The following blog is in response to the question.
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”.
———————-
According to Chamberlin, “all so-called oral cultures are rich in forms of writing, albeit non syllabic and non-alphabetic ones…and, on the other hand, the central institutions of our supposedly “written” cultures – our courts and churches and parliaments and schools are in fact arenas of strictly defined and highly formalized oral traditions”. The mistake he says is in the concept that “speaking and listening are simple and natural… while writing and reading are cultivated and complex.” This, he says “encourages people to treat other societies with a blend of condescension and contempt while celebrating the sophistication of their own” (Chamberlin 19). In examining the evolution of language, linguists have realized the complexity of languages and hence the idea that speaking and listening are simple and natural are not true. Speaking, listening, writing and reading are all forms of communicating that require complex and organized systems of thoughts.
Culture is represented in many ways. Culture can be defined as “the system of shared beliefs, values, customs, behaviours, and artifacts that the members of society use to cope with their world and with one another, and that are transmitted from generation to generation through learning” (A Definition). Under such a definition, a system of shared beliefs, values, behaviours are presented in oral and written traditions. Coping mechanisms – from helping us escape harm to working together to build communities are all through our ability to communicate. Further, our communication with others is not dependent on either oral or writing methods. It is in both. It is in these methods, that allow the passing on of ones culture from one generation to the next.
The classification of culture as either an “oral” culture or a “written” culture is dangerous in exactly the way Chamberlin phrased it. It is because it creates a hierarchy of culture. The thought that one culture is more “advanced” than other, or more “evolved” is an illusion that is encouraged by history. It creates the divide between “them” and “us” and does not encourage the desire to cultivate or to understand another culture on the premise that it is backward and therefore unworthy of understanding, preserving and celebrating.
MacNeil also expresses her views on orality. She says “The framing of orality as a “preference” or “tendency” encourages its place within the paragone of the printed and spoken word, and suggests a single-sensory conception of media – that orality exists in a dialectical relationship with literacy, and that communication is a competition between eye and ear” (MacNeil). In this framework of either “oral” or “written” culture. They are presented as mutually exclusive options that cannot co-exist. While in fact, culture is a result of both the “oral” and the “written”.
MacNeil further extends to apply this to the “oral” and the “written” within the framework of our modern web-based society. MacNeil quotes MacLuhan in stating that “the computer does not initiate the dominance of one media form over another, but rather encourages their fusion within the pluralistic realm of the “global village”.” Transcribing voice into text has become so advanced that one could record a voice note as a reminder and have it transcribed into text. Similarly, texts can be read out to us, sometimes in customized voices. The fusion of the written and the spoken word has never been such harmony.
The desire to classify culture either as “oral” or “written” is a convenient classification that might even stem from the OCD nature in humans to classify everything into neat little pockets. Where in fact, we do not fit in. “Them vs Us” is a mentality that has been encouraged because it separates people into neat sections. But as Chamberlin sees it, “We are… much more involved in both oral and written traditions than we might think. And our stories and songs draw on the resources of both.” (Chamberlin 20)
References
A Definition of Culture. n.d. Web. 16 Jan. 2015. <https://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/courses/122/module1/culture.html>.
Chamberlin, Edward. If This is Your Land, Where are Your Stories? Finding Common Ground. Toronto: AA. Knopf. 2003. Print.
MacNeil Courtney. “Orality.” The Chicago School of Media Theory. Uchicagoedublogs. 2007. Web. 19 Feb. 2013
Hi Qihui,
Thanks for this post. What you said here makes total sense. I completely agree with what you say about how communication with others does not or should not depend on either oral or written culture, but rather on both. I say this because I don’t believe one to be more worthy or important than the other. In fact, I think a balance of each is what would make a culture more “modern.” While I can see why westernized cultures might say that oral cultures are inferior, I disagree with this. Just because something is written down and published, does not make it any more “factual” than oral story telling.
It is sad, like you say, that cultures are not willing to look beyond these methods of communication and as a result, begin to prevent themselves from understanding other cultures. I think that it is over time that these thoughts regarding other cultures were created. I say this because I do not believe one hundred years ago, that oral and written cultures would have even been distinguished. Perhaps they were, but maybe not so rigidly.
With that being said, I want to take a moment to explain what I think about these definitive boundaries between “Them and Us.” I believe that the more aware the world gets, the more speculation there is about what is true and what is not. As a result, I think this is why oral storytelling and oral culture can be seen as somewhat non-credible. However, while one would think that as the world becomes more aware of things like this, (ie: fact vs. fiction, truth vs. fabrication), it would naturally become less responsive to things like the World Wide Web, but this is not the case. Instead, the majority of people believe that which they read online. For instance, I once took a class on the rhetoric of science and medicine. In this class we were taught about how patients read information on the Internet and simply believe what they read because it is published on the Internet. Regurgitating that which you read online can be as “non-credible” as storytelling because in “actual fact,” anyone can publish online.
In conclusion, I think that (ESPECIALLY with the World Wide Web being such a prominent feature of today’s day and age), that oral culture or written culture cannot be and should not be considered better than the other. It would be illogical to say so. What do you think? Would there have been boundaries made even without the WWW? If so, how?
Jessica Pellegrino
Hello Quhui, thank you for your thoughtful answer to me question – nicely articulate. But Quhui, please do include a couple of hyperlinks in your blog posts each week – thanks.