Everything about Orality totally explained
Orality can be defined as
thought and its verbal expression in societies where the technologies of
literacy (especially writing and print) are unfamiliar to most of the population. The study of orality is closely allied to the study of
oral tradition. However, it has broader implications, implicitly touching every aspect the
economics,
politics and institutional and human development of oral societies. The study of orality has important implications for
international development, especially as it relates to the goal of eradicating
poverty, as well as to the process of
globalization.
Walter J. Ong, a key scholar in this field, distinguishes between two forms of orality: ‘primary orality’ and ‘residual orality’.
The impact of literacy on culture
Ong draws on pioneering work by
Milman Parry and
Marshall McLuhan, among the first to fully appreciate the significance of the
word as a
technology. McLuhan, in his work
The Gutenberg Galaxy shows how each stage in the development of this technology throughout the
history of communication – from the invention of speech (primary orality), to
pictograms, to the
phonetic alphabet, to
typography, to the electronic communications of today – restructures human consciousness, profoundly changing not only the frontiers of human possibility, but even the frontiers it's possible for humans to imagine.
Primary orality
‘Primary orality’ refers to thought and its verbal expression within cultures “totally untouched by any knowledge of
writing or
print.”
All
sound is inherently powerful. If a hunter kills a lion he can see it, touch it, feel it and smell it. But if he hears a lion he must act, fast.
Speech is a form of sound that shares this common power. Like other sounds, it comes from within a living organism. A text can be ignored; it's just writing on paper. But to ignore speech can be unwise; our basic instincts compel us to pay attention.
Writing is powerful in a different way: it permits people to generate ideas, store them, and retrieve them as needed across time in a highly efficient and accurate way. The absence of this technology in oral societies limits the development of complex ideas and the
institutions that depend on them. Instead, sustained thought in oral settings depends on interpersonal communication, and storing complex ideas over a long period of time requires packaging them in highly memorable ways, generally by using
mnemonic tools.
In his studies of the
Homeric Question,
Milman Parry was able to show that the poetic
metre found in the
Iliad and the
Odyssey had been ‘packaged’ by oral
Greek society to meet its information management needs. These insights first opened the door to a wider appreciation of the sophistication of
oral traditions, and their various methods of managing information. Later, ancient and medieval mnemonic tools were extensively documented by
Frances Yates in her book
The Art of Memory.
Residual orality
‘Residual orality’ refers to thought and its verbal expression in cultures that have been exposed to writing and print, but have not fully ‘interiorized’ (in McLuhan’s term) the use of these technologies in their daily lives. As a culture interiorizes the technologies of literacy, the ‘oral residue’ diminishes.
But the availability of a technology of literacy to a society isn't enough to ensure its widespread diffusion and use. For example
Eric Havelock observed in
A Preface to Plato that after the
ancient Greeks invented writing they adopted a
scribal culture that lasted for generations. Few people, other than the scribes, considered it necessary to learn to read or write. In other societies, such as
ancient Egypt or
medieval Europe, literacy has been a domain confined to political and religious elites.
Many cultures have experienced an equilibrium state in which writing and mass illiteracy have co-existed for hundreds or even thousands of years.
Oral residue rarely disappears quickly and never vanishes completely.
Speech is inherently an
oral event, based on human relationships, unlike
texts. Oral societies can mount strong resistance to literate technologies, as vividly shown in the arguments of
Socrates against writing in
Plato’s
Phaedrus. Writing, Socrates argues, is inhuman. It attempts to turn living thoughts dwelling in the
human mind into mere objects in the physical world. By causing people to rely on what is written rather than what they're able to think, it weakens the powers of the mind and of memory. True knowledge can only emerge from a relationship between active human minds. And unlike a person, a text can’t respond to a question; it'll just keep saying the same thing over and over again, no matter how often it's refuted.
The Canadian communications scholar,
Harold Innis argued that a balance between the spoken word and writing contributed to the cultural and intellectual vitality of ancient Greece in Plato's time. Plato conveyed his ideas by writing down the conversations of Socrates thus "preserving the power of the spoken word on the written page."
Aristotle, Innis wrote, regarded Plato's style as "halfway between poetry and prose." Plato was able to arrive at new philosophical positions "through the use of dialogues, allegories and illustrations."
Both McLuhan and Ong also document the re-emergence, in the electronic age, of a kind of ‘
secondary orality’ that displaces written words with audio/visual technologies like
radio,
TV and
telephones. Unlike primary oral modes of communication, these technologies depend on print for their existence. Mass internet collaborations like Wikipedia rely primarily on writing, but re-introduce relationships and responsiveness into the text.
Importance of the concept
It has been a habit of literate cultures to view oral cultures simply in terms of their lack of the technologies of writing. This habit, argues Ong, is dangerously misled. Oral cultures are living cultures in their own right. A 1971 study found that of 3,000 extant languages, only 78 had a written
literature. While literacy extends human possibilities in both thought and action, all literate technologies ultimately depend on the ability of humans to learn oral languages.
Understanding between nations may depend to some degree on understanding oral culture. Ong argues that “many of the contrasts often made between ‘western’ and other views seem reducible to contrasts between deeply interiorized literacy and more or less residually oral states of consciousness.”
In a benchmark study on rural poverty the
World Bank estimated that about 1.2 billion people earn less than US $1 a day (adjusted for
Purchasing Power Parity), and that about 70% of them live in rural areas.
“More than half a century of persistent efforts … hasn't altered the stubborn reality of rural poverty, and the gap between rich and poor is widening. The likelihood of achieving the
Millennium Development Goals without a focus on improving the livelihoods and service accessibility of rural dwellers is low.”
Illiteracy is both an important cause, and an important effect, of chronic global
poverty. Improvements in livelihoods and access to services in rural communities depends on their ability to manage local
organizations, or hold external ones accountable. The processes of development can also be undermined by educated agents of development whose ‘deeply interiorized literacy’ informs their decisions. In recent years this has begun to change, with methods of engagement with oral communities that have emphasized
participation, voice, and other development methods like
participatory rural appraisal,
participatory action research and
Farmer Field Schools.
Theory of the characteristics of oral culture
Drawing on hundreds of studies from
anthropology,
linguistics and the study of
oral tradition, Ong summarizes ten key aspects of the ‘
psychodynamics of orality’. While these are subject to continuing debate, his list remains an important milestone. Ong draws his examples from both primary oral societies, and societies with a very high ‘oral residue’.
1. Formulaic Styling
To retain complex ideas requires that they be packaged memorably for easy recall.
»
3. Aggregative rather than analytic
Oral expression brings words together in pithy phrases that are the product of generations of evolution: the ‘sturdy oak tree’, the ‘beautiful princess’ or ‘clever Odysseus’. This doesn't apply specifically to
poetry or
song; rather the words are brought together out of habit during general communication. ‘Analyzing’ or breaking apart such expressions adds complexity to communications, and questions received wisdom.
Ong cites an American example, noting that in some parts of the
United States with heavy oral residue, it's still considered normal or even obligatory to use the adjective ‘glorious’ when referring to the ‘
fourth of July’.
4. Redundant or ‘copious’
Speech that repeats earlier thoughts or thought-pictures, or shines a different light on them somehow, helps to keep both the speaker and the listener focused on the topic, and makes it easier for all to recall the key points later. "Oral cultures encourage fluency, fulsomeness, volubility. Rhetoricians were to call this ".
Because oral societies have no effective access to writing and print technologies, they must invest considerable energy in basic
information management. Storage of information, being primarily dependent on individual or collective recall, must be handled with particular thrift. It is possible to approximately measure oral residue “from the amount of memorization the culture’s educational procedures require.”
This creates incentives to avoid exploring new ideas and particularly to avoid the burden of having to store them. It doesn't prevent oral societies from demonstrating dynamism and change, but there's a premium on ensuring that changes cleave to traditional formulas, and “are presented as fitting the traditions of the ancestors.”
6. Close to the human lifeworld
Oral cultures take a practical approach to information storage. To qualify for storage, information must usually concern matters of immediate practical concern or familiarity to most members of the society.
Long after the invention of writing, and often long after the invention of print, basic information on how to perform a society’s most important trades was left unwritten, passed from one generation to the next as it always had been: through
apprenticeship, observation and practice.
By contrast, only literary cultures have launched phenomenological analyses, abstract classifications, ordered lists and tables, etc.. Nothing analogous exists in oral societies.
7. Agonistically toned
‘Agonistic’ means ‘combative’, but Ong actually advances a deeper thesis with this point. Writing and to an even greater extent print, he argues, disengage humans from direct, interpersonal struggle.
Products of “the highly polarized, agonistic, oral world of good and evil, virtue and vice, villains and heroes” the great works of
oral literature from
Homer to
Beowulf, from the
Mwindo epic to the
Old Testament, are extremely violent by modern standards. They are also punctuated by frequent and intense intellectual combat and tongue-lashings on the one hand, and effusive praise (perhaps reaching its height among
African praise singers) on the other.
In an oral culture the most reliable and trusted technique for learning is to share a “close, empathetic, communal association” with others who know.
Ong cites a study of community decision-making from 12th Century
England. Writing already had a long history in England, and it would have been possible to use texts to establish for example, the age of majority of the heir to an estate. But people were skeptical about texts, noting not only the cost of generating and managing them, but the problems involved in preventing tampering or frauds.
As a result, they retained the traditional solution: gathering together “mature wise seniors of many years, having good testimony”, and publicly discussing the age of the heir with them, until agreement was reached. This hallmark principle of orality, that truth emerges best from communal process, resonates today in the
jury system.
9. Homeostatic
Oral societies conserve their limited capacity to store information, and retain the relevance of their information to the interest of their present members, by shedding memories that have lost their past significance.
While many examples exist, the classic example was reported by
Goody and Watt (1968). Written records prepared by the British in
Ghana in the early 1900s show that
Ndewura Jakpa, the seventeenth century founder of the state of
Gonja, had seven sons, each of whom ruled a territorial division within the state. Six decades later two of the divisions had disappeared for various reasons. The myths of the Gonja had been revised to recount that Jakpa had five sons, and that five divisions were created. Since they'd no practical, present purpose, the other two sons and divisions had evaporated.
10. Situational rather than abstract
In oral cultures, concepts are used in a way that minimizes abstraction, focusing to the greatest extent possible on objects and situations directly known by the speaker. A study by
A.R. Luria, a psychologist who did extensive fieldwork comparing oral and literate subjects in remote areas of
Uzbekistan and
Kirghizia in 1931-2 documented the highly situational nature of oral thinking.
- Oral subjects always used real objects they were familiar with to refer to geometric shapes; for example a plate or the moon might be used to refer to a circle.
- Asked to select three similar words from the following list “hammer, saw, log, hatchet”, oral subjects would reject the literate solution (removing the log to produce a list of 3 tools), pointing out that without the log there wasn’t much use for the tools.
- Oral subjects took a practical, not an abstract, approach to syllogisms. Luria asked them this question. In the far north, where there's snow, all bears are white. Novaya Zembla is in the far north and there's always snow there. What colour are the bears? Typical response: “I don’t know. I’ve seen a black bear. I’ve never seen any others. … Every locality has its own animals.”
- Oral subjects proved unwilling to analyze themselves. When asked “what sort of person are you?” one responded: “What can I say about my own heart? How can I talk about my character? Ask others; they can tell you about me. I myself can’t say anything.”
Further Information
Get more info on 'Orality'.
|
External Link Exchanges
Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:
<a href="http://orality.totallyexplained.com">Orality Totally Explained</a>
Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned. |
