Is orality synonymous with mutability, and literacy with finality?
I am reading Walter J. Ong's Orality and Literacy, and here are some of my initial thoughts.
The essence of Ongism is that the mind is determined by the medium (xiv) and there are distinct differences as well as relationships between orality and literacy. The Preface and the first few chapters of Orality and Literacy by Walter J. Ong set the context in which we will examine the nature and influence of communication technologies -- speech, writing, print and electronic -- on human consciousness, thought processes and even actions. What I found particularly fascinating was the third chapter “Some psychodynamics of orality”, especially the description of the nine characteristics of orally based thought and expression (36-57), and how they not only differ from written expression, but also transform the way we perceive the world.
Ong mainly refers to primary oral cultures that have absolutely no knowledge of writing (1). Being from urban India, I cannot claim to be unaffected by literacy. But because oral traditions are such an integral part of Indian life, I can never completely turn off how they affect my interpretation of information and expression of thoughts. I read Ong’s book while reflecting on my own experiences and it challenged me to focus on how oral communication processes have shaped me.
Oral narrations like katha (stories), epics, doha (couplets), proverbs, fables and songs are common in India, but might sound exaggerated to those not used to it. Every Indian movie has songs – it’s part of the storytelling, and most Bengali children like me listen to some form of Thakurmar Jhuli (folk tales told by Grandmother). In fact, my father later bought a Thakurmar Jhuli cassette tape, where a shaky, endearing voice of an elderly lady narrated the same stories (a change of medium?!).
All religious rituals, including daily prayers, involve chanting mantras and communal repetition of invocations. Ong mentions this when he says oral cultures use mnemonic, rhythmic balanced patterns, alliterations for “retaining and retrieving carefully articulated thought” (34).
This leads to a lesser focus on source, objectivity and finality and more on fluidity, situation and community. Is it a surprise then that many countries with a rich oral tradition are low on individualism, according to the Hofstede scale? (India: 48, Japan: 46, Mexico: 30, Ethiopia: 27, Peru: 16, USA: 91 http://clearlycultural.com/geert-hofstede-cultural-dimensions/individualism/).
Ong’s interpretation of the orality of the Vedas seems a bit one-dimensional, as reflected in his questions, "What was retained? The first recitation of its poem by its originator? ... A version which a powerful teacher worked up?" (65). He recognizes the oral transmission of the Vedas but challenges the notion that they were passed verbatim generation after generation. More research is needed before any claim is made, but I don't think anyone suggests that there has never been any written aspect to it at all as the years passed; the oral narratives were after all compiled and categorized by Vyasa, which further helped spread and record them. What one cannot deny is that there is a significant oral aspect in its dissemination due to various socio-cultural reasons, and also that the very nature of the Vedas is not something that you read but rather you utter it, feel the vibrations of your phonetic utterances and take in the whole experience. Read Om and say Om and feel the difference.
Here's a video of the Om chant.
And this is only one syllable. Now imagine a hundreds of lines spoken like this.
Ong with his zeal of searching for a source or originator does not realize the apaurusheya aspect of the Vedas and many other texts of this region – they are impersonal, authorless, they are no one’s, yet everyone’s. I think this mutability in thought processes and worldview frustrates “western” readers!