Note this page was written in 1996 and lighlty revised
in 2001 - it was only lightly and cosmetically updated in 2002
I was impressed with some of the thoughts of Walter J Ong in his Orality
and Literacy: The technologizing of the word (Methuen, 1982).
Ong suggests that writing has changed the way we think, argue and
communicate. That there are sharp differences between oral cultures
and literate cultures, though these are often not clear because most
of our knowledge of pre-literate cultures has been captured in writing,
and we view them in a literate manner. It raises an obvious question
as to whether an electronic culture will also change the way we think,
argue and communicate.
Although writing is first evident in Mesopotamia around five thousand
years ago, and written epics say two or three thousand years ago, Ong
dates the change to literate thinking styles as much later - say with
the age of the Romantics in developed countries. In other words it is
when literacy is common among populations and printed materials relatively
easily available. The residue of orality persevered for centuries. This
raises the obvious question as to how quickly (if at all) an electronic
culture will induce an electronic way of thinking and communication.
Ong suggests that there are some elements of orality that are likely
to be seen again in an electronic culture, but that there would also
be some sharp differences (of course note the date of Ong's work).
Ong characterises orally based thought and expression in comparison
with literate thought and expression as being:
additive rather than subordinative - A tendency to simple
additive principal clauses rather than subordinative clauses. For
instance, the first verses of Genesis: In the beginning God created
heaven and earth. And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was
upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.
And God said: Be light made. And light was made.
aggregative rather than analytic - A tendency to formulas,
cliches and epithets, such as the "beautiful princess",
the "sturdy oak", "clever Odysseus", and "wise
Nestor", as aids to the oral expression and memory. Only with
writing is a more analytic process facilitated - and then cliches
become odious and epithets melodramatic.
redundant or "copious" - Without the permanence
of writing to allow re-reading or referral when necessary, oral expression
employs repetition and restatement for reinforcement and ensuring
the hearer retains the perspective or flow of the argument. This "copia",
as the Greek rhetoricians used to call it, also facilitates a public
speaker, allowing the speaker to restate while considering the next
stage in the argument.
conservative or traditionalist - As orally expressed thinking
requires energy to be exerted in its preservation (memorising and
further verbal performance), it tends to be held as precious, as are
those who are the preservers of this wisdom - this discourages intellectual
experimentation and speculation. Oral traditions evolve but do not
show radical shifts in thinking.
close to the human lifeworld - Without the distance from
living experience possible with written and printed expression, oral
expressions tend to revolve around the living human world. For instance
the Iliad's famous catalog of ships is not a list, but compiles
the names of the Greek leaders involved in active doings. Similarly
there are no oral how-to-do-it manuals, skills are learnt by apprenticeships.
agonistically toned - Oral expression tends to situate knowledge
in a context of heightened struggle rather than in an abstracted,
separate realm.
empathetic and participatory rather than objectively distanced
- For an oral culture, learning or knowing means achieving close,
empathetic, communal identification with the known, contrasting with
the disengaged, objective knowledge of the literate culture.
homeostatic - Oral societies live in the present, sloughing
off or evolving memories that no longer have present relevance, unlike
literate cultures with their dictionaries, encyclopaedias and archives.
situational rather than abstract - Oral cultures tend to
use concepts in situational concrete rather than abstract senses.
For instance four concepts such as hammer, saw, log, and hatchet,
would tend to be grouped by oral thinkers in terms of situations (with
the hammer the odd one out), whereas literate thinkers tend to group
them in terms of categories such as tools (with the log the odd one
out). Moreover logical arguments have little place in oral thinking.
For instance stating that where there is snow the bears are white,
and then asking what colour are the bears in a place that always has
snow might earn: "I don't know. I've seen a black bear."
Lidia Serrati, in an email message of 30 May 2000, noted the diversity
of communication experiences in the emerging high technology world.
Experiences might include voicemail, instant messaging, video cameras,
software transducing voice to text or back again. What happens to communication
if people communicate, not only without sharing the same environment
(as per writing) but also not even the same or similar communication
experience (the author might be replying to a continuing discussion
via voice activated email software on a PDA while walking a dog wheras
a final reader might be searching through subject indexed fragments
via a search engine).
Ben Tomassetti, in an email message of 10 December 2002, kindly suggested
the following sites may also be of interest:
What will such a technologically diverse, but perhaps not transparent,
communication world mean for culture, information and collective decision-making?
That's about as far as I've reached so far. Any thoughts would be welcome.