Orality to Literacy, Then and Now
Raise your hand if you did not know that there were cultures that existed that never developed written language. That Plato once considered literacy a thread to the human condition. Or that the success of a society often hinged on the syntax and configuration of literate communication? How has literacy progressed from a pre-literate oral society to our society that holds literacy to such high ideals? How has literacy affected the cognition process?
A paradox of humanity is that we have the ability to make the unnatural natural. Plato argues that the written word is an unnatural invasion to the human condition. Ong states that music itself is an unnatural act. Arguably both literacy, musical and otherwise, now play an essential role in our daily lives. What was deemed unnatural is now natural. So complete is this transfiguration that it is difficult to imagine that the written word or music can ever be considered unnatural.
It is now twelve noon. You need to drive 280KM and make it to the train station by four PM. How fast do you need to travel? To a literate person, the answer is seventy kilometers per hour. To the illiterate or preliterate person, the answer is a bit more complex. The answer could be eighty or even ninety kilometers per hour. Or the answer may be seventy kilometers per hour but only if the person can leave by eleven. Why? One would have to compensate for the traffic lights, any possible traffic and even the time it takes to get in the car, put on a seat belt, adjust the mirrors, start the car and warm it up. Do you see the difference? The oralist solves the problem from a real-world point of view. The literalist solves it like a word problem from a textbook. The answer is a logical one, it is black or white, true or false, right or wrong. This was Plato’s concern and the root of his protest against the written word. It changes the very nature of human cognition. What would Plato say about the latest threat to humanity?
Literacy and the written word changed the very nature of human existence. No stone was left unturned by literacy. Our socio-economic, socio-political, religious existence experienced a grand upheaval. The computerized knowledge society will have a similar effect on our human existence. Literacy has brought power to the citizens through education. Instead of one voice, Plato, voicing protests, there are many voices expressing concern over this latest threat in the form of four alpha numeric numbers in the form of an IP address. We live in hypertextual, hyper literate society where the information that our children are accessing may not have passed through the watch eyes of a published author, an editor, a teacher or librarian. This is quite concerning to some. Will the human condition survive this new assault? The real question should be if we are willing to take the greater risk of complacency, that is, of blindly maintaining the status quo. Let us consider for a moment the fate of preliterate societies that were not able to develop literacy. Where are they now? Let us also consider those individuals that we know, businesses that have held onto the status quo without considering the world around them. Where are they now?
Biakolo, E. A. (1999). On the theoretical foundations of orality and literacy. Research in African Literatures, 30(2), 42-65.
Chandler, D. (1995). Technological or Media Determinism [Online]. Retrieved, 8 August, 2009 from http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/tecdet/tecdet.html
O’Donnell, J.J. Avatars of the word: From papyrus to cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Indeed “accessible nature” of new technologies have raised a serious question on authenticty of available text. However, technology has pros and cons like other medicines we take for cure but have some side effects as well. I would like to copy lines from ” Technology as Neutral or Non-neutral ” by Chandler that is “Whilst insisting that ‘technology is a means not an end’, Carroll Pursell does not regard technology as neutral (Pursell 1994, p. 219). He argues that ‘the choice of means always carries consequences’ which are not identical with the original purposes involved (ibid., p. 218).”
Rakhshanda
Chandler, D. (2014, March). Technological or Media Determinism. Retrieved from visual-memory.co.uk: http://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/Documents/tecdet/tdet03.htm
You raise some very interesting points. Your question and comments surrounding the “travel” query, made me think. I believe the “oralist” has more options to consider, less cemented details and a superior indistinct view of the world, where the shade of “gray” exists. While the “literate” person would perhaps view the situation as a more clearly defined question that has a distinct, black and white answer. In the case of the “literate” person – the question is clear cut with an obvious answer. There is no need to ponder, deliberate or brood over unstated and perhaps, devoid variables. Ultimately, I found myself questioning which type of person would be considered more valuable or correct in today’s world. Perhaps evolution has placed a greater value upon those who are considered to be “literate” with a clearer outlook of the world. The time of Plato, where scholars and philosophers dedicated their entire lives to particular and at times minuet subjects – has lost its value in the fast paced world of today, where time is money. As for Plato and the pondering of what his twenty-first thoughts may entail; I believe Plato would have had an evolved opinion on technology and the development of mass media use for communication. For, it is as Plato stated: “Human behaviour flows from three main sources: desire, emotion, and knowledge.” Fundamentally, I believe that Plato would maintain that philosophy and the evolution of the world does not live in treatises but in the voicing and discussion of many points of view reacting to one another, whatever the capacity or source they may embody. Technology included.
Daniel, your post is a thought provoking one. Prior to the information age, literacy was only considered to be an ability to read and write. There was a clear distinction between educated and uneducated. But with the advancement of digital age now the concept of literacy has changed and evolved. In response to your question that, “what would Plato say about the latest threat to humanity?” I would like to respond by saying that when telephone was invented, people took it just as a machine and nothing more. Later on with time when people started using it for communication they learned the social, moral and conventional norms and etiquettes. Likewise when e-mail was first introduced it was considered as technology tool for official purpose only. Overtime people learned and adapted e-mail which became an additional mode of communication. Here it is critical to note that the telephone did not replace face to face communication or e-mail did not replaced print. Signature is still considered to be as primary means of authentication. We need to understand that technology is inevitable but communication still remains the core. I agree to Costanzo (1992, p. 21) who believes that “computer or any other technology is not just a tool; it is an extension of the environment in which we think and communicate”. Furthermore I agree to O’Donnell that the world has changed and so is an individual’s role with time. We cannot deny the fact that the current generation kids, also referred as E-Generation are digitally competent. They are effectively navigating the multifaceted and fast paced digital environment. We educators are also technology consumers and therefore it is our vital responsibility that we engage our students in discussions of the ethics and social responsibilities which involves using technology so that they become critical thinkers and problem solvers of 21st century.
Reference:
Costanzo, W. (1992). Reading, writing, and thinking in an age of electronic literacy. In M. C. Tuman, (Ed.), Literacy Online (pp.11-21). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Hello Mehdia,
Thank you for the response. Your example of the telephone is quite fascinating. I did not stop to think of the effects of that technology since the telephone and now cell phone, like literacy, is something we take for granted. But there must have been a time in history when people pointed to the telephone as a means of ruining social activity. Now, people can connect with each other without the need to be physically present. That change must have been immense and immediate in the the way it affects our socio-economic realities at the time the technology was becoming popular.
The way you drew a connection between the telephone and literacy is quite interesting. What would Plato say to the invention of the telephone? Would he also accuse that technology as a threat to the human condition? And how similar is Plato’s thoughts on literacy ruining human interaction, your question on the telephone having the same effect, to what we are dealing with today with people predicting the smartphone / internet ruining social interactions. My question is who defined social interaction had to take place in person? I mean through time, definitions change and evolve. Even our definition of marraige has changed over time.
About your comment about educated and uneducated with regards to literacy. Apparently, it was only recently that literacy – the ability to read and write – has overtaken orality in the social ladder. Chandler in one of his essays called it “Phonocentrism” – at one time literacy was ranked (if you will) below orality. Literacy was simply a “reflection” of speech, a sidekick to the primary mode of communication – oral speech. I came up with the travelling example but that was based on something that Ong stated. That literacy changed the way we think from deep within our foundations. The oral person, the non-literate’s entire world exists in the present with little means to access the past or future. Whereas the literate person can walk into a library and have access to the past and even the future. The word problem in a textbook exists in a tidy little sandbox independent of all other word problems and the reality of the problem solver. These tidy little sandbox questions begs for a tidy little boolean (right/wrong) answer.