Orality and Literacy not Orality vs. Literacy
In our current learning modality, I can’t imagine learning without texts to read. I have a short attention span, and I am more comfortable in writing or typing my lessons. My philosophy is, once something is put on paper, it is solidified and can be perceived visually, so one’s brain can grasp the information.
It does not automatically mean that I abhor speaking – in fact, I hold people who can comprehend information after hearing it once to a high regard. Plus, reading a book aloud counts as a demonstration of orality. My skill in oral communication is one of the things I aim to enhance during my stay in the university.
Human communication is different from media in such a way that media or the ‘medium’ is not quite the message. In Ong’s interpretation, human communication needs anticipated feedback to repeat its cycle and sustain itself. In models, the message flows from sender to receiver position. In human to human communication, a sender also expects to become the receiver and vice versa to complete the chain of exchanging messages (Ong, 1982). Basically, one cannot talk to themselves and call it true human communication. Furthermore, ‘media’ model of communication comprises printed or written texts, therefore, it exhibits chirographic conditioning.
In analyzing orality and literacy, it is more productive to scrutinize how the two coexist to uphold human interaction and consciousness for thousands of years, rather than to drive a wedge between the notions. Walter Ong in his book Orality and literacy: technologizing of the word raised important statements to supplement facts about the information, dissemination, consumption as well as critical perspectives on the role of orality in media and communication. He shed light to the similarities between oral and literate cultures – the use of mnemonics and formulas, concrete real-life examples, and somatics. Mnemonics and concrete examples help retain information in the brain, while somatics engages parts of the body while communicating (Ong, 1982, as cited in Jkendell, 2012). On the other side of the coin, oral and literate cultures differ because oral culture tends to be additive rather than subordinate, aggregative rather than analytic, redundant or ‘copious’, conservative or traditionalist, close to the human lifeworld, agonistically toned, Empathetic and participatory rather than objectively distanced, homeostatic, and situational rather than abstract (Ong, 1982, p.31).
For example, oral cultures lean towards redundancy because to preserve it and successfully pass it to the next generation, the old communicator must repeat the information through word of the mouth, and so on. It is also characterized by word baggage which is why oral cultures are aggregative rather than analytic.
Moving on to the brief history of orality, writing, and being human, in the past, people who identified themselves as ‘civilized’ or literate people held a prejudice against those who they deemed ‘primitive’ or those who didn’t identify with literacy. The term, along with ‘illiterate’ were offensive, and in the present, kinder and positive terms are associated with understanding the earlier states of consciousness (Ong, 1982).
Orality and literacy both propel our human experience and bridge our past and future. Thus, it is important to remain open to it and other critical perspectives of communication to understand society.
Blanche (2020). In their own words [Online Image]. Atlassian. https://www.atlassian.com/blog/inside-atlassian/how-to-navigate-diverse-communication-styles-at-work
Jkendell (2012). Orality and literacy – In what ways are oral and literate cultures similar? ETEC540: Text, Technologies – Community Weblog. https://blogs.ubc.ca/etec540sept12/
Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy : The technologizing of the word. ProQuest Ebook Central https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Roy, B. (2021). Communication skills in the workplace [Online Image]. Vantage Circle. https://blog.vantagecircle.com/good-communication-skills-in-the-workplace/