To view the differences between primary oral cultures and those that have a system of writing (chirographic) is in the opinion of Walter Ong (1982) to examine the fundamental differences in how humans think. According to Ong in his work Orality and Literacy (1982), individuals communicating in primary oral cultures express themselves in a great degree in relation to other things, through narratives, without abstraction and utilize memory capacity in a much different way than literate cultures. Ong’s theories allow for a great deal of examination and introspection when one considers our own Western chirographic and now electronic focused forms of communicating. And although some of the data identifying the reasons for the differences in chirographic and oral cultures may be corrupted in a variety of ways (i.e. the absence of purity of communication form in either culture examined), the majority of the evidence strongly supports Ong’s conclusions. A question therefore emerges as to whether or not our own American culture should challenge exsisting foci, values and norms about communicating (i.e. written expression as the more advanced and superior model for communicating). In other words, are we too entrenched in chirographic expression and are the consequences inhibiting our growth or even our health? This must certainly be the case as fewer individuals participate in orality and subsequently the abilities of our memory and general use and mastery of language (choosing the precise word for the precise expression) leave us.
Ong’s work in identifying language use in primary oral cultures has greatly contributed to the knowable facts about the use of memory. In such cultures, words are often repeated essentially for the purpose of retaining them. Contrary to this use, in literate cultures, repeated words are less common and often viewed in chirographic systems as mistakes. Ong also notes that in oral based cultures, words must be easily accessible in the mind as retrievable information, thus words tend to leave stronger impressions on the hearer and facilitate recollection. This is achieved through the use of mnemonics and formulas. Examine a few examples from the opening lines from Homer’s Iliad, “great Achillies, or “the anger of Achillies son of Peleus.” In both cases descriptions of the character are attached to the character himself – even his relationship to another character is used. Alternatively in literate cultures, specifically in written text, words can always be referred back to and thus have the freedom to be more common-place, less eloquent. It is this point that left me puzzled as to why then would a literate culture have more use of abstraction. It seems the eloquent or more characteristic words as found in the oral culture would go hand-in-hand with abstract language. However, it makes complete sense that a use of abstraction in an oral based culture would lead to tangled tongues as the words themselves would have no definition to be referred to.
Furthermore, Ong contends that writing is a technology and I must agree. The ability of humans to pen these stories allowed for them to spend less energy focused on memorization and “advance” by creating more time for other tasks. Essentially there became less of a need for memorization because of the ability to simply refer back to a text. Hence, the memorization abilities of oral based cultures are hypothesized to be much greater than those of literate cultures and this is precisely where our problem lies. As we have moved further down the road developing more and more into a literate culture, we suffer the consequence of dulling our memory and mental faculties and essentially our skill at oral expression. We may in fact be limiting our ability to communicate. Let me provide an example here. Ancient Greek, a language that functioned primarily in oral based communication has four distinct words for love: agápe, éros, philía, and storgē whereas our modern English has one. Take it one step further and ask any English speaker to define the word love and you will see the limited ability we really have to. As a result we may be building our own borders around our language.
Opponents to oral based communication may argue that there is no need to develop our memory with computers and databanks around to lean on. But this reasoning is false because it rests upon the notion that we can continue to progress without this essential skill without consequence. Consider the development of Alzheimer’s disease. Though it would be foolish to associate the appearance of Alzheimer’s with the first named cases in 1910, one could argue that the disease is more prevalent today than in previous centuries; just look at the evidence. Though relatively little is understood about the disease, some of the best known methods for slowing the onset and reducing the risks of Alzheimer’s are mind stimulation and memory sharpening – two of the foundational elements for communicating in an oral based culture.
In conclusion, Walter Ong has provided the necessary evidence for proving his theory on the differences in thinking between oral based cultures and chirographic-based cultures. Moreover, Ong has also opened the door for considering whether or not a culture devoid of a strong oral communication focus is inhibited in its growth. The health consequences alone may lessen our memorization abilities and could lead to dire effects, namely the onset of Alzheimer’s disease. It is suggested that we consider these consequences and act accordingly. Namely that we should not only embrace oral communication traditions, but realize the benefits to our own culture, society and health.
