Assignment 1:3
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.
The characterisation of cultures as an “oral” or a “written” one is a problematic conception in the sense of its implications that lead to the tension and inequitable relationships between genres of communication and cultures.
First of all, the way in which cultures are divided by written or spoken language may widen the gap between the two ways in which information is exchanged, with a competitive relationship in-between being created (“Orality”). It seems to be a common way of thinking that writing by nature is considered “cultivated” and “complex” (Chamberlin 19) as it “frees the mind for original, abstract thought” . However, the dialectical relationship between printed and spoken words suggested by some scholars in effect makes speaking seem comparatively “primitive” and “underdeveloped” as opposed to writing (“Orality”). It also entrenches the idea that oral traditions can only exist in an aesthetic sense (“Orality”) due to their “naturalness” and “naiveté”, consequently dismissing the practicality of oral language (Chamberlin 18). However, such a misconception has been challenged by Chamberlin who argues that the oral words in the story-telling traditions can also perform abstract work effectively such as communicating the knowledge of religion, science, history and the arts or “give meaning and value” to the reality that we could hardly make sense of without imaginative perspectives (1). It can also, according to Chamberlin, reveal truths of the world we live in as much as scientific knowledge written in texts can do and in a way bring us close to it (1). In addition to the equivalency between writing and orality which is evident in terms of their practicality and effectiveness in communicating abstract information, Paterson suggests that orature as a way of passing on stories might be more complex than written literature which begins with stories as far as the dynamics of readership and listenership is concerned (“Lesson”). She demonstrates that listeners in the context of story-telling can literarily change the story according to factors such as the time and space and people involved in the speech performance and therefore make new and contemporary meanings with that transformation; whereas readers of a text can do nothing about the story when it becomes textual and as a result static (“Lesson”). Although Paterson applauds the strength of orality over writing in terms of its power in empowering people to make changes on stories happen, she suggests that both forms of communicating stories should exist in a symbiotic relationship (“Lesson”). Such a conception is echoed by MacNeil who maintains that neither orality nor writing should be privileged (“Orality”).
The misconception that writing is more superior to orality might lead to hierarchical relationships as they are employed to frame and differentiate cultures. The categorisation of the “oral culture” and “written culture” implies that people who have writing skills are more intelligent, than those who rely on orality, in terms of their “self-reflexive” abilities that can generate “real thought” (Chamberlin 19). The subliminal bias that writing literacy holds the key for the development of human civilization while oral traditions are not able to “accommodate civilized thoughts and feelings” (Chamberlin 13) is very likely to give rise to the racist assumption that Indians, in the historical context of colonial Canada, should be educated; as a result, this group of people who are identified as having “primitive consciousness” (Chamberlin 19) or having a childlike state of mind or even “beasts of the field” (Chamberlin 10) can push through “the chronological progression” (“Lesson”) and become civilised. Such an understanding implying the hierarchical relationship between the Canadian Aboriginal cultures and the European cultures leads to the idea of replacing the Indigenous languages with the European ones (Chamberlin 18). Another implication of the division of the “oral” and “written” culture is that the societies who have the traditions of written literature are more “advance”, than those “whose major forms of imaginative expression are in speech and performance”, in terms of the evolutionary process (Chamberlin 19). The underlying ethnocentricity in this colonising discourse lead to the justification of the legitimacy of dispossession, including the new comers from Europe taking the land away from the native inhabitants, and worse, enslavement of Aboriginal people in the Canadian history. The unequal dichotomy of the “oral” and “written” culture eventually causes the division of “Them and Us” (Chamberlin 4).
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. Web. 16 SEP. 2016.http://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/mediatheory/keywords/orality/
Paterson, Erika. “Lesson 1:2 Story & Literature”. ENGL 470A Canadian Studies: Canadian Literary Genres Sept 2016. University of British Columbia Blogs. 2016. Web. 16 Sept. 2016. https://blogs.ubc.ca/courseblogsis_ubc_engl_470a_99c_2014wc_44216-sis_ubc_engl_470a_99c_2014wc_44216_2517104_1/unit-1/lesson-12/
Hi Patrick,
Great work putting together coherent evidence from both Chamberlin and MacNeil. Solid context for the privileging of written culture over oral culture.
An initial note, you used the word “Indians” in the second paragraph to describe the historical context of colonial Canada. Was this to replicate colonialist rhetoric? Otherwise I’d suggest replacing it with a more acceptable term for the First Nation’s people.
Further, do you think the symbiotic relationship between the oral and the written will become a form of consumed media? Digital news stations often incorporate video into their articles, but do you think that novels and poetry, as we shift to digital technologies, might be able to implement the oral? I think it’s a possibility that’ll need to be informed by courses such as this one to acknowledge other “literary” (or oralrary?) traditions than Western.
Hello Michael,
Thanks for your analytical insights into my essay. Here let me respond to your question in respect of the word choice of “Indian (s)” in my writing. As a matter of fact, you yourself have well explained my intention of using this particular term, which is characteristic of the colonising narratives. It is primarily to urge the readers to look into the settlement history of Canada critically. I guess such a approach might have been influenced by Chamberlin’s book where the term of “Indian” is overwhelmingly employed throughout the book without a hint of negative connotation being identified. In fact, I argue that such a rhetorical decision effectively prompts the readers not to forget the history of colonial Canada which might have been masked by those neutral and sophisticated terms such as “Indigenous” or “Aboriginal people”. Having said that, I see the way your suggestion makes sense. What I am going to do is to put quotation marks around “Indian (s)” in my future writings so as to avoid any misunderstanding that it entails.
Thanks,
Patrick
Hi Patrick!
Thanks for your thoughts on the relationship between oral and written cultures. As a book-lover it is difficult for me to view texts as static. I always find that re-reading a text reveals new and interesting details, letting the story evolve and transform in my mind. Certain words resonant with me more than they did upon the first read. Texts are also open to adaptation. They can be turned into movies and fan fiction interpretations. Pride and Prejudice, a beloved classic English novel, has been turned into a modern parody series, with the publication of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
That being said, I definitely agree that both forms of story communication should exist in a symbiotic relationship, with neither one being privileged. Do you think there are ways for oral and written cultures to find common ground? Can this be integrated into our education system?
Hello Mikayla,
I like your argument which sheds light on the fluid aspect of texts as opposed my “static” notion on printed words. I found your question about the application of the symbiotic relationship between speaking and writing to education system an intriguing one too, which is quite similar to the one raised by Michael above who was interested in incorporating orality into the on-line written media. I was just wondering if this on-line course is the answer to both of your questions. Hyperlinks to oral contents seem to represent one of the possible paths leading to the virtual collaboration of the two forms of communication in question. As a teacher myself, I see the way orature incorporating into on-line learning and teaching materials via hyperlinks works in terms of teaching children’s literature which is closely tied to oral traditions. It might also suit the learning needs of the kids who are still under the process of growing their literary skills and might achieve comprehensions of the printed words more effectively with the aid of additional information offered through spoken words. As a matter of fact, this course as well as our discussions about the orality/writing has led to one idea of mine posting my own theories about the subjects I am teaching up on-line, such as on a blog, with hyperlinks to some of the audio or video files of me giving more details and explaining how the approaches and strategies I recommend work. This in a way could serve as an after-class revision tool for my students to explore my instructions further. The efficacy of the in-class activities might as a result be enhanced. This is my thoughts on the possible ways of putting oral and written strengths together contributing to both on-line and off-line education.
Regards,
Patrick