Literacy, Abstraction and Metacognition
In Orality and Literacy (1982), Ong distinguishes two different ways of thinking attached to oral language and written language. His suggestion is that as a society adopts and integrates written language into itself, it adopts an entirely different way of thinking and engagement with the world.
Ong characterizes oral cultures as being focused on language as part of the personal, concrete lifeworld of the speaker (1982, p.32, 45.). The use of speech is focused in the practical here and now of a situation rather than an abstract past or future. As such, genealogies, histories or pieces of information can change to suit the situation discussed. Ancient Greek culture is full of these ways of thinking. Mythology was modified and adapted to their current situation resulting in many variants of myths. Athenian law courts allowed the character of the speaker to be part of the evidence when a judgement was made. In addition, laws in Athens were not created by the Athenian people. Rather they were all attributed to the lawgiver (nomothetai) Solon even when a law was clearly a new creation. (Hansen, 1991, p.164.) As such, it made for a very personal, flexible and concrete way of engaging with history and society.
In contrast, written cultures detach themselves from what is written. The act of writing separates the self from the idea in a way that cannot be done with oral language. When an idea is written down in text it is physically other to the person. Over time, this way of making thoughts external and permanent becomes internalized as a way of engaging with an idea. It usually removes all the emotional content (agon) from the ideas and allows them to be treated in a clinical way.
A few examples can clarify the progression and transition in the Greek context. The Histories by Herodotus begins by claiming that it will demonstrate who is worthy of blame and praise during the Persian wars. This highlights the antagonism Ong mentions. Herodotus tends to collect stories and makes up imagined dialogue to fit his audience much like the earlier poets(Luce, 1997, p.20). However, he does mention his sources and questions that validity of claims. Less than fifty years later, Thucydides begins his history with the following words, “Thucydides, an Athenian, recorded the war between the Peloponnesians and the Athenians, writing how it was waged against each other and beginning the work as soon as the war broke out…” (Thucydides, 1998, p.3.) He detaches himself in his history and presents an abstract theory of causation in historical events. Similarly, Plato and Aristotle forms of writing also show that progression. Plato presents his work as dialogue presented in a community of discussion. It’s very personal and the debates within it include the sense of antagonism discussed by Ong (1982, p.43). In contrast, Aristotle’s writings are clinical and detached. He as a person is separated from the writing and there are no interlocutors. This culminates in his treatment of logical syllogism in the Prior Analytics. It could be seen that there’s a transition from concrete to abstract forms of writing that supports Ong.
The key interest I have in this writing is the idea of being detached from the idea and word in writing. Abstract thinking requires a thinker to detach him or herself from ideas and examine them objectively against other facts or statements. Metacognition takes abstraction a step further. It requires the thinker to detach him or herself from his or her own thoughts and emotions and examine them in an objective ways. It’s premised on seeing the self as a static thing to be examined much like a word on a page, rather than as a process or flow of consciousness.
Metacognition underlies some of the social structures that exist in modern western society:
- Science: Examining an object from an abstract analytic perspective
- Guilt: Examining the self in relation to rules or precepts (As opposed to shame)
- Ethics: Examining the self’s thoughts and behaviors based on rational analysis
My question then is if metacognition is possible in preliterate societies and if that helps to explain why it seems that these cultural qualities developed after literacy.
—————————————————————————————————————————
Ong. Walter. (1982). Orality and Literacy. New York: Methuen.
Luce. T.J. (1997). The Greek Historians. London: Routledge.
Hansen. Mogens. (1991) H. The Athenian democracy in the age of Demosthenes. Oxford: Blackwell.
Thucidides. Trans. Steven Latimore. (1998) The Peloponnesian War. Indianapolis: Hackett.
You state that metacognition underlies some of the social structures that exist in modern western society (science, guilt and ethics) and query whether metacognition is possible in preliterate society. You are assuming that the social structures you mentioned did not exist in preliterate societies are a result of literacy (cause and effect relationship), and that preliterate societies were not capable of abstraction. I think this is a misguided notion. Abstraction is the ability to think about ideas rather than events (OED). Preliterate societies were definitely capable of doing this (think of the Greek philosophers who dealt primarily in abstract ideas, music, and astronomy). Furthermore, I don?t think preliterate societies were/are any less ethical or immune to guilt than a literate one. They are also quite capable of rational, analytic thought. After all, a preliterate society must have conceived and developed the idea of literacy and the alphabet.
I do not think that preliterate societies think in a fundamentally different way than a literate society, as reiterated by Chandler; 1994) however, modes of expression and behaviours do exist. Additionally, I don?t think literacy can be used as a measure of intelligence (a common misconception to this day). Each communication technique (oral or literate) uses a specific skillset that assists its users to be effective and efficient communicators and a value should not be placed on these skills. Literacy is a tool that has been developed to assist humans with communication and seems to be part of our evolving selves.
Chandler, D. (1994). Biases of the Ear and Eye: “Great Divide” Theories, Phonocentrism, Graphocentrism & Logocentrism [Online]. Retrieved, 1 June 2015 from http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/litoral/litoral.html
Ong discusses the transformative effects of literacy on thought and he demonstrates substantive differences in how literate people categorize objects and think sylogistically with his reference to Luria (Ong, p51.). In addition, thinking abstractly can be done by non-literate people. Language is a series of abstractions. They are also not less intelligent or moral. If I were lost in the Amazon Rainforest, I would rather have a non-literate tribesman than a world-renowned anthropologist studying those people as my guide. They have key knowledge unique to their context. Value is contextual and I don’t think I was making value judgement on the ways of thinking in preliterate societies. The process and ability is more interesting.
My question is whether non-literate societies with no connection to literacy have the capacity to think metacognitively. Greece after the 8th century possessed literacy and both pre-socratic and post-socratic philosophers were literate individuals. They did however have the effects of preliterate society in parts of their culture. So I would deem them in a transitional state, making them quite fascinating. It isn’t a radical sudden wall that delineates one group from another but rather a process of change that occurs in a society. Take for example Egyptian and Sumarian writing systems. They used their writing systems for accounting and record keeping primarily. Both are literate societies, neither produced ethical or epistemological examinations the way the Greeks, Indians and Chinese did. So yes, the Great Divide is a simplistic like Chandler (1994) because it does not lead necessarily to a change in thought. It doesn’t mean though that literacy can’t be a requirement.
What I mean by metacognition is the separation of the self from the processes of the self (thinking, feeling, believing, judging). To separate ourselves from our thoughts, we need to initially create an external space for them through writing. This allows us to detach ourselves from the thought. Then can then judge our own thinking because it is permanent and outside of us. Then we can internalize that process and assess the self.
So what are ethics, guilt and science.
Ethics is not the same as morality. Ethics is the study of why we think what we think is moral or ethical. Asking why a person thinks being a vegetarian is an ethical action is an ethical question as opposed to stating that a person simply believes that. Likewise, questioning what piety is and why people think they know what piety is is also an ethical question (and the topic of Plato’s Euthyphro). To examine one’s own thoughts about what is moral is ethics.
Guilt is also interesting. You have to distinguish it with shame. Shame cultures are focused on the perception of doing wrong by others. So I would be upset if I were caught strealing, not actually about the act of stealing. This is discussed in the ring of Gyges by Plato. There imagine you had a ring of invisibility. You could commit any crime you wanted and not be caught. Would you do it. If you feel that yes is the answer, it’s a shame culture. Guilt cultures by contrast internalize rules and the person feels bad because they measure their behavior against an abstract rule or principle. Guilt is a kind of self-assessment that requires the individual to separate him or herself from the action. However, not all literate cultures are guilt cultures. East Asian cultures have a strong feeling of ‘saving face’ and is a features of shame cultures rather than guilt cultures.
Science also requires the individual to separate him or herself from the thought process, There is a deep epistemology focus in science that asks the practitioner to ask how the practitioner knows something. It tests the quality of the evidence and the process of thought which is used.
Ultimately though, I think literacy is a prerequisite for the kind of thinking that underpins these ways of engaging with the self and the world. It isn’t a value judgement of literacy but leads to it if we value the study the way we do.
Chandler, D. (1994). Biases of the Ear and Eye: “Great Divide” Theories, Phonocentrism, Graphocentrism & Logocentrism [Online]. Retrieved, 1 June 2015 from http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/litoral/litoral.html
Ong. Walter. (1982). Orality and Literacy. New York: Methuen.