Human disaster Hannia did not just sleep through a deadline. It happened but it never happened.
Now, to approach the question at hand: why is dividing cultures into the categories of “oral” and “written” inaccurate as far as how cultures work?
To begin, I’d like to draw on the first point Chamberlin makes in his first chapter: we tend to divide ourselves into groups based on a concept of Us vs. Them. The rituals and practices of our group are completely natural and, as far as we know, the correct way to do things; other groups and their customs are alien to us because in their difference, we may not see them as correct. Or, as Chamberlin puts it, “there are those who speak properly,…, like Us, and those who babble, more or less meaninglessly, as They do.” (Chamberlin 8) After years of collectively building an understanding of the world, and how to interact with it and each other, the beliefs and rituals we create become so entrenched in our lives that anything else will inevitably seem strange, and this was likely as true for the Indigenous groups confronted by European settlers who felt their otherness made them lesser.
The concept of oral cultures and written cultures as entirely different groups drips with the idea of Us vs. Them; oral cultures are relegated to the role of “babbling barbarians” and written cultures hold the prestige of being “civilized” (18). This, as Chamberlin points out, can take a condescending tone in which we see groups that we classify under the umbrella of oral cultures as innocent children. We celebrate how at one with nature these cultures supposedly are, how primitive, while safe in the thought that with the written backbone of our culture, we posses the capacity for sophisticated, “modern” thought (19). Thus, the distinction between oral cultures and written cultures is not so much a useful way to classify groups as a way to distinguish between the supposedly enlightened and the unenlightened. Us and Them. I think in this way it does fit in with the way groups of people would inevitably function, as it reflects the tendency for one group to value their own customs over another’s. However, apart from reflecting this unfortunate human habit, it falls apart rather quickly as humans are not so wildly different.
If we look as supposed “oral” cultures as primitive children with no way of preserving their history, drifting through time and reveling in the present, we have to assume that written records are the only way to preserve the past. This ignores the fact that, just by thinking about it for a few minutes, one can come to the conclusion that if the same story is passed down from generation to generation, communicated from one mind to another by orature and performance, does that not constitute a record? Chamberlin points out that oral cultures do have their own form of “writing”: items such as “woven and beaded belts and blankets, knotted and coloured strings, carved and painted trays, poles, doors,” etc. serve as a form of record keeping much in the way that texts do for “writing” cultures (20).
Written cultures are also not bereft of oral tradition. In Courtney MacNeil’s article on orality, brings up Walter Ong’s distinction of primary and secondary orality. Primary orality refers to the sort of oral tradition that thrives among people who do not practice writing, secondary orality refers to “a new orality…sustained by telephone, radio, television, and other electronic devices that depend for their existence and functioning on writing and print” that is common in “modern” cultures. Here we see that old need to draw a line between Us and Them; while both groups do have an oral tradition, ours is still more modern and sophisticated. That line of thought may not have been the exact intent, but it is reflected in the fact that this distinction was made.
I don’t have much space to babble about how in our modern society, we enjoy many mediums of entertainment and storytelling that are based on oral performance, so I will just throw the example I find most compelling out there. I am a great fan of internet reviewer Kyle Kallgren’s work, and in this video he explores the ways in which the rhythmic structure of classic poetry can be reflected in pop music. Poetry, which was once the most respectable form of writing, can be connected to the likes of pop music, which is often enjoyed as a performance. Yes, lyrics can be written down and preserved as a text, but what I’m getting at is that when crafting a poem, the form demands that the poem sit down and organize the words in a way that will flow pleasingly when read aloud. It is a meeting of oral and written forms, and I think this is important. The oral and the written are not mutually exclusive in culture.
Works Cited
- Chamberlin, Edward. If This is Your Land, Where are Your Stories? Finding Common Ground. AA. Knopf. Toronto. 2003. Print.
- Courtney MacNeil, “Orality.” The Chicago School of Media Theory. Uchicagoedublogs. 2007. Web. 19 Feb. 2013.http://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/mediatheory/keywords/orality/
- Kallgren, Kyle. “Between the Lines: The Beatles”. Blip. That Guy With the Glasses, 12 Nov 2013. Web. 23 May 2014. http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/teamt/oancitizen/between-the-lines/41299-between-the-lines-the-beatles
🙂
In a critical theory course I took last year, the professor spoke of philosophers and theorists who consider writing an imperfect representation of spoken language. The belief is that speaking (and all that comes with speaking: body language, tone, inflection etc…) is our primary mode of communication, and attempting to transfer that message into written form is inferior and should only be used when necessary. The section where you wrote, “If we look as supposed ‘oral’ cultures as primitive children with no way of preserving their history, drifting through time and reveling in the present, we have to assume that written records are the only way to preserve the past” made me think of what it would look like if we flipped this idea on its head. What if the written story is the inferior mode of cataloguing/recording? I took a biblical tour through Israel a few years ago, and the guide was a man who’d grown up in Israel, and who knew Hebrew, Christian and Israeli culture quite well. The things he was able to explain, giving socio-historical context to the words in the Bible altered my understanding of what I’d been reading for years. The written form for me, in this case, seemed incomplete, lacking, until I was able to have someone who knew more about the culture explain it to me. (I realize it wouldn’t be considered perfect even after his incredibly thorough explanation; he’s only one man). What was explained to me was that certain details, parables, and objects used in the Bible were aimed at a people of a certain time. My thought then, is what if stories that are passed on orally, from generation to generation, are able to adapt simultaneously with the changing times and cultures, thereby producing a more precise representation of the original message/truth than having them written down?
Hi Hannia, I enjoyed the video you shared! It’s interesting that poetry is considered such a high form of literature, but it is meant to be spoken! It is orality that gives body to the rhythm of poetry. It’s not the same when it’s only written and not read (or sung) aloud.
In my History of the English Language class, we discussed the Germanic tradition of oral composition and of songs and poems that were stories told using certain devices, often composed spontaneously and for entertainment. It’s an art form that was largely lost once written text became more and more common. However, we might also consider that spontaneous composition still lives on in the forms of rap battles and some spoken word. And those who can compose spontaneously (and do it well) are considered very talented! Certainly, we enjoy oral media just as much as written and esteem it highly as well.
I think Cory’s perspective from his experience in Israel is also really interesting, that often times orality gives new dimensions, making a story/message richer than writing alone could.
You raise a very good point! Written information can be insufficient; we communicate through text a lot these days, but I often find that it can be very difficult to judge how the conversation is going based on only written information. Have you ever texted with a friend who sounds very curt and dry over text because they tend to write simple sentences with periods at the end, and the lack of tone and inflection in the conversation makes you a bit nervous about whether or not they’re interested in talking to you? So in a way you might be right; if stories passed on orally can keep the tone of the piece, it might be more true to the original message.
Oh, hi Lian! I thought my replies would just go under the person I… replied to if that makes sense. This one’s for you.
I knooooow omg!! I don’t know how you can just participate i a rap battle, it requires way more wit than I have. I read on Cracked that th Scottish Highlanders (or some kind of Scottish group I read this article a long time ago, do not quote me) practiced a form of rap battle too.
Though I will add that the one interesting thing about stories being passed down as text is that you can mess around with the tone and the message to great extent… see: Shakespeare adaptations and the like. Though this raies even more questions… can’t you do the same with a story passed down orally? And… things about adaptations. Oh God I should not respons to comments at 2am.
HI Cory – a great question: My thought then, is what if stories that are passed on orally, from generation to generation, are able to adapt simultaneously with the changing times and cultures, thereby producing a more precise representation of the original message/truth than having them written down?
And, this is precisely what King and Chamberlain and myself and many others mean when we say “Story is a process of bring the past into the present.” And, when we say that in the telling of the story, the listener shapes the story as much as the teller. I hope you can see how these elements of story enable story to “adapt with changing times and cultures” Thanks for asking!
Hi Hannia,
I really enjoyed reading through this. Since you talk a lot about oral versus written culture, I wondered what you think digital culture would be considered? Much of the internet is written text, but at the same time we can listen to sound clips or watch people talking in youtube videos. Is the internet written culture with elements of orality? Is it the other way around? Or are different parts of the internet considered different things based on where you go (ie YouTube is oral, Twitter is written)?
Uh… well, my (admittedly addled) train of thought while answering the question was that written and oral culture is not exactly mutually exclusive. Oral cultures have texts of their own, and written cultures have oral aspects to them. Digital culture can be a coming together of them; much of it is text based, yes, but then there is the rise in popularity of podcasts and, of course, video. I guess though that it would be “written” in the sense that yes, the backbone of the internet is written text (it exists thanks to java and such), but it allows for oral communication and oh god I have confused myself. Though I think human cultures, no matter what they are, have elements of both so it doesn’t really matter? Forgive me, I am not so wise.
Hi Hannia,
I found your blog very interesting, thank you! What you mention about poetry representing a meeting between oral and written culture is so true. I believe that poetry is one of many representations of this phenomenon. For example, texting, as I mention in my blog post, seems to be a type of hybrid between oral and written culture. Texting is neither purely oral, nor purely written and I believe it showcases the fact that language is simply a tool for people to communicate and will therefore adapt and change to remain useful for the people using it; it is never stagnant, not even in its written form. What you mention about the commonly held belief that written culture is a superior way to preserve stories and history is thought provoking and I think people tend to forget that even written culture is ever changing and things that are written down are only useful to us if we can understand them. One has to wonder the extent to which we can truly understand written documents from a completely different context then ours, or if, like the passing down of a story orally, we simply recreate them to fit our own ideas of the world. This is a great Ted Talk about texting and more broadly, language (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmvOgW6iV2s), that I shared in my blog that I think relates well to the discussion of “oral” vs. “written” culture. It urges people not to look at texting (or other newer forms of communication) as a devolved form of writing, but rather to look at language, orality and the written word as constantly evolving. I think this can also apply to internet/digital culture, which as Sekuna mentions, walks that fine line between written and oral.
My darling, I will be sure to visit your page. Even if I have to read and comment with tears of stress in my eyes. What you say is so true.
Hey Hannia,
I’ve never really thought of orality in that way you describe it in our culture, I think that’s a really cool point to support that this “Us and Them” mentality is merely just another route to xenophobia, rather than really looking at any true difference between two cultures. I wonder though what you think of that specifically for our culture. Do you think we devalue oral communication between ourselves as much as Chamberlain has shown that we devalue oral communication from other cultures? Do you think our culture has some contempt for oral communication in general?
Hmm, that’s an interesting question. I’m not all that knowledgeable about this, but I think that we might have a little, tiny bit of contempt towards oral communication that is silly as we thrive on it. I see this in the way that illiteracy can instantly mark you as a less intelligent person, and how in pop culture a character who reads a lot can be instantly coded as “smart”; you gotta be capable of reading and writing in some form, and if you engage with the written aspect of culture voluntarily you must be more enlightened. But we communicate stories through oral communication all the time,around water coolers the continent over and in the hallways of schools, and our most popular forms of entertainment are very much rooted in performance. It might be a love hate thing, really.
Hi Hanna, a very nice job of capturing Chamberlain’s central beginning point – nice concise and easy to read writing style – but, there are too many little errors and typos. Because I am a writing teaching as well, I can’t help but become distracted by too many little errors. I like your concluding comments as well; a nicely tied together blog, thoughtful and insightful.
I was interested to see you highlight this particular point, which is so important to understand:
“oral cultures do have their own form of “writing”: items such as “woven and beaded belts and blankets, knotted and coloured strings, carved and painted trays, poles, doors,” etc. serve as a form of record keeping much in the way that texts do for “writing” cultures (20).”
Yes, and if you extend this thinking – one of the reasons it is difficult for people to recognize these forms of writing is because they do not know how to read the knots and totems and weavings. Much like Judge McChecren could not read the Gixtan map; he could not see what he could not believe.
Excellent dialogue with this post – so happy to see you responding !