The idea for separating “oral culture” and “written culture” has been a norm for European societies for hundreds of years. Western discourse not only separates the two but also places them in hierarchical terms whereby written words are dominate when keeping records. In present day, most oral societies have now adopted written words for expressing, communicating and documenting, but this does not take away from the great value in orally transmitting knowledge. The idea of distinguishing between the two is not only narrowing, but also incorrect when taken into the context of framing culture in a larger sense.
Comparing “oral culture” to “written culture” is a juxtaposition that creates an unnecessary tension between the two. For Courtney MacNeil, speech and writing are entangled but our current theories and models do not exemplify it as such and we are therefore studying these traditions in a blind manner. As MacNeil exemplifies, the rapid advances of technology and the World Wide Web blur oral and written traditions further. Edward Chamberlain discusses the harmful effects of not only dividing the two but also assuming that “speaking and listening are simple and natural, while writing and reading are cultivated and complex” (19). He writes about the conflict that this brought in history, and how people created their own communities based on how they communicated with each other. He views the two in a similar light to MacNeil: written and oral cultures are intertwined with each other, since many oral cultures are “rich in forms of writing” (20). For Chamberlin, listening and reading go hand in hand.
In another one of Chamberlin’s works he brings up a very crucial point whereby he states colonialism has backed us into a place where we must make a choice between the two traditions, but he states bluntly that neither such culture exists (138). Every culture has eyes and ears and therefore not only sees things but also reads them “whether in the stars or in the sand, whether spelled out by alphabet or animal, whether communicated across natural or supernatural boundaries” (138). As well in relation to oral traditions, he points out that every culture hears and listens. In the Western culture, the predominant institutions – churches, courts and parliaments – are places where speech is at the forefront.
In order to have culture as a whole, both are needed and it is foolish to even attempt to separate them. Forcing a dichotomy dismisses the symbiotic relationship that exists between the two. In an interview, discussing is book; Chamberlin states that the inability to communicate with others in the contemporary setting has to do with our issues in the past. To help deal with these issues we need the accounts of both oral and written stories.
Works Cited
Battiste, Marie Ann. “From Hand to Mouth: The Postcolonial Politics of Oral and Written Traditions.” Reclaiming Indigenous Voice and Vision. Vancouver: UBC, 2000. 124-38. Print.
Chamberlin, J. Edward. If This Is Your Land, Where Are Your Stories?: Reimagining Home and Sacred Space. Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim, 2004. Print.
MacNeil, Courtney. “Orality.” The Chicago School of Media Theory, n.d. Web. 20 May 2016.
“Oral Traditions.” Oral Traditions. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 May 2016.
Hello,
I do agree that both oral and written culture is needed in a society, so then why do you think that in our culture now it is separated? Do you think it is easier for immorral things to happen, or just easier for a larger amount of people to co-habitate? I wonder if there is a good answer to that question, I do not want to sound cynical but I think it is so people feel better about themselves when they take advantage of other people or hurt others to get what they need. I am not sure though. Would love to hear your thoughts.
Hi Laryssa,
Thank you for your comment! I think for a fully literate person, the idea of an oral culture would be a profoundly new concept. Growing up in the each respective culture it is easier to see the other has “different”. Personally, I believe it is easier for oral cultures to accept written cultures simply for the linear behaviors we have of going from speakers, to readers, to writers. There may be hostility for written cultures to be hostile at the thought of oral cultures existing and perhaps not adapting but I do not want to speak on behalf of a larger issue without some context.
Navi
Hi Navi,
Thanks for the post. It’s interesting how society, as a whole, has progressively valued reading and writing over speaking and listening and deemed it a symbol for the educated. Demarcation in what we perceive is what creates conflict. I like the saying, “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts” and I think it holds true seeing that the hierarchy made out of oral and written cultures has only created tension. Why do you think the more “cultured and civilized” generally believe the written word is superior?
Cheers,
Lorraine
Hi Lorraine,
I mentioned this point above but I think our linear progression from going from speakers, to readers, to writers may hold in many people’s mind of being a hierarchical structure. If this is true it is entirely crippling because the two work in a symbiotic manner. It is such a shame that the appreciation for being a good listener or speaker is not always present. It seems these days that a lot of unnecessary quarrels would be resolved if we would all listen carefully and it is weird when we live in a culture that is so defined by presentation and presenting ourselves and networking and yet there is still an unnecessary gap between the two.
Thank you for the comment,
Navi
Hey Navi,
I like how you emphasize how forced the tension between orality and literacy is. I do think this is true, and this analysis is maybe relevant to some literature, but for the most part is used to argue quite a stretch. I’m curious to hear why you this tension is popular? I’m also curious about the image your selected. To me, it seems demonstrative of two worlds that are both unique from each other, but also connected in many ways. Am I close?
Best,
Corbin
Hey Corbin,
You are very close! I wanted to make the dichotomy between the two clear but to state that they do exist together in the bigger picture. I also think that we love to work in dichotomies for the simple reason of making sense of our complex world, and ultimately this leads to tensions when the attempts at simplifying results in taking away crucial details. I sympathize with all of us going through the difficulties of life and finding the needs to compartmentalize almost every aspect of existence however as long as we do not forget to take a step back and understand the depths and dimensions that exist we aren’t in total turmoil.
Thank you for your insightful comment!
Navi
Thanks for the wonderful post dear one. It is true that colonialism did a lot of damage to literature. Just as Chamberlin states, colonialism has backed us into a place where we must make a choice between the two traditions (138). We have to choose between a superior tradition –written literature- and an inferior tradition –oral literature. Such distinctions attempt to create a culture that does not exist. Just as colonialism brought cultural differences and divide, I strongly believe that globalization will end it. In my opinion, the world is slowly but surely becoming a small village. One event such as an act of terrorism that affects one country produces a ripple effect that affects so many other countries. It is evident that the world has become a small village. As a result, intercultural exchanges have increased significantly. Both oral and written traditions are increasingly borrowing from each other. Don’t you think these exchanges will erode the gap between the two?
Hi Minkyo,
I really appreciated your thought process in your comment! I do agree, we are very rapidly globalizing and there is many overlap occurring. From what I know and what I’ve seen it seems has if societies are all diverging (arguably in not the best way) towards western cultures. English has unofficially become a lingua franca for all. With the amount of youtubers and educational talks now on the internet, it is without a doubt that oral culture exists in a manner made for the modern world and seems to be taking on more and more traction. I believe that the internet is proving to be the ultimate experimental ground for the two cultures to converge.
Navi
Hi Navi,
I agree with you that “In order to have culture as a whole, both [orality and literacy] are needed and it is foolish to even attempt to separate them. Forcing a dichotomy dismisses the symbiotic relationship that exists between the two,” and with Lorraine that this dichotomy has produced an exclusionary hierarchy. Laryssa is also right that racism is often underlying the need for US/THEM separation. I love Edward Chamberlin’s assertion that it is not necessary to choose between them, or to impart different valuations to each modality (238). Rather, what’s important is that we recognize the “common ground” we are all occupying as story tellers/truth tellers. When we focus on which modality someone chooses to communicate in, and we choose to look for differences instead of commonalities, we are devaluing others. How hard is it to recognize a biography, for example, whether it be emailed, typed, double-spaced, video or audio recorded? I think that the next generation, having been raised wholly in the digital age will not propagate these divisive valuations, but academia will have to become more accepting of multi-modalities in order to legitimate the practice. This course is an example of how various literacy modes are being welcomed into academia, so I’m hopeful. The other day a prof commented to the class that “this generation” won’t stand for a class that doesn’t include some video or other mode and he’s had to change the delivery of his lessons to accommodate their expectations, so it seems the digital generation is having a positive impact in this regard already. What have you noticed in the way of positive change?
Hello Charlie. Thanks for the wonderful introduction. I am glad to hear how proud you are of your country Canada. The sense of patriotism is quite low in Canada (Millman 27). My attention has been drawn to your claim that “Stories are what make us Canadian.” I am concerned that the stories that are told of Canada are not inclusive. They mostly ignore the Aboriginal stories, which are vital for the understanding of the nation. Therefore, if you say it is the stories that make Canadians Canadians, do you mean to say the Aboriginals are less Canadians?
Work cited
Millman, Brock. Polarity, Patriotism, and Dissent in Great War Canada, 1914-1919. Toronto: U of Toronto, 2016. Print.
Hi Navi,
You raise a significant point on the internet being an equalizer of oral and written traditions. Hopefully it will be a platform of conversation rather than marginalization.
– John
Hi John,
I do hope as well! It can be a wonderful tool that can aid in widening our lenses. Our cultures are always shifting and we have to accept that we now live in a symbiotic culture, with the internet at the forefront which uses both forms: written and oral.
Best,
Navi