Term Paper

Experts on the subject of the oral tradition, most notably Walter Ong, show the oral tradition as at least a departure from, if not threatened by, print and electronic media. Ong’s text was published in 1982, and the advancement of technology that has since taken place serves to expose weaknesses in his argument. Given this assertion, two arguments may be made. First, the recent advancement of media technology has caused social regression, and those exposed to such technology are moving closer to the psychodynamics of orality. Second, the new media has simply served to rekindle those aspects of the oral tradition still existent from before the invention of the alphabet. Far more evidence exists to support the latter. Given current technologies, it would be difficult to argue that modern media does not aid the oral tradition. Printed and electronic documentation fulfills the same purposes as the oral tradition. Each book, although it cannot talk back in as intimate a forum as a personal conversation, stands simply as a statement in the collective, global conversation. Since the invention of the alphabet, the fundamental aspects of the oral tradition have not changed; its forum has simply been expanding. Careful scrutiny reveals the existence of orality’s tenets in modern media. The oral tradition gives the past a place in the present by relating the collective knowledge of previous generations to contemporary society. It facilitates social evolution through its frequent adaptation, and printed and electronic documentation has proven to aid the oral tradition in this endeavor rather than undermine its progress.
Ray Raphael begins his explanation of the purpose of myth and their visual representation in modern American culture by suggesting that, “The visual arts, like the oral tradition, give the past a place in the present.” (Raphael p. 2) Although his argument is concerned with the formation of myths concerning the American Revolution, his statement is too profound to be so limited. It submits that the purpose of myth is not only to provide cultural justification, but to connect present communities with the practical knowledge of previous generations. This bolsters Sean Kane’s point that, “Myths are repositories of practical wisdom.” (Kane p. 39) The oral tradition adapts to augmentations of the collective knowledge and leaves the next generation with a more complete understanding of their world. Given this function, it can be easily argued that modern media, that is, print and electronic documentation, aids the oral tradition.
Books and printed media have recently become basic technologies, as the radio, television, and the internet are touted as revolutionary. However, they all augment the oral tradition identically, and each represents a step in the progression and expansion of mankind’s collective knowledge. Socrates criticizes documented information in his ironically documented conversation with Phaedrus by arguing:
I cannot help feeling, Phaedrus, that writing is unfortunately like painting; for the creations of the painter have the attitude of life, and yet if you ask them a question they preserve a solemn silence. And the same may be said of speeches. You would imagine that they had intelligence, but if you want to know anything and put a question to one of them, the speaker always gives one unvarying answer. And when they have been once written down they are tumbled about anywhere among those who may or may not understand them, and know not to whom they should reply, to whom not: and, if they are maltreated or abused, they have no parent to protect them; and they cannot protect or defend themselves. (Plato pp. 15)

Although books or other forms of documentation cannot communicate directly with their audience, they converse on a much larger scale. The forum in which collective wisdom resides has expanded from the direct, spoken dialogue Socrates was familiar with, to a much larger conversation. Each book, article, blog entry, or television episode offers its own addition to the collective conversation and augments mankind’s knowledge.
In its infancy, documentation technology allowed only for slow collective dialogue. An author wishing to disprove, bolster, or otherwise change any part of the collective wisdom was forced to publish his ideas in order to affect change. The appearance of newspapers and other periodicals facilitated the diffusion of ideas. Letters to the editor expanded the collective discourse to the layperson and allowed an individual to submit minute alterations to be seen by many. The invention of the radio and television further catalyzed this process by allowing ideas to be broadcasted spontaneously, in real time. Callers were able to disagree with or force explanations from news anchors or other guests directly. Of all the advances in technology, however, the internet has proved to expand the forum of discussion and the documentation of collective wisdom the greatest. The internet allows nearly instantaneous conversation through comments on articles, blog sites, and video clips. Most importantly, electronic media has globalized information in a way physical documentation could never have attempted. Sans government censorship, all online content can be accessed from anywhere on earth. Programs are available to translate text instantly, allowing information to transcend language and cultural barriers. Collective wisdom is no longer limited to those within listening distance of a mythteller, but is globally accessible. Additionally, the internet’s human interface allows collective knowledge to adapt more frequently and easily to additional information. Authors are able to edit their documents instantly, rather than being forced to publish sequential editions of their text.
Despite such advantageous advances in technology, it can still be criticized as impersonal and inferior to intimate discourse. Society’s tendency towards direct conversation is affecting the trend in technology towards interaction. Even though there is little interaction between a book’s author and his audience, the progression of technology is working to eliminate such limitations. As electronic media technology has progressed, it has become subject to a change in form. The internet is already shifting from a primarily text-based technology to a multimedia forum. Online video such as youtube.com has proved its usefulness and popularity during the 2008 presidential election. It allowed debate questions to be submitted by individuals not in attendance. Such interaction, when compared to the simple technology of the written word, demonstrates clear advancement.
The expansion of the forum of collective wisdom is falsely perceived as the suppression of the oral tradition. A comparison of modern forms of documentation with the characteristics of oral culture underscores the oral tradition’s perseverance and illustrates its existence in contemporary times. In Orality and Literacy, Walter Ong outlines nine aspects of the oral tradition (Ong p. 37-57). His first characteristic describes the oral tradition as additive rather than subordinate. He uses parataxis as and example of this quality. Just as parataxis eliminates subordination of ideas through its use of coordinating conjunctions, so does modern technology present a democratic forum for information. The internet is free and accessible to anyone, and the expression of information is not subject to the discretion of a publisher or editor. Degrees of credibility do exist, however, as reputable websites censor their content.
Ong asserts that the oral tradition is aggregative rather than analytic by describing the use of epithets as the clustering of information. He explains the breakdown of this clustering in favor of a more formulaic organization of information. A reader of books and physical text is able to reference previous pages to recall details, eliminating the need to attach epithets to describe characters. The speed in which electronic media is able to convey information often rekindles the need for the epithet. When a news broadcast hosts a guest or cuts to a lesser-known reporter, the network posts the individuals name, along with an epithet. Each time the camera cuts back to the interviewee the banner “Steve Johnson: Political Analyst” appears for the viewer’s benefit.
Similar to its aggregative quality, Ong’s third characteristic -redundancy and copiousness- comes from the inability of a listener to reference what has been spoken, as the reader of a book can do. Although this fact still stands, the argument that documentation has eliminated the need for redundancy is fundamentally flawed. The availability of multiple texts on a common subject still allows a reader to converse with the collective knowledge. The reader is able to reference another author’s ideas on the same subject to eliminate confusion. The vast number of chicken recipes contained in books and online demonstrates far more redundancy than the repetition of a single recipe by one cook.
Print and electronic media easily assimilated orality’s conservative and traditionalist quality. Oral societies emphasized the importance of tradition and upheld knowledge and “those wise old men and women who specialize in conserving it (Ong p. 41).” The importance of those individuals is equally apparent in the literate culture. Religious texts such as the Bible and the Koran are held in higher regard by many than diversions from traditional schools of thought, such as John Barth’s postmodernist work Lost in the Funhouse.
The employment of hypertext by electronic documentation has brought modern media back to the oral tradition’s proximity to the human life world. Ong explains that the Iliad illustrates this characteristic by attaching detailed information to a list of ships in order to provide a connection to the listener and facilitate their memory (Ong p. 42). Hypertext functions in the same way. Words in a list can be clicked on to provide detailed information. Although this is not intended to aid the memory of the reader, anecdotes nevertheless expedite retention and understanding. Hypertext also allows electronic text to mimic the oral tradition’s attempt to remain situational rather than abstract. It minimizes generalizations and strives to limit the frame of reference to a specific example. Hypertext allows the author to elaborate on a specific term while simultaneously maintaining the flow of the text and to avoid confusing the reader.
Ong also describes the oral tradition as agonistically toned, but provides the reader with evidence of this characteristic in the practice of flyting in modern cultures (Ong p. 44). Although not as striking an example as flyting, the banter of political pundits fighting for their turn to speak during a news broadcast demonstrates the employment of agonistic tone in modern media.
Although it is the goal of many print and electronic media sources to remain objectively distanced, they still exhibit the oral tradition’s empathetic and participatory characteristics. Documents created to report both current and historical events are judged on their impartiality to their subject matter, yet they still strive to move the reader or listener through their delivery of information. Oftentimes the subject matter alone lends itself to empathy. An account of the holocaust, however objective, still evokes emotion from even the most stolid audience.
Ong asserts that homeostasis within an oral community is achieved through the fluid definition of words and the flexibility of oral records. Although both poetry and prose literature employ the layered meaning of words, this practice has little relevancy in informal media. The modern practice of inventing terms stands testament to the oral tradition’s disconnection of their words from archaic meanings. The lack of confusion over the use of the term “twitter” by news agencies illustrates this. Although the term has been recently coined, readers and listeners understand it to mean the instantaneous publication of brief journal entries, not the sound of a songbird.
The existence of Ong’s characteristics of the oral tradition in modern print and electronic media suggest its continued existence and underscores its merits. Documentation augments orality in the name of progress, and in doing so adheres to the oral tradition’s basic principle of adaptation. The argument for the preservation of the oral tradition exactly as it was, is based on nostalgia, and ironic, given that the oral tradition has always been adapting. Despite changes to its content, it has always stood as the collective knowledge compounded over generations, for the benefit of the current society. This function persists. Now, however, assertions, opinions, and convictions can be referenced instantaneously through printed or electronic media and are available to those outside the earshot of Socrates’s soapbox.