Response to Orality and Literacy

I think Ong’s definition of writing in the first chapter as the “commitment of the word to space” is an apt description but also gives a very expansive meaning to the word. Another important part of his idea of writing is that it is not effective without orality. This, to me, is a very accurate point especially when I step back and think about how I read and write. Often times when I am reading or writing, I find myself unintentionally whispering the words aloud.

It is clear that Ong believes that much literature is based on a structure of orality. In other words, the words or groups of words on paper must come from a pattern that comes out of the way these words would be spoken. This can best be seen when he describes Homer as an “assembly-line worker” rather than a “creator.” He makes it obvious that he believes that Homers work came from somewhat of a pre-determined pattern and paradigm of orality.

The concept of a primary oral culture is very difficult for me, and I would imagine everyone else in modern American society, to imagine. The idea of not being able to see or look up words would make life different and much more difficult. Additionally, I see a primary oral culture as a place in which it is very difficult to organize thoughts and ideas, particularly those that require significant amounts of stringing together. Ong’s example concerning names makes this particularly clear. His idea that names serve as labels in typographic cultures rings true and shows a significant contrast to the way things would work in purely oral culture. Ong’s discussion of the method of memorization in a primary oral culture goes back to his idea of the importance of patterns and formulas to orality, especially in its purest form.

Another of Ong’s key points is that writing in a literate society greatly impacts the thought processes of its members. Ong, working from Plato’s idea that technologies such as writing, computer, and calculators makes the mind weak, actually makes sense to me. I have noticed in my work, that the ability to rely on calculators or thesauruses on the computer allows me to put less effort into learning certain skills and memorizing certain things. Ong’s definition of writing ties in with our discussion in the first class session about writing as an important technological step in human history. Ong presents an interesting question when he discusses the frames of mind of an audience and writer. Even in our present day culture of fast written correspondence, a writer and reader may be in entirely different and constantly changing frames of mind throughout an email chain or instant message exchange.

Ong stresses the importance of text not only to literacy but also to society as whole. He goes as far as stating that the Protestant Reformation was a product of the technology of print. He also makes an accurate point in asserting that print technology played a vital role in making sight a more dominant force than hearing in society. One of the most important factors of this influence is the distribution of books and publications containing things considered to be fact and their spread from there. Print creates what Ong describes an idea or feeling of closure which leads to facts and thoughts becoming more concrete in readers minds and therefore society.