Previous categorizing of literature and orality by some poststructuralists, and the Toronto School, has led to a single-sensory conception of media (Macneil), presenting ideas about the validity of literacy opposed to the tribal nature of orality. As Courtney Macneil states classifications, such as Ong’s, that suppose “orality exists either in isolation from literacy, or as subservient to it” disallows recognition of the interdependency between these two communicatory medias. The restrictedness of this type of thought does not acknowledge the complex and blurred relationship between orality and literature, which is only being heightened through the use of the www and digital media. Has Macneil stated, “the advent of contemporary internet culture has encouraged the recognition that oral and textual need not be viewed from a hierarchical perspective.”
The idea that orality and literacy are in hierarchical competition with one another is a fading notion as technological advances have led to an age of digital media that incorporates many forms of communication: textual, visual, oral and aural. Digtal media has challenged the existing, and more binary, perspectives of the relationship between orature and literature; in the world of digital media text may be evanescent (eg. snapchat) and orality may be permanent (eg. audio files). The digital age has encouraged a blurring between literacy and orality in many ways, such as enabling widespread self-publication and the use of hyperlinks.
There is a social media medium available to share any and all facets of one’s life, perspective and outlook, this technological availability has enabled widespread self-publication on a massive scale. Where in the past people would share their daily lives (thoughts, achievements etc.) to one person or possibly a small group of people, social media outlets, such as facebook, have enabled individuals to share their stories with a mass audience. This ability to display one’s life simultaneously through oral, visual and textual medias has led to aspects of life which, perhaps previous to technology, would have been aural to become literature. Another significant way self-publication has changed the examination of literacy and orality is through apps, such as twitter, which allow people to read stories from many different perspectives in bite size pieces and in real time; this style of information is much more similar to a story being orally told then a physical publication, yet it is written an technically literature. Much of what is available in text format through social media is not what one would consider “literature” when using the previous categorization of literature and orality.
Yet, perhaps the most interesting way that digital media has changed categorizations is through the use of hyperlinks. As discussed in the lesson this week there is a distinction between a listener and a reader. And that distinction allows that a listener often has far more power over a story than someone who is reading text. However, hyperlinks change the relationship between reader and text, because they provide the reader the opportunity to uncover more information and to supplement the ideas in the text in front of them. Through hyperlinks the reader gains more power over the story. This change in relationship between reader and text begins to blur that distinction between listener and reader, further muddying the division between literature and orality.
Works Cited
MacNeil, Courtney. “The Chicago School of Media Theory Theorizing Media since 2003.” The Chicago School of Media Theory RSS. Chicago University, n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2016.
Shade, L. R., and L. R. Shade. Social Media Society: My so-Called Social Media Life. 1 Vol. , 05/11/2015. Web.
Williams, James. “Introduction: What Is Poststructuralism?” Understanding Poststructuralism. Chesham, Bucks: Acumen Pub., 2005. 1-24. Print.
Hi Hannah,
Good post! I am quite interested in your thoughts on stories and the power of the audience. I explored a similar topic in my blog post.
As you noted, the invention of www, and its inclusion in online texts gives more power to the reader. I was wondering whether you think this power is more or less than the power a listener has when hearing an oral story? As mentioned in this week’s lesson (and the readings as well), someone who is listening to a story has far more power over it than someone who is reading a static text. However, by adding hyperlinks, the writer is giving some of that power to the reader. Readers almost are able to discover pieces of the story themselves – or read/listen to the commentary of someone who isn’t the original author.
Do you think the modern blog reader has more power than the modern listener?
Hey! Thanks for the comment. Sorry it took a while to get back to you.
I haven’t made an certain conclusions on the power of a listener vs a digital reader but I am wanting to say that a digital reader has more power in the story then a listener. Like you said hyperlinking as well as the sheer ease of research offers the reader a wealth of information beyond what the original author is presenting. It is SO easy to explore a story much deeper or from different perspectives when you have the internet readily available.
So I guess at the moment I would say yes, I do think the modern blog reader has more power than the modern listener. However, if the listener also happens to be listening to something online vs in person then that listener also has access to the same research tools as the blog reader. So perhaps through simultaneous researching and listening they have equal power to shape their understanding of the story?
Hello Hanna, I really enjoyed your insights into the shifting relationship between literacy and orality. I particularly liked your solid example of how digital media text may be evanescent (eg. snapchat) and orality may be permanent (eg. audio files), as well as, how twitter is more like story telling than literature thought it is in fact the written word. You have summarized the shift in the role of the reader very well in you final paragraph. I wonder about the specific ways you see literature changing due to the empowered reader and their ability to supplement ideas in the text? Are there positives and negatives to this unfolding change?
I guess one of the specific ways I see literature changing is through the readers access to an extreme volume of literature and stories. One of the major negatives to this availability of content is that peoples attentions spans seem to be short and getting shorter. Because there is so much content writers must be able to capture a readers attention and share their story before the reader looses interest, I think this has led to stories becoming much shorter and perhaps slightly more superficial…