Engaging Orality in a World of Writing

 


Mom and  Her Remington....1965

 We make our abode in a culture of words. We are possessed by words and formed by words from infancy. I have a clear memory of myself as a three-year-old sitting on my bed holding an oversized Golden Dictionary intently matching the words with the colorful drawings. Books and writing were honored in our home; my mother and her Remington typewriter were living synonyms; the Oxford dictionary sat open in the living room like a family Bible. As an adult, I have logged in countless hours of read-aloud with my five children; my husband’s fourth-grade classroom is filled with words on whiteboards, posters, flashcards, signs, handouts, and volumes of books. There is little escape from the reminder that we are immersed in and dependent upon the written word. We are a literate society and proud to be so; the more literate the better. “Writing is a technology” (Ong, 2002, p. 202) that we have embraced in the same way as the technology of simple tools, automobiles, and ipods. Does our love affair with words disallow“the singing and the telling and the muse” (Postman, 1992, p. 22) that constituted our literary beginnings? Is there a valid, even practical,way to embrace unfamiliar oral literary forms in the contemporary world of writing?

The most imaginative word-imbued person would have a struggle envisioning a world of no writing, no books, no billboards, no instructions, or no alphabet.  He might inaccurately assume it is a dark world of ignorance void of intellectual vibrancy.  The difficulty lays not so much in imagining the absences of the visual elements of text that we embrace as much as the sheer supremacy of the internal perceptual framework that has been intimately “interiorized” (Ong, 2002, p. 94) over a lifetime of textual influence.  This overarching framework has the potential to obscure appreciation of the positive offerings of oral societies.  This is all helpful to note since “Most languages have never been committed to writing at all” (Ong, 2002, p. 106) and there is abundant oral richness in both the historical and these contemporary contexts that awaits investigation. Supportive resources such as The Center for Studies in Oral Tradition  “seeks to create and maintain an open, democratic network for understanding the world’s oral traditions” (Foley, 2011) promoting a solid appreciation of literary beginnings which is much in order. When the light shines and we recall there were no pencils in the Genesis account, we have begun to open the doors of appreciating a long and unfamiliar human experience.

The fundamental characteristics of primary orality are a focus of Walter Ong’s distinguished study of orality and literacy. The historical and contemporary offerings provided in the absence of text are something to be preserved and studied.  M. L. Usher endorses the oral traditions in his study of Carneades, an ancient Greek orator. He states, “Indeed, Carneades’ mastery of forms of oral expression became the stuff of legend: his booming voice brought him humorously into conflict with the local gymnasiarch. Professional orators, it is said, would cancel their own classes in order to attend his lectures” (Usher, 2006, p. 191).  As preface to her discussion of contemporary slam poetry, Felice Belle states, “It is my inherent belief that poetry is written to be read aloud, not quarantined to the pages of books left on library shelves (Belle, 2003, p. 14).  Steve Zeitlin discusses the goals of the People’s Poetry Gathering.  One of which is, “To preserve and rekindle a heritage of oral poetry that is endangered by numerous forces at work in contemporary life” (Zeitlin, 2003, p. 7).

Walter Ong’s work in orality and literacy highlights the mnemonic foundation of primary oral cultures.  Without text, all rests on memory. Coupled with this is the dependency upon communication with others. “Sustained thought in an oral culture is tied to communication.” (Ong, 2002, p. 35).  In a primary oral culture there is an essential need for the other. Calculating a plan, presenting a narrative, or arriving at a complex solution in an oral world is relieved by the contribution of a discusser. “An interlocutor is virtually essential: it is hard to talk to yourself for hours on end” (Ong, 2002, p. 33). Much of oral tradition also includes the presence of an audience on location. "Orality stresses group learning, cooperation, and a sense of social responsibility" (Postman, 1992, p.17). Social inter-dependency implicit in oral traditions has positive implications for a modern society plagued by loneliness and individualism. “Critiques of modern societies often cite the loss of community as a result of weak connections with local places and changing modes of social interactions” (Driskell & Lyon,2002, p. 472). Individualism is fueled by technology that seduces the affections and subtracts from time available for social engagement (Postman, 1992).
The traditions of oral cultures invite us to remember the rich heritage of our literary beginnings and be enlarged by existing oral cultures. Fostering personal engagement in these arts brings people together. Ong asserts that oral tradition is “empathetic and participatory rather than objectively distanced” (Ong, 2002, p. 45). Active participation in poetry reading, theatrical productions, historical reenactments, speeches, debates, tribal rituals and storytelling all serve to benefit a  21^st century society profoundly in need of connection.

Slam Poet Saul Williams

 

Kanye West

References

Belle, F. (2003). The Poem Performed. Oral Tradition Journal, 14(2),14-15, Retrieved from: http://journal.oraltradition.org/files/articles/18i/6b_belle.pdf

Driskell, R., Lyon, L. (2002). Are Virtual Communities True Communities? Examining the Environments and Elements of Community. City and Community, 1(4), 373-390.

Foley, J. (2011). About the Center for Studies in Oral Tradition. Retrieved April 20, 2011, from Center for Studies in Oral Tradition: http://oraltradition.org/about/

Ong, W. (2002). Orality and literacy: the technologizing of the word. New York: Routledge.

Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: the surrender of culture to technology. New York: Vintage Books.

Russell, D. (1980). The Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and Discriminant Validity Evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 472-480.

Usher, M. (2006). Carneades’ Quip: Orality, Philosophy, Wit, and the Poetics of Impromptu Quotation. Retrieved April 14, 2011, from Oral Tradition Journal: http://journal.oraltradition.org/issues/21i

Zeitlin, S. (2003). The People's Poetry. Retrieved April 18, 2011, from Oral Tradition Journal: http://journal.oraltradition.org/files/articles/18i/6a_zeitlin.pdf