I would like to start off saying I do not wish to offend anyone with the following post but it will be a critical analysis of what I have read in Module 2, primarily the required textbook Orality and Literacy by Walter Ong. As information since my early childhood my teachers have always identified me as someone who requires interest in a topic to put maximum effort into it. I love reading and when I am interested by something the pages fly by and are usually well highlighted with things and ideas I find interesting, but this was not the case with Orality and Literacy.
To start I enjoyed the beginning of the chapter, I had given very little thought to how pre- literate societies operated. The techniques described in the book were interesting to me and I found myself seeing applications of his words (how we use rhyme to understand, how repetition is fundamental to understanding, how in oral speech it is aggregative rather than analytic and how speech is additive rather than subordinative). All these things can be related to how we teach young children to speak more fluently and remember; we sing songs, we repeat things and change our tone of voice. I found myself contemplating the joys of not having to remember grammar conventions and how nobody could really verify what you were saying is true, unless they were to recite on the exact topic you were in unison. To be honest I was looking up a lot of words because I didn’t know what they meant, but with the kindle reader on my iPad it was just a click away. The first 15 or so pages just flew by and I was excited to continue.
This is where the story diverts into a chore and something I really had to force myself to do. Ong went into such detail on the history and justification that I just had no clue what he was talking about (truth be told I had no interest in what he was talking about). The next 55 or so pages had to be chunked into 20-minute sessions and I was struggling to highlight anything of interest. I kept asking myself why this is important, I am not a historian and I certainly will never use any of this information again (except for this post). I posted a reflection to express my frustration and was comforted that a few others were feeling the same. I kept on pushing through, forcing myself to read each word, but still I was highlighting nothing. During the 20-minute sessions I would be looking for distractions, anything I could find to get my mind away from this chore. It got so bad I had to turn my phone off, and disable notifications on my iPad. I can honestly say when I finished that last page I was relieved, like what a marathon runner must feel after a particularly gruelling race.
In conclusion I find it comical how Ong repeatedly characterized oral societies as redundant and “flowery” but used written words that were far more complicated than necessary to express his points. I can only attribute this to him being an extreme academic who likely spent most of his career focussing on the theoretical rather than practical (again only an opinion, I have little knowledge of his work). I can honestly say I am happy I did not purchase this book and give extreme thanks to Professor Ernesto (for selecting a textbook that did not need to be purchased) and classmate jodavies (for providing a PDF copy). I will leave it on my iPad but do not see myself referring to it anytime soon!
References
Ong, W. J. (2002). Orality and literacy (1. publ. ed.). London [u.a.]: Routledge.
Cathy Miyagi
June 13, 2018 — 1:45 pm
Thank you so very much for your sobering post! I too am having a difficult time understanding Ong’s arguments. Though I appreciate and acknowledge that Ong is coming at this from an academic and theoretical perspective – and that his studies are from the “world wide web” days – he doesn’t actually answer to the socio-cultural shifts after the invention of the press and any changing patterns of literacy and form.
The critique I have for Ong is that he writes a lot without saying anything. Take for example the following, in reference to primary and secondary orality in Ch. 5 of Orality and Literacy: “Unlike members of a primary oral culture, who are turned outward because they have had little occasion to turn inward, we are turned outward because we have turned inward (Ong 133).
I found myself having to read that and the preceding sentence out loud in an attempt to understand what he meant. No success.
I guess this kind of answers to the changing patterns of literacy form. Similarly, in reading Clement’s part 1 and part 2 of the manuscript book and the printed book respectively, I was actually “scrolling” (rather quickly) through words and screens/pages. This speaks to the efficiency that we are able to achieve with today’s communication technologies. We are able to browse through (rather than read) content faster and easier, and we take in what we can choose. It’s interesting that there is this striking parallel between the physical scroll in Medieval times and the act of scrolling on our laptop screens.
References
Clement, R.W.. “The Printed Book.” Medieval and Renaissance Book Production, 1997, http://the-orb.arlima.net/encyclop/culture/books/medbook2.html. Accessed June 12, 2018.
Ong, Walter J.. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word, RoutledgeFalmer, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ubc/detail.action?docID=181644.
michael yates
June 14, 2018 — 8:00 am
Excellent post, I have to admit that I too was swiping right quite quickly at times (I know, not a great idea but I do sometimes practice speed reading). I was also reading things a few times to try and comprehend them, sadly it was very rarely successful.
The first thing I posted in this course was a little infographic that said something similar to:
Say less but mean more…
With Ong it was Say a whole bunch more, but mean something only a small percentage of the population would understand (again, in my opinion).
Katie Cox
June 18, 2018 — 5:36 pm
In defense of Ong, he doesn’t claim to discuss the (perhaps more impactful… or interesting!) socio-cultural effects of print. Instead, in Chapter 5 in particular, he says he will focus on the “subtler effects of print on consciousness, rather than readily observable social effects” (1982, p. 116) or socio-cultural shifts. I suppose this may make for drier material, depending on the audience and our interests.
I did find Chapter 3 a struggle to read, and had to turn to the dictionary quite often too, but I quite enjoyed reading the last few chapters of Ong. However, that could have to do with my years working as an editor and my interest in typography. I certainly understand that this isn’t everyone’s cup of tea though. For example, I found it hilarious that indexes, which are purely functional today, were once valued for their beauty and mystery (Ong, 1982)… I can’t say I’ve ever looked at an index and thought “beautiful,” but I enjoyed the history lesson and differing perspective.
I find the material Ong discusses interesting, but I completely understand the frustration with academic language… I’ve lost count of the number of times in the MET program where I’ve thought to myself “just say what you mean!” I really appreciate Carri-Ann’s comment that educators strive to make readings relevant and meaningful. I know when I’m designing courses I strive for clarity and plain language so that meaning doesn’t get lost along the way (which is definitely a possibility with the likes of Ong!).
Reference
Ong, Walter. (1982). Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London: Methuen
Carri-Ann Scott
June 16, 2018 — 9:28 am
Michael, thank you for this post!
Your honest and candid words echo exactly what has been in my mind for the last couple of weeks, not just in this course but even more so in my Constructivism course.
In the academic world of “publish or perish”, I wonder if there has been a loss of purpose. If I publish something that has circular logic and loses the reader I have still published. (In the words of the kindergarten playground, “Na-na-na-na-na! So there!”)
Having spent the last 3 weeks writing 30 report cards, I can attest to how easy it is to throw big words at little ideas. It is a personal mission to add meaning to everything I write for and about my students. I hope that this mindset will continue as I pursue further academic studies.
One of the biggest frustrations with reading the writings of some Academics is that I end up questioning my own intelligence. Reading the same idea over and over again, wondering why it doesn’t make sense. What am I missing? Am I really so dense that I cannot understand this concept? To my mind, that is the biggest difference between an Academic and an Educator. Educators strive to make readings relevant and meaningful. Academics write to be read.
I realize this is harsh, and to echo your sentiment, this statement is not meant to offend anyone. I’m just saying, you are not alone.
EdPawliw
June 17, 2018 — 3:45 pm
Hi Carrie-Anne
Your lines “Educators strive to make readings relevant and meaningful. Academics write to be read.” sure rings true from my perspective. If we think about how many ways as teachers we approach a concept so that our learners will find their own personal trigger for comprehension, we can see a void between this and an academic that writes to or at a certain level. While they may be writing for peer recognition, does this really open doors that invite others in who may be interested in exploring, contributing, or digging deeper? How many have felt welcomed by this author to share in the discovery of this topic? I feel, as many of you do, that he is writing for peer affirmation as opposed to writing to inform and/or engage a neophyte reader. Thankfully there are other sources one can search and retrieve that do present a more inviting style with which to engage. The articles in The Electronic Labyrinth demonstrate how a concept can be presented that the unwashed masses can feel a connection to the content wrapped in an engaging presentation style and terminology.
Reference:
Keep, Christopher, et al. “The Electronic Laryrinth.” The Florentine Chronicle, www2.iath.virginia.edu/elab/.
Ong, Walter J., and John Hartley. Orality and Literacy: the Technologizing of the Word. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2013.
michael yates
June 23, 2018 — 9:21 am
I actually got scared away from the constructivism course after purchasing the textbooks! I think it would be a wee bit theoretical for my liking.
Carri-Ann Scott
July 13, 2018 — 9:59 am
It is very theoretical, but I’m slugging through ????
Alicia Lok-Malek
July 11, 2018 — 12:55 pm
Thanks Michael for kicking off this post.
Carri-Ann –
The comment about “publish or perish” resonated as well. It reminded me of Brookfield’s (2001) summary on Foucault’s work on power. Education is not free of power constructs and we are fated to exercise power. Dominant groups, while not intentionally seeking control, realize the economic and political usefulness of maintaining power. In this case, does the language used attempt to convey expertise, knowledge and authority? Does the volume of substantiate credibility? Not only is this work now academically published, a level of economic power was achieved with the book publication.
Your comment, “Academic and an Educator. Educators strive to make readings relevant and meaningful. Academics write to be read.” really resonated with me. It reminded me of a TED talk featuring Kelly McGonigal whose role is to translate academic research into everyday strategies for lay audiences.
(https://www.ted.com/talks/kelly_mcgonigal_how_to_make_stress_your_friend?language=en)
As we think about open access to academic libraries as discussed ina previous module, there is much opportunity leverage abundance of academic research that already exists and turn it into more meaningful forms such as Kelly McGonigal has done.
References:
Brookfield, S. (2001). Unmasking power: Foucault and adult learning. The Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education, 15(1), p.1.
joanna cassie
June 27, 2018 — 8:37 am
Micheal I agree, Ong is a tough and meandering read. I had to approach it non-linearly in order to get through it. I smiled when Bolter (in Ch.2 – Writing as Technology) called Ong “uncongenial” – I feel the same way about his writing!