Christian Influences on the Transition from Scroll to Codex

Posted on October 26, 2013 by lindsayn

Bolter (2001) argues “the most important visual structure in the medieval codex was the marginal note”. I chose to present my research paper using Google Documents, in order to allow viewers the affordance of annotating the text. Feel at liberty to add marginal comments to the document. Please note that I also attached a Word document of the paper, as Google Documents does not support certain formatting features, particularly a running header.

Lindsay

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IM88fN69lW-0ijhmdSyDJ1lAJxDILCbetLLqapRbl6c/edit
Christian Influences on the Transition from Scroll to Codex

Posted in Research Paper | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Christian Influences on the Transition from Scroll to Codex

Friend or foe?

Posted on October 3, 2013 by cdirks

Technology. Is it friend or foe? Over twenty years ago, Neil Postman wrote his book Technolopoly in an effort to “describe when how and why technology became a particularly dangerous enemy” (Postman, 1992). Even at the time he wrote his book, Postman could already foresee the potential for technology – both good and bad. Though he does set up a rather decent argument for both friend and foe, he is very clear on the fact that there are two very distinct sides and that the potential for either is a reality depending on the moral code of the ‘technology beholder’. “Technology…is both friend and enemy” (Postman, 1992), where that technology has provided the human race with the ability to progress, learn, and adapt to new and different ways of doing things, but with it’s uncontrolled growth it also has the ability to “undermine certain mental processes and social relations that make human life worth living” (Postman, 1992). It would seem that the good and the bad go hand in hand, and whose hand it’s in will determine the friend or foe debate.

The technology that Postman refers to is that which gave human kind the ability to do something that could not be done before, to make a task or job easier, or to gain power over another. The development of new technology created skepticism in some, and fear in others. Fear of change and the ‘unknown’ was a reality for many, and yet others were eager for power and the ability to do what others could not. The ability to write and read provided the power of asynchronous communication and permanence. Knowledge and history could finally be recorded for future generations to read and learn from, a story could be written down and remain unchanged; and an author could, in a sense, achieve a certain level of immortality by leaving his mark in ink.

The power of the word was originally in the power of the speaker of the word, and his ability to remember, memorize, and dramatize it for the listener. New vocabulary arose daily as new words were developed for new situations, items, places, and ideas. Postman states that, “it is a certainty that radical technologies create new definitions of old terms, and that this process takes place without our being fully conscious of it” (Postman, 1992). He touches on the idea that “new technologies introduce new terms to the language…and also modify old words” (Postman, 1992). An example of this would be ‘retronyms’. These are words or phrases that describe old concepts or objects that are either no longer in use, or are considered unique. The phrase ‘snail mail’ was created to differentiate between email and physical mail that is sent through the post system. Another would be ‘rotary phone’, which was needed as an identifier for a phone that was not cordless or a cell phone. After digital clocks became common, analogue clocks needed to be declared as such to avoid the obvious confusion between the two. Everybody uses these new words, but few actually remember when they started using them. Technology and change have a tendency of sneaking up on us.

New technology, new vocabulary, and a new style of education are all coming into play. Postman suggests that, “those who cultivate competence in the use of a new technology become and elite group that are granted undeserved authority and prestige by those who have no such confidence” (Postman, 1992), which reflects on our education system today. An important goal for today’s teachers is to create an equal opportunity learning environment for all students. This means that all students should have the opportunity to “cultivate competence in the use of…new technology” (Postman, 1992), as they all deserve a chance to compete with their peers should they desire entrance into an ‘elite group’. Postman foresaw that education would have to change to accommodate the unprecedented growth and advancement of technology. 21st Century learning skills have been developed and constantly modified to fit in with the demands of our growing global community.

Friend, or foe? Technology, with its many faces, stares back at us from the mirror and there is no going back to the days before we knew it – hand washing and long-hand are at least two that are better off left in a history book. If technology is your friend, you will know it well enough. If it is your foe, you should probably know it even better.

Works Cited
Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York: Knopf.

Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Scientific Mysticism

Posted on October 2, 2013 by benferrel

“The binarism of the comparison transcends the question” (Biakolo, 1999, p. 42).

Has the discussion that pits orality and literacy as two distinct orders of communication transcended the question of communication in a more fundamental form?  Although Biakolo focuses primarily on a line of questioning of Ong’s fundamental binary, this question appears to be at the center of the arc drawn throughout “On the theoretical foundations of orality and literacy” (Biakolo, 1999).

Biakolo enters into the humanistic domain of the analysis of our dogmatic acceptance of science as a rational form for the development of knowledge, compared to the irrational domains of emotion and mysticism.  However, Biakolo provides a strong line of argument that leads to the consideration that the very foundations of scientific and logical rationality rest on “no more than intuition and convention” (p. 53).

In a description of the locust of objective truth that is developed by a work of poetry, Yvor Winters (1943) states that a poem provides a “defensible rational statement about a given human experience” (p. 11).  Winters then suggests that the communicative strengths of a poem provide an additional depth of meaning as they communicate the “emotions which ought to be motivated by that rational understanding of that experience” (p. 11).

Thus, in the writing of Winter and the analysis of Biakolo, the foundations for scientific elitism in the generation of truth and knowledge become eroded.  The assumptions on which modern science was founded have been lost in the piles of information that have been tested to be true, but the empirical evidence provided by science rests on a hollow, dogmatic base.

What does this dogmatic nature of science say then about the orality versus literate binary, or of communication more generally?  In “The politics of meaning”, Ross Winterowd (1980) describes a “scientismic viewpoint where meaning is quantifiable” (p. 271).  It is in the quantifying nature of language, and in particular of written language where proponents of the binary of orality versus literate comparison find the strongest evidence.  Biakolo describes the findings of Hildyard and Olson which they suggest show that individuals who can read have stronger analytical skills of identifying distinctions and discriminating between elements (Biakolo, 1999, p. 57).  Is this a result of superior education or of a fundamental difference in the cognitive operations occurring in the minds of literate versus illiterate individuals?

Ong (1982) describes additive, aggregative, and redundant as being some of the characteristics of orally based thought, supporting his claim that orality is conservative in nature.  As soon as ideas can be recorded, they can be reflected upon and altered.  According to Ong, reflecting upon or changing an epithetic component of an oral culture’s information is potentially catastrophic for the knowledge contained within that oral element.  Thus the mnemonic patterns that hold information in an oral culture must be held tightly or else lost forever.

Biakolo provides a succinct argument for a gradual development of literate cultures involving a diffusion of written communication that originated in semetic cultures, but found a variety of forms throughout its dispersion (p. 46-47).   The notion of a gradual transition from a purely oral culture to a purely literate culture is not completely at odds with Ong’s binary comparison, as he refers several times “oral residues” found in contemporary expressions such as “ red in the morning, sailor’s warning” (p. 35).  However, as Biakolo points out, Ong suggests that a fundamental shift in the nature of conscious thought occurs at the boundary between orality and literate thought patterns (Biakolo, 1999, p. 46).  Does the technology of writing produce a complete shift in thought patterns?  And if so, how does this shift occur if the transition is in fact gradual, and if in fact it is still not completely final even in modern society?

Words capture an idea, and encapsulate it in a form that can be easily transmitted to another individual.  The idea that is trapped within that word is presumed to be known to both the speaker/writer and the listener/reader.  However, the fundamental issue of communication using words is that the convention of meaning cannot be confirmed without authentic engagement with the subject of the idea.  If you say the word tree while pointing at a tree, the meaning is not implicit, but rather explicit.  It is through the connection of experience with a word that we come to understand the meaning of that word.  However, if two individuals came to know the meaning of a word through different experiences, then there is a possibility that their understanding of that word will be different.  Subsequently, as a word is used in an increasing range of circumstances, the meaning of that word takes on new curves and twists, until it becomes difficult to attach the word tree back to the subject of that initial use.

Ong suggests that communication within oral cultures is more directly routed in experience that in literate cultures, but perhaps the source of the shift in cognitive mechanics is not in fact embedded in a transition from oral to literate culture, but rather from a direct experiential engagement with a subject to a progressively more abstract association between subject and experience.  Therefore, societal trends towards specialization and urbanization may in fact produce a similar change in thought patterns of communication as those that Ong attributes to the adoption of writing.

The question of thought, communication, and knowledge must therefore not be so tightly bound to literacy, as Biakolo so affectively argues.  Rather, by stepping over the trappings of binary comparison it is possible to gaze deeper into the routes of the evolution of human thought.

Biakolo, E. A. (1999). On the theoretical foundations of orality and literacy. Research in African Literatures, 30(2), 42-65.

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

Winterowd, W. R. (1980, May). The paradox of the humanities. ADE Bulletin, 64, 2.

Winters, Y. (1943). In defense o freason. Denver: Alan Swallow.

 

Tagged , | Comments Off on Scientific Mysticism

Adapting to External Sources of Information

Posted on October 1, 2013 by mrsingh

“Those who use writing will become forgetful, relying on an external resource for what they lack in internal resources.  Writing weakens the mind.” (Ong 1982, 79)

As Ong describes in Chapter 3 in “Orality and Literacy”(1982), the advent of writing was seen by many as a crutch for the weak.  Prior to writing, all thoughts were stored in one’s mind.  Writing was seen as a coping mechanism for those that did not have the mental capacity to think or to know on their own.  Although, there may be some truth to this, almost everything that we learn today, has been read or learned about through written words.  The whole concept of writing was to store information.  Instead of using the mind to remember things, writing enabled people to write down words and record information for later use.  These words were written down on pages that formed books.  These books were then titled and organized. These books formed libraries and a variety of information from many areas was available to people all around the world.  This expanded what people were able to learn as they were able to access other resources besides what they had taken to memory. When people needed to look for specific information, they could easily find the topic and search for the necessary information.  Writing was a major technological advancement that changed the way people learned, looked for and stored information.

“Writing, Plato has Socrates say in the Phaedrus, is inhuman, pretending to establish outside the mind what in reality can be only in the mind.  It is a thing, a manufactured product.  The same of course is said of computers.” (Ong 1982, 79)

The next major invention that changed the way people categorized and accessed information was the computer.  The computer enabled us to store vast quantities of information in a digital medium in a database.  The database enabled people to access the information very easily through a simple key word search.  The computer was also criticized in a similar way as writing was in the past.  It was looked at as yet another way to access information that was not already known.  Of course, we know that computers are now commonplace and are not only used to store information but help us do a multitude of day to day activities.  Again, with this change in technology, we adapted the way we used and accessed our memory to learn.

“ The internet has become a primary form of external or transactive memory, where information is stored collectively outside ourselves.” (Sparrow 2011, 1)

Logically, the next major innovation or “external source” of information was when the internet came into popular use.  Search engines like Google, helped once again in helping us on our quest for information.  Instead of looking for information in libraries, or even in databases, we were able to answer questions of all kinds by simply typing them into a search engine.  The answer came to us in seconds and once again changed our ability to access information that was not already stored within ourselves. Just like every other innovation in information storage and retrieval before it, Google was looked at as a way of making us reliant on an external source of information.   It is commonplace that when someone doesn’t know the answer to a question, the easiest way to find the answer is to “Google it”.

“Since search engines are continually available to us, we may often be in a state of not feeling we need to encode information internally.  When we need it, we will look it up.” (Sparrow 2011, 2)

One constant in all of these innovations from writing to the use of search engines is the worry that these tools will weaken the mind.  Researchers from Columbia, Wisconsin and Harvard Universities set out to investigate Google’s effect on memory.  Sparrow et al. (2011) study suggested that when people were faced with difficult questions they often would think about computers rather than trying to recall the information themselves.

This idea of thinking of an external source of information (who or where to access the information) instead of recollection of the information itself is called transactive memory.  Transactive memory is not a new concept.  Before the invention of writing and even now to a lesser extent, when someone does not know the answer, transactive memory would tell us to ask someone who does.  Now that information is so accessible, it is easier to type our question into a search engine than to ask someone.  Sparrow believes that people do not use transactive memory for all kinds of knowledge, but in most cases for knowledge that people aren’t accessing on a day to day basis.  If this information is not available from an external source, then people will look internally.

Is this a sign of weakness? This is up for interpretation.  Through the course of time from the invention of writing, computers and search engines, people have constantly adapted in their ways to access external sources of information.  We are constantly looking for the most efficient way to find the answer to our questions.  If we know that information can be found from an external source, we tend not to encode this information, whether it is from the town wiseman or Google.  The fact that we now have so much information at our fingertips, it seem that this is the only way for our brains to adapt.

YouTube Preview Image

References

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

Sparrow, B. , Liu, J., Wegner, D. (2011) Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science Express 1-4 Retrieved from http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~wegner/pdfs/science.1207745.full.pdf

Tagged | 2 Comments

Analyzing Julius Caesar through the lens of Ong’s Orality Framework

Posted on September 30, 2013 by dsouzacl

In his investigation of oral cultures in Orality and Literacy, Ong (1982) attempts to identify knowledge-sharing characteristics unique to these pre-literate societies. Many conclusions are drawn from literature that has been produced from “residually oral cultures,” cultures in which most of the population is illiterate (p.45). Among the referenced literature is the work of William Shakespeare, particularly Julius Caesar. An investigation of the text in Marc Antony’s infamous funeral oration in this play highlight several oral features identified by Ong in his book, characteristics that contribute to its success as a model of persuasive rhetoric.

Ong (1982) states that one of the main features in oral culture is the use of mnemonic patterns to express thinking; thought must come alive “in heavily rhythmic, balanced patterns, in repetitions or antitheses, in alliterations and assonances, in epithetic and other formulary expressions, in standard thematic settings (the assembly, the meal, the duel, the hero’s ‘helper’, and so on), in proverbs which are constantly heard by everyone so that they come to mind readily and which themselves are patterned for retention and ready recall, or in other mnemonic form” (p. 34). The speech made by Marc Antony in Act III, Scene II of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, especially when heard rather than read, highlights a certain rhythmic pattern that makes this address so effective. The rhetoric also includes examples of repetition and antitheses. Antony repeatedly stresses that Brutus said Caesar was “ambitious” and that Brutus is an “honorable man” (Hylton, 1993, Act III, Scene ii). However, these words follow evidence that portrays Caesar as a good friend, a great leader, and a selfless servant of the people rather than a power-hungry leader. The repetition is therefore intended to make the audience question, as Antony does so aloud earlier in his speech, why Brutus’ claim should be trusted. The orator also uses alliteration and assonance in lines such as “to such a sudden flood of mutiny” (III, ii) so that the words linger with his audience.

In addition to these main features of oral text, Ong (1982) states that oral culture emphasizes personal relations within the context of human struggle, and that “…praise goes with the highly polarized, agonistic, oral world of good and evil, virtue and vice, villains and heroes” (p. 45). During the course of his speech, Antony effectively uses praise to shift the attitudes of the mob, convincing them to see Caesar as a tragic hero and thereby vilify the traitorous Brutus and his conspirators who are responsible for the great leader’s demise (Hylton, III,ii). He initially follows along with the crowd, who have just been told by Brutus that they would have been slaves under Caesar but now are free, and states that he is simply here to bury his friend while praising his killers. However, as the aforementioned evidence is presented in favour of the fallen Caesar, he carefully plants seeds of doubt among his listeners as to which character is good and which is evil. Antony then goes on to say that he is not here to stir up a mutiny, but then does exactly this by mentioning to them his finding of Caesar’s will, which he greatly builds up and initially refuses to read aloud for fear of inciting hatred toward Brutus and Cassius. Throughout this passage, praise is injected in the text, not only offered by the speaker Antony, but also by members of the audience. Flattery is apparently a very powerful persuasive tool in oral societies.

Ong also stresses the importance of empathy and participation in oral text (p. 45). Rather than distancing themselves and others from the content in order to provide objectivity, speakers aim to include themselves as well as the audience and characters so that they are all a part of the story. The reader, or viewer, is made to feel like a member of the crowd at this funeral, and some characters from this group of people are given voices to convey the sentiments of the mob in reaction to Antony’s words. Everyone feels included in this moment. Furthermore, by having the mob empathize with himself and Caesar, Antony is able to stir up the targeted feelings of sorrow, hatred, and revenge among his audience before even having to read the contents of the will (Hylton, III, ii). Having the crowd gather around the body, and imagine Caesar’s breaking heart as he is killed by those closest to him, is enough to persuade the crowd to weep for Caesar and attack the villainous conspirators responsible for his murder. Emotion remains a key oral component in persuasive speech; the ability of the orator to share feelings with the audience and convince them to feel a certain way is still critical to success in persuasive rhetoric.

Rhythmic and literary devices to aid memory, constant use of praise, and emphasis on empathy and inclusion are specifically oral features that stand out in this infamous passage from Julius Caesar. These components within cultures comprised of a largely illiterate population contribute to its exemplary standing in persuasive rhetoric. While analyzing literature from oral societies and finding evidence to support Ong’s assertions may prove insightful, the reliability of his conclusions about oral cultures and rhetoric cannot be assured with any certainty.

It is important for students nowadays to learn about the features employed by great persuasive speakers in predominantly oral cultures of the past, as they can trace the origin of characteristics that are still predominant in successful speeches of the modern era, and also learn how rhetoric has changed over time. 

References:

Hylton, J. (1993). “The life and death of Julies Caesar.”  The Complete Works of William Shakespeare. Retrieved from http://shakespeare.mit.edu/julius_caesar/index/html.
Ong, W.J. (1982). Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. New York, NY: Routledge.

Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Analyzing Julius Caesar through the lens of Ong’s Orality Framework

The hierarchy of art or “… working backwards to answers assumed from the start” (Biakolo, 1999)

Posted on September 30, 2013 by gravesn

The canon of literature has historically been biased to western thought. Similarly the debate over the impact of orality versus literacy is also biased to western ideals and as a result literate culture is seen as superior to oral cultures. Walter Ong (1982) in his book argues that literacy fundamentally alters information processing and makes an individual more logical and a culture more scientific. This is compared to orality that leads an individual to be more superstitious and a cultures more ritualistic and religious. This belief is rooted in the idea that technology is a natural indicator of progress and the more technology a culture has the superior it is, however on closer inspection it is evident that the divide between oral cultures and literate cultures is not as great as it seems and that they share as many similarities as they do differences.

One of the major arguments used to distinguish literacy from orality is a comparison between the literature produced by the two cultures. Ong (1982) does a good job in outlining some of the fundamental characteristics of oral literature, and cites specifically Milman Parry’s study of the oral tradition of modern Balkan poets. In summary of Parry’s and other studies Ong (1982) notes oral literature tends to be characterized by repetition and individual focused narrative. This is contrasted to written literature that tends to be more descriptive and analytical. Ong (1982) attributes theses differences as a direct result of the technology used to produce these works, for example writing allows for one to spend more time making lexical choices and reworking the focus of the work, whereas orality forces one to be more spontaneous. It is not wrong to note that there are differences between written literature and oral literature but it is wrong to highlight these differences while ignoring the similarities. Emevwo Biakolo notes it is more important to study a piece of oral literacy on its own terms than to use it as an example of the totality of the oral tradition. Comparing and contrasting individual pieces of art work does not necessarily indicate how the technology used to create that art work shaped the culture or the individual who produced the art work. (Biakolo, 1999) For example novels written by pencils are not less complex than novels written by typewriters. Every culture has produced a lot of “bad” literature and most have produced some “good” literature, this does not mean that one form of technology is better than others or that one culture is more advanced than another, it simply indicates that cultures are just as unique as individuals and the work they produce.

Repetition tends to be considered a key feature of the oral tradition and it is true that the literature of many oral cultures is marked by repetition. In many ways this is colored as a negative, for instance repetition is considered necessary in the oral tradition so that the artist can organize and memorize their material, and also so that the audience can understand the material; essentially because of its inefficiencies in communicating it must repeat itself to get its ideas across. (Biakolo, 1999) The use of repetition is connected to formulaic stories and stock characters, again so that the artist can master their work and the audience can understand it. (Ong, 1982) These techniques are not unique to the oral tradition though and they can also be found as abundantly in written literature, however when noted in the oral tradition these techniques are often highlighted pejoratively. With much of this negativity being associated with the ritualistic and religious nature of oral cultures. The idea being presented by these associations is that oral traditions are conservative and traditional, that they struggle against change and are content to remain stagnant as long as it maintains the status quo. Written literature on the other hand, though it shares many of the same techniques employed in oral tradition is seen as a force of change. (Biakolo, 1999) Thus while oral tradition is marked by magic and tradition, written tradition is marked by exploration and science.

Much of the debate in the comparison of orality to literacy is focused on the struggle between magic and science. To many the greatest achievement of western thought was the development of the scientific process. It was this process that led to a culture that is built upon logic and deductive reasoning. Many of the scholars looking at oral cultures and the traditions there in are as Biakolo (1999) says “… working backwards to answers assumed from the start”, specifically they see scientific thought as the pinnacle of western accomplishment and that oral cultures as a rung on the ladder to achieving this pinnacle. As a result, many examinations of oral cultures and traditions go into the process trying to discover how oral cultures and the individuals there in are different than individuals in literate cultures. This process leads to similarities being ignored, for example though it is true that literate culture has scientific elements it is also true that literate cultures also have many of the religious and conservative elements that are used to describe oral cultures.

As a society and a culture we want to see ourselves as better. It is important that when we look back on our history that we can see a path of progress. Technology is one of the easiest ways to show that our lives have improved and that our society as a whole has developed. Unfortunately by trying to reassure ourselves of our achievements, there has been a tendency to contrast western accomplishments against the accomplishments of other cultures. Ong’s (1982) argument that literacy fundamentally changes how we process information is an example of such an occurrence. The truth behind how cultures develop and how individuals in these cultures process information is much more complicated than their primary technology for communication. This is becoming even clearer as technology becomes more integrated into our lives. This is not to say that these is no differences between oral and literate cultures, but instead that the differences are no more important than the similarities and that we must look at both equally if we are to understand the impact of orality and literacy on a culture.

Works Cited

Biakolo, E. A. (1999). On the theoretical foundations of orality and literacy. Research in African Literatures, 30(2), 42-65.

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

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Willinsky for Open Access to Scholary Publishing

Posted on September 30, 2013 by msheidi

More than a century ago, John Dewey claimed that the education system was limiting the individual and put forth his mandate for democracy in education. He foresaw a society where people shared learning experiences and where freedom of intelligence was fostered (Dewey, 1903). In his article, “Democracy and education: The missing link may be ours,” John Willinsky echoes Dewey’s democratic theory of education in his push for public access to scholarly publishing within the realm of education. Lagging behind the health and political sectors, Willinsky clearly articulates why education needs to be making its research and bodies of knowledge accessible online to the general public.

Willinsky (2002) claims that greater access to educational research will foster education and the pursuit of knowledge, further democratic participation, impact educational practice, and provide an alternative to the media’s coverage on educational issues. While his goal in writing is to present an educational philosophy for public access to scholarly publishing, he does take time to frame his argument within a wider picture. Willinsky recognizes how this shift will necessitate a change in the way knowledge is constructed and how research is documented. He identifies ways that some institutions and libraries are covering expenses to make material available online. Research groups and organizations are also recognized showing that the process of releasing educational research to the general public is underway. Although brief, Willinsky demonstrates a thorough understanding of how making educational research readily available will impact the society and he supports his claims with valid research. Additionally, he suggests some limitations to consider. Willinsky is uncertain of the sustainability of this venture and how it will continue to be funded over time. He also warns that there will be disorder initially as scholars and researchers adjust to a new way of documenting research. The debate over intellectual property will also need reviewing. Willinsky, in his final remarks, states that it will be important to assess the impact of having open access to scholarly publishing on society. What will be the long-term effect on educational practice and policy through this greater dispersal of educational research?

Throughout his article, Willinsky refers to Dewey’s approach to democracy in education. Three areas of focus in Willinsky’s philosophy that should be further examined include the deliberation of content, how it informs society, and the role of media or new technologies to diffuse information. First of all, Dewey (1916) believed that the deliberation of information and knowledge would bring people together to share common goals. Willinsky (2002) supports Dewey’s ideal of it lessening the gap between the “experts” and the public people. However, different from his democratic predecessor, he suggests this greater access does not necessarily lead to one accord in thinking, but rather allows people to recognize, discuss, and debate the pluralities of society. Willinsky suggests this deliberation of knowledge will enable “people to explore the limits of their own and others’ claims while being able to identify the different perspectives and values at play” (Willinsky, 2002, p.8). This communicating of ideas and information could also be paired with the social constructivist-learning model where learners work together to establish a body of knowledge. Dewey (1903) and Glaserfeld (2008) were supportive of the concept that learners build knowledge based on their experiences and through engaging in information with others.

While this availability of information and body of knowledge may improve education, Willinsky (2002) also suggests that it further develops the informed citizen. Through this broadening awareness, society will be exposed to greater perspectives, as well as to explanations for how research and policy-making is conducted. Willinsky contends that this open access of information will educate not only the researcher, but will also be enriching to the public. Consequently, people may become more actively engaged in societal affairs due to their sense of understanding and confidence with the subject matter. This is evidenced by the cases presented concerning the health and political sectors. Becoming informed not only pertains to the reader, but also to the scholar or researcher. Willinsky proposes that by making research accessible to the public, faculty and students will spend greater effort to ensure that their work is credible, documented and explained in such a way to have the most impact. With the goal of creating informed consumers, open access to scholarly work will positively affect both the educational and public spheres.

A final point to consider is how access to scholarly publishing is being made available. Through the use of technology, the academic research can be moved through the public domain and on a global level with ease and speed. This has the potential to empower the people and promote democracy in the exchange of ideas. The caution here, as Willinsky warns (2002), is to ensure that the perspectives are varied and equally represented. Another challenge is the concern of discerning veritable sources of information. Initiatives like the Open Journal System, part of the Public Knowledge Project, are being created to ensure the circulation of publicly-funded research which is verified by their respective institutions. Furthermore, these online journal systems are being developed in a way that enables the integrating of knowledge within a variety of contexts, while at the same time encouraging social interaction (Kopak, 2008).

Overall, Willinsky presents strong reasoning for the public exposure of educational research. While he has some reservations, he is seeking to make scholarly publishing available through his ongoing involvement with the Public Knowledge Project. Only time and ongoing assessment of open source programming will reveal its impact on education and our ever-changing society.

 

References:

Dewey, John. (1903). Democracy in education. The Elementary School Teacher, 4(4), 193-204. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/992653

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.

Kopak, R. (2008). Open access and the open journal systems: Making sense all over. School Libraries Worldwide, 14(2), 45-54. Retrieved from www.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/

Public Knowledge Project. (2013). Public knowledge project.
Retrieved from http://pkp.sfu.ca/

Von Glasersfeld, E. (2008). Learning as a constructive activity. AntiMatters, 2(3), 33-49.
Retrieved from http://anti-matters.org

Willinsky, J. (2002). Democracy and education: The missing link may be ours. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 1-28. Retrieved from www.global.factiva.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca

Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

A Weaker Memory?

Posted on September 29, 2013 by emonks

Since Plato, perhaps even earlier, there have been fears regarding the absolute benefits of writing. Postman (1992) recounts the story of “The Judgement of Thamus” whereby Thamus issues dire warnings regarding his beliefs surrounding writing. As with all changes and technologies, inherently there are benefits and costs associated. Theuth considered writing to be a solution. It would improve memory and wisdom. Thamus considered the opposite to be true. Writing would in fact “be a burden to society” (cited by Postman, 1992) as memory would not be practiced and true wisdom would not be gained.

Today we can look back and consider was King Thamus correct in his warning that writing would weaken memory? If he was correct, does it truly matter? Have we lost the true wisdom that he referred to? In order to better understand Thamus’ concerns, one must first review ‘memory’ and wisdom in a primary oral culture prior to conception or introduction. How did oral cultures acquire, recall and pass on their information?

In his book ‘Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word’, Walter Ong (1982) investigates the characteristics of both primary oral cultures and that of literate or primary literate cultures. Oral cultures are often thought of as occurring during ‘simpler’ times where the focus of everyday life was that of survival rather than the more complex world of today. Oral cultures have long relied on memory aides including repetition, proverbs, stories and mnemonic devices in order to recall ideas and pass information to others in their culture. (Ong, 1982)

Ong (1982) repeatedly gives examples of oral cultures using rhythm as a memory aid. He states that rhythm is not just occasionally but incessantly used, commenting that without the aides, memory or recall cannot be retained. As cultures became more advanced and sophisticated, the amount of information increased. Rhythm as a memory aid was no longer adequate and it became obvious that there was a need to ‘maintain’ information. Even using additional aids and ‘group memory’, too much information needed to be retained, therefore writing became an important improvement. As Ong indicated, one of the first forms of writing was that of lists. (Ong, 1982)

According to O’Donnell, writing equals power and allows for accurate information. Writing allows the author to choose the words in advance, reflect, and build upon them (O’Donnell, 2007). It also allows society to advance from hunter-gatherer needs to a more modern society, expanding knowledge and understandings at almost exponential rates. Our ‘memories’ began to be held externally, either through print or digital devices. ‘Memories’ can be accessed to suit our needs or purposes. As O’Donnell notes, it promotes inclusiveness (O’Donnell, 2007).

As O’Donnell (1998) points out, print allows for the expectation that the words of an author may be found again. However, with the speed in which society’s understandings are expanding, theories are supported or refuted, and new ideas are presented, it becomes increasingly important to be able to rely on the external memory of digital storage for quick and easy access. But caution must be taken when reading ancient works, as standards have continuously evolved into today’s accepted norms. (O’Donnell, 2007)

As we have increased our memory capabilities via external memory sources, including tallies, lists, texts, and now digital technology, we have also increased our ability to be more experienced and cognizant of the world (and beyond) around us. Ong implies that oral cultures had stronger general memory capabilities (using memory aides – mnemonics, repetitions, rhythm) and group memories but not verbatim memory. He supports his ideas by pointing out that substantial information such as “a singer [producing] on demand a narrative consisting of thousands of dactylic hexameter lines” as in the Iliad and the Odyssey text, could not be repeated “unless he had them memorized word for word?” (Ong, 1982, p57-8). Although it is not his point, we know that many individuals have strong memorizing capabilities (consider savants, eidetic memory) and those whose profession require them to memorize “lines” such as signers and actors, strengthen these abilities with continued practice. If they are not able to do this, they will probably not be successful in that career for long.

Ong cites that “memory skill is understandably a valued asset in oral cultures” (Ong, 1982, p57) but notes repeatedly that oral verbatim repetition generally does not occur, and there is little concern with abstract concepts. Whereas “in a literate culture verbatim memorization is commonly done from a text” (Ong, 1982, 57), but generally it is the understanding of a concept which is most valuable. Writing allows learning to occur, as well as critical thinking and expansion of skills to happen. As Ong points out, it is the ‘nature’ of the memory which is important for both cultures (1982).

One of the most common educational memory aides are notes, and although brief, they still serve their purpose. Depending on the individual’s memory, the explicitness and depth of the note will dictate its effectiveness. Although recordings are not ‘text’ per say, this technology also allows for the same principles to occur – the technology allows for retrieval and sharing of precise information.

Writing allows ‘memories’ and ideas to be shared but not bound by time or space. Because of this capability, most people in today’s literate world don’t rely on memory strategies for most sharing of ideas and information. As O’Donnell points out, “the words of other times and places, frozen forever in unchanging form, should live on indefinitely, in ever-accumulating geometrically-expanding heaps…[and that we would be] interpreting the frozen words of people long dead…says something important about the culture that was created using writing and print… This culture is contingent, malleable, and far from being the final form of human organization of knowledge.” (O’Donnell, 2007, p2). Writing allows us to access the memories and ideas of all authors, not just our own or our ‘group’s’.

As Ong points out, it is hard to be certain of verbatim memory in an oral culture, as there is no way to verify with recordings or original speech. Ong has found evidence that most oral cultures drop or change “memories” due to the needs of the society or that which are no longer relevant (Ong, 1982). Although rote learning may serve the purpose to be able to quickly and accurately recall information in order to learn the next step, several studies suggest that rote memory is only surface knowledge and is not utilized to distinguish concepts from generalized knowledge. (Brown, Aoshima, Bolen, Chia & Kohyama, 2007; Daz-lefebvre, 2004)

Based on the above, I believe that writing not only improves memory but also provides greater wisdom as information is ‘correct’ and not based on recollections of knowledge. External memory perhaps even strengthens personal memory as when it is needed, it is easily accessible, reviewed, and more internal connections can be made.

 

References:

Biakolo, E. A. (1999). On the theoretical foundations of orality and literacy. Research in African Literatures, 30(2), 42-65.

Brown, M. B., Aoshima, M., Bolen, L. M., Chia, R., & Kohyama, T. (2007). Cross-Cultural Learning Approaches in Students from the USA, Japan and Taiwan. School Psychology International, 28(5), 592-604.

Daz-lefebvre, R. (2004). Multiple Intelligences, Learning for Understanding, and Creative Assessment: Some Pieces to the Puzzle of Learning. Teachers College Record, 106(1), 49-57.

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

O’Donnell, J.J. (2007.) Virtual Library: An Idea Whose Time Has Passed. retrieved from: http://web.archive.org/web/20070204034556/http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/virtual.html

Ong, Walter. (1982.) Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London: Methuen.

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

 

Tagged | Comments Off on A Weaker Memory?

Mark Antony in 2013: Power of Oration and Persuasive Rhetoric

Posted on September 29, 2013 by rahdube

Accepting that Western society is predominantly literate it is difficult for us to recognize the oral roots upon which our culture is founded. In fact it would be near impossible to consider how an artifact from a previous culture impacts any society without first having an appreciation of the value of that artifact within the culture which it first existed. Ong suggests that those from a literate society would have great difficulty imagining what it would be like to live in a culture with no knowledge of writing (Ong, 1982). Such revisionist history is not always afforded due consideration in societies that believe themselves motivated by the desire to become technologically faster, better and/or more efficient. This failure to identify the traditions of pervious cultures is very much alive in our time. It can be understood then that societies often take for granted the elements from previous cultures which have led to their accepted definitions of normal.

Presently, in high school English classrooms across British Columbia Shakespeare’s plays are included as part of the course. A familiar question voiced in many of these classrooms is, “Why do we still study Shakespeare?” This question is really about the relevance of literature that is approximately 400 years old. Here lies another example wherein a society overlooks the importance of the oral traditions which came before. While there are a multitude of answers as to why educators still believe these plays are relevant, in the case of the tragedy Julius Caesar, one of the indirect outcomes of teaching this play is that it illustrates how praise in speeches is rooted in the formulaic expressions of orality (Ong, 1982), and that the power of rhetorical oration should not be taken for granted.

In Mark Antony’s speech at the forum (Hylton, 1993, Act III, scene ii), formulaic oral expressions are used to persuade and entice the play’s citizens into action. Antony begins under the guise of having come to bury Caesar and not praise him, appearing to be in agreement with noble Brutus. Brutus is in fact mentioned throughout the speech, directly after Caesar in repetitious, poetic, juxtaposition with lines like “For Brutus is an honourable man” (Hylton, 1993, Act III, scene ii). Such blatant repetition in a speech can serve to emphasize the point being made but also harkens back to mnemonic patterns used in oral cultures. As Ong (1982) describes, the use of heavily rhythmic, balanced patterns, in repetitions enables to speaker to store and retrieve thoughts during oral delivery. In essence the citizens in the forum scene are treated to an example of this technique when Antony extols Caesar’s virtues and immediately contradicts them with the point of view of ‘honourable’ Brutus. So complete is the formulaic delivery and contrast of Caesar and Brutus in Antony’s speech that to omit Brutus from any of the four occasions where he is mentioned in the opening of the speech would serve to upset the rhythmic pattern, balance and impact of the words. The spoken words are structured so that the couplets beginning with “For/But/Yet Brutus” and “And Brutus” signal the close of an argument or idea to the audience and hint an introduction of some new train of thought with regard to Caesar.

Moreover, Antony uses rhetoric to publicly prosecute Caesar’s murders while he claims to uphold them for their honour. He agrees with the killers’ assertion that Caesar was an ambitious man but paints that ambition, through the artful use of persuasive rhetoric, as being in the best interest of the people. So well does he execute his intention that by the end of Antony’s speech, the citizens are impassioned, ready to invoke a mutiny and burn Brutus’ house in retribution for the murder to their ambitious, former leader. One of the most powerful tools at Antony’s disposal is that of oral testimony. According to Ong (1982), cultures that know literacy, but have not whole heartedly embraced it, are leery to accept the written word as truth but rather put greater credence into what people say because they can be challenged to defend their statements unlike those assertions or recollections found in text. The exchange between the four citizens while Antony pauses at the end of his first salvo (Hylton, 1993, Act III, scene ii) illustrates the persuasive power of personal testimony. Having heard Antony’s examples the first citizen expresses his belief that there is “much reason in his sayings” (Hylton, 1993, Act III, scene ii). The other citizens follow suit and begin to formulate their opinion of what Antony has said based on the fact that there “[was] not a nobler man in Rome than Antony” (Hylton, 1993, Act III, scene ii) and that they had “Mark’d… his words” (Hylton, 1993, Act III, scene ii). In essence, Antony was a credible person so what he said had to be true.

Antony proceeds to appeal to the citizens’ emotions telling them it is good that they “know not that they were [Caesar’s] heirs” for it would “inflame” them (Hylton, 1993, Act III, scene ii). He asks the assembled citizens if they “compel [him], then, to read the will” (Hylton, 1993, Act III, scene ii). Shortly thereafter he draws their attention to where the daggers ran through or where Brutus stabbed Caesar, calling forth vivid and violent imagery to turn the mood of the citizens. Evidence by their lines, the citizens are persuaded by his rhetoric and respond at the “piteous spectacle” of Caesar and express their anger at the “traitors and villains” promising to “be revenged” and “let not a traitor live” (Hylton, 1993, Act III, scene ii). In the end, Antony masterfully manipulates the citizens to seek revenge through his use of emotionally charged persuasion.

To the students who pose questions about the relevance of Shakespearean plays in this age, one might explore any number of answers. One answer of particular poignancy is that we as a literate society need to appreciate the underpinnings of communication that come to us from pre-literate societies in order to prepare ourselves for the rhetoric we are bombarded with daily. In Julius Caesar, we are privileged to witness Mark Antony utilize certain oral tools to instigate a riot in Rome. We must educate ourselves so that we can recognize these same tools at work on us when union leaders rally the troops, activists chant their slogans and politicians appeal to our emotions. If our students are aware of the impact and power of orality and rhetoric, then they are better prepared to critically engage in the discourses presented by the Mark Antony’s of our society.
 
References:

Hylton, J. (1993). The Life and Death of Julies Caesar. Retrieved from http://shakespeare.mit.edu/julius_caesar/index.html

Ong, W. (1982). Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. New York, NY:Routledge.

Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Mark Antony in 2013: Power of Oration and Persuasive Rhetoric

Changing Thought Processes

Posted on September 29, 2013 by evaperez

In “Orality and Literacy: the Technologizing of the World,” Walter Ong (1982) explores the differences and similarities between two cultures. Although we “can only with great difficulty imagine what a primary oral culture is like”, since we are all, for the most part, literate,” Ong compares and contrasts the thought processes of oral and literate societies in his investigation (p. 31). I will explore the relationship between the two, which provides a deeper understanding of the complexities of language, how it has evolved and how technology has affected human thought process and communication.

Situational experiences give meaning to the spoken language of a primary oral culture. Knowledge is linked to human activity because without text, words have “no visual presence” (p.31). A dictionary doesn’t exist in a primary oral culture. Its people do not “look up” words or knowledge. They do however consider words to have “magical potency” and this comes from the idea they’ve formed of the word, a sense of it, as opposed to a name or a label, which only written language can provide (p.32). This idea of the word is formed by what they see and experience in the world around them. It is directly tied to their surroundings and understanding of the environment in which they live. In a primary oral culture, “serious thought is intertwined with memory systems” to assist with the recall of information (p.34). Knowledge must be repeated to prevent it from disappearing in an oral culture, which “establishes a highly traditionalist or conservative set of mind,” as those who are knowledgeable are regarded highly by their society (p. 41).

With new tools and technology, thought processes change. Writing, in addition to any other technology, facilitates a different form of thinking. No longer dependent on the memories of our ancestors but “storing knowledge outside the mind” through written languages, frees up space and energy that can then be used to facilitate a new form of thinking, more complex thought processes (p.41). If people are not responsible for the lengthy memorization of facts and information, more members of society have access to knowledge and are able to use it in different ways.

These new thought processes that develop in response to writing could be both beneficial and detrimental for humanity. To start, because of the actual writing process, the writer must force his thinking to slow down, allowing him to write, as this form of expression takes more time than that of a primary oral culture (p. 39). This on it’s own facilitates new thought processes. With more time, the writer is aware of his thinking and can reorganize and make better (or worse) the information in his mind prior to sharing that knowledge. A benefit for humanity can be more accurate knowledge that is easy to read and comprehend. A detriment of this time could be an unnecessary complexity and/or redundancy of knowledge. This metacognitive process increases the writer’s awareness and deepens his/her understanding of knowledge through reflection, questions, and guidance of thoughts.

Another benefit to humanity is the physical nature of literacy, as opposed to the abstract information found in oral cultures (as it is not tangible but in the mind of the speaker). Writing ensures that unlike an “oral utterance (that) has vanished as soon as it is uttered” the information is available to the reader and writer at any time (p. 39). Successfully locating this information in the future, allows for another way of thinking to arise. In a primary oral culture, the importance of the information, as well as the repetition of it, dictates its future existence and recall. In a literate culture, the knowledge seeker must now remember how and where to locate the knowledge.

In Phaedrus, Socrates says, “I cannot help feeling, Phaedrus, that writing is unfortunately like painting; for the creations of the painter have the attitude of life, and yet if you ask them a question they preserve a solemn silence” (Plato). Here we see another disadvantage to writing. With writing there is no dialogue that happens in the moment, spontaneously as it might during oral expression. Although Socrates is correct in saying the paintings “have no parent to protect them; and they cannot protect or defend themselves,” writing can and does inspire conversations. Even though writing is often seen as a solitary act which removes social interactions, it can and does promote discourse when people come together to think critically, share, and question writing in an attempt to gain an understanding of the text or to delve deeper into the topic.

Detrimental to humanity is the idea that technology is making people forgetful and dependent on it. That technology is weakening our memory. Perhaps literacy encourages this, as knowledge is now so accessible and because of that, people no longer use their minds as they once did in oral cultures. Is it the technology that makes one forgetful or the increase in knowledge (as space is cleared with a decrease in rote memorization) and the demands that more complex thought processes inevitable put on us?

Writing “can distance and in a way denature even the human.” For example, the unity a student feels in class disappears when he or she enters the “private lifeworld” of written language (p.67). This may be what draws some individuals to writing. Those who are introverts or feel under pressure when asked to speak and perform on the spot can be creative and comfortable creating knowledge, which they may later share with others through print.

As with all things in life, balance between orality and literacy is key. There are many implications for teachers. To effectively use the technology of writing we must understand how it has evolved and why it continues to change. Although writing seems to be making it difficult for those face-to-face conversations to happen more often, oral language continues to play a large role in society and it will continue to be part of communication between individuals. Technology can benefit or be a detriment to humanity. In order for it to enhance our lives, we must not simply use the tool because it is new and easy. Understanding the language, how humans learn, and each individual will help create a society where people are social beings who are happy and can inquire, problem solve and do great things for humanity.

Plato. (n.d.). Phaedrus. (Jowett, B, Trans.). Retrieved September 21, 2013 from https://connect.ubc.ca/bbcswebdav/pid-1529328-dt-content-rid-5277723_1/courses/CL.UBC.ETEC.540.64A.2013W1.28753/module02/m2-phaedrus.html
Ong, W.J. (2012). Orality and literacy. London and New York: Routledge.

Tagged | 2 Comments