Hello all

In this post I will be addressing question one, from assignment 1:2.

In Courtney MacNeil’s  article on orality, the author challenges an academic viewpoint which puts oral cultures and literary cultures at odds with one another. According to MacNeil, placing these traditions within a rigid binary suggests that oral culture is inferior, and plays into an ideology of “Western egocentrism.” In this way, the idea that oral culture is somehow more primitive than literate culture connects to a broader bias against non-Westernized societies.

Likewise, J Edward Chamberlain addresses this binary analysis, stating that “This kind of thinking— if we can call it that—encourages people to treat other societies with a blend of condescension and contempt while celebrating the sophistication of their own.”(n. pag.) For both writers, creating a definitive distinction between oral and written cultures is symptomatic of a greater malignant thought process.

The binary analysis not only enforces ethnocentric ideologies, but also misses the mark entirely. Chamberlain identifies so-called oral cultures as being rich in “non-syllabic” and “non-alphabetical” literacy. Instead, culturally specific objects make up a form of literacy. According to Chamberlain, the cultures which we identify as “oral” actually use an alternative literacy for the exact same function as our own “literate” cultures. Likewise, Chamberlain identifies the many institutions of literate culture (courts, schools, etc) as depending greatly on oral communication.

MacNeil further expands on the problems of dichotomizing oral and literate cultures by exploring the fluid nature of our own forms of communication, due to the technological advancements of recent years. Our so-called “literate culture,” through participating in text messaging, twitter, snapchat, etc. is actually engaging in communication which is just as temporary as that of so called “oral cultures.”

MacNeil’s analysis on electronic communication, however, does not take into account the fact that many of these communications are being monitored and stored by US government agencies. MacNeil was writing at a time before the extent of US electronic surveillance was made public. It would be quite interesting to read what Chamberlain and MacNeil have to say about the surveillance state, in regards to our notions of oral and literate cultures, and the fluidity of our electronic communications. Does a third party’s monitoring and storing of communications for private use affect the function of these communications for users? Or is there little impact, given that the practical implications of this storing are not immediately apparent? It could be argued that the collection and storage of phone calls, text messages, internet history, etc. changes the transience of these communications, rendering this particular aspect of MacNeil’s analyses in need of some review.

Works Cited:

Chamberlin, J Edward. If This is Your Land, Where Are your Stories? Finding Common Ground. Knopf Canada, 2010, Kindle Edition.

MacNeil, Courtenay. “Orality.” http://lucian.uchicago.edu/. University of Chicago. Web. 17 Jan 2014.

“Mountain Goats: Images and Materials”. Royal BC Museum. Web. Jan 16 2014.

“NSA Collects Millions of Text Messages Globally” . CBC. Web. Jan 16 2014.