I think it is safe to say, in general terms, that we live in a superficial society. Where it is easy to label people and cultures based on the customs or habits that we see most often in a community. We also live in a society that likes to organize and categorize, therefore, to distinguish the the notion of a culture being either “oral” or “written” is a matter of some dispute. Chamberlin’s work “If This is Your Land, Where Are Your Stories?” suggests that that culture is both sides of the coin, rather than two split faces.
First and foremost, what do these terms “oral culture” and “written culture” mean?
Oral culture passes down information and stories through word of mouth. This process involves more than just the the verbal communication of information, there is a “rhythm or the melody of one’s voice or the variations in diction [that] emphasize different points or feelings” (Oral Traditions). But we should not limit the term oral culture to aboriginals communities who may use it as a way of passing along stories and bonding. We, us, them – do it every day. We tell our children stories. We reenact last nights dinner mishap. We tell jokes. We are equivalently, though perhaps less significantly, always submersed in an oral culture.
Written culture is equally important and unique in its process of passing down and storing information. It is durable and long lasting. It is also physical proof of the past. Courtney MacNeil’s article “Orality” suggests that literacy and orality exist in an unequal dichotomy, posing orality as the inferior concept being “primitive” and an “undeveloped medium”. The article notes that “It is the writing down in one authoritative language that gives “written culture” their power. But, as Chamberlain reminds us, this is a false dichotomy, and a dangerous one” (MacNeil). Chamberlin does not believe in the binary model because speech and writing are always intertangled. He also poses a strong argument that supports the notion that oral and written culture being of separate cultures is a misunderstanding.
Culture is a combination of our action but it is not wrapped up in a neat little box labeled this or that. It is ripped and polished, covered in graffiti and carved into a mask, with the words “welcome” written on it surrounded by the image of open hands. My point is, we are both this and that.
So why is it necessary to put oral and written culture in opposition? At what point are they the same? Every culture is a user of orality and of literature. In an interview, Chamberlin says that orality is a catalyst of communication, and communication is a part of both writing and speech. Orality passes in a moment while literature lives in every moment, but between the two is common ground that may not be undone except through a process of something untruthful. By untruthful I mean relaying a false story of the past. Chamberlin says we may not find that common ground until we are willing to take a leap of faith and believe in both sides. The most important thing to keep in mind is that we should not discredit our own stories but give more recognition to the stories of others. Both oral and written strategies for passing on stories are of one culture because they continuously overlap.
Sarah Casorso
Works Cited:
Chamberlin, J. Edward. If This is Your Land, Where Are Your Stories? Toronto: Vintage Canada, 2003. Web. http://writerscafe.ca/book_blogs/writers/j-edward-chamberlin_if-this-is-your-land-where-are-your-stories.php
MacNeil, Courtney. “Orality”. The Chicago School of Media Theory RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Jan. 2015.
“Oral Traditions.” UBC Indigenous Foundation, n.d. Web. 15 Jan. 2015. http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/culture/oral-traditions.html
Thank you Sarah, a nice thoughtful answer to my question :). In the future, link in your sources in your works cited when they are online. Also, delete the sample page to clean up your blog. Thanks, your blog looks great and you are off to an excellent start. If you have any questions or comments about this lesson or the assignments in the next lesson, please do post on our FaceBook page – thanks again.
Thanks for the feedback Erika! I think I finally succeeded in deleting the sample page, thank you 🙂
Hello, Sarah!
I really enjoyed your final point of how we should not discredit our own stories, but instead give more recognition to the stories of others. This struck me as being very important, and yet can be a difficult thing to accomplish, sometimes. It is easy to look at our own stories and traditions and judge them, usually not too harshly, but it can be difficult to give the stories of others the same treatment. Our treatment of our own stories is tainted by their nostalgia and meaning to us, whereas those of someone else can be strange and alien, and easy to belittle those of others.
Thank you for bringing up this point, as it was one that didn’t come into my mind while doing the readings.
– Christie Smith
Hi Sarah,
Nice to meet you and a wonderfully well-structured, well thought-out post.
Do you think it’s still legitimate, especially in the digital age, to categorized written and oral culture as two different things? Especially with relatively new phenomenons such as texting and YouTube, where every story we tell utilizes orality and writing. In the grand umbrella of Western culture, I certainly feel like the two converges more often than not.
I don’t know if it’s a good or bad thing either. A lot of kids, I’ve observed, tend to write in totally oral forms, even in the upper elementary levels. Imposing formal rules is a really difficult task. In high school, they become overly cautious of trying not to step into the oral realm of writing, since that’s what we do in university.
So in day to day life, we have a convergence of written and oral culture, and in academia there is a divide. If you agree with me here, do you think there is any merit in prizing the written form over the oral?
Thanks for the insightful post!
Florence
Hi Florence,
Thanks for your read and questions! I like that you brought up the question of how the digital age may affect the distinction between oral and written culture. In my opinion, I think that the growth of the internet has actually helped fade the line between oral and written distinction because of the increased use of video story telling rather than say articles or other written forms of communication. And like you said, our generation and the one below us tend to use a conversational or oral tone in their writing, creating a completely different literary experience.
I would agree that the distinction between oral and written culture is more prominent in academia, mostly because it is more formal and information must be precise regarding an argument or specific point. Chamberlin argues, however, that it doesn’t need to be this way. Culture is culture, just expressed in different ways.
I think that written form would hold a little bit more merit in academia such as assignments or papers but that is only because it would hard to show evidence with an oral process. I don’t mean to discredit oral processes, but convenience wise the written form is more practical.
Sarah C.