fax machine, and internet confirmed the fear of Plato, where writing would undermine the meaning of literacy. However, like Standage (1998) argues, it is part of human nature rather than technology that causes these hopes, fears and misunderstandings. As technologies continues to be more sophisticated, it is important for us to understand how to use the technology effectively to enrich and improve our ability to communicate. 

References

Atack, J., Bateman, F., Haines, M. & Margo, R.(2010). Did Railroads Induce or Follow Economic Growth? Urbanization and Population Growth in the American Midwest, 1850-1860. Social Science History, 34:2, 171-196.

Bolter, Jay David. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print [2nd edition]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Du Boff, R. (1980). Business Demand and the Development of the Telegraph in the United States, 1844-1860. The Business History Review, 54(4), 459-479.

Harlow, H. F. (1983). Fundamentals for preparing psychology journal articles. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 55, 893-896.

Highton, E. (1852). The Electric Telegraph: Its History and Progress. London: John Weale, 59, High Holborn.

Kielbowicz, R. (1987). News Gathering by Mail in the Age of the Telegraph: Adapting to a New Technology. Technology and Culture, 28(1), 26-41.

Mowery D. & Rosenberg, N. (1991). Technology and the Pursuit of Economic Growth. London: Cambridge University Press.

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

Overholser, G., & Jamieson, K.H. (2005). The Institution of American Democracy: The Press. London: Oxford University Press.

Shaw, D. (1967). News Bias and the Telegraph: a study of Historical Change. Journalism Quarterly, Spring, 3-31.

Standage, T. (1998). The Victorian Internet: The Remarkable Story of the Telegraph and the Nineteenth Century’s Online Pioneers. Berkeley: Berkeley publishing group.

Vernam, G. (1926). Cipher Printing Telegraph Systems for Secret Wire and Radio Telegraphic Communications. Transaction A.I.E.E., XLV, 295-301.

Wheeler, T. (2008). Mr. Lincoln’s T-Mails: How Abraham Lincoln Used the Telegraph to Win the Civil War. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.

 

Posted in Research Paper | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

On Paper and Pen

Posted on October 26, 2012 by mckay

Introduction

Today, both paper and pens are a ubiquitous and affordable resource. Pens may carry a cultural value when given as special gifts, yet others are discarded at the first sign of malfunction. Historians have tended to subsume the history of paper within printing and the mass production of books; whereas, paper and pen have acted as both cause and effect of increased literacy throughout history.

Rather than view changes in technology as progress, we hope to frame the reciprocal influences of this technology as “an agent of change without insisting that it works in isolation or in opposition to other aspects of culture” (Bolter, 2011, p.20).

Background

While the focus of this essay is on pen and paper, innumerous materials have been used to record information upon.  Stone, metal, wood, wax, ostraca, clay tablets, papyrus, parchment, vellum, both rag and pulp papers have all been selected at various times as most appropriate. Writing tools have also taken many forms: brushes, reed pens, quills, fountain pens, ball point, etc.

Paper is essentially macerated fibers collected or pressed on flat surfaces. The first form of paper was developed in China roughly around the second century B.C.E. and was initially used for packaging, wrapping, clothes, toiletries, and functions other than writing. Paper, traded as a commodity, made its way through the Islamic world to the west in the eighth century.  It was only later produced in Europe by the twelfth century (Ong, 1982).

Prior to the becoming the dominant writing material in the West, people of the early Middle Ages considered parchment to be superior. It was more durable, attractive and could be produced locally; unlike papyrus, which was difficult to obtain from Egypt. In the later Middle Ages, when rag paper was introduced from the Far East, paper became the dominant medium because it could be produced locally and in greater amounts (Bolter, 2011).

Papermaking centers multiplied in the thirteenth century. As supply increased, prices dropped. The fifteenth century saw the substitution of wood pulp for rags and further mechanization. Mills started to produce paper in continuous rolls. Mass production continued to evolve to meet rising demands throughout the industrial revolution and into the modern era (Hunter, 2011).

Reciprocal Influences

A tool can have a reciprocal influence upon the culture, both changing the culture and being shaped by the culture that adopts it. In the earliest forms of cuneiform writing, it has been found that over time “symbols lost detail and became increasingly abstracted” (Florey, 2009, p24). This is attributed to the blunt shape of the cuneiform stylus and the nature of using a clay writing surface. The tools did not allow for ease in use while writing, so the culture adapted its symbols. Another significant example of a tools influence over practices would be how limitations of the reed pen influenced the Greeks to adopt the now common Western method of writing from left to right (Bhavnani & John, 1998).

Tools and materials also experience changes as they change hands through trade. Early paper developed in Asia was soft, resembled toilet paper, and intended to be used on only one side. Europeans found this undesirable. Glues were added that made it harder and impervious. In part, these changes are believed to have assisted in the development of the printing press. As an aside, it is historically important to note that China, Japan, and Korea were printing whole books many centuries prior to Gutenberg (Man, 2002).

A new technology may turn out to become revolutionary, but it must exist and work within the existing world. Consider the reciprocal influences between paper and Gutenberg’s printing press.  The paper and scribal inks used in quills were unsuitable for a press. Complex inks had to be specifically developed for a new purpose. Printers had to dampen alternate sheets as existing paper was too coarse and brittle to survive the process. For the paper copies of Gutenberg’s printing of the Bible, locally produced German paper was not of a high enough quality. “Paper for the bible was hauled overland from Italy, as the watermarks reveal” (Man, 2002, p.165).

Technological Determinism

It is tempting to adopt a technologically deterministic perspective; where a new technology marks the end of one period and the beginning of the next.  Technology is not an autonomous factor of progress. It exists within a social, political, and cultural system.

There are also several examples of a technology’s overlapping use. The quill had been used as a writing instrument since 250BC, “but it wasn’t until sometime in the late seventh or eighth century that they became the major writing instrument in the world” (Florey, 2009, p31).  In 750BC, in Hebrew culture, “Parchment appears to have become the normal writing material from this time on for permanent records while administrative matters were still recorded on papyrus.” (Jonston, 2012, Parchment, para. 3).  Wax tablets, which were easily reused, were in use from Antiquity all the way through the Middle Ages.  There are many examples of secondary technologies that have fulfilled specific writing needs not met by the more dominant technologies (Bolter, 2011).  It appears that new mediums must be capable of co-existing with existing ones for an indefinite amount of time.

Power

In 1221 the Holy Roman Empire declared all official documents written on paper to be invalid. This decree was motivated religiously as early paper was considered part of Moslem culture. However, the economic interests of a local industry producing sheep and cattle for parchment and vellum may have been greater factors (Smith, 1881).

Following the fourteenth century, rag paper being far easier to produce, soon became far more plentiful than vellum and parchment. It was an improvement in quantity, not quality, that saw paper become the dominant technology. (Hotchkiss & Robinson, 2008).

The increased production of paper modified social structures and created career opportunities. The ragman, collecting and sorting linens, was an important job (Bloom, 2001). In the fifteenth century, as the demand for professional scribes diminished, some chose to teach penmanship to the emerging educated classes, creating “a new profession that provided the best of them with an excellent living” (Florey, 2009, p.39). In the eighteen hundreds, the clerk was relegated out of a high class career. In the twentieth century, many women entered the workforce working closely with paper in what was considered lower class clerical positions.

Education & Literacy

Throughout history, literacy was one tool used to maintain hegemony. Ancient literacy rates were quite low; however, it is believed that fifteen percent of early Romans were literate, most of them being from the patrician class (Florey, 2009). Throughout much of history a scribe was a craft or a trade practiced by a privileged few. When one can hire a scribe, there was no need to learn to read and write any more than they needed to know how to build a building. (Ong, 1982)

Historically, literacy was restricted to the clergy (Ong, 1982, p.92); however, one early example of an education for the poor and disenfranchised include a decree from the Lateran Council in 1179 that a school be established in every cathedral to provide an education for priests, clerics, and the poor (Gutek, 1995).

Enlightened societies began to value educating the disenfranchised; however this requires materials to be not only available but also affordable. The increased availability of paper also facilitated the rise and spread of secular ideas. The ever increasing rate of paper production was both cause and effect for increased literacy.

“As paper made from rags became more popular, so books became cheaper. Merchants offices and city halls had their scribes, and the scribes acquired assistants and all needed an education, and the teachers needed books, and so literacy spiraled, feeding itself” (Man, 2002, p.87).

Conclusion

Bolter (2001) uses the term ‘remediation’ to describe how a new medium takes the place of another while still paying homage to the present. The new technology emulates the existing, yet offers an improvement or efficiency as rivalry. This explains why today technology products use the term ‘paper-thin’ in advertising; or how a stylus pen is included with a touch capable device. Another example of homage is how research is going towards computer screens that emulate the properties of paper. These prototypes are capable of playing video, while still being flexible enough to bend, and roll, just like paper.

While we may marvel at the present digital world, education is still entrenched in the use of paper. Devices are making their way into the classroom but textbooks, worksheets, and three ring binders have yet to be significantly displaced. Just as the adoption of paper was due to its affordability, perhaps the cost of these alternatives is also the reason paper and pen remain the dominant technology.

Bibliography

Bhavnani, S. K. & John, B. E. (1998). Delegation and Circumvention: Two Faces of Efficiency. CHI 98, 273-280.

Bloom, J. (2001). Paper Before Print: The History and Impact of paper in the Islamic World. New Haven:  Yale University Press.

Bolter, Jay David. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print [2nd edition]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. ISBN: 0-8058-2919-9.

Clifford, G. J. (1984). Buch and Lesen: Historical Perspectives on Literacy and Schooling. Review of Educational Research, 54 (4), 472-500.

Florey, K. (2009). Script & Scribble: The Rise and Fall of Handwriting. Brooklyn, NY: Melville House Publishing.

Gutek, G. (1995). A History of the Western Educational Experience. Proespect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press

Hotchkiss, V. & Robinson, F. (2008). English in Print.  Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Hunter, D .(2011). Papermaking: The History and Technique of an Ancient Craft. Dover Publications

Jonston, G. (2012). The Means of Ancient Communication.  Retrieved from http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/themeansofancientcommunicationpart2.html

Man, J. (2002). Gutenberg: How One Man Remade the World with Words. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

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

Smith, J. E. (1881). A History Of Paper. Dalton: Paper World Press.

Posted in Research Paper | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Shaped by technology

Posted on October 26, 2012 by dlclled

The invention and popularization of the personal computer almost 30 years ago opened the door to the auto-edition era and therefore, to the informal knowledge and use of typography. But typography as a concept has existed since Gutenberg’s invention of the lead movable types letterpress (Winship, 2005) about 550 years ago, an important event in the long history of written word, history that has nearly 5300 years (Fischer, 2004).

Along this history, both chirographic (“[…] pertaining to, or in handwriting” [Oxford,English Dictionary]) and typographic signs have been shaped by several factors that can be summarized in to two main aspects: the cultural and the technological one. For the purposes of this document, in the cultural one, I will subsume all of the factors that are not directly related to the writing instrument and the support (surface of writing) that are considered technological. In this context, technology will be understood as the process of “[…] dealing with the mechanical arts and applied sciences […]” (Oxford,English Dictionary).  In the same way we can now separate the components of a digital device in software and hardware.

To track the influence of technology in the chiro/typographic sign, it is necessary to define a limited and easily identifiable set of formal characteristics. For this document, these characteristics will be:

Contrast: The difference between the thin and thick traces of a sign, being high when there is a notable difference, and low when the difference is barely noticeable. (Bringhurst, 2004)

 

Features: Those elements that add the basic strokes of a letter: mainly serifs and terminals. (Bringhurst, 2004)

 

x-height and width: The former is the height of the lowercase “x” measured from the baseline.  This responds to the fact the the x is the only lowercase letter with relative evenness on its top and bottom. (Bringhurst, 2004) The latter stands for the horizontal proportion of the whole sign.

Although it is very difficult to isolate the evolution of these characteristics in time, we can say the some of them were directly modified by technology since before the invention of the Gutenberg’s letterpress, like contrast or the apparition of the serif. Some others, like the x-height and width were modified since the invention of letterpress, which might be understood as very conscious efforts of adaptation for specific purposes that will be addressed later.

Contrast

Basically, contrast is per se a result of technology, every chiseled tip shaped tool will potentially develop a contrasted trace; in fact, presumably the first writing was made with “ink with a chiseled reed pen” (Fischer, 2004, p. 47).

The most popular of these instruments was the quill. Some authors place its use along its invention in the first century A.D. (Smith, 1901), to the invention of the first metal pen in the second half of the XVIII century; some others, between the 6th century and the first half of the XIX century (Nickell, 2002). Whatever the correct dates are, during all this time, contrast was one of the few stylistic features that could be controlled if not by the writer, by the crafter of the quill, by making the tip wider or narrower.

Serif

According to Edward Catich (1991) the serif was mostly an accident, an error immediately legitimized for being culturally appealing. Apparently, this mistake took place during the monumental roman letters rock carving process. First, letters were traced with brush on the rock by scribes. Then, these letter had to be chiseled by illiterate workers known as masons. As the latter ones did not really know the letters, the limits of each letter were indicated with a line that the carvers mistaken for a part of the letter, originating the serif.

 

It is also possible to infer that this new style of scripting, being a reminiscence of the roman column, was quickly accepted as a roman identity element, but there is no documented evidence to support this inference.

Eventually, serif was accepted and assumed as an integral part of the letter structure, being reproduced in formal hand written documents and later, by the letterpress. The sans-seriffed style did not reappear until the second half of the XVIII century, but it only caused real interest since the XIX century. (Bringhurst, 2004)

The letterpress

Gutenberg’s invention can be considered, by itself, a major technological shift in the history of writing. However, it did not influence the shape of the signs immediately, because early printers tried to imitate handwriting as much as possible (Goudy, 1940).

It was after its popularization that the new media started to manifest its own nature through typography, getting it away from calligraphy and bringing it closer to the geometric forms that characterize it during industrial revolution and modernism. Obviously, the general aspects of typography suffered changes because of this invention.

The next major shift occurred not in the printing process itself, that remained almost unchanged for the next 5 centuries, but in the quality of paper. The responsible of this transformation was John Baskerville, who, during the first half of the XVIII century, allowed the design of fonts with a higher contrast and sharper lines by inventing a not very well known process for smoothing the surface of paper by pressing it against heavy hot cylinders (Meggs, 2011). Basically, by smoothing the printing surface, he augmented the possibility of adding detail to typography design, shaping the typographic style of the time and the following years.

X-height and width

Fitting more text in a page has been a concern since the beginning of writing. Economy, in fact, was one of the main reasons for the development of the gothic script (Gaultney, 2001). The first conscious and successful attempts to modify the design of the letters were made by Pierre Haultin, who in 1559 enlarged the x-height of a relatively small size letter, gaining amount of characters per line ⎯ what Dyson named “character density” (2004, p. 369) ⎯  without sacrificing legibility (Morison, 1997).

This technique was widely used for the design of newspapers along the XX century, and it is still being used for the design of typefaces for the same media. Economy is still an issue, but the characteristics of the printing system are an issue too.

Nowadays, newspapers are printed in a cheap, high speed printing system called rotatory printing press. The speed is directly linked to how fast the ink dries in the paper, so paper is highly porous and ink very fluid, and this characteristics can noticeably affect the integrity of the printed signs. To compensate this, typeface legibility factors are stressed, and x-height among them (Gaultney, 2001).

Condensed and compressed typographical forms as resources of economy started to be used since the XVIII century, and were eventually adopted by newspapers too. But the effects of condensation haven’t been deeply explored (Gaultney, 2001), and usually x-height is considered to be a better solution.

Conclusion

Despite these, many other little changes than can be attributed directly or indirectly to technology occured during the history of chiro/typography, but the ones chosen for this document are, according to my opinion, some of the more influencing, better documented or more noticeable.

Moreover, it is important to mention too that the digital era came along with great changes for the typographic sign, changes that even though are not being considered in this document are very relevant for the history of writing.

REFERENCES

Bringhurst, R. (2004). The elements of typographic style. Hartley & Marks, Publishers.

Catich, E. M., & Gilroy, M. W. (1991). The origin of the serif: Brush writing & roman letters. Catich Gallery, St. Ambrose University.

Dyson, M. C. (2004). How physical text layout affects reading from screen. Behaviour & Information Technology, 23(6), 377-393.

Fischer, S. R. (2004). History of writing. Reaktion Books.

Frutiger, A., & Bluhm, A. (1998). Signs and symbols: Their design and meaning. Watson-Guptill Publications.

Gaultney, V. (2001). Balancing typeface legibility and economy.

Goudy, F. W. (1940). Typologia: Studies in type design & type making, with comments on the invention of typography, the first types, legibility, and fine printing. University of California Press.

Meggs, P. B., & Purvis, A. W. (2011). Meggs’ history of graphic design. Wiley.

Nickell, J., & Hamilton, C. (2002). Pen, ink, & evidence: A study of writing and writing materials for the penman, collector, and document detective. Oak Knoll Press.

Oxford, E. D.“Chirograph, n.”. Retrieved

Oxford, E. D.“Technology, n.”. Retrieved

Smith, A. M. (1901). Printing and writing materials: Their evolution. A.M. Smith.

Tracy, W. (2003). Letters of credit: A view of type design. D.R. Godine.

Winship, G. P. (2005). Gutenberg to plantin an outline of the early history of printing. Kessinger Publishing.

 

Posted in Research Paper | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Modern Science: Indebted to the Printing Press

Posted on October 25, 2012 by troos

The rise of modern empirical science took place in Europe beginning in the late sixteenth century (Huff, 2003, p. 326).  Copernicus’ view of a heliocentric universe, traditionally viewed as the main precursor to modern science, created a disruption of scholarly thought in both religious and academic institutions (Eisenstein, 2005, pp. 231-235; Westman, 1980).  Geocentric theories promoted in ancient science by Aristotle and Ptolemy were now questioned to the extent of producing scholarly disputes.  However, since Copernicus was using information passed on by the ancient Ptolemy as well as the medieval Arab scientists (Huff, 2003, p. 326; Logan, 2004, p. 190), why did modern science not develop among the ancients, the Arabs or the scholarly Chinese?  Huff, in attempting to determine the reasons for the time and location of this development states,

“From a sociological point of view, the question is not whether Copernicus’ theory was true or false or whether it was strongly or poorly supported by observational and logical considerations, but whether a set of cultural institutions, a modicum of neutral space, existed within which the merits of the new system could be debated without personal danger to those who defended it.” (p. 327)

Huff discusses these cultural institutions and the changes occurring in them such as greater participation in scholarly discussion and the benefits of peer review. He states, “These additions to the institutional structure of science had to wait for the arrival of the printing press in the mid-fifteenth century.” (p. 342)  Thus, the printing press played a significant role in the development of modern science.

The Context

            Effectively determining the effect of print on science can only occur by analyzing the state of science prior to the introduction of the printing press.  Ancient Greeks like Aristotle practiced science through logical analysis, subjecting it to and incorporating it within the restraints of philosophy or rationality (Dolby, 1977; Drake, 1970; Huff, 2003, p. 89; Logan, 2004, p. 120).  Medieval universities adopted this study of science.  These universities purposed to transmit the knowledge of the ancients rather than create a climate of critical inquiry through observation (Eamon, 1984; Huff, 2003, p. 181; Logan, 2004, p. 166).

This began changing in the fourteenth century.  Significantly lower religious and bureaucratic restrictions in European universities differentiated them from the Arab and Chinese (Huff, 2003, p. 179).  Increased autonomy allowed free development of curricula based on significant library collections of ancient manuscripts.  Translation of many manuscripts (mainly into Latin (Dolby, 1977)) during the late Middle Ages allowed greater dissemination of scientific ideas among scholars, leading to a growing list of disagreements between various these ideas.  Since rationality and logic could not solve these disputes, an increased emphasis on metaphysics and the search for truth forced scholars to search elsewhere (Logan, 2004).  This mid-fifteenth century climate of science saw the introduction of the printing press.

The Impact

            Several authors have argued the impact of printing on the development of modern science.  Elizabeth Eisenstein (2005) states, “I think the advent of printing ought to be featured more prominently by historians of science when they set the stage for the downfall of Ptolemaic astronomy, Galenic Anatomy, or Aristotelian physics.” (p. 209)  In much stronger language, de Solla Price (1967) argues “If science helped give birth to the printed book, it was clearly the printed book that sent science from its medieval habits straight into the boiling scientific revolution.” (p. 102)  George Sarton (1938) postulates that science was impacted by the printing press in two main ways; the dissemination and standardization of scientific knowledge.

Dissemination

It was not until the late fifteenth to early sixteenth century that distribution of the printed book began affecting the science of the day (Pettegree, 2010).  Print shops depended on profits and since books of science were not in demand, printers did not produce them (Eisenstein, 2005; Febvre & Martin, 1976, pp. 109-127).  Some print shops took over the role of scribes in copying and making available ancient writings but this simply prolonged the university’s style of curriculum and learning in the sciences.  To make book printing for universities profitable, however, print shops began making more copies than ordered (Logan, 2004, p. 189).  They made these copies available to the public, beginning the spread of knowledge outside the university walls.  This led to greater self-education, allowing many more to take on the role of natural scientists (Logan, 2004, p. 189).  Drake (1970) relates the story of Niccolò Tartaglia who had to self-educate due to poverty.  His incredible talent in mathematics led him to become a private tutor and military advisor in the area of artillery.  His lack of education however, did not qualify him for university entrance, yet Tartaglia published a book outlining his mathematical reasoning for projectile motion as well as translation of Euclid’s geometry requiring a significant understanding of Greek and mathematics.

This new, non-institutional education ran in parallel with the development of personal book libraries, making scientific knowledge available to many people (Eisenstein, 1979, p. 511; Logan, 2004, p. 179).  Using personal libraries allowed scientists to focus on applied science rather than travelling around from university to university to gain knowledge from the varied libraries of ancient manuscripts (Westman, 1980).

At the same time, scholars looking for answers to disputes began associating with common people, especially trades people who had developed various technologies to help in their trade (Eamon, 1984; Hirsch, 1950).  This involved the print shop owners since they benefitted from various technologies in the printing process (de Solla Price, 1967).  The resulting reciprocal benefits between scientists and tradespeople led to an increased publication of trade ‘secrets’ in high demand by similar tradespeople and therefore profitable publications for printers.  This relationship grew to the extent that some scientists managed their own print shops alongside their scientific studies.  Drake (1970), citing Rudolf Hirsch states, “Regiomontanus printed in Nurnberg between 1472 and 1476 writings of his teacher, Georg Peurback, and his own, which according to well-informed critics heralded the beginning of modern astronomy and mathematics.” (p. 47)  In another example, Tycho Brahe, an influential Danish astronomer advocating a form of heliocentricity, had a printing press and paper factory built on his property alongside his observatory (Thoren, 1973; Westman, 1980).

Standardization

In addition aiding the diffusion of scientific knowledge, the printing press also led to greater standardization.  Logan (2004) writes, “Typography made possible a new level of standardization of textual material, which in turn promoted greater accuracy.” (p. 191)  Standardization improved the use of images in printed books since they no longer required individually drawn illustrations.  By making multiple copies and editions of the same book in the same location, it was profitable for printers to hire professional wood engravers to carve accurate images for diagrams (Pettegree, 2010, p. 276).  Three significant areas of science benefitting from this were astronomy, anatomy and botany.  These images afforded accurate comparisons, leading to significant growth in collective knowledge.  The diagrams also eased the process of reading and understanding for scientists of different languages.

41 incunabulum by Eric C Bryan, on Flickr

The standardization of the printed book promoted further levels of abstraction in thinking (Eamon, 1984; Logan, 2004, p. 187).  Organizing and classifying information became easier, leading to distinctions in fields of science such as astronomy, chemistry, botany, anatomy, etc.  These increasing distinctions occurred in parallel with the increased publication of printed books focusing on these areas.  Ancient writings often treated several domains of science within one publication so this was a significant change.  At the same time, development of encyclopedic literature took place such as Gesner’s 1545 Bibliotheca universalis, an alphabetical list of authors who had written in Greek, Latin or Hebrew (Pettegree, 2010, pp. 290-296).  Similarly, Albrecht Dürer published an extensive volume of medicinal plants with illustrations in 1530.

Increasing levels of consistency affected the early sixteenth century’s rebirth of interest in the writings of the ancients (Drake, 1970).  Many of the ancient manuscripts were the first of the printed ‘science’ books (Febvre & Martin, 1976, p. 258; Fussel, 2005; Sarton, 1938).  Printers, scholars and translators desired accurate copies of the original manuscripts (Logan, 2004).  Because many university libraries contained copies of copies, many errors and omissions had crept into the text (Eamon, 1984).  In studying science as a branch of philosophy, much of the empirical focus of the ancients was lost, including many diagrams.  In addition, many of the manuscripts had commentaries from unknown authors added to them (Dolby, 1977).  Turning these manuscripts into print revived many missing pieces and deleted the commentaries, increasing their relevance to the current scientific studies.

 Conclusion

            In conclusion, the influence of both standardization and dissemination of scientific knowledge through the printed book led to the development of modern science in Europe.  With reference to distribution of the printed book, Pettegree (2010) states “But soon the potential of the new process became obvious, as did its role as a force for change as it began to make texts accessible on such a scale as to give them an impact which the manuscript book had never achieved.” (p. 248)  In analyzing standardization, Logan (2004) says “The printed medium became transparent and hence its effects more abstract.  Because of the neat and uniform way in which information could be organized on the printed page, typography also increased the trend toward uniformity, classification, and analysis.” (p. 187)  These quotes clearly summarize the impact of Gutenberg’s printing press on the commencement of contemporary science.

References

de Solla Price, D. J. (1967). The Book as a Scientific Instrument Astronomicum Caesareum . Peter Apianus und sein Astronomicum Caesareum by Peter Apianus. Science, New Series, 158(3797), 102–104. doi:10.1126/science.158.3797.102

Dolby, R. G. A. (1977). The Transmission of Science. History of Science, 15(1=27), 1–43. Retrieved from http://pao.chadwyck.com/PDF/1350158463512.pdf

Drake, S. (1970). Early science and the printed book: The spread of science beyond the universities. Renaissance and Reformation/Renaissance et …, 6(3), 43–52. Retrieved from https://www.mediatropes.com/index.php/renref/article/viewFile/14006/10890

Eamon, W. (1984). Arcana Disclosed: The Advent of Printing, the Books of Secrets Tradition and the Development of Experimental Science in the Sixteenth Century. History of Science, 22(2=56), 111–150. Retrieved from http://pao.chadwyck.com/PDF/1350158978227.pdf

Eisenstein, E. L. (1979). The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early-Modern Europe. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Eisenstein, E. L. (2005). The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe (Second – C.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Febvre, L., & Martin, H.-J. (1976). The Coming of the Book: The Impact of Printing, 1450 – 1800. (G. Nowell-Smith & D. Wootton, Eds.) (English -.). Brooklyn, NY: Verso.

Fussel, S. (2005). Gutenberg and the Impact of Printing (English – .). Ashgate: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Hirsch, R. (1950). The invention of printing and the diffusion of alchemical and chemical knowledge. Chymia, 3, 115–141. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/stable/pdfplus/27757149.pdf

Huff, T. E. (2003). The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China and the West (Second.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Logan, R. K. (2004). The Alphabet Effect: A Media Ecology Understanding of the Making of Western Civilization. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.

Pettegree, A. (2010). The Book in the Renaissance. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Sarton, G. (1938). The scientific literature transmitted through the incunabula. Osiris, 5, 41–123+125–245. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/stable/pdfplus/301566.pdf

Thoren, V. (1973). Tycho Brahe: Past and Future Research. History of Science, 11(4=14), 270–282. Retrieved from http://pao.chadwyck.com/PDF/1350157964400.pdf

Westman, R. (1980). The astronomer’s role in the sixteenth century: a preliminary study. History of Science, 18(2=40), 105–147. Retrieved from http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=12572540

Posted in Research Paper | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

First Nations from Orality to Writing

Posted on October 25, 2012 by cmck

First Nations from Orality to Writing

Introduction

Click here for a recording of “Storyteller” by Joan Crate (2008, p. 388).

Until contacted by European explorers and settlers, Canadian First Nations’ communities were what Ong (1982) would call primarily oral. Their stories were essential to their culture because the stories conveyed not only information, but also the voices of ancestors (King, 2003). So, when the Europeans arrived and, in many cases, forced the knowledge of written communication upon the First Nations, their culture began to change.

By looking first at the First Nations’ oral traits, and then at the impact of residential schools and writing, this paper will explore some of the cultural changes that occurred.

First Nations’ Oral Traits

Before discussing how writing affected the First Nations, we must understand the First Nations’ oral traditions before writing took hold. However, the First Nations are diverse, so it is difficult to speak of general traits when differences exist among the different First Nations’ cultures. So, while the following traits are true in a general-sense, it is important to keep in mind that they may not have been true for every First Nations’ cultural group.

The First Nations had a strong oral tradition. Stories, which contained knowledge of history, territory, and other culturally important events, were crucial to their ways of life. Even today, many First Nations’ communities consider their stories to be their most valuable historical information source (Preston, 2005). Because the stories were told orally, the storyteller’s knowledge and interaction with his audience was critical for the communication of knowledge (Preston). The stories were not the storyteller’s, though. They were the stories of his ancestors (King, 2003). Thus, despite Ong’s (1982) assertion that spoken messages come “only from the living” (p. 101), the storyteller believed he spoke with the voices of those who told the stories before him while adding his own pattern to it (King).

To the First Nations, the value of the orally-told history was not found in the facts, which could change with each telling, but in the truths conveyed through the narrative, told by the teller, and interpreted by the listeners (Preston, 2005). The subjective element was so valued by First Nations’ cultures that it could not be removed from their stories (Preston). For instance, emphasis could be placed or removed to further a desired effect (Preston).  Even when telling of his culture’s history, the storyteller filtered the events and analysis through his perspective. The combination of the events and the interpretation allowed the teller to connect past events to current situations and problems as a way of helping the listeners understand the present (Preston). Even though people from a literate culture may question the veracity of an oral story, the storytellers told only what they remembered as truth, and, thus, their words were always accurate according to their experiences (Eigenbrod, 1995).

So, while it would be inaccurate to say that all First Nations’ cultures’ oral traditions contained all of these traits, these are traits that seem to be common among many of the cultures.

Colonialism: Residential Schools

The terrible conditions at residential schools have been well described in many places, but for the purposes of this essay, I’m going to focus on the impact on the First Nations’ languages.

Writing was not necessarily welcomed by the First Nations’ peoples. Instead, it was forced upon them. Similarly, the First Nations did not get to decide how writing would change their education because a new education system was imposed as a way to make the First Nations become more like Westerners (Bedasek & Godlewska, 2009; De Leeuw, 2007). Because the change from primary orality to written communication induces changed ways of thinking (Ong, 1982), sending the First Nations’ children to school made sense from the government’s perspective because the children would learn to write, and therefore, their way of thinking would become more like the white people’s.

Unfortunately, the schools had some success at changing First Nations’ cultures. Canadian institutions have replaced First Nations’ oral, historical narratives with the institutions’ own versions of history (Preston, 2005). As well, one of the most important methods of assimilation was through the removal of the First Nations’ languages. While the removal of language was not completely successful, many First Nations’ languages have been lost because of the residential schools (De Leeuw, 2007). So while writing and a change in educational practices both occurred, they were not usually embraced by those who were being changed.

Impact on the Reception and Telling of Stories

The introduction of writing into the First Nations’ cultures impacted how the First Nations told their stories. Because of the First Nations’ stories often contained a comical tone, which pleased First Nations’ audiences, Westerners who read written versions of the stories did not take them seriously (King, 2003). As well, Westerners began labelling the stories as “myths” or “legends”, which had taken over how Westerners thought of the stories (Preston, 2005).

As a result of being written down and given a decreased significance by outside cultures, the First Nations’ stories changed. For instance, written cultures took the tricksters of the First Nations’ stories and placed them into children’s books; therefore, the trickster had become something no one believed in (Eigenbrod, 1995). Also, the West’s written version of First Nations’ history made the First Nations seem as if they were doomed to be taken over by the superior Westerners (Brownlie, 2009). Even then, the West tended to begin history when the Europeans arrived in North America, and ignored the histories of the First Nations (Brownlie) because the Western historians limited evidence of the First Nations’ history only to written documents (Preston, 2005). This caused conflict whenever the West used writing to control their appropriation of the First Nations’ land, and when the First Nations’, who spoke only what they remembered, remembered the injustice (Eigenbrod, 1995). Thus, the First Nations cultures had changed for the worst because of the introduction of writing and literate colonizers.

In response, the First Nations’ also had to change their own stories in order to regain control. As well, after writing the stories, their versions became more permanent (Ong, 1982) and, thus, accepted alongside the West’s (Brownlie, 2009). As well, the West’s written histories conformed to the value that the West placed on objectivity (Preston, 2005), so they contrasted with the subjectivity of the First Nations’ stories. By writing down their own history so that they would be taken seriously by outsiders, the First Nations removed the subjectivity and context that they valued in their stories. Thus, in the conflict between oral tradition and writing, the writing was winning (Eigenbro, 1995).

Even authors of First Nations descent who wrote for mainstream society faced difficulties because they were aware of the conflict between writing, which was the “colonizer’s medium”, and oral story, which was the First Nations’ medium (Eigenbrod, 1995). One Annishnawbe writer noticed that his stories lost a lot of their humour when written down (Eigenbrod). Similarly, a Metis writer noted that it was difficult to write down stories that had been told orally because orally told stories had to be told to audiences whereas written stories had to be told alone to a piece of paper (Eigenbrod). Eigenbrod also mentioned that the back and forth communication pattern between audience and teller became linear when written down. So, when the First Nations’ oral tradition was overtaken by writing, the First Nations lost not just their oral history, but also their values that the oral stories contained (Preston, 2005).

Conclusion

Stories are an important component of First Nations’ cultures. However, the Canadian government’s imposition of writing as a means of control, and the First Nations’ assimilation into a culture of writing as a means of regaining some of their own control have changed their stories. With more permanence and less humour, the First Nations’ written stories have had to push aside the qualities that their cultures had previously embraced. As a result, the First Nations’ culture has also had to change.

References

Bednasek, C., & Godlewska, A. C. (2009). The influence of betterment discourses on Canadian Aboriginal peoples in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Canadian Geographer, 53(4), 444-461. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0064.2009.00281.x

Brownlie, R. (2009). First Nations perspectives and historical thinking in Canada. In A. M. Timpson (Ed.), First Nations, first thoughts (pp. 21-50). Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

Crate, J. (2005). Storyteller. In D. D. Moses, & T. Goldie (Eds.), An anthology of Canadian Native literature in English.(3rd ed.) (p. 388). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press Canada.

De Leeuw, S. (2007). Intimate colonialisms: The material and experienced places of British Columbia’s residential schools. Canadian Geographer, 51(3), 339-359. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0064.2007.00183.x

Eigenbrod, R. (1995). The oral in the written: a literature between two cultures. Canadian Journal Of Native Studies, 15(1), 89-102.

King, T. (2003). The truth about stories. Toronto, ON: House of Anansi Press Inc.

McCall, S. (2003). “What the map cuts up, the story cuts across”: Translating oral traditions and aboriginal land title. Essays On Canadian Writing, (80), 305-328.

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

Preston, C. (2005). A past of tragic stories: The (non-)treatment of Native Peoples’ oral histories in Canada. Undercurrent, 2(1), 54-64.

Posted in Research Paper | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

A Moderate View

Posted on October 1, 2012 by inscho

In Orality and Literacy, Ong (2002) presents an elaborate account of a well reasoned, and highly detailed, but polarizing description of the social and psychological consequences associated with technological determinism as it applies to literacy and literate culture.  This account sets up a hierarchical structure that places literacy superior to orality.  While he is easy to follow, fascinating, and insightful, Ong’s presentation is unsatisfying in its strong technological determinism and unnecessary hierarchical treatment of orality and literacy.

Ong (2002) neglects to discuss the possibility that literacy and orality can be complementary technologies.  Indeed his consideration of orality as “natural” and writing as “artificial” (p. 82) suggests that he does not fundamentally consider speech as being technology in itself; however, in Chandler’s Biases of the Ear and Eye (1994), Josipocivi reminds us that, “to use language at all is to use an instrument which is forged by others… that is to say… It is never my language, for ‘I’ have no language.” Arguably then, oral language must be a technology, and since it has not gone out of use with the advent of written language, then it must serve some useful purpose and be complementary to written language.  Chandler (1994) presents a list of dichotomies between the spoken and written word that illustrate some complimentary purposes.  These dichotomies include being fluid versus fixed, rhythmic versus ordered, subjective versus objective, resonant versus abstract, present versus timeless, participatory versus detached and communal versus individual.  Each attribute here being neither positive nor negative but is useful in context.

Ong’s discussion of orality as natural and writing as artificial (1967) is further problematic in that he makes the argument by describing the “most arduous discipline” required to learn to write and glibly claiming that human that is physiologically and psychologically capable will learn to speak.  This implies that learning to speak is not so arduous, yet there is evidence to the contrary that it is and it comes from the experience of parents.  Most parents will not hesitate to agree that their children can understand much oral language long before they are able to speak it, but there is a lag between the time a child is psychologically able to understand oral language and when they can produce it even though the physiological change in that time is minimal.  Furthermore, a child who learns baby sign language is often able to use this language long before they can use oral language.  These parental experiences involving babies who are able to understand and produce language before they are able to speak gives evidence that speaking is more arduous than Ong would have one believe.

If orality and literacy are both technologies, then consideration of them as complimentary can be given.  A complimentary relationship demands that one is not subordinate to the other and that each serves a different purpose, but with a common intent.  While it may seem that literacy is a natural progression from orality and even that orality is a necessary condition for literacy, the mere existence of literate people who are mute and hard of hearing dispels that myth.  It is possible to be literate without being oral or even aural, and so orality is not inferior to literacy.  Furthermore, Ong himself (1982) brings attention to the fact that relatively few languages have developed literacy and those that have, do not forsake orailty.  Both orality and literacy serve to express human thought.  They are subordinate to it and they have the common intent to express thought, which they do complimentarily through the dichotomies described earlier.

The subordination of orality and literacy to thought reverses the direction of control in the technological determinism described by Ong, yet a complete pendulum shift to humanism would go too far as well.  This is illustrated in the tendencies of many people who “speak before they think.”

Such detached and polarized theories as these may be used to attempt to understand what is not necessarily well-definable, but are not particularly accurate in describing the complexities and nuances of reality.   A more accurate theory to describe the ways in which we use language is likely to resemble Chandler’s (1995) description of moderate Whorfians that accounts for a two-way interaction between thought and language and also emphasizes the importance of social context.

 

Chandler, Daniel (1994): Biases of the Ear and Eye: “Great Divide” Theories, Phonocentrism, Graphocentrism & Logocentrism [Online] U Retrieved from:  http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/litoral/litoral.

 

Chandler, Daniel (1995): Technological or Media Determinism [Online] Retrieved from: http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/tecdet/tecdet.html

 

 

Ong, Walter (1967): The Presence of the Word: Some Prolegomena for Cultural and Religious History. New York: Simon & Schuster

 

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

Tagged | 2 Comments

Literate Bias in a Literate Society

Posted on October 1, 2012 by leemail

In “Biases of the Ear and Eye”, Chandler outlines some possible problems involved in “Great Divide” theories which create dichotomies based on orality and literacy. In particular he points to the exaggeration of differences found in oral and literate cultures and oversimplification when attributing characteristics to oral or literate societies. A specific danger he mentions is the possibility of seeing non-literate societies as inferior to our own.

Chandler describes phonocentric bias as linking language with speech and considering speech to be more natural and real than writing. Speech comes naturally to children whereas writing is something which must be taught and practiced. As well, speech is necessarily a predecessor to writing, making it the primary ability.

Graphocentric bias values sight over sound and sees non-literate cultures as primitive. As speech is a requirement of writing, writing is seen as a progression which builds upon the ability of speech. Speech becomes the earlier stage: passed through by literate societies, making literate societies more advanced.

Coming from a graphocentric and literate background, it is a challenge to shed bias when Chandler writes that, “Given the biases which we so often encounter or unconsciously adopt, it is perhaps useful to remind ourselves that writing is no ‘better’ than speech, nor vice versa – speech and writing need to be acknowledged as different media with differing functions.” (Chandler, 1994)

To be better is to be more effective. Though it can be acknowledged that speech and language are different media with different functions, a judgment of effectiveness can be made in terms of each medium’s ability to perform a task, or the usefulness of the differing functions given a situation.
When taken to its essence, the primary purpose of media is to inform, entertain or provide some combination of both. Speech and writing are capable of accomplishing these purposes, each with its own strength or weakness.

Those with phonocentric views would argue for speech’s immediacy and realness. In passing information, the information could be explained or defended, adjusting to the understanding of the listener in order to be properly learned. They would argue for the universality of speech; accessible to most human beings who can speak rather than the smaller proportion who can read.

Those with graphocentric views would argue for writing’s permanence and reach. Ideas could be spread across time and space, allowing writers to impact readers whom they may never meet. Ideas could be recorded then built upon, either by the others or the author themselves.

In isolation, both views have their merits. Adding the perspective of the state of information today increases the test of each medium’s effectiveness. A single story or instructional method can be shared personally through either medium, but when the quantity of information is increased to 2.7 zettabytes and distributed worldwide, the limitations of speech become apparent. Such a quantity of information requires organization and indexing in order to be useful, which lends itself to written media. The fact that author and reader are separated, which is sometimes considered a negative aspect of writing, allows for the message to cross great distances.

One difficulty with identifying literate bias is determining how much of the current situation was determined by the prevalence of writing in our culture. The point could be raised by technological determinists that the information exists today because literate cultures permitted or encouraged the storage of information, whereas oral cultures might have streamlined both the content and audience out of necessity.

Chandler states that “we cannot write without bias, but we can learn to become more aware of our biases”. (Chandler, 1994) In investigating our bias, we find that the society created within the context of literate culture is logically best served by a literate medium.

References:
Chandler, D. (1994). Biases of the Ear and Eye. Retrieved, 25 September, 2012 from http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/litoral/litoral.html

Chandler, D. (1994). Engagement with Media: Shaped and Being Shaped. Retrieved, 25 September, 2012 from http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/short/determ.html

Ong, W. J. (2002). Orality and literacy. London: Routledge.

Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Great Leaders’ Technophobia

Posted on October 1, 2012 by Adam Matthews

Upon my visit to the Grand People’s Library in Pyongyang, I saw a room with people accessing information for free, in a public place. I was excited. I wanted to use the North Korean Intranet. My handler set out to help me. He was unsuccessful, the military man beside me who was comfortable surfing his way through the intranet came over, he could not help me. Since the computers were running an English version of Windows XP, I decided to play solitaire. Being unproductive in North Korea seemed just as exciting. As I sat there, moving virtual cards, my handler got upset. He hissed at me to stop. He then started to smack me on the shoulder and in strained, quiet tones commanded me to stop. Technophobia is a powerful tool.

The Great Leaders’ Technophobia

Technophiles “gaze on technology as a lover does on his beloved.” Technophobes “are inclined to speak only of burdens,” new technologies might bring about. (Postman, p4) These two extremes do not exist in our world but parallels can be drawn. Western society, especially the United States of America, has embraced technophilia. In Asia, the second largest economy in the world, China and its small neighbour North Korea are technophobes to varying degrees. 

Quick to adopt the Internet, America now hosts the headquarters of a large number of top technology companies, Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc. Google could not exist without the Internet and is a large supporter of uncensored access to this particular source of information. The government has survived protest and still manages to run the country.

The internet is necessary in order for China’s massive economic growth to exist. Apple and any other company involved in production in China needs unrestricted information transfer. The Internet in China is a much different place than in the USA but mostly noticeable to ex-patriots who want access to Google, facebook, twitter and YouTube. The general Chinese population can search, tweet, friend and watch all they want on government approved, more easily censored software. The internet in China is still the internet, however. You are connected to the world and if you have the means, you can go anywhere you like. The government’s vast resources are used to prevent this from happening. Government controlled information access is necessary for effective government in China.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea uses a different tactic. They have created the illusion of the internet with an intranet accessible and containing information only from within the country. Lacking the seemingly endless growth and cash reserves of China, the DPRK has completely shut down the internet to prevent unauthorized education. The internet is seen in the same way as the printing press was by the church. The printing press, like the internet is capable of “giving rise to theological confusion and shaking the solidity of the church’s traditional teaching.” (O’Donnell) This shaking of traditional teachings is exactly what Pyongyang does not want.

Thamus and Kim Jong Il had a little something in common.

Thamus was a knowledgeable man with great wisdom and leadership to accompany his thoughts. He could not be king otherwise. In his wisdom he saw the power of writing and did not welcome it. He knew that “those who cultivate competence in the use of a new technology become an elite group.” (Postman, p9) Thamus was not part of this elite group. As a member of the old guard, he saw that his oral knowledge monopoly was threatened. The technology of writing would create a knowledge source outside of the king’s control. Knowledge that could be used against him or any future king.

Pyongyang has technical universities with rooms of HP computers and SMART boards. I did not, however see anyone in contact with these technologies beyond the tour guide and a cleaning lady because it was Wednesday and all the students were reading in their dorms. Technologies in North Korea are so strictly controlled that even those with access do not understand how to use them. The inability of my handlers to get the internet working, the mistakenly deleted memory cards at the border are evidence of the effective control of information access to even government approved sources. Print media itself is limited to government sponsored billboards decrying the beauty of this starving country. Oral poets would feel comfortable that true to oral tradition only Great Leaders are allowed to rule. (Ong, p68)

Strict control of technology has allowed the hermit kingdom’s knowledge monopoly to remain undisturbed. Without the wealth of China to back its government censorship campaigns, North Korea uses a more physical approach to control. Both countries rely on the teachings of oral traditions with communist slogans to remind people how happy they really are.

O’Donnell, J.J. The virtual library: An Idea Whose Time Has Passed. Retrieved from Lecture Notes Online Web site: http://web.archive.org/web/20070204034556/http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/virtual.html

Ong, W.J. (2002). Orality and Literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Routledge.

Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Vintage Books.

Internet Censorship in the People’s Republuc of China. In Wikipedia. Retrieved September 30, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China

North Korea. In Wikipedia. Retrieved September 30, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea

Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Critiquing Ong and the Relationship of Literacy to Culture

Posted on October 1, 2012 by tavenia

Walter J. Ong is a renowned scholar, university Professor of English and Humanities in Psychiatry and the author of several highly influential studies on the transformation of human consciousness (Ong, 1982). He is an expert in the field of orality and literacy. Ong believes individuals from a primarily oral culture think differently than individuals from a literate background. He believes that chiefly oral humans perceive their history and culture in a unique way and are impossible to study from a literate perspective. This commentary will discuss Ong’s views on literacy and culture in his 1979 publication, Literacy and Orality in Our Times, as well as in his 1982 book, Orality and Literacy.  To critique Ong, literacy will be presented as a contributing factor, not the exclusive agent which assists in the extension of human consciousness.

Literacy and Culture

The Literate and Non-Literate Mind

In his 1979 publication, Literacy and Orality in Our Times, Ong describes the oral mind as uncomplicated and transparent. Ong claims that “without writing the mind cannot even generate concepts such as ‘history’… just as without print, and the massive accumulation of detailed documented knowledge which print makes possible, the mind cannot generate portmanteau concepts such as ‘culture’” (1979, p.2). With this statement, Ong declares that the non-literate mind cannot comprehend their personal history or cultural heritage. By declaring culture as a portmanteau concept, Ong is suggesting that the non-literate mind is far too simple to understand a topic as diverse as culture. On the contrary, O’Donnell (2007) argues, “it is from roughly the fifth century A.D. that the western Mediterranean and its dependencies to the north and west became wholly, independently Latin, … though their literacy pretensions would be relatively slow developing” (“The Virtual Library”, para. 12). In other words, the people (although non-literate) were still Latin. When they learned to write, these people (now literate) continued to be Latin. Perhaps the literate and non-literate minds do not determine how an individual interprets their history or culture but as Chandler has argued, interpretation is framed by context. Chandler (1994) counterclaims “meaning does not reside in a text but arises in its interpretation, and interpretation is shaped by sociocultural contexts.” (“The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis”, para. 5).

The Literate and Non-Literate Historian

With his 1982 publication, Orality and Literacy, Ong presents a contradictory argument concerning literacy and history. Ong (1982)  suggests that “by storing knowledge outside the mind, writing and, even more, print downgrade the figures of the wise old man and the wise old woman, repeaters of the past, in favour of younger discoverers of something new” (p.41).  In his earlier publication, Ong argues that non-literate individuals cannot comprehend history. Now he is claiming that the literate mind does not appreciate history. Ong (1982) further describes an oral culture as those that know only what they can recall (p.34). He decides that in a literate culture, memory is easier achieved. Ong (1982) explains that a literate person can write down the stories of their past, and can retrieve these stories whenever necessary without having to resort to memory (p.33). A literate individual can write down the stories of the wise old man. He can tell these stories to his grandchildren, who can then tell the same stories to their grandchildren. There is no reason for writing and print to downgrade the figures of the past. If this is true, as Ong suggests it is, it is a personal choice to replace the heroes of the past with present day reincarnations. It is not however the sole result of literate achievement.

The Literate Judgement

Ong declares it to be a challenge for a literate person to judge an individual from a purely oral culture. Ong (1982) argues, “it is perhaps impossible to devise a test in writing or even an oral test shaped in a literate setting that would assess accurately the native intellectual abilities of persons from a highly oral culture” (p.55). Chandler (1994) agrees, he cites an argument from Olson (1994) in which “Ruth Finnegan comments that ‘it is difficult to maintain any clear-cut and radical distinction between those cultures which employ the written word and those that do not’” (“Biases of the Ear and Eye”, para. 4). The argument that oral and literate people have vastly different cultures is troublesome because, as Ong himself declares, it is an impossible task to judge an oral culture from a literate perspective.

Concluding Thoughts

Ong defines a literate and a non-literate mind as two vastly distinct entities. He suggests that oral people cannot comprehend their personal history, and counters this with an argument that only oral people can cherish their history. He has based his professional career writing numerous publications about the non-literate mind, and yet he argues that it is inconceivable that a literate person, such as himself, explain the inner workings of the non-literate brain. Perhaps Ong is admired not because he presents a controversial argument but because, as he has said, “my remarks are intended to be provocative rather than inclusive” (Ong, 1979, p.2).

References

Chandler, D. (1994). Biases of the Ear and Eye: “Great Divide” Theories, Phonocentrism, Graphocentrism & Logocentrism [Online]. Retrieved, 23 September, 2012 from http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/litoral/litoral.html

Chandler, D. (1994). The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis [Online]. Retrieved, 23 September, 2012 from http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/short/whorf.html

O’Donnell, J. J. (2007). The virtual library: An idea whose time has passed [Online]. Wayback Machine Beta. Retrieved, 23 September, 2012 from http://web.archive.org/web/20070204034556/http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/virtual.html

Ong, J. W. (1979). Literacy and orality in our times. Modern Language Association, 1- 7. Retrieved, 27 September, 2012 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25595303

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

Tagged , , , | 1 Comment