I’m going to write about this even though I might be misunderstanding it. I’m going to write about it because it made me think and because I want to hear other’s opinions about it.
Chamberlin implies there are no such things as oral cultures or written cultures because both cultures practice both methods. He says, even though oral cultures might not have a stereotypical written language, they are rich in writing from their weaves, paintings, and carvings. For written cultures, he says that things such as classrooms, churches, and courts are places where oral tradition is held to great importance.
To me, this seems like a classic case of academic over-thinking. First of all, Chamberlin is taking large liberty of stretching the meaning of “writing” to fit this definition. Are we to start classifying painters as writers now? Surely not. He says written cultures don’t exist because they have oral traditions—which is a misrepresentation of how people utilize the phrase “written culture”. When referring to something as a written culture, nobody has ever meant it to mean it’s devoid of oral traditions, and I’d wager Chamberlin knows this. Let’s think about the context people use the term “written culture”—a simple Google search shows that most of the results are linked to the term “oral culture”, thus confirming the two terms’ interconnectedness. The two terms are utilized to compare which methods cultures use to traditionally pass down knowledge, and the difference is not drawn upon written cultures being devoid of orality, but the opposite: the oral cultures not utilizing written language. This is admitted even by Chamberlin in his examples of each (or rather the “so-called”/”supposed” definitions of each).
Then why change the terms that people utilize to easily communicate these ideas, especially when easy communication is the most fundamental use of language? This is where it gets interesting, and the point that got me emotional. Chamberlin points out that these type of thinking “encourages people to treat other societies with a blend of condescension and contempt while celebrating the sophistication of their own.” Which seems very presumptuous of him, and I personally have never felt condescension nor contempt when looking at “oral cultures”. But let’s say maybe it is a problem with many people, then, is the solution really to discard these terms? What term do we use to describe a culture that does not possess a written history? And if we made a new term for them, wouldn’t it have the exact same supposed problem of condescension and contempt?
MacNeil’s article gives a clearer insight into this issue. She mentions how a bunch of early 1900s Caucasian men from Toronto classified orality to be a primitive medium. She goes further to quote Chamberlin saying “Toronto School “has a lot to answer for in the characterization of oral cultures as more or less backward.” ” This part made it a lot clearer for me as to why Chamberlin is so opposed to these terms—he feels guilty for his predecessors and how they treated “other societies with a blend of condescension and contempt while celebrating the sophistication of their own.” White guilt is something that a lot of people deal with today, and those people can ironically try to pass off their new white, guilty viewpoints onto minorities. Am I, a Korean immigrant, meant to feel guilty for what white men said in the 1900s? Is a Native American mistaken to call his culture “oral”?
In my generation where countless podcasts are being created, millions of hours are spent listening to people on YouTube, and audiobooks are becoming more commonplace and accessible, I can’t imagine my generation having contempt towards orality as Chamberlin suggests. Hell, some are calling social media a revival of oral culture in the west. I really can’t help but feel like this is either an academic overthinking, misunderstanding of the terms, generational disconnect, or white guilt. But at the end of the day, I’m just a student studying literature, and he has a doctorate on this stuff, so what do I know. I would love to hear everyone’s thoughts on this!
Citations
Chamberlin, J. Edward. If This is Your Land, Where are your stories? Finding Common Ground. Alfred A. Knopf Canada, 2003. Print.
Google Search. Google. Web. 16 Jan 2019.
Courtney MacNeil, “Orality.” The Chicago School of Media Theory. Uchicagoedublogs. 2007. Web. 19 Feb. 2013. http://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/mediatheory/keywords/orality/
Strayed, Cheryl, and Steve Almond. “How Can I Cure My White Guilt?” The New York Times, The New York Times Company, 14 Aug. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/style/white-guilt-privilege.html.
MADRIGAL, ALEXIS C. “Oral Culture, Literate Culture, Twitter Culture.” The Atlantic, The Atlantic Monthly Group, 31 May 2011, www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/05/oral-culture-literate-culture-twitter-culture/239697/.
Hi J.T
Really interesting post. I can feel your frustration at , what you term, “academic overthinking”. I agree with you that lumping painting in the same category as literature or historical documentation is a stretch and can confuse the issue more than necessary. However, I do not think this takes away from the major thesis which is that our society still generally overvalues the written word over the spoken word. I mean, look at academia. No matter what discipline you are in , writing about your research is always the most important part. Yes, conference presentations are also important but ,to advance in your field, your publications are the the most important part of your portfolio (by a long shot). I think this is an outgrowth of a general preference or “superiority” assigned to the written word. Are you sure that you would deem a culture without a written language as advanced as one with? I know that ,unwittingly, I have an unconscious bias towards written cultures because it seems to be associated with most technological/ material advancement. When I think more deeply I admit that there are other forms of advancement and civilization but it is hard to ignore the initial bias. I am thinking that maybe Chamberlain. by labeling other arts as also writing, he was just that communication and history can be stored in different ways and that we need to open to see it?
Anyways, thanks for starting a great discussion. Cheers
Hey Iaen,
Thanks for reading my post and taking your time to share your thoughts with me. I do concede to your point of the fact that there is a thought of “superiority” assigned to the written word. I also understood Chamberlain’s intentions into giving us an insight of different ways history can be recorded.
However, I still believe the words exist for communication, and if we take those words away eventually a new term would be invented to keep discussions concise. Now, I’m completely fine with this type of idea when it comes to taking away words traditionally used to harm. The difference with the term “oral culture” is that the term itself isn’t offensive, but the meaning behind it is can be misconstrued as offensive, so a new word that is created to denote cultures without written tradition will always be unacceptable.
We can go the roundabout way of explaining these cultures as “cultures that shared stories through songs and tapestries but without written language” or something of the sort, but we eventually still arrive at the fact that they didn’t possess a written language. I don’t think this is the right way of eliminating the perceived “superiority” of the written word.
Hi J.T.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts! I took Chamberlin’s comments in a much different way (and actually wrote about them on my blog this week too!). To me, he is referencing how written cultures often disregarded writing and recording systems that look different than what they are used to.
The example that I point to is the ‘quipu’, a system of using knotted ropes to that were records used in the Inca empire. While not “written” in the way that European or Asian cultures would use the word, does it not also have many similarities? It’s as permanent as writing on paper, doesn’t change when someone else is “reading” it, passes specific information to another person from the creator – and yet, the Incans are considered an “oral” culture.
I also agree with Iaen’s comment above, that while we might not think we value the written word over oral versions, in all formal institutions writing is the baseline. Passports, government forms, even the internet is based on writing. Yes, social media, podcasts, and YouTube are bringing back elements of oral culture – but it’s all still based on typing in a search term (unless you use a voice search, I guess. I’ll have to think more about that).
I’d love to hear your thoughts on what I wrote about as well! It’s a great way to get some dialogue started.
Hey Cianne,
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts with me.
I absolutely love your point about the Incans because it makes me think of the definition of the written word. To me, if something like the ‘quipu’ could be “read” like so, same no matter who the reader is, that to me feels like writing. Perhaps Chamberlain is speaking about the incorrect labelling of certain cultures as possessing no writing when they do have a concrete way of preserving their history.
I like your authentic view of Chamberlin’s text and, especially, the view of oral cultures being rich in writing from their weaves, paintings, and carvings. I understand why you may see this as academic overthinking, but it is true that communication means come in various forms and that even such extreme forms, such as, for example, Inuit throat singing, still tell the story, no matter in what form,
In addition to your very insightful input, I would like to add my favourite part of Chamberlin’s text – about spirituality of grammar. The logic behind aboriginal hopes and fears does not seem to be orality, but a spiritual grammar that is grounded neither in economy nor in culture. It stems from knowledge, experience and beliefs of the people and then gets expressed through stories, songs, dances, paintings, drawings etc. I am prone to see this Chamberlin’s notion as a kind of unwritten grammar that express the spirit of the community and thus conveys the oral story of their existence. Understanding this unique set of spiritual grammar rules – other peoples’ imagination, undeniably opens up the way of understanding their world and existence.
Hey Vladana,
Thanks for the insight!
I do like the explanation of “spiritual grammar”, in a way it feels so foreign it can be hard to understand at times. That’s the point though, isn’t it… the fact that we are not understanding certain cultures go so much deeper than the surface level. Hopefully, learning to be less rigid and trying to dive deeper into a different person’s worldview is something that I’ll be more conscious of after this course.
Hi J.T
I enjoyed reading your blog, and agree that “written culture” and “oral culture” are not their own dichotomies. It’s interesting how Chamberlain (or our interpretation of Chamberlain’s work) suggests that written culture does not standalone from oral culture. All written and oral mediums are linked – think of it as a circle. We become inspired and/or we observe things in our daily lives, which may prompt us to write of these things. These thoughts are then discussed verbally with other people – like how scholars write academically, and then share their thoughts at conferences. It’s a given that these two are interlinked, but I do think that written culture definitely has evolved to become its own type of culture. There are nuances implied in writing that do not translate quite the same way when it comes to orality, which is why I disagree with the idea that written culture cannot be without oral culture.
Hey Katrina,
I love this point you made: “There are nuances implied in writing that do not translate quite the same way when it comes to orality”.
I find it so interesting especially since now we are studying King’s work and how he talks about stories changing as different people tell it. I feel that stories, even written ones, can change drastically when different people read it out loud. There are small interpretive differences in writing which can carry different meaning depending on how it is read, and the listener will likely follow the reader’s narrative as well.
Hi J.T.
I really appreciated your post and thought it was a very unique perspective on the Chamberlin reading. I would have to disagree with your notion of “academic over-thinking” and agree with Chamberlin in stating that no cultures are either written or oral, and that all cultures possess both written and oral attributes.
I strongly disagree with your notion that weaves, and paintings are not a apart of written culture, and would suggest that you look more into the history and influences of weaves in Indigenous culture, specifically the Cree and Ojibwee peoples from Ontario. Weaves contain symbols and colours that tell stories the same way that letters from alphabets tell them in written cultures.
I think the classification that Chamberlin is trying to differentiate between through written and oral culture, is a culture that is permanently recorded, through pantings, weaves or drawings or writing, versus a culture that has the ability to be continuously changing.
I agree that all cultures contain both written and oral attributes and that you cannot classify one as another.
Thanks for the post,
Sandra