A History of Oral Cultures: A World Without Written Word

The following essay will examine the differences between oral and literate societies through examining the research of Walter Ong, and discoveries made by world renowned linguist, Noam Chomsky. By examining the history of oral communication, individuals who rely heavily on written word may find this insight to be helpful in portraying a clear image of these two societies and their differences as well as their strengths and weaknesses.

The Organic State of Oral Communication
As human beings, we are born with the ability to see, touch, taste and hear the world around Imagine what it’s being a baby during the first few moments of birth. From the instant you come into the world, you quickly become bombarded with a multitude of sensory experiences. Moving from your comfortable and perfectly climate controlled environment to a bright, cold and very unfamiliar place. This alone is enough to make anyone stressed out leaving you longing to return to where you just came from. Just when things couldn’t get any worse, you hear it, a familiar sound, one that is smooth, vibrating through your entire body soothing every little care that just moments ago seemed so big. This experience is louder, more clearly than what you’ve known previously but it feels like home, and therefore is good. You open your eyes for the first time, longing to know where it came from, and then you see her, your Mother.
Although we have all gone through the above experience, the majority of us have no recollection of it (unless there is a very good Psychologist specializing in regression therapy involved.) Instead, we just trust that the organic nature of hearing helps us form early bonds with our parents and individuals that bring us up as children. This example helps illustrates the concept of primary orality, having absolutely no concept of the written word or print yet relying solely on sound, cadence and auditory levels and pitch of the voice, facial expressions, and body language. If you can imagine the same experience as described above, only as the child comes into the world, he is immediately handed a piece of paper from his Mother with written text affirming love and promises of a great life together. As absurd as this concept sounds, it is a clear way to demonstrate literacy.

The Origin of Speech
In the Bible’s story of creation, Adam is clearly the first human being to ever speak. In Genesis 2:19 in the New International Version Bible, the portrayal of what are possibly Adam’s first spoken words are as follows:
Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. (NIV, p.9)
In Genesis, Adam’s conversation with God leads to the creation of Eve, and so the creation story of man and woman is complete. For some, the idea that God created Adam in his own image and therefore Adam just began speaking may be enough for some, however for those that want to get down to the actual origin of language, this might prove to be difficult. Although many scholars are baffled by the origin of speech, many continue to develop theories and concepts to help further understand this basic, yet so profound process of oral communication. Overall, humans seem to be born with the innate ability to communicate and express themselves vocally, and yet scientists and linguists are still unsure of how humans first developed the ability to speak. World renowned linguist, Noam Chomsky is possibly the world’s leading expert on this exact subject matter, however when interviewed by MIT News and asked the question, “when did human’s start to speak,” Chomsky’s immediate response is, “I don’t think we have a prayer of answering that on the basis of anything that’s now understood.” (Chase, 1992) Chomsky appears to firmly support the idea that language is part of our biological design, “Contrary to what people thought, language is not taught, not even learned. It's something that your mind grows in a particular environment, just the way your body grows in a particular environment.” (Chase, 1992) This theory would clearly explain the differences in communication amongst oral societies across the globe. For example, few tribes in Africa use a form of oral communication called ‘clicking’ using a number of tongue clicking sounds to convey their message. If a Caucasian baby were to be raised from a young age amongst one of the African tribes that possess this language, that baby would use that form of dialect to communicate. Oral language is one of those tricky things that cannot be explained. This can also be seen amongst people in America where the primary language is English, there are a whole slew of dialects and accents that directly related to the location of where a person is raised.

Primary Oral Cultures
Imagine what it would be like to live in a society with no books, internet, magazines or newspapers, in fact, no written word at all? Professor Walter Ong coined the term primarily oral culture for societies such as this that still exist to this day. Ong discusses this lack of writing in his 1982 book Orality and Literacy and the issue of not being able to “look something up” as you would in a literate society, Ong states that, “Without writing, words as such have no visual presence, even when the objects they represent are visual. They are sounds. You might ‘call’ them back –‘recall’ them, but there is nowhere to ‘look’ for them. They have no reference or trace.” (p.30) In an oral society, sound is dynamic. Because of the lack of written language, words are not as fluent as they would be in a literate society. In fact, primitive people view words as being very powerful. Ong discusses this idea stating that,
Sound cannot be sounding without the use of power. A hunter can see a buffalo, smell, taste and touch a buffalo when the buffalo is completely inert; even dead, but if he hears a buffalo: he had better watch out: something is going on. In this sense, all sound, and especially oral utterance, which comes from inside living organisms, is ‘dynamic.’(p.32)
In an essence, oral communication, the ability to rely solely on expression through speech and listening is a survival skill. Surprisingly enough, the majority of cultures are oral. “Of the some 3000 languages spoken, that exists today only some 78 have a literature”. (p.7) This particular fact is somewhat astonishing to imagine in such a high-tech world where the majority of people you interact with on a daily basis communicate just as much in writing (via text messaging, facebook, tweeting, email etc.) than they do orally.

Secondary Oral Cultures
The notion of a primary oral culture may seem so far away to the typical American, however the idea of a secondary oral culture, one that has a literature but still prefers oral communication over written word actually exists as a sub-group amongst Americans. Older generations frequently mistrust methods of computer mediated communication (CMC) because they are more comfortable with oral communication, using the telephone, or stopping by a friend’s house to convey a message versus sending them an email or text message. Even today’s most modern scholarly individuals may find oral communication to be superior over written depending on the situation. For example, if a loved one dies, it is clearly more appropriate and human to orally communicate this message than to write it.
In a discussion between Socrates and Phaedrus written in Plato’s Phaedrus, Plato writes:
Writing, you know, Phaedrus, has this strange quality about it, which makes it really like painting: the painter's products stand before us quite as though they were alive; but if you question them, they maintain a solemn silence. So, too, with written words: you might think they spoke as though they made sense, but if you ask them anything about what they are saying, if you wish an explanation, they go on telling you the same thing, over and over forever. Once a thing is put in writing, it rolls about all over the place, falling into the hands of those who have no concern with it just as easily as under the notice of those who comprehend; it has no notion of whom to address or whom to avoid. And when it is ill-treated or abused as illegitimate, it always needs its father to help it, being quite unable to protect or help itself. (p.67)
Transitioning From an Oral Society to a Literate Society
Is today’s heavily enriched literate society and the ever increasing CMC replacing oral communication a sign of an increased transition from oral societies to literate? The answer is yes. With satellite technology and advances in educational program availability for third world countries, we are likely to see a shift occurring with a decrease in the oral communication exclusive societies. This advancement however can only exist with either the creation of a new written language, or an adaptation to another.




References

Chase, Naomi (Interviewer) and Chomsky, N. (Interviewee). (1992). Chomsky Explores Origins of Language [Interview Transcript]. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1992/chomsky-0401.html
Holy Bible: New International Study Version. (1995). Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.
Ong, W. (1982). Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. (Chapter 3). Retrieved from https://learn.gonzaga.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-701532-dt-content-rid-805906_1/courses/COML509_A2_11965_FA011/COML509_A1_21816_SP11_ImportedContent_20110107075456/COML509_B1_11722_FA010_ImportedContent_20101013085144/GORG-COML-509-Inagaki-Master_ImportedContent_20100819115744/Course%20Resources/COPYRIGHT%20NOTICE/embedded/ong1.pdf
Trans. W. C. Helmbold and W. G. Rabinowitz. Plato. Phaedrus. Indianapolis: Library of Liberal Arts-Bobbs, 1956. Retrieved from http://people.ucalgary.ca/~dabrent/webliteracies/platowri.htm

In With The In Crowd: The Ease of Making Friends In a Virtual World

Everyone remembers their first day of school. The newness of it all. The teacher, your classmates, even your crayons are new. Oh the smell of new crayons. What an adventure. And then it hits you…everything is new. I am new, and therefore I can be anyone I want to be. I can make new friends and form new groups. Ah, the joys of being young everything is fresh, shiny and new.

Unfortunately, as we age, we get, well…old. With age we form habits, gain responsibility, buy in to stereotypes and develop our own ideas of what friendships and group interactions should be like. It becomes increasingly more difficult to make new friends, and to find new groups that we feel comfortable interacting in.

Life on the Playground
If you observe a child in an environment with other children you will find that they are extremely quick to assimilate. Last week, my son started his first day of 3rd grade at a new school. I watched him closely lining up with his classmates. “I like your shoes” said the boy standing behind him. My son looked down at his new shoes, stomping them to make them light up and then replied, “Thanks, they light up.” The boy then replied, “Do you like my new shoes? My Mom say’s they have good arch support.” “Yeah they are really cool,” said my son. The two boys smiled and started chatting about Star Wars. Soon after, two other boys joined the conversation simply by, smiling and tossing in their thoughts and favorite characters from the movie. My son had assimilated into a group at his school and the first bell hadn’t even rung. This observation made me think to myself, why can’t adults form groups of friends and associates that easy? I have stood in multiple lines throughout my life, waiting at the airport, at the grocery checkout line, post office, DMV, the list goes on. What would I say? “Are you excited to get your new drivers license?” “Wow, you are buying eggs too, we have so much in common, we should be friends!” After pondering the ease of my sons interaction in the school line, it hit me, the conversation I had just heard between my son and his new friends reminded me of a dialogue I had recently had between some of my new friends that I made in an online group on Facebook. During the prior week, a friend had suggested I join a group she was involved with because we share similar interests. I made a request to join, and within an hour was a part of a group. I instantly logged on and began reading others posts and responding to their comments. A lady by the name of Christina caught my eye, she was wearing a shirt with the words, I can see Alaska from my house. I immediately commented on her page. “Hi, my name is Amanda, I love your shirt.” Christina quickly posted back, “Thanks, it’s one of my favorites. I can tell you where I bought it. And by the way, I love your haircut.” Later that day, others from the group began posting on the thread that I had started, they too liked her shirt, and my haircut! And just like that, I had assimilated into a new group and it was so easy.

The above examples lead me to begin pondering, why is it so much easier to assimilate in a group environment online than it is in real life? Why is it, human beings, particularly adults have an easier time making friends in an online environment than in everyday real life?

Face to Face Group Interaction vs. Virtual Group Interaction: What SIDE Are You On?
According to Krispin Thurlow (2004) author of Computer Mediated Communication: Social Interaction and the Internet, “…we don’t need F2F (Face-to-Face) spoken communication to feel part of a group. In fact, it can be better if people don’t see each other.” (p. 66) Regardless of how “open-minded” we deem ourselves, it is in our nature, as humans to make judgments about one another within the first few moments of interaction grasping on to physical appearance (hair color, clothing style, tattoos etc.) and other physical markers such as the individuals facial expression or voice. Since these markers are rarely apparent in the virtual world, we often form a quick and strong connection to individuals via Computer Mediated Communication (CMC).

The Social Identity Model of Communication (SIDE) is described as being:
Based on the idea that a person’s identity is comprised of their individual identity and their group or social identity. Sometimes our personal identity is important to us: at other times, however, we prefer to think of ourselves as being like other people and so we prioritize our social identity.” (Thurlow, 2004 p.67)

This particular statement helps explain why it is far easier for young children to make friends so quickly. Psychologists, Henri Tajfel and John C. Turners, Social Identity Theory, “explains how intergroup relations, more specifically how identifying positively with the in-group and negatively judging the out-group helps individuals gain self-esteem.” (Stets & Burke, 2000 p. 226) Since young children are typically unaware and less bias than adults are regarding what traits an out-group possesses as well as not having yet formed a strong sense of social identity, friendships form more easily. The majority of adults would find it extremely awkward to walk into a party of new people, stand in a group and join in on a discussion without first going through the motions of introduction; get to know you questions etc. As socially strange as this may sound, people do it every day, only online. CMC is often described as a being a ‘richer’ form of communication than face-to-face communication because it provides a more open field environment. “With fewer social and nonverbal cues, we’re more likely to give people the benefit of the doubt. And the more salient social identity is for participants the greater group cohesion will be.” (Thurlow, 2004 p. 67) To basically sum it up, it is more difficult for adults to assimilate into groups frankly because we are quick to form judgments and ideas of others before we truly get to know them. CMC makes it easy to quickly fit into a group because we are able to bypass all of the road blocks that often pop up when making new friendships and joining groups. Not only is this a more simple approach, it is convenient. In today’s hustle bustle society, there is often very little time left for social interaction, friendships and group memberships. The ease of being able to hang out in your pajamas with your virtual book club may sound more enticing to an individual who has put in a full work week than dressing up and meeting at the local library.

CMC Can Enhance F2F Communication
As explored above, CMC has proven itself to be a ‘rich’ form of communication actually enhancing individual’s lives and possibly removing bias and stereotypes. Every day, more and more people log onto their Face book accounts, text, Twitter, blog and Tweet about all of the little details of their lives. In a way, CMC is helping to shrink the world, making it a friendlier place. Clive Thomson, NY Times author writes:
One of the big draws of online social networks is the constant flow of information. Experts call this information -- the status updates, posted notes and thoughts, photos -- ambient information. These little bits of data floating around in your brain ("Chuck had a really great roast beef sandwich yesterday!") can even lead to more meaningful face-to-face interactions. Knowing all these little tidbits about each other eliminates the need for fact-finding small talk, letting friends get right to the good stuff when they're meeting up after work or school (Thompson, 2008).
According to the statistics page located on the Facebook website, the site now boasts over 750 million active users. The average member is connected to 80 different groups, events and organizations. These statistics are important leading me to wonder, with all of this ‘rich’ communication occurring on a daily basis, friendships being formed, and groups created, could social networking change the world as we know it for the better? I have a feeling that human interactions and relationships are moving in a new direction and would love to see more research on the topic of CMC effects on F2F communication. Who knows, all of this CMC might actually push adults to be a little more comfortable in F2F communication. Perhaps we will let our walls fall down, make more small talk and learn to form friendships over buying eggs.
References

Facebook [Statistics Page]. Retrieved September 10, 2011 from http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics

Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(3), 224-237.

Thomson, Clive. "Brave New World of Digital Intimacy." New York Times. Sept. 5, 2008. (September 10, 2011) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07awareness-t.html?pagewanted=all

Thurlow, C., Lengel, L., Tomic, A. (2004) Computer mediated communication: social interaction and the internet. California: Sage

Picture Reference:
http://www.bing.com/url?source=images&rch=vdkm-raAoqM3cThxGSuPJzpDzL4s5Z6&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmarketreacher.com%2Farchives%2F365&urltarget=_blank&q=chat+groups&view=detail&&id=7633D83EAD7570A897F4966E3A179A813BC5EA80&first=0&FORM=IDFRIR&ssIG=8662a033dcaf4a18bac71f0216dcd5ab