“1. Explain why the notion that cultures can be distinguished as either “oral culture” or “written culture” (19) is a mistaken understanding as to how culture works, according to Chamberlin and your reading of Courtney MacNeil’s article “Orality”.” (Paterson, “Lesson 1:2”)
Both Chamberlin and MacNeil underline how conceptualizing culture as binary – culture here being either oral/written or barbarian/civil – can be dangerous, and can prevent us from accessing the gains that come from understanding culture as pluralistic. The binary is an impediment to what Chamberlin calls “finding common ground”, a fuller understanding of culture. To show this, Chamberlin highlights the “classic conflict between barbarians and civilized people” (44) throughout If This is Your Land, Where Are Your Stories?, as well as the perceived conflicts between story and truth, and home and land. MacNeil – in her essay “orality” – references Foley’s idea of the “Great Divide”, the perceptual mis-step that “encourages the notion of orality as a primitive or undeveloped medium” when compared to written cultures (Foley, as quoted by MacNeil).
“The Law vs. Ayook, Written vs. Oral History” by Don Monet, from Colonialism On Trial
Why is this binary notion mistaken? It is mistaken because of the danger with conceptualizing cultures in a binary form. Doing so generally results in hierarchical categorization: one becomes ‘better’ than the other, and they cannot both occupy the same space. For example, MacNeil highlights the work of scholar Walter Ong, who postulated on the differences between oral and literate cultures, to show how the idea of literacy was seen as – for lack of a better word – more valuable than orality, because of its role in “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 itself” (Ong, as quoted by MacNeil).
One of the many anecdotes that Chamberlin uses to show the disconnect and misunderstanding that can occur when one is stuck in the cultural binary mindset is that of the Navajo people reluctance to submit to the US government’s livestock reduction program of the 1930s. Pressured to conserve degraded pastureland for ‘useful’ uses, the government decides all livestock must be valued in sheep units, sheep being the animal which has the most value as commercial, as well as consumable, livestock. The Navajo refused to value their horses according to this imposed value system. For me, this story illustrates the danger of the cultural binary, the mis-step of trying to see one thing on only the terms of the other – the false choices between the negation of one culture for the progression of the other.
Chamberlin asks is “one tradition truer than the other” (141)? MacNeil negates the idea of the oral/literate “unequal dichotomy” by referencing Meschonnic’s repositioning of “orality…not [as] the opposition of writing, but rather a catalyst of communication more generally, which is part of both writing and speech” (MacNeil). Likewise, culture can be seen as manifestations of humanity, with the ‘barbarian’ and ‘civilized’ divided not on worth in relation to the other, but rather as permutations with more commonalities than differences.
I think that the following two videos give great examples of orality (and by extension culture) as understood along the lines of Meschonnic’s reasoning (see above):
This talk by John McWhorter explores the orality within the textual – the textual as spoken, not sounded, but still oral. And this talk by Christine Sun Kim is an excellent exploration on orality and dichotomies, and the importance of seeing beyond differences in communication. Sun, who is deaf, speaks to us about how sound is not necessarily primary in speech/orality. Her talk contributes to the line of thought of speech as performance. As a bonus, Sun – an artist – has an interesting piece of work entitled Courtier as Courier, which offers an exploration of the role of technology in the blending of boundaries between literacy, orality, textuality and speech.
Works Cited
Chamberlin, J. Edward. If This Is Your Land, Where Are Your Stories? Finding Common Ground. Toronto: Random House of Canada Ltd. Print. 2004
Paterson, Erika. “Lesson 1:2”. ENGL 470A Canadian Studies: Canadian Literary Genres Jan 2016. University of British Columbia, Jan 2016. Web. 15 January, 2016.
Hey Merriam,
I find your analysis on the trouble of seeing culture as ‘binary’ pretty interesting, and am in total agreement. Getting out of the cultural binary mindset can be hard though. In the Western world, literacy is very valued, and there are certain forms and structures of literacy fitted for specific purposes. Chamberlin refers to this in his book when he says the institutions of “our supposedly “written” cultures are in fact arenas of strictly defined and highly formalized oral traditions, in which certain things must be said and done in the right order by the right people on the right occasions with the right people present”
Excerpt From: J. Edward Chamberlin. “If This Is Your Land, Where Are Your Stories?.”
For instance, if you’re writing an academic essay, you’re probably going to employ a serious tone to make you sound more credible to the professor reading it. I may be wrong, but I feel like often in academic spheres, writing as you would normally speak is frowned upon or valued less than an essay or speech that’s carefully crafted, and that ultimately sounds different from the words and tone you would use if they were to be conversing directly with their interlocutor. I’m inclined to think that there’s also an underlying binary mindset in this way of thinking; valuing certain more “articulate” forms of writing verses other more “colloquial” ones.
I attached a TED talk(https://www.ted.com/talks/jamila_lyiscott_3_ways_to_speak_english?language=en) by Jamila Lyiscott who speaks three different versions/forms of English and in which she makes a point about them all being equal in value and cultural significance. Let me know what you think!
Hey Marie!
Thank you for your comment, and for your further insights into the cultural binary.
Jamila Lyiscott’s TED talk “3 Ways to Speak English” is a powerful one. It was actually the second time I’ve viewed it, as this video was shown as part of a course I took two years ago, LLED 489A, Linguistics for Teachers. We discussed the differences between different dialects, and how what we are referring to as the binary mindset can lead to the comparative valuation (or devaluation) of certain dialects within the same language. I’ll link you to this video (from Fox News, so consider this prior warning!) about dialect instruction for job seeking students who speak in African American Vernacular English (AAVE).
While anyone who has ever handed in an assignment for grading is familiar with assessment based on one’s writing skills, the kind of assessment of one’s way of speaking – through assessment of dialect – seems to me to be one that is more an assessment of one’s identity, as opposed to an assessment of a technical skill.