This post, I want to explore the concepts of “oral culture” and “written culture” by answering the discussion question as per below:
“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 theory that culture can be distinguished as either “oral culture” or “written culture” is a mistaken understanding as to how culture works because as Chamberlain points out, it is a binary notion which creates a superficial and false hierarchy of “superior culture.” When people think in black and white, they are thinking inside the box, and creating categories where there should be fluidity. Think about sexuality, people like to categorize based on sexual orientations, one is either gay or straight – but can there not be a spectrum in between these binary concepts? Just like creating categories for sexual orientation can be limiting, so is distinguishing culture as either written or oral. In Courtney MacNeil’s article “Orality,” she describes, “speech and writing are so entangled with each other in our various forms and performance of language that we are like Penelope, weaving them together during the day and unweaving them at night” (MacNeil 2007). This is to makes so much sense, sometimes orality triumphs literature and other times literature triumphs orality, because both are necessary in making sense of culture, and the best way make sense of the world around us, is to use both speech and writing.
One thing to point out is that with the established of www, and new technologies such as computer with high speed internet, radio stations, audio records, text messaging, there is no clear line between oral and written culture. Its nearly impossible to draw boundaries or create a defining box for either. As Alexis Madrigal from the Atlantic points out. “written culture is opening up to oral psychodynamics,” in programs such as YouTube and Twitter.
The distinguishing of written and oral culture seems more of an excuse of defining Western culture as superior compared to others, such as the Indigenous populations of Canada. MacNeil points out that, while “Western egocentrism” defines orality as a inferior medium, it is also a globally dominant method of knowledge exchanging and truth searching (MacNeil). One of the arguments of the inferiority of orality is that it is used as merely an aesthetic but one must keep in mind that written work can be detrimental as well, as it has the power to misinform to large audiences If anyone is curious on how Indigenous people are affected by misrepresentation by Western media, check out the podcast from Media Indigena, EP 184:Escaping the Orbit of Settler Colonialism. In the podcast, they discuss how they must Indigenous Media must counteract misinformation perpetuated by mainstream media, yet create and inform the public of their own issues as well, instead of merely just responding to the misrepresentations. Side note, does this podcast come out to you as inferior because it is oral? Probably not, because there is no clear line between oral and written culture, it is just as informing and truth seeking as written work.
Overall, the only thing archaic, is the binary concept that culture can be defined as written or oral, clearly that is not the case.
Works Cited
Chamberlin, Edward. If This is Your Land, Where are Your Stories? Finding Common Ground. AA. Knopf. Toronto. 2003. Print.
Macneil, Courtney. “Orality.” The Chicago School of Media Theory RSS, 2007, lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/mediatheory/keywords/orality/.
“Media Indigena: Indigenous Current Affairs.” Media Indigena: Indigenous Current Affairs, Media Indigena, 11 Nov. 2019.
Madrigal, Alexis C. “Oral Culture, Literate Culture, Twitter Culture.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 31 May 2011, www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/05/oral-culture-literate-culture-twitter-culture/239697/.
Hi Sashini!
I love the way you described the notion of fluidity between spoken and written culture, and the connection it has to social media. In a previous course, we had discussed the intricacies of internet culture and how the written culture in social media communication has become an oral culture. For example, the syntax, deixis, expression, and form of written social media, has become, in themselves, textual form of oral speech. One particularly interesting thing that we discussed was the presence of emojis in text and the validity that it has as written form. What is your stance of emojis on the spectrum of written and oral culture, and how does it connect with the structure of communication laid out throughout history? Additionally, why or why not may people consider emojis as a lesser form of communication compared to text? I can’t wait for your response; have a nice day!
Cheers,
Aran Chang
Hi Arran and Sashini,
A great question / answer. And it sounds like a great course – which one it is? Who teaches and what department. I am curious. As for my thoughts on your question Arran, I tend to think of emojis as a visual component of written text, like a symbol. Of course the alphabet is equally symbolic. The difference is an emoji is much more abstract and as such can be translated differently by differently minded people. Whereas the alphabet is pretty much agreed up exactly what each little symbol represents. Another idea is what about the new abbreviations? A good example is the first time I got a text that had ‘lol’ in it – the text was from my son, and this is some years back. I read ‘lol’ as ‘lots of love’ – lol! As for the question of validity – I would suggest that it depends upon the reader. People born into the digital era, which came about when I was in my late 30’s – have created new symbols and hence new meaningfulness for themselves – which I would argue obviously are valid or they would not have created them. As for those who chose to remain ignorant of this meaningfulness, well …. . Thanks very much for a great question!
Hi Aran,
In my opinion emojis are in the same spectral area as texts. Psychologically, we react to human faces that convey different emotions, and when we see an emoji, it does not have the same effect. However, I do not believe it is inferior at all compared to written words because in the end of the day they convey the same message. Sad emoji = I’m sad.
Humans are able to understand feelings and emotions by facial expressions, its in our genes. Psychological studies have shown this time and time again through the studying of infants. Using emojis is just another short cut to express feelings, just like text messages are a shortcut to express dialogue.