Orality and Litteracy

I remember reading in an article that when humans converted from typewriters to computers in the early eighties there was a bit of a paradigm shift in writing. And not in terms of sheer volume or ease of use, such as Clay Shirky argues occurred with the printing press.

This change was caused by the new ability to revise with no consequences, with no need for the old amount of forethought. Instead of needing to have sentences, chapters and plot worked out in the writer's head, all that was needed was the whim to write at that moment. The article phrased it this way: instead of writing because the writer had something to say, now they could write to find out if they had something to say.

I think that this is the message that the 1981 book Orality and Literacy, by Walter J. Ong, is trying to get at. For a book on modes of communication, he makes it a bit difficult - the tone is academic and condescending in a way that would probably be edited out in the first draft today, even in a thesis. But style issues aside, he seems to agree. Big shifts in communication mean complicated shifts in how users relate to themselves and their surroundings. For example, the idea of utilitarian versus abstract category assignment, or the concept of of formulaic epic writing versus our current horror of cliches, both point to a modification of the thinking process itself.

It seems a little simplistic to state that sound is community-building, while participating in literacy is much more of an individual activity. Illiteracy in oral societies is caused by the same influences that also favor community: An early stage of technological development, a need for food-sharing structures, etc. Development gives rise to literacy and individualism at the same time, as the survival of a group becomes less and less determined on the full participation of every member. The relationship is a correlation, not a causation.

In an indirect sense, written literature certainly increases communal participation by giving individuals access to shared experiences and opinions. As Ethan Zuckerman pointed out during last week's Applications lecture, access to enough non-verbal litterature produces a very tight-knit community indeed.

However, I find that the concept of a history that can be changed according to current politics to be a particularly interesting side effect of an oral culture. I've often thought I'd have hated to be born 10 years after my 1980 birthdate because it would be terrible to have all my childhood faux pas committed to the ether forever. As is, I have college postings on fan sites and an interview from a newspaper that will forever appear linked to my name for all eternity. It's easy to understand an oral culture's dismay at the idea of an immutable history.

Lots of unsuccessful high school poets wonder why the romantic poem in their English text is high art, but the similar version in their blog about the girl in the seat next to them isn't. Ong, no matter how long-winded, would say that without the historical conditions to create the thought process that gives rise to a piece, the student is only copying the marks on the paper. There simply is no way to recapture an earlier mindset once a culture has been rewired by new communication techniques.