Orality, Literacy, and the Human Thought Process

Plato’s Phaedrus consists of a conversation between Socrates and Phaedrus, in which they discuss the adverse effects writing has and will continue to have on human memory and knowledge, and thus education. In his work Orality and Literacy, Walter J. Ong (1982) argues that ancient Greek civilization was the “point in human history when deeply interiorized alphabetic literacy first clashed head-on with orality” (p.24). Ironically, Ong further claims, “the philosophical thinking Plato fought for depended entirely on writing,” despite Plato’s evident reservations. Ong contends that there are fundamental differences in the thought processes of oral and literate cultures and the ways in which they manage knowledge (p. 1).

Ong states, “More than any other single invention, writing has transformed human consciousness” (p.77). Writing ultimately “makes possible increasingly articulate introspectivity… opening the psyche… to the external objective world…but also to the interior self” (p.104), and that without this development science, philosophy, and introspective religions would not be possible (p. 14). Certain modes of thinking, Ong contends, are attributed primarily to oral cultures, while others are not possible without reading and writing (p.8). For example, Ong argues that oral cultures think situationally and are seemingly incapable of abstract thought. I found this conclusion to be questionable. Ong draws on the work of A. R. Luria in which studies were conducted on illiterate and semi-literate persons in Uzbekistan and Kirghizia (p. 49-51). In one section of the study illiterate subjects did not refer to geometrical figures as abstract names, but rather concrete objects. This may not necessarily reflect a difference in thinking caused by a lack of literacy, but rather limitations of language and terminology, or simply a lack of education. Offering a monocausal explanation by attributing these characteristics and modes of thinking solely to a lack of literacy does not count for numerous other variables. Certainly, literate cultures are capable of thinking “orally” and vice versa.

Ong’s claims are bold. Creating a dichotomy between oral and literate cultures is to reduce the complexity of human experience, and largely ignores differences between oral cultures and between literate cultures. To attribute a shift towards scientific and objective reasoning at a societal level and within individual human consciousness to a singular technological cause is, as Emevwo Biakolo (1999) contends, “not logically admissible, and equally empirically impossible” (p.48). Although Ong speaks of “secondary orality” and admits that a literate mind cannot fully comprehend the thought processes of an illiterate culture, the dichotomy of the oral and literate cultures displays, as Biakolo describes, “the discursive baggage of Western anthropological thought” (p. 50).

Ong (1982) often refers to the development of the alphabet and writing which gave Greece its intellectual ascendancy (p.89); however, by comparing other cultures with alphabets around the same time period, Biakolo (1999) contends the fact that Greece was democratic and secular also played a key role in its intellectual development (p. 47). Additionally, developments in science, philosophy and mathematics had begun before literacy was widespread. Humanity has historically made scientific leaps when technology allows a greater amount of time to be put towards activities that are not primarily focused on subsistence, thus allowing thought to be put towards other matters. While literacy does appear to require and promote different thought processes, perhaps writing and its ability to document thought and reduce the focus on memory as Ong contends allowed for greater scientific advancement by freeing the mind to explore other phenomena. There seems to be a reciprocal effect in that writing was created for a purpose and subsequently had a rippling effect on thought processes. There are ultimately too many alternative variables that cannot be accounted for. Unfortunately, I will not have enough space to discuss the intriguing criticisms of technological determinism and “great divide” theories.

Despite the limitations of Ong’s argument, I found his research into the differences in modes of thinking and learning between oral and literate cultures to be both fascinating and thought provoking. Understanding and recognizing cultural differences can help enhance education practices to engage with a broader variety of learner types and enhance cross-cultural communication.

References

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

Ong, W. J. (1982) Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London and New York: Routledge.