The Giving of Words
Just over a week ago now, I found myself in Calgary in a room alongside fifteen or so other ladies who had gathered together to hear words reflecting a philosophy of learning established by an English school mistress at the turn of the twentieth century, Charlotte Mason. There are many layers and spirals of principals that build the Charlotte Mason philosophy of learning, but one aspect in particular that resonates with Ong’s writings (1982) is the emphasis on oral narration as an essential tool for learning. Mason urges teachers to develop the habit of narration amidst their students: “The intellectual habits of the good life form themselves in the following out of the due curriculum in the right way. As we have already urged, there is but one right way, that is, children must do the work for themselves. They must read the given pages and tell what they have read, they must perform, that is, what we may call the act of knowing.” (Mason, 1925, p.99) Mason asserts that it is through the act of retelling that knowledge becomes instilled within the student. She later describes the loss of knowledge due to the forsaking of narration as “a monstrous quantity of printed matter [that] has gone into the dustbin of our memories, because we have failed to perform that quite natural and spontaneous ‘act of knowing’” (p.99).
If I could sit across a table in conversation with Miss Mason, over a porcelain cup of tea, I feel quite certain that she would embrace the ideals and relevancies of an oral culture. She would value the situational influence that real-life permeates into the words and speeches of the people. She would celebrate the individualism as stories change and alter over time depending on circumstances and the individual’s influences as Ong explains: “[o]riginality consists not in the introduction of new materials but in fitting the traditional materials effectively into each individual, unique situation and/or audience.” (p.59) She would spur on the interaction that is characteristic of oral culture as speaker and listener actively engage, being present in their roles and present in the moment. Ong’s elaboration on the Hebrew word dabar, which refers to the spoken word as not something stagnant but rather as “an event, a movement in time” (p.73) emphasizes the energy and motion that would exist within an oral culture leaving the permanence characteristic of language solely to the written word.
Accepting the permanence of written language is something that is needful too. That space where we as individuals can come back to again and again to find those same words that give us a taste of knowledge, that bring us a moment of joy, that cause us to think beyond ourselves. Can we concede, along with Socrates and Phaedrus, that the collection of both active speaking and listening and the permanence of text in ink, makes for a complete tapestry of language art? Can we have one without the other? Yes, but do we want to miss out on what the other can give? I’ll close with Ong’s description of this need for the other, and the beauty and the art that they both create:
Oral cultures indeed produce powerful and beautiful verbal performances of high artistic and human worth, which are no longer even possible once writing has taken possession of the psyche. Nevertheless, without writing, human consciousness cannot achieve its fuller potentials, cannot produce other beautiful and powerful creations. In this sense, orality needs to produce and is destined to produce writing. Literacy, as will be seen, is absolutely necessary for the development not only of science but also of history, philosophy, explicative understanding of literature and of any art, and indeed for the explanation of language (including oral speech) itself. (p.14)
Mason, Charlotte M. (1925). A philosophy of education (Vol.6). London, England: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co. Ltd.
Ong, Walter. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen.
Hey Jessica,
Lovely post! I look forward to looking further into Charlotte Mason’s work. The interesting aspect of the oral vs. literary topic is balance. As you mentioned, there needs to be a bit of both. To have one without the other might indeed be choosing to miss out on definitely a wider perspective, but at the same, how can we as members of a literate culture ever truly understand the actual benefits of a purely oral culture? It comes down to the need for balance. They seem to complement one another and depend on one another for full and well rounded perspectives and true understanding. Along with orality, the written word allows for a deeper understanding of self as separate from ones knowledge; something approaching metacognition even.
“The exquisitely analytic oral disputations in medieval universities and in later scholastic tradition into the present century (Ong 1981, pp. 137–8) were the work of minds honed by writing texts and by reading and commenting on texts, orally and in writing.
By separating the knower from the known (Havelock 1963), writing makes possible increasingly articulate introspectivity, opening the psyche as never before not only to the external objective world quite distinct from itself but also to the interior self against whom the objective world is set.” (Ong, 2005, pg.103)
To truly appreciate language, there must be this balance and complementary cooperation between different aspects of any form of communication. One without the other is only part of the whole message.
forgot to add my reference:
Ong, Walter. (1st of this edition 2002, this edition 2005). Orality to Literacy. Tailor and Francis e-library. Chapter 4, pp.77-112. Retrieved from:
http://dss-edit.com/prof-anon/sound/library/Ong_orality_and_literacy.pdf
Thank you, Rochelle, for your comment.
Describing the balance of orality and literacy as necessary in truly understanding one’s self and one’s thinking is something for educators to consider when planning and implementing learning for students. Orality and literacy do complement each other and I think Ong (1982) touches on this aspect with these words:
“Without writing, the literate mind would not and could not think as it does, not only when engaged in writing but normally even when it is composing its thoughts in oral form. More than any other single invention, writing has transformed human consciousness.” (p.77)
From my experience, I find that our education systems tend to value writing above oral experiences in order to “prove” that the student has knowledge of the concept or subject prescribed. In our literate society developing effective writing skills is essential, but I feel that the balance that you described is not present, with the use of orality in the classroom being under valued and neglected. I think the idea of incorporating more conversation/talks as well as audible learning and expression within the education milieu would effectively grow students into excellent speakers, thinkers and in turn, writers.
Thanks so much for your post. It was very interesting to read about Charlotte Mason. It reminded me of the idea that you need to teach something to truly know it. The act of retelling (or teaching) can certainly help with recall. It also more importantly helps with not just rote memorization but of actually understanding a concept.
Mostly what I loved about your post was the fact that you encouraged AND and not OR. I know at my school we often get caught up in how one method of teaching is better than another. This has always bugged me. In so many cases we do not need to pick one thing over something else, we can do different things in different situations and even offer our students more than one option at a time. Of course we cannot be a completely oral society and a society with writing at the same time, however we can hold on to some of the practices from an oral society while still enjoying the advantages that writing has to offer. On a similar note, we can use all our new digital technology and still use our pens and pencils (and our oral storytelling) when it suits us. We are fortunate to live in this time, not because it is better, but because we have more options to chose from. To me there does not seem to be any reason why we have to throw out the old to make room for the new, I think we can have our cake and eat it too!
Thanks so much for your comment!
I completely agree that it is a gift that we live in both an oral and a literate society. As educators, there can be a tendency to want to get on board with the newest educational trend, or curriculum, or strategy, but it is also valuable to become knowledgeable about what is tried and true.
There is another post about the lost art of storytelling. I love the idea of learning through story, but usually think of this in a literate context. To think of all of the learning and knowledge that has occurred through past generations and in many cultures through the simple act of storytelling. And to think that this intimate act of sharing and expressing and eye contact and listening is so obscure within our own culture and society. Have we lost something that is tried and true? Is there a way to recover it?