Secondary orality is a term Walter Ong uses in his essay to define a new age of oral memory. Ong argues that memory has gone from mnemonics and formulae in oral culture to our current memorization skills using words as a label. Ong believes oral cultures had some qualities like spontaneity and group mindedness which are now only coming back through secondary orality. Unlike my other two blog posts, I really don’t have a stance on this one.
Ong describes the oral culture’s memory for a good portion of the essay. He goes on about the rhythm and way words used to be organized to aid memorization. Ong sees them as forming the, “… substance of thought itself. Thought in any extended form is impossible without them, for it consists of them.” He talks about the obvious hardships surrounding memorizing a theorem or other large ideas. He also talks about the communal nature of needing a listener, you can’t talk to yourself, so inclusiveness is developed more. Ong seems to see preliterate societies as having a somewhat larger, richer, rhythmic, formulaic memory.
In the third paragraph Ong describes the “interiority of sound.” He describes sound as, “The auditory idea, by contrast, is harmony, a putting together,” this is in contrast to the dissective, clear, distinct nature of the written word. Later he describes knowledge as a unifying force and, “without harmony…the psyche is in bad health.” He is stating essentially that we have lost knowledge. The fact we visually comprehend our language has somehow taken away a part of our humanity. That we have become less because our voices aren’t as poignant as they were before, and because we can relay our ideas to paper.
Secondary orality is the new uprising of oral thinking. However, as Ong repeatedly makes clear, this second orality is nothing like original oral speaking cultures. Ong cites the new waves in electronic media, TV, radio, telephone, as reasons why we are again beginning to perceive like the illiterate cultures used to. However, this isn’t enough because we now, “plan our happenings carefully to be sure that they are thoroughly spontaneous.” Again this highlights Ong’s disdain for the current world person, just from this quote we can infer that the author feels current literate cultures have no spontaneity. Throughout the essay Ong only describes one example of the impressiveness of oral culture; an old presidential debate. He describes the oratory as robust and antagonistic, unlike the cool debates we see on TV now (which I don’t really agree with, check out Biden in the ‘08 democratic primaries).
I really don’t agree with Ong. His ideas seem to infer that we are stupid because we are literate, which is ridiculous. I believe that it’s an interesting topic, but his argument seems to suggest we’d be better off if we couldn’t read. This isn’t because of anything Ong specifically said, but what he didn’t say. He never once gives credit to written language, and only describes oral culture in a positive light. It really doesn’t bother me that two presidential candidates aren’t screaming at one another outside in the middle of summer for two hours, I would rather be able to read.
Crowley, David, and Paul Heyer. Communication in History: Technology, Culture, Society. 6th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, Print.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Friday, September 17, 2010
Blog #2, talkin' bout letters.
I agree with the book’s arguments that there is significant correlation, and causation, between the evolution of media and the evolution of human society. While in the beginning symbols and signs contributed to the expansion of human secular thought, writing and alphabets did the opposite. Until recently, written language has been exclusive, and in some parts of the world still is. The impact of this forced ignorance isn’t hard to see.
Signs and symbols were formed from necessity by the need to trade effectively. In the book it says, “…the tokens dealt with economic data; each token stood for one precise amount of a commodity” (Crowley, and Heyer ). Tokens allowed people to trade without carrying their wares and without a need for spoken language. With simple tokens to represent quantities and types of goods it is easy to imagine how trade became more prevalent. This new means of communication however had some drawbacks, one being that it was difficult to trade larger quantities of goods because of the amount of clay you would have to carry around, this led to pictographs displayed on clay tablets, which in turn let to phonetic writing as we know it today.
The first forms of phonetic language were made on clay tablets. As trade increased over long distances this was soon replaced with papyrus and bark paper (Crowley, and Heyer ). While this form of communication grew, scribes were needed to write and read it, considering there were no public school or free education in that time. These scribes were taught in temples by priests and in turn, “… the power of the cult enhanced the power and authority of the priests” (Crowley, and Heyer ). Putting a monopoly of knowledge in religion allowed it to censor the information and made it more powerful than any king or sovereign. However, priests as rulers apparently aren’t the best as they are, “unable to direct organized warfare, and temporal potentates… and led the prince into the presence of the deity.” (Crowley, and Heyer ) For states to survive they need to be stocked and ready for war at any moment, the inability of the temples to do this led to their rescindment of power back to a monarch.
One of the most important discoveries that I have made in this book is the realization that even the most basic knowledge can be twisted to hurt society as well as help it. I have always struggled to grasp how a democratic society (greece) existed and was subsequently stripped out of existence for almost 1000 years. This religious monopoly on knowledge makes it clearer how powerful language really is. If more people than scribes could read and write I am sure the amount of history that was lost before the dark ages would not have been, and it’s resurfacing supports this idea. The renaissance was heavily influenced by the study of ancient greece, whose texts were saved from from burning by religious leaders in the libraries of what is now Baghdad. Without the ability to read and a focus on knowledge these texts would never have resurfaced. Through reading these chapter it only becomes clearer the reasons why history is the way it is, and how language most certainly has had a significant part to play.
These conclusions and ideas are both refreshing and terrifying. Though we now live in a country where everyone is taught to read and write, free of charge, it is not so in many other countries. What atrocities and lies could be spread there without the open sharing of knowledge? How much harm can be dealt and how much progress can be slowed without the openness of ideas that we so often take for granted in the United States? If an entire culture, and one which has given us some of the most revered philosophers can be wiped out for almost a millennia, what else could be, or has been lost? These consequences for the closed command and spread of media remind of the importance of freedom of speech, and the true value of being able to live in a time and place where it exists.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION:
Crowley, David, and Paul Heyer. Communication in History: Technology, Culture, Society. 6th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, Print.
Signs and symbols were formed from necessity by the need to trade effectively. In the book it says, “…the tokens dealt with economic data; each token stood for one precise amount of a commodity” (Crowley, and Heyer ). Tokens allowed people to trade without carrying their wares and without a need for spoken language. With simple tokens to represent quantities and types of goods it is easy to imagine how trade became more prevalent. This new means of communication however had some drawbacks, one being that it was difficult to trade larger quantities of goods because of the amount of clay you would have to carry around, this led to pictographs displayed on clay tablets, which in turn let to phonetic writing as we know it today.
The first forms of phonetic language were made on clay tablets. As trade increased over long distances this was soon replaced with papyrus and bark paper (Crowley, and Heyer ). While this form of communication grew, scribes were needed to write and read it, considering there were no public school or free education in that time. These scribes were taught in temples by priests and in turn, “… the power of the cult enhanced the power and authority of the priests” (Crowley, and Heyer ). Putting a monopoly of knowledge in religion allowed it to censor the information and made it more powerful than any king or sovereign. However, priests as rulers apparently aren’t the best as they are, “unable to direct organized warfare, and temporal potentates… and led the prince into the presence of the deity.” (Crowley, and Heyer ) For states to survive they need to be stocked and ready for war at any moment, the inability of the temples to do this led to their rescindment of power back to a monarch.
One of the most important discoveries that I have made in this book is the realization that even the most basic knowledge can be twisted to hurt society as well as help it. I have always struggled to grasp how a democratic society (greece) existed and was subsequently stripped out of existence for almost 1000 years. This religious monopoly on knowledge makes it clearer how powerful language really is. If more people than scribes could read and write I am sure the amount of history that was lost before the dark ages would not have been, and it’s resurfacing supports this idea. The renaissance was heavily influenced by the study of ancient greece, whose texts were saved from from burning by religious leaders in the libraries of what is now Baghdad. Without the ability to read and a focus on knowledge these texts would never have resurfaced. Through reading these chapter it only becomes clearer the reasons why history is the way it is, and how language most certainly has had a significant part to play.
These conclusions and ideas are both refreshing and terrifying. Though we now live in a country where everyone is taught to read and write, free of charge, it is not so in many other countries. What atrocities and lies could be spread there without the open sharing of knowledge? How much harm can be dealt and how much progress can be slowed without the openness of ideas that we so often take for granted in the United States? If an entire culture, and one which has given us some of the most revered philosophers can be wiped out for almost a millennia, what else could be, or has been lost? These consequences for the closed command and spread of media remind of the importance of freedom of speech, and the true value of being able to live in a time and place where it exists.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION:
Crowley, David, and Paul Heyer. Communication in History: Technology, Culture, Society. 6th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, Print.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Assignment numero uno.
Castell’s essay on wireless communication is just barely “adequate.” After reading the essay I felt he pomped up his diction, without saying anything about the meaning of these new trends and why they matter. My phone can be used to create an instant social gathering, so what? Why do we create these gatherings and what impact does the ability to do so have on us. This frustration is increased when reading the last part of the essay, where he describes, “Access to the Wireless Network as a Source of Personal Value and as a Social Right.” (Crowley, and Heyer ) Why would I consider a cell phone to be a human right if I don’t understand the way it actually changes the way we live? I can assume a multitude of reasons, but my reasons are exactly that, assumptions. Castell is supposed to be making the case for how cell phones are changing the way we live, but never explains how or why that matters.
Castell does point out the ease of communication and how that is creating new norms for when it is and isn’t okay to use them, and that our social networks are being redefined. The rise of individualism, I believe, is directly related to the way in which we can ignore someone to communicate with someone else. There is always somebody who wants to hear your ideas, and if you can’t find a person, you can always post them on facebook. This new trend of thinking one’s ideas matter (for lack of a better way to word it) would obviously increase the importance of the individual in us. These are the kind of connections which when reading I wish Castell would have at least hinted at, instead of completely changing the subject via new paragraph.
Castell’s point that, “people build their own private space by simply ignoring others around them” (Crowley, and Heyer ) is an exaggeration. While I have consciously ignored people by taking out my phone, I have also brought people into current social gathering via my cell phone as well. Castell even makes the point that social gatherings have become easier to do because of mobile devices, “the emergence of unplanned, largely spontaneous communities of practice in instant time, by transforming an initiative to do something together into a message.” (Crowley, and Heyer ) Castell never connects the two ideas, they are in two separate paragraphs, but these connections need to be made. People now can ignore others they wish not to be in contact with, and create stronger bonds with those they do. However, this doesn’t seem like a new practice to me. Haven’t people always ignored those they wished not to speak to, and gathered with those they do? I understand that wireless devices are being used to shape the social environment you are in. But why does it matter if people have always had this opportunity, and what impact does the instantaneous nature of mobile devices have on it? If anything people are now allowed to manage their time better, instead of sitting in a waiting room bored for an hour, you can plan lunch with a friend for later in the day. Instead of listening to a professor read a power-point word for word that you’ve already read the night before, you can do homework for the next class (this was not influenced in any way by our MCS class). Instead of listening to a god warrior you can plan your next bible burning. If anything mobile devices only make us more productive, a point which fell through, at least in my opinion, in Castell’s essay.
Though written only four years ago (according to the publication date in the back of the book), this article seems dated. It doesn’t address any web based mobile applications, and actually separates “online activities” from mobile devices. These two have melded into one device you can take anywhere, and that new device might be the cause for my frustrations with the essay. Also, with the growing number of mobile devices I’m sure the amount of research has increased exponentially. While I do understand what Castell is trying to convey, I found his diction over the top, his tone far too lofty, and his points undefined or un-expanded, and all this for talking about teenagers on their cellphones in class.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION:
Crowley, David, and Paul Heyer. Communication in History: Technology, Culture, Society. 6th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, Print.
Castell does point out the ease of communication and how that is creating new norms for when it is and isn’t okay to use them, and that our social networks are being redefined. The rise of individualism, I believe, is directly related to the way in which we can ignore someone to communicate with someone else. There is always somebody who wants to hear your ideas, and if you can’t find a person, you can always post them on facebook. This new trend of thinking one’s ideas matter (for lack of a better way to word it) would obviously increase the importance of the individual in us. These are the kind of connections which when reading I wish Castell would have at least hinted at, instead of completely changing the subject via new paragraph.
Castell’s point that, “people build their own private space by simply ignoring others around them” (Crowley, and Heyer ) is an exaggeration. While I have consciously ignored people by taking out my phone, I have also brought people into current social gathering via my cell phone as well. Castell even makes the point that social gatherings have become easier to do because of mobile devices, “the emergence of unplanned, largely spontaneous communities of practice in instant time, by transforming an initiative to do something together into a message.” (Crowley, and Heyer ) Castell never connects the two ideas, they are in two separate paragraphs, but these connections need to be made. People now can ignore others they wish not to be in contact with, and create stronger bonds with those they do. However, this doesn’t seem like a new practice to me. Haven’t people always ignored those they wished not to speak to, and gathered with those they do? I understand that wireless devices are being used to shape the social environment you are in. But why does it matter if people have always had this opportunity, and what impact does the instantaneous nature of mobile devices have on it? If anything people are now allowed to manage their time better, instead of sitting in a waiting room bored for an hour, you can plan lunch with a friend for later in the day. Instead of listening to a professor read a power-point word for word that you’ve already read the night before, you can do homework for the next class (this was not influenced in any way by our MCS class). Instead of listening to a god warrior you can plan your next bible burning. If anything mobile devices only make us more productive, a point which fell through, at least in my opinion, in Castell’s essay.
Though written only four years ago (according to the publication date in the back of the book), this article seems dated. It doesn’t address any web based mobile applications, and actually separates “online activities” from mobile devices. These two have melded into one device you can take anywhere, and that new device might be the cause for my frustrations with the essay. Also, with the growing number of mobile devices I’m sure the amount of research has increased exponentially. While I do understand what Castell is trying to convey, I found his diction over the top, his tone far too lofty, and his points undefined or un-expanded, and all this for talking about teenagers on their cellphones in class.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION:
Crowley, David, and Paul Heyer. Communication in History: Technology, Culture, Society. 6th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, Print.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)