The dictionary definition of orality used by Courtney MacNeil, which described orality as “the quality of being oral or orally communicated” (par.1) demonstrates our misguided understanding of the term. To view orality simply as a “means through which we exchange information” (MacNeil, par.1) suggests that orality is both separate from and unequal to literacy.
When I think about the conversations I have with friends, slam poetry readings, lyrics, speeches by politicians, plays, news casts, etc., I see how orality is used to make meaning of what it means to be here, to be Canadian. These are some of the ways that we tell our stories, and as Dr. Paterson mentions in lesson 1:2, it is where we find intersections between literature and story, reality and imagination. How is this oral culture different from the oral traditions of other cultures?
I think back to my first blog post about how Canada’s colonial history and narratives impact our stories and world view. Our culture’s history of colonization has also impacted our assumptions about orality, and we view the oral tradition through a colonial/western lense. We hold the belief that oral cultures are one with nature (Chamberlin, p.19) but we associate a primitivism and simplicity with this oneness and equate it to being simple-minded, unintelligent, and non-complex, unlike so-called literate cultures (Chamberlin, p.19). It’s an insulting and patronizing view, certainly, as it trivializes the oral tradition and establishes literacy as civilized and intelligent, and thus dominant over orality. We have decided that literacy is culturally superior to orality and that text trumps storytelling, without paying attention to how literature and story intersect.
MacNeil quotes Walter J. Ong, who says that literacy is “absolutely necessary for the development of not only science but also of history, philosophy…” (MacNeil, par.2). But oral culture can be scientific, and historical (The wreck of the Franklin expedition? Exactly where Inuit always said it was, and this knowledge was passed down through the oral tradition). Creation stories are philosophical, as they attempt to explain who we are and why we are here. When we question what we think we know about oral traditions vs literature, we find that our understanding of orality is based on western superiority.
Ultimately, however, orality is not the true opposite of literacy. As Chamberlin explains, cultural artifacts “[function] in all the ways written texts do for European societies” (p.20), a “ceremony” that “could give meaning and value to our lives, and to the land” (p.90). In this way, orality performs the same function as the written word.
The internet disproves the idea that there is a firm distinction between an oral culture and a written culture. The durability of text, or the evanescence of orality (MacNeil, par.8) is disrupted when we delete a text or an email, or through disappearing hyperlinks and web pages, the sharing of podcasts and the viewing of Youtube videos, etc. Internet culture has encouraged the recognition that orality and literacy need not be viewed from a hierarchical perspective (MacNeil, par.8), which is illustrated by the fact that we share audio clips as readily as blog posts on the web.
No culture is merely an oral culture or a written culture. Orality and literacy interact and intersect in complex ways.
What do you think of Chamberlin and MacNeil’s view on orality? Especially in the context of the web?
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. We. 19 Feb. 2013.
LaFrance, Adrienne. “Raiders of the Lost Web.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 14 Oct. 2015. Web. 18 Sept. 2016.
News, CBC. “Franklin Find Proves ‘Inuit Oral History Is Strong:’ Louie Kamookak.” CBCnews. CBC/Radio Canada, 10 Sept. 2014. Web. 18 Sept. 2016.
Hi Marrisa,
I really enjoyed your post! I had not really thought through the (very Western) idea that literacy is somehow a ‘better’ quality than orality.
Your observation that we more often share videos and audio clips is spot on! I was thinking about this while going of this week’s lesson. It seems people will only share small quotes – a line or two – on Facebook, Tumblr or Instagram; however, people upload videos and performances more often.
Also, I do agree with you in the sense that spoken words can be just as, if not more, powerful than written words, especially if you consider famous speeches – example: Martin Luther King Jr.’s ‘I Have a Dream.’ I do wonder if famous spoken word poems, speeches, songs, would be less powerful without hearing the author or orator’s voice behind them. What do you think?
It definitely is a dominant western idea, I know that the idea of orality and oral culture provoke, for many, racist and colonialist images of a “primitive” people.
I agree with you re: Facebook. I see a lot of videos on my timeline and they do seem to have more social capital and share-ability. Viral videos can impact us the same way as written words, and their orality does not make them lesser (Like Ted Talks and your example, “I Had A Dream”).
As for your question, I do think the author’s voice matters. All storytellers engage their audience in different ways. Their goals may be different, and they may be trying to influence their audience in different ways. Who tells a story is important, because that story is inevitably coloured by their individual experiences and perspectives.
Thanks for commenting 🙂
Hi Marissa,
I loved how you described the Western understanding of orality as a kind of “lesser” form of communication. In the Western world, we’ve been taught that if something isn’t written down then it essentially doesn’t have any evidence to back it up and somehow orality, because of it’s impermanence, is an unreliable source.
Chamberlin argues that meaning and value are derived from different forms of communication (like orality), in indigenous cultures but because Westerners are unwilling to comprehend this kind of medium as a legitimate source, it automatically becomes false or people react with a sense of disbelief. Furthermore, the message that this instills within Indigenous or any other culture is that if they cannot meet Western “standards” of literature and written word then they are essentially powerless and must be telling a lie. This is why I thought Ong’s statement was absolutely absurd because different cultures have varying ways of transmitting information and not one is superior or more legitimate over the other.
Orality is the worlds global village of modern media – therefore we must recognize all of the mediums diverse functions serve the practical purpose of knowledge exchange (MacNeil, 2003). Literacy and Oral culture is intertwined in the global village.
I really enjoyed reading your post, let me know what you think~
Cheers!
-Chloe Lee
Works Cited:
MacNeil, Courtney. “The Chicago School of Media Theory Theorizing Media since 2003.” The Chicago School of Media Theory RSS. N.p., 2003. Web. 12 Aug. 2016.
That’s a good point about impermanence being viewed as an unreliable source. Of course as the orality article tells us, that’s beginning to change as our ideas of permanence change thanks to the web (text is now deletable, for example). We really have created a hierarchy that renders the spoken word “powerless”, as you say. Thanks for commenting!
Hi Marissa,
I really liked your post in the fact that it made me think in a new way. First I shall say that this sense of “lesser” in reference to orality is so true. In university we are marked and credited on our work that is written down. The idea of being marked on our spoken words seems ridiculous; however, some of us are able to speak better than we can write but unfortunately we are all marked in the same way because society believes that every is the same. This was just one thought that popped into my mind when reading your post but it is not the thought that has me thinking in a different way.
You mentioned oral tradition being of historical importance in response to Walter J. Ong’s statement about literacy being “absolutely necessary for the development of not only science but also of history, philosophy…”, and I agree with you. The example that came to my mind was the Bible, a piece of history. Now this was a surprise for me as I am in no way religious (I am someone who believes in the power of the individual believing anything they want to ) but the Bible is something that I have never read nor know enough about. However from what I can say from obvious knowledge is that the Bible is written on stories that have been passed down through orality, through immense time and culture. If then orality is not accepted as reliable then how can the Bible be so powerful and even the most sold book in the world?. My main question here is: though the Bible is made from stories only known through the passing of them orally, are they only significant and credible because they have officially been written down? If the Bible did not exist would these stories be as well-known and so significant?
I would also like to restate how I am not religious and therefore could be writing something that may be wrong. I hope that anything I have said has not been completely stupid nor offensive as I am not well-educated in the topic of the Bible.
I never really thought about orality as it pertains to education, but you’re right. Who decided that writing was the best marker for our knowledge/intelligence on a subject? We’ve created a hierarchy that puts writing/literature at the top and orality at the bottom.
I don’t think the bible would be as well-known if it hadn’t been written down (and I remember learning that the invention of the printing press is what brought the bible out of its obscurity) although I think it’s possible that some of its stories could have existed if it was passed down through an oral tradition that survived. But I don’t think the oral tradition of the bible was that strong in the first place. I know that the Koran existed orally long before it was ever written, so maybe it would have survived if it hadn’t been written down? Many First Nations Creation stories have survived because of the strong oral tradition of these communities. It’s only by valuing oral culture that these stories survive.
Thanks for commenting 🙂
Hi Bryon – I think that is an excellent question in context with Marrisa’s blog – what do you think Marrisa?