Lesson 1.2- The Age Old Debate: Oral versus Written Culture

Ah, the age old debate. In this week’s blog entry, I will address the issue of of defining cultures as either “oral” or “written”. In J. Edward Chamberlin’s If This is Your Land, Where are Your Stories, he addresses the beliefs that laypeople have surrounding the superiority of oral versus written cultures. There has been quite a bit of history surrounding the idea that people “live our lives in language” (Chamberlin 17). Dating back to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, there has been a constant push towards the notion that language shapes the way humans perceive the world (Chamberlin 17).

One assumption is that “speaking and listening are simple and natural, while writing and reading are cultivated and complex” (Chamberlin 19). It is also implied that written cultures are more advanced than oral cultures, which the implication that oral cultures are lagging behind. The issue with distinguishing culture on the basis of the oral versus written dichotomy is that we fail to value the symbiotic relationship of both. As Chamberlin puts it, one of the problems is this “encourages people to treat other societies with a blend of condensation and content while celebrating the sophistication of their own” (19). On top of that, Chamberlin points out the fallacy of oral and written cultures being two distinct entities. He gives the example of how all oral cultures are rich in forms of writing, such as handcrafted belts and blankets (20). Similarly, institutions for which written cultures revolve around are characterized by formalized oral traditions, such as churches (Chamberlin 20).

In “Orality”, MacNeil addresses how the framing of cultures as exclusively oral implies that it is purely one-dimensional, only serving as “an aesthetic”. As well, the view that oral and written cultures are exclusive “denies the potential for an equivalency between the printed and spoken word” (MacNeil, “Orality”). Above all, the rapid development of technology and the world wide web has blurred the lines between the supposed boundaries between oral versus written cultures. Certainly, language does have an effect on human’s perception on the world. Unfortunately, it looks a bit ugly, as the “us versus them” attitude Chamberlin addresses comes into light.

Personally, I think the oral versus written culture debate is a really poor and mistaken understanding as to how culture works. If we were to look at it from a scientific/psychological point of view, this idea proves to be faulty. For example, cultural evolution requires that certain ideas are passed on to others, and those ideas are selectively retained (Heine, “Cultural Evolution”). How are these ideas passed on? Predominantly through word of mouth: through rumours, myths, and successful folk tales (Heine, “Cultural Evolution”). Interestingly, the study of rumours is informative because it indicates what kinds of ideas come to be spread and become common within a culture (Heine, “Cultural Evolution”). Case in point, this highlights one of the errors made when people evaluate culture on the basis of oral versus written means. It’s impossible to make a clear cut distinction between oral versus written cultures because they are so intertwined in each other.

As well, the oral versus written culture dilemma reminds me of the hotly debated nature versus nurture argument. Long before most people have come to consensus that nature and nurture are both equally important, the argument revolved around one extreme or the other. Instead of viewing oral and written culture as distinct, isolated entities, it is vital that people understand how one culture cannot exist without the other.

Frankly speaking, it seems a tad preposterous that this argument exists to this day. Despite evolution and advancement, the human culture has been unable to shake off the us versus them attitude. It should be obvious that cultural differences should be understood and appreciated, and not belittled. However, my studies at university has brought me to the conclusion that common sense is not common practice, which proves to be the case here.

Works Cited

“Chamberlin.” Department of English, University of Toronto, n.d. Web. 22 May 2014.

Chamberlin, J. Edward. If This is Your Land, Where are Your Stories? Finding Common Ground. Toronto: A.A. Knopf, 2003. Print.

Heine, Steven J. “Cultural Evolution.” University Of British Columbia. Hennings Building, Vancouver, BC. 24 Sept. 2013. Lecture.

“Is the Debate Between “Nature vs Nurture” Almost Over?.” Optometry and Vision Science. 89.2 (2012): 245. Web.

MacNeil, Courtney.  “Orality.” The Chicago School of Media Theory. UChicagoEdu Blogs. 2007. Web. 19 Feb. 2013.