In chapter 5 of his Orality and Literacy, Ong writes “Writing moves words from the sound world to a world of visual space, but print locks words into position in this space.” (1982, pg. 119) Through this book, Ong continues to attempt to differentiate and categorize technology geared towards the same goals. He attributes the writing to heralding in more precise descriptions used in science and the development of “rapid, silent reading” (pg. 125). Ong goes so far as to suggest that print was a “major factor in the development of the sense of personal privacy that marks modern society” (pg. 128). He’s not alone in doing this. Though Bolter does not agree with Ong’s characterization of print technology, he does differentiate in similar fashion based on the effect print has on the product output. More specifically, Bolter focuses on the narrative style associated with the various technology, with print prescribing to a linear narration and computers to “hyperlinks” (Bolter, 2001).
Insofar as their respective categorization, both Ong and Bolter make valid and salient observations. However, I find the practice to be unnecessary, or at the very least ineffective for education purposes as neither introduce options for pedagogical use, but do suggest limitations by narrowing the scope of usage. My main issue with the categorization is the seemingly arbitrary cut-off for what is considered technology, making for some incomplete comparisons. In my view, technology exists to make life easier. Perhaps it is more accurate to say, technology is anything created by people that is adopted if it makes a tangible difference to our life by reducing required time, effort, knowledge, and or space. And because all things technological are constructed by us for specific purposes, it stands to reason that once said technology exists, our behaviours will be modified, after all, being able to do things differently – easier – is the prime motivator to be inventive.
One of my issues with Ong’s categorization is that though he speaks of orality, he takes language as a baseline starting point, and technology is built on top of that. In my view, speech should be considered a tech. A group with spoken language that can communicate complex ideas are at a significant advantage compared to those without. Speech removes the visual requirements of communication, and also minimizes directionality as sound is omni-directional, removing the restriction of line of sight. Why then was writing an important technological development? Because writing removes temporal and spatial restrictions – there is no longer a requirement to for parties communicating to exist in the same place at the same time. Furthermore, due to the enduring nature of writing, it becomes possible for an individual to not just communicate with others, but to communicate with themselves at some time in the future. This is perhaps an aspect of what Ong is alluding to when he speaks of writing being integral to the sense of personal privacy, but it is unclear since he does not define a detailed cause and effect.
By considering speech as part of the line of technological development, there is a chance to recognize a pattern to behaviour and allow for predictions based on extrapolations. Bypassing the development of speech and focusing only on the effects of writing and subsequent tech is akin to studying climate from the industrial revolution onwards, but not looking any further into the past. Neat observations can be made, but overall loses the impact of predictive modeling that can be accomplished with data of the climate prior to the industrial revolution through development of patterns. Print definitely changed the way we communicate, and the advent of computers and internet caused an even bigger shift. The ease of production and constant access to a wide audience is perhaps leading to a decline in the amount of thought and care placed in a production, and driving the expression of supposed inner thoughts outwards, forcing a creation of façade. Is that a good thing? What can we expect going forward? The categorization presented by Ong and Bolter are inadequate as a tool to decide how best to influence the future with technology, because paradoxically, to better influence the future, more care must to taken to observing the past.
References:
Bolter, J. D. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print. Routledge.
Ong, Walter. (1982.) Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen.
