Edward Chamberlin states that “stories give meaning and value to the places we call home… they hold us together and at the same time keep us apart” (1). These stories differ between cultures and nations; across physical and social boundaries. The act of telling stories differs as well, and cultures are often differentiated on the basis of how their stories are told. As Chamberlin discusses, for example, societies in which people communicate through spoken word and spread stories via word of mouth are deemed “oral cultures”. Conversely, however, cultures whose stories are shared and preserved through the processes of reading and writing are classified as “written cultures”. Entangled in this binary distinction is a type of social hierarchy in which those who are part of “oral cultures” are considered inferior while those who are part of “written cultures” are believed to be part of a culture that exercises a greater level of mental complexity and superiority. Chamberlin states that it is these notions that “[encourage] people to treat other societies with a blend of condescension and contempt while celebrating the sophistication of their own” (19). Much like Chamberlin, MacNeil argues with the oft held academic perspective that literate cultures are evidence of evolutionary progress. MacNeil suggests that this viewpoint (in which oral cultures are seen as being primitive) largely reflects a deep-rooted bias against non-Westernized civilizations.
Chamberlin, too, argues against the perspective that there exists a clear-cut binary between “oral cultures” and “written cultures”. “Oral cultures”, he states, are “rich in forms of writing [that are] non-syllabic and non-alphabetic” (Chamberlin 20). These forms of writing, he argues, are evident in “woven and beaded blankets… carved and painted trays, poles, doors” (Chamberlin 20). Chamberlin continues to argue against the distinctions between the two cultural categories by pointing out that the central institutions of supposedly “written cultures” are rich with oral traditions, like the ritualistic way that “certain things must be said and done in the right order by the right people”(20). By sharing these examples, the author forces the reader to consider the ways in which we are all part of both oral and written cultural traditions and may, in some cases, fail to recognize these elements in our stories and in our societies. Both MacNeil and Chamberlin point out that members of Western societies often overlook the oral forms of communication that they practice, and a sense of “Western egocentrism” becomes clear in this dismissal of oral traditions and the subsequent hierarchy created between “written cultures” and “oral cultures”.
MacNeil continues to argue against the decisive division between “oral and written cultures” by discussing technological advances that have blurred the line between the two. Sound files (like mp3 files), for example, are oral means of communication but are readily available, easily accessible and “permanent” on the World Wide Web. Spoken word stories, typically, are not associated with this type of permanence. Similarly, the definition of “written cultures” is challenged by technological advances like the use of twitter (and other online mediums of sharing stories) where text can be deleted and can exist as a temporary means of communication.
I find the points brought up by both Chamberlin and MacNeil to be very thought provoking, and I certainly believe that upon closer investigation, elements of both oral and written traditions can be found in any culture and the definitions associated with the two categories are being continuously challenged by technological advancements. I agree that the privileging of one mode of storytelling over another reflects a heavy Western egocentrism, but is it problematic to recognize a difference between oral and written/literary stories (without the hierarchical associations and privileging)? Cultural artifacts (like those discussed by Chamberlin) should absolutely be considered valuable, relevant and valid means of cultural communication for the symbolic meaning and stories attached to them. However, should the definition of literature widen its scope to include the means of story-telling and communication that Chamberlin brings up (e.g. woven and beaded blankets) or does this definition of literature then become too ambiguous? These are questions I will mull over tonight, and I welcome further insights!
Works Cited
Chamberlin, Edward. If This is Your Land, Where are Your Stories? Finding Common Ground. AA. Knopf. Toronto. 2003. Print
King, Rita J. “How Twitter Is Reshaping The Future Of Storytelling.” Co.Exist. 22 May 2013. Web. 17 Jan. 2015.
“Literature.” Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster. Web. 16 Jan. 2015.
MacNeil, Courtney. “Orality.” The Chicago School of Media Theory. Uchicagoedublogs. 2007. Web. 19 Feb. 2013.
Hi Shamina, I’m Heather, one of your classmates!
I enjoyed reading your blog and found it interesting; however, I must disagree with Chamberlin and MacNeil’s rebuttal of Ong’s theory. While it is certainly true that all cultures have something approximating writing (Wampum belts, for example) and that chirographic and typographic cultures have not lost speech, there is certainly a difference between oral and print cultures. Have you read any Ong? While Ong’s theory does depend on a binary which could be problematic, much of what he says makes a great deal of sense. Ong sites A. R. Luria’s Cognitive Development: Its Cultural and Social Foundations (Ong 49) – a fascinating study of oral people in Russia – in his book Orality and Literacy. While Luria viewed illiterate or oral people as “primitive”, his study proves oral cultures to be advanced in ways chirographic and typographic cultures are not. The oral people Luria interviewed were very closely connected to the physical world around them, not thinking in abstractions but in terms of practicality. While westerners may view oral cultures as “primitive”, we have “advanced” so far as to no longer be able to connect with the world around us. While you can argue against an oral/print binary (and I may agree), it would be difficult to argue against the influence media plays in our lives. If you have the chance to check out Luria’s study, do so! It’s fascinating and certainly proves a difference in thought processes between literate and illiterate people.
Ong also talks about the difference in group dynamics between oral and print cultures. As Ong notes, “when a speaker addresses an audience, the members of the audience normally become a unity, with themselves and with the speaker. If the speaker asks the audience to read a handout provided for them, as each reader enters into his or her own private reading world, the unity of the audience is shattered, to be re-established only when oral speech begins again” (74). In an oral culture, both a speaker and a listener are required to transmit information; however, printed information is best passed on away from the distracting sounds and movements of others. As such, orality brings people together and print pulls them apart.
These changes help to account for the close connection oral people feel with their communities and with their land and for the emphasis on individuality and scientific “progress” which characterises print cultures.
While MacNeil is right to mention electronic media as shattering the binary, it does not do away with Ong’s theory. Electronic media is neither print nor oral: it is a new media which is changing the world (or a portion of it) in its own way.
I feel that Chamberlin and MacNeil simplify Ong’s theory in a way that does not do it justice. Ong does not suggest that oral cultures depend entirely on the ear and that typographic or chirographic cultures depend entirely on the eye; however, he does suggest that these are the dominant senses in each culture and that such dominance plays a significant role in shaping a people.
While no culture is 100% print-based and oral cultures do have art forms which approximate writing, there is a clear distinction between oral and print cultures. The close similarities in indigenous cultures around the world – from Africa to Australasia to the Americas – proves the point that media has a profound impact on culture. While no one type of culture can be seen as more advanced than another (although I lament my inferior memory as someone who has grown up with print), each type of culture – oral, chirographic, typographic, and electronic – is advanced and “primitive” in its own ways.
Works Cited:
Ong, Walter. Orality and Literacy. New York: Methuen, 1982. Print.
Gadacz, René R.. “Wampum Belts.” The Canadian Encyclopedia. Historica Foundation, 2014. Web. 19 Jan. 2015.
CORRECTION:
“Ong cites A. R. Luria’s Cognitive Development…”
10:30pm is a terrible time to submit assignments! I really ought not to work this late.
Hi Heather!
I just noticed an e-mail indicating a response on my blog for this post, I am so sorry for the delay! I will have to be more careful to check my notifications regularly. Eep!! Thank you so much for your insightful post and the readings you mentioned have added so much to my train of thought on the differences between orality and print cultures.
I agree with you entirely that there IS indeed a marked difference! I am not sure if it came across clearly in my blog; my thoughts were all over the place! What I was trying to say was that this difference exists, but the hierarchy is problematic and both forms have their merits! I never actually thought about the ability of orality to promote closeness in communities, what a great point to make! In my own experiences, I have found this to be true but never given it much weight. The elders in my family often share stories of India during days gone by, and I often find that it is in these moments of story-sharing that I feel most connected to them and also to my Indian roots. These are the stories that maintain importance from generation to generation and have in large part shaped my morals and values.
I see your point that oral, chirographic, typographic, and electronic cultures all vary greatly and have both “primitive” and “advanced” elements; the supplemental reading you have linked really brings much more to the equation than Chamberlain and McNeil’s simplified theories! I hope to hear more of your insights in the future, thanks again Heather 🙂
Hey Shamina, no worries about the delayed response! I’m still figuring out how this system works, too, and have surely missed some responses! I’d love to hear your thoughts on Ong if you get the chance to do some additional reading, but I’m sure you’re too busy at the moment to consider it! I certainly agree that an oral/chirographic/typographic/electronic hierarchy is problematic, especially given that it was traditionally used by Europeans to “prove” their superiority. In media theory and indigenous studies courses, I’ve seen the theory flipped on its head with oral cultures portrayed as superior to print cultures. It’s quite convincing and leaves me feeling inferior, although this is probably still problematic as each type of culture has its own value. It may be that orality was portrayed as inferior for so long that scholars are currently overcompensating by making it out to be superior.
I think it is predominantly storytelling that ties us to our roots/culture(s). My family is Irish, but my grandparents passed away when I was young, so I never hear a lot about Ireland (except from cousins). My dad always talks about the predominantly-Cree community in Northern Alberta where he lived as a kid and England, where he went to school, and they’ve left much stronger impacts on me, despite the fact that my citizenship is Irish and neither Cree nor English. (That said, the story of my being Irish gives me a connection to Ireland, despite the fact I’ve never been there.) I think oral storytelling draws people together with their immediate community, which shares the same oral stories, whereas written stories connect us with wider communities. There are certain books that have connected me to Canada or Australia, but these nations are abstract notions with very little linking them together. I’ve lived in BC, Manitoba, Ontario, Québec, and (briefly) Labrador and I can’t see much of anything that these places have in common. In fact, the Inuit and Innu villages in Labrador are more different from my hometown in BC than Bangkok is! That said, the Canadian literary canon gives us something in common to tie us together. Despite the fact that the Canada(s) most of us know bear(s) very little resemblance to the Canada(s) depicted in The Diviners or Green Grass, Running Water, these stories tie us together. Even stories that have very little of Canada in them, such as The English Patient, become a part of the foundation of our Canadian identity. I suppose our stories tie us to others, regardless of how we tell them; however, I think that oral stories tend to tie us to close-knit, immediate communities, whereas printed stories tie us to larger, more abstract communities, such as modern nation-states. (Of course, movies, such as Bon Cop, Bad Cop, are predominantly oral stories that tie larger, abstract communities together.)
Hello Shamina, thank you for your interesting answer to my questions. I appreciate the questions you raise, and it is always a good idea to raise questions in your blogs. I will be curious to see the answers your peers provide, hopefully you will get some good dialogue going on here with these questions. Already you have spurred a most interesting and clearly well informed response – be sure to answer Heather’s question for me – thanks.