{"id":556,"date":"2011-11-27T22:16:48","date_gmt":"2011-11-28T03:16:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/textology\/?page_id=556"},"modified":"2011-11-27T22:17:58","modified_gmt":"2011-11-28T03:17:58","slug":"tension-and-paradox","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/textology\/text-and-technology-thoughts-to-words\/tension-and-paradox\/","title":{"rendered":"Paradox and Tension in Orality"},"content":{"rendered":"

Paradox<\/em>\u00a0is defined as contradiction or conflict with statements that are reasonable or possible. (Merriam Webster Dictionary) \u00a0Theories surrounding the nature of orality,\u00a0text<\/a>and\u00a0technology<\/a>\u00a0is rife with paradox. It is through illuminating paradox that we become comfortable with the tension it creates. Paradoxical positions in how orality, text and technology are seen to relate to the human need for relationship and communication. Opposing viewpoints provide tension and opportunity to see and hear the issues from both sides of the \u2018same coin\u2019<\/em>. Tensions exist in theories of how we relate to self, others, the world and the technologies we use.\u00a0 Human relationship and communications are situated within social and cultural contexts.<\/p>\n

Paradoxical positions are found throughout the readings presented here. The diverse positions of the\u00a0Great Divide Theory<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0Continuity Theory<\/em>\u00a0(Chandler) are one example. The notions of interiority and exteriority are another of the paradoxical positions. (Ong, 1982) Tension is created in how technological forms of communication change our ways of thinking and being, and how we shape the technologies used. (Postman, Chandler) \u00a0An image of the competing, reciprocal and paradoxical positions is offered.<\/p>\n

\"graphic<\/a><\/p>\n

Here is a visual representation of paradoxes found in the readings on orality, text and technology. Humans interact through visual and aural senses. Interactions are influenced by and connected to the head (thinking), heart (feelings and emotions) and hands (actions). The socio-cultural context filters and shapes human thought and expression. Views and uses also filter the external elements of relationship and communication from the internal human being. There is a reciprocal movement in the forms of communication and relationship to the elements of language, orality\/ print\/ media and technology.<\/p>\n

Chandler, in his article\u00a0Biases of the Ear and Eye<\/em>, proposed that theories comparing modes of communication frequently refer to a paradox in experience and forms of society. The division is seen as a choice between \u2018either\/or\u2019. I propose that it is the same thing viewed from opposite sides of the coin. Chandler outlined the elemental differences between the \u2018Great Divide<\/em>\u2019 theories, as represented by Ong\u2019s work, and the \u2018Continuity<\/em>\u2019 theories that propose dynamic interactions between orality and literacy. (Chandler, p.2) \u00a0Although a distinct division between oral and text-based language and thinking is difficult to determine, differences do exist.<\/p>\n

Ong (1982) outlined characteristics of oral thought and expression. \u00a0He related that, in a primary oral culture, thought and expression are based in sound, additive, aggregative, redundant, close to the human lifeworld, agonistic, empathic, participatory, homeostatic, situational, harmonizing and conservative. (Ong, p.37-49) In comparison, writing and text creates thought and expression described as being visual, mechanical, unresponsive, destructive of memory, dissecting, interiorized sound, objective, analytic, abstract, isolating, not grounded in the lifeworld or actions, and forming new ways of knowing. (Ong, p. 37-49) Ong proposed a visibly distinct separation between the two forms of thought and expression demarked by the onset of writing as a primary form of communication. This position is juxtaposed with Continuity theories. (Chandler, p.2)<\/p>\n

Chandler details\u00a0Continuity<\/em>\u00a0theory as a \u201ccontinuum rather than a radical discontinuity between oral and literate modes\u201d. (p. 2) The interrelationships of media, self and social context creates the nuances seen within thought and expression. The technical features of text determine the forms that thought and expression take. These forms include visual, recorded, technological, branchable, external and autonomous. (p. 6) This illustrates that the paradox inherent in this \u2018thought and expression\u2019 coin is the flip side of the same thing. Surrounding the divide vs. continuum sides of this coin is the relationship and impact of the lifeworld and socio-cultural context.<\/p>\n

Another\u00a0paradox\u00a0illuminates interiorization as compared to exteriorization of thought and expression. Both Postman and Ong outline this in writings. \u201cDeeply embedded habits of thought\u201d (Postman, p. 12) are changed by the technology being used (writing, computers). In Postman\u2019s example, Thamus sounds a warning that writers \u201cwill come to rely on external signs instead of their own internal resources\u201d (Postman, p. 12). This is reflected in the statement \u201clanguage is not merely a vehicle of thought but also the driver\u201d. The paradox is that language and thought are both interior and exterior of the mind. Ong postulated that concepts of interiority and exteriority are \u201cexistentially grounded concepts based on experiences of one\u2019s own body \u2026.. both inside me \u2026. and outside me.\u201d (Ong 1982, p.72) With thought and expression being exteriorized through the use of technology Ong determined that \u201ctechnology, properly interiorized\u2019 does not degrade human life but \u2026 enhances it.\u201d (p. 82) This highlights the paradox of thought and expression as being shaped by the internal and external, as well as surrounded by the relationships within and outside the self.<\/p>\n

Paradox\u00a0is outlined in the diverse yet connected views that technology is shaping us and that we are shaping technology. Postman presented the notion that new technologies alter structures and characteristics of thinking. They change the way we think about and think with symbols. (Postman, p. 20) These changes impact our relationship and communication with others. Chandler outlined that within technological affordances there is an \u201cecology of processes of mediation \u2026. in which we both use a medium and can be subtly influenced by our use of it.\u201d (Chandler, p. 6) Ong determined that \u201cwriting has transformed human consciousness.\u201d (p. 77) The paradox inherent in this \u2018shape and be shaped\u2019 discourse is that \u201cnew technology is not merely used to convey the critique: in fact it brought the critique into existence\u201d (Ong 1982, p. 79) Hence this paradox illuminates the reciprocal interactions with language, text and technology and brings to light the critical importance of our context, views and uses.<\/p>\n

Paradox<\/em>\u00a0exists in our understanding of orality, text and technology when viewing the discordant positions of division vs. continuity, interiority vs. exteriority, and shaping vs. being shaped, as they relate to human communication and relationships. Clarity and comfort can come from living in these tensions when we see and hear differing viewpoints of the same ideas.<\/p>\n

References:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Chandler, D. (1994). Biases of the Ear and Eye: “Great Divide” Theories, Phonocentrism, Graphocentrism & Logocentrism [Online]. Retrieved, 8 August, 2009 from:http:\/\/www.aber.ac.uk\/media\/Documents\/litoral\/litoral.html<\/a><\/p>\n

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. (2011). Paradox. Merriam-Webster Online. Retrieved September 29, 2011 from\u00a0http:\/\/www.merriam-webster.com\/dictionary\/paradox<\/p>\n

Ong, Walter. (1982.)\u00a0Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word<\/em>. London: Methuen.<\/p>\n

Postman, N. (1992).\u00a0Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology.<\/em>\u00a0New York: Vintage Books.<\/p>\n

VUE software downloaded from\u00a0http:\/\/vue.tufts.edu\/download\/index.cfm<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Paradox\u00a0is defined as contradiction or conflict with statements that are reasonable or possible. (Merriam Webster Dictionary) \u00a0Theories surrounding the nature of orality,\u00a0textand\u00a0technology\u00a0is rife with paradox. It is through illuminating paradox that we become comfortable with the tension it creates. Paradoxical positions in how orality, text and technology are seen to relate to the human need […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3752,"featured_media":0,"parent":25,"menu_order":1,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-556","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/textology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/556","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/textology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/textology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/textology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3752"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/textology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=556"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/textology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/556\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":558,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/textology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/556\/revisions\/558"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/textology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/25"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/textology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=556"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}