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”.
J. Edward Chamberlin discusses how societies that communicate mainly through speech and performance were and in many cases still are, classified as “oral cultures.” Such cultures are generally considered to be naïve and simple. By contrast, cultures that communicate in terms of the written word, classify themselves as “written cultures,” and consider themselves to be more “cultivated,” “complex” and superior. The argument goes that oral cultures are simply repeating formulaic notions and not capable of superior thought. Chamberlin explains that this notion causes those belonging to “written cultures” to feel superior to those of “oral cultures.” In Courtney MacNeil’s article “Orality” this way of thinking is further explained; “for the Toronto School, writing – alphabetic writing in particular – is the key to evolutionary progress: that is, that literacy 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 itself,’ [2] while orality is the marker of ‘tribal man’” (“Orality”). This “encourages people to treat other societies with a blend of condescension and contempt while celebrating the sophistication of their own” (Chamberlin 19).
Chamberlin argues that the very idea that there are such things as “oral cultures” and “written cultures” is incorrect. So- called “oral cultures” he argues, are actually very rich in literature “albeit non-symbolic and non-alphabetic… woven and beaded belts and blankets…masks” and so on. On the other hand, the institutions of our supposedly superior societies (schools, courts and churches, for example) “are in fact areas of strictly defined and highly formulized oral traditions” (Chamberlin 20). Ignorant and arrogant members of western society have in the past, and in many cases still do, dismiss oral forms of communication; “Western egocentrism encourages the notion of orality as a secondary (and inferior)” (“Orality”). What both Chamberlin and MacNeil argue is that firstly, our own cultures rely on oral forms of communication more than we may think, and secondly, orality should not be judged as inferior.
Just because a culture communicates and tells stories differently than we do, does not mean that such a culture should be deemed lesser in any way. In fact, through their different language and ways of communicating, these cultures may understand things that westerners do not. Instead of dismissing other cultures as “primitive” or “barbaric,” we should respect the value of their ways of knowing and doing things.
WORKS CITED
Chamberlin, Edward. If This is Your Land, Where are Your Stories? Finding Common Ground. AA. Knopf. Toronto. 2003. Print
MacNeil, Courtney. “Orality.” The Chicago School of Media Theory. Uchicagoedublogs. 2007. Web. 19 Feb. 2013.
Thank you Greta, a succinct and well composed response to my question. One note, you should be including two hyperlinks in each Blog – K’ Enjoy 🙂
Hi Greta,
Good points all around, I was just curious as to what you think about the notion brought up by Chamberlain that oral focused cultures are very rich in literature, albeit non-symbolic and non-alphabetic as you mentioned above. It seems to me that clothing, art, decorations are all rich in communication and symbology. My own understanding of symbology is that it is representation, whereas in your Chamberlin quote in your post I believe the intention is for written symbols. I argue that cultures rich in oral traditions and do not have a written form of language do not have literature. This is itself is not a negative thing, it seems to me that extending the definition of literature to include many (if not all) forms of cultural communication (such as bead-work) simply drowns the term “literature” in ambiguity.
Humans are highly social animals, and communication happens on many levels. There is a spectrum of how different people weigh importance on spoken word, silence, writing, art, music, and gesticulation. One form is no “better” than another and all cultures fall somewhere on the spectrum. I think written word with rigid, widespread and well understood rules is something that a group either has or does not. This does not mean other complex forms of communication do not exist, but they are not the same. Including all forms of cultural communication under the umbrella of literature seems inappropriate.
Anyway, I look forward to reading about your perspective on Chamberlin’s idea that that “oral cultures” and “written cultures” are not appropriate categorizations. I would agree with him on some fronts, but having a written tradition for communication does seem to be something unique in history for some peoples and not others.