Abstract
Ong argues that communication technologies shape how people think and organise knowledge. Oral cultures rely on memory and storytelling, while writing and print encourage permanent, analytical, and individual thought. Modern digital media combine written technology with the immediacy of speech.
Context
Walter J. Ong (1912-2003) published Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word in 1982.
Ong's thinking was influenced by Marshall McLuhan. Both studied how communication technologies influence human thought and culture, but they approached the subject from different directions:
General / specific
McLuhan developed a broad theory of media, arguing that every medium, such as speech, writing, print, television, or electronic communication, reshapes society. His approach emphasises the structure and technological characteristics of media rather than only the messages they convey.
Ong focused more specifically on the relationship between orality, literacy, and consciousness. He examined how people in oral cultures use memory, repetition, rhythm, and communal interaction, and how writing and print encourage more abstract, visual, linear, and individualistic forms of thought. His approach is more concerned with language, education, cognition, and the psychological effects of literacy.
Technological / cultural
McLuhan’s analysis is generally more global and technological. He explored how media reorganise social space and time, famously claiming that “the medium is the message.” For McLuhan, the arrival of electronic media could reconnect people through what he called a “global village.” His writing is often suggestive, encouraging readers to recognise patterns across different media.
Ong’s approach is more historical and cultural. He traced transformations from primary oral cultures to literate cultures and later to electronic communication. Although he recognised the importance of technology, he paid closer attention to how communication systems affect memory, knowledge, education, and human consciousness. Ong also underlined that electronic media do not simply return society to orality; they create a form of “secondary orality” that depends on writing and technological systems.
Neutrality
The two thinkers are similar because both reject the idea that media are neutral channels. They argue that changes in communication also produce changes in perception, social organisation, and intellectual life. However, McLuhan concentrates on the medium as a technological and social environment, while Ong concentrates on the effects of communication systems on language, thought, and consciousness. Together, their approaches provide a broader understanding of how oral, written, print, and electronic forms shape human culture.
Influences on Ong
In his introduction to Orality and Literacy, John Hartley presents Ong as a bridge between classical humanistic scholarship and modern media studies. Ong draws on classical rhetoric, literary history, philosophy, and theology, applying these traditions to communication technologies and their effects on human consciousness. Hartley cites the following influences on Ong:
In Ramus, Method, and the Decay of Dialogue (1958), Ong examines how Peter Ramus (1515–1572) replaced dialogue and oral discussion with a method organised into divisions, schemes, and classifications. Ong argues that this shift reflected the growing influence of writing and printing. Knowledge began to be presented as a visual, ordered and fixed system, rather than developing through the oral exchange of questions and answers. For Ong, Ramus’s method contributed to the weakening of the rhetorical and dialogic tradition and anticipated modern ways of organising knowledge. At the same time, it facilitated teaching and memorisation by transforming ideas into clear, hierarchical structures.
Marshall McLuhan argued in The Gutenberg Galaxy (1962) and Understanding Media (1964) that the media shapes perception, culture, and social organisation. McLuhan’s work on electronic media influenced Ong’s concept of “secondary orality.” Ong used this term to describe the return of certain features of oral culture — such as participation, immediacy, and communal involvement — through electronic media such as radio, television, and telecommunications. However, Ong developed these ideas in a more systematic historical and psychological framework, especially in Orality and Literacy.
In Preface to Plato (1963), Eric Havelock argues that Plato's critique of poetry is explained by the transition from an oral to a written culture. In ancient Greece, Homer's poems functioned as an encyclopedia: they transmitted history, morality, religion, and social norms through memory, rhythm, and repetition. Plato rejected this educational model because he considered it based on images and emotions, not on abstract reasoning. For Havelock, alphabetic writing allowed for the separation of knowledge from memory and fostered the development of philosophy, science, and the theory of Ideas.
In The Communication Bias (1951), Harold Innis argues that each medium of communication influences the organisation of a society in a particular way. Some media, such as stone or writing, are durable and favour the preservation of traditions and knowledge over time. Others, such as paper and printing, are easily transportable and allow for the control of large territories. For Innis, a society needs to balance both types of media. When an institution dominates one medium of communication too much, it can also concentrate political and cultural power.
Taken together, these authors demonstrate how communication technologies influence the way people remember, think, learn, and communicate. Hartley's main argument is that Ong helped connect the humanities with modern media studies by integrating the history of communication into the history of human consciousness.
The evolution of Ong's thinking in his writings
Walter J. Ong’s thinking developed from the study of Renaissance rhetoric into a wider theory of communication and human consciousness.
In Ramus, Method, and the Decay of Dialogue (1958), Ong examined how Renaissance education moved from oral debate toward written systems of classification. He argued that changes in communication also changed the way people organised knowledge.
In The Presence of the Word (1967), he focused on the importance of spoken language. He viewed speech as immediate, personal, and connected to human relationships and spirituality.
Interfaces of the Word (1977), expanded Ong's ideas to include writing, print, and electronic media. He argued that communication technologies influence culture, imagination, and thought.
His major work, Orality and Literacy (1982), established his best-known distinction between oral and literate cultures. Oral cultures depend on memory, repetition, and participation, while literate cultures encourage abstract, analytical, and visually organised thinking.
His later works, such as Hopkins, the Self, and God (1986), connected communication with literature, religion, and the self.
His thought progressed from studying rhetoric and education to explaining how language technologies shape consciousness and society.
Download Orality and Literacy
Summary
Introduction
In his introduction Walter J. Ong examines the fundamental differences between cultures that depend mainly on spoken communication and those shaped by writing. He argues that oral and literate cultures do not simply use different methods of communication; they organise knowledge, thought, memory, and social relationships in different ways. Ong presents literacy as a technology that profoundly changes human consciousness and culture.
The author begins by noting that speech is natural to human beings, whereas writing is a learned technology. Every human society communicates through speech, but only some societies develop writing systems. Because oral cultures cannot store information in written records, they rely heavily on memory, repetition, rhythm, formulaic expressions, and communal participation. Knowledge is preserved through performance and passed from one generation to another by speaking and listening.
Writing, in contrast, separates words from the immediate presence of the speaker and makes language visible. It allows ideas to be preserved, reviewed, reorganised, and examined over time. Ong explains that writing gives language a degree of permanence and independence: a text can exist apart from its author and can be read by people who are not present when it was produced. This encourages more abstract, analytical, and private forms of thought.
The introduction also challenges the idea that oral cultures are intellectually inferior to literate cultures. Ong argues that oral societies possess sophisticated systems of knowledge, but their thinking is adapted to the conditions of oral communication. Oral thought tends to be additive rather than heavily subordinated, repetitive rather than abstractly organised and closely connected to human experience and practical situations. These features help speakers remember and audiences understand information.
Finally, Ong explains that studying orality is important even in highly literate societies because spoken language remains the foundation of all communication. Literacy develops out of orality, and new technologies such as printing and electronic media continue to reshape the relationship between speech, writing, memory, and consciousness.
The introduction establishes the book’s central argument: communication technologies influence not only how people express ideas but also how they think, remember, and understand the world.
1. THE ORALITY OF LANGUAGE
In recent decades there has been a growing recognition of the oral nature of language and its implications, particularly highlighting the contrasts between orality and writing. Scholars from various fields, including anthropology, sociology, and psychology, have explored oral societies and prehistory, examining human existence prior to writing.
Ferdinand de Saussure, a foundational figure in modern linguistics, noted the primacy of oral speech as a fundamental aspect of verbal communication. While writing is recognised for its utility, it is also seen as having limitations and dangers. Emerging linguistic studies have increasingly focused on phonemics and the distinct characteristics of primary orality, cultures entirely unfamiliar with writing.
Recent applied linguistics and sociolinguistics have engaged with the dynamics of primary oral versus written communication. Works by researchers like Jack Goody have provided insight into the mental and social transformations associated with the advent of writing. The scholarly focus began to shift away from texts to encompass the complexities of orality, with significant contributions from figures like Milman Parry and Albert Lord, who studied oral traditions such as the The Illiad and The Odyssey.
Oral communication is inherently linked to human existence. While other forms of non-oral communication may exist, sound remains paramount in language. The vast majority of languages throughout history have never been written down, underscoring the enduring presence of orality. Although literacy extends the potential of language, written texts must always connect back to the oral tradition to convey meaning.
Despite the increasing scholarly attention to orality, for centuries, the study of language has largely focused on written texts. This preference stems from the imaginative and analytic capabilities that writing fosters. Primary oral cultures learn through practical experience rather than formal study, contrasting them with literate societies where writing facilitates critical thinking and analysis.
The ancient Greek fascination with speech developed into a structured art form, with rhetoric becoming a central academic discipline. While rhetoric improved understanding of oratory, it still relied on written texts for investigation and study. This reliance on written documentation has shaped interpretations of oral performances.
Scholarly biases have often led to a conflation of oral tradition with written text, resulting in terms like "oral literature," which undermines the unique nature of oral storytelling. Such misconceptions persist despite the acknowledgment of oral forms developed independently of writing. Concepts such as "primary orality" contrast with "secondary orality," found in modern technological contexts, highlighting the difference between cultures untouched by writing and those that have undergone literacy. Creating terms to adequately capture the essence of oral traditions remains a challenge within scholarship. Etymological connections often bias definitions towards writing. The term "oral literature" fails to account for the unique aspects of oral traditions, thus serving as an inadequate description of verbal heritage.
Understanding orality and literacy reveals the complex interplay between the two. While literacy expands consciousness and knowledge, it can also overshadow the rich traditions of oral culture. The book aims to construct a nuanced awareness of both orality and literacy, acknowledging the limitations of written forms while striving to preserve the legacy of spoken word traditions.
2. THE MODERN DISCOVERY OF PRIMARY ORAL CULTURES
The recognition of the orality of speech has deep historical roots, dating back to ancient times. The author Qoheleth in Ecclesiastes acknowledges the significance of oral tradition for his writings. Throughout history, various literate collectors have drawn from oral traditions, although they primarily sourced their material from written texts rather than direct speech. The Romantic Movement sparked renewed interest in folk culture, leading to collections of oral traditions that gained academic respectability. By the early 20th century, scholars like Andrew Lang had successfully argued against viewing oral folklore merely as remnants of literary cultures.
Despite the historical awareness of oral tradition, the "Homeric question" illustrates misconceptions between orality and literacy. Scholars have debated the origins and authenticity of the Iliad and the Odyssey, exploring whether they are singular works by one author or compilations of oral traditions. The distinction between oral composition and written texts was significant as it shaped the understanding of these foundational epics. Milman Parry's research in the early 20th century revolutionised perceptions of Homeric poetry by revealing that its distinctive features stem from oral composition methods. Parry emphasised the significance of formulaic expression in oral cultures, demonstrating that the phrases and structures used in the poems reflected an economy of composition necessitated by oral traditions. This discovery challenged traditional views of poetic originality, suggesting that what appeared to be creativity was often the result of a pre-existing repertoire of formulas, reshaped for performance.
Parry's insights led to broader implications for understanding the cultural and psychological contrasts between orality and literacy. In oral cultures, knowledge needs to be constantly reiterated through fixed phrases or formulas to avoid being lost. This inherent formulaic nature of thought often regarded as a limitation is, in fact, a defining characteristic of oral poetry's richness and complexity. As literacy spread among the Greeks, the elevation of analytical thought began to clash with the values of the oral tradition exemplified by Homer.
Following Parry's revelations, other scholars like Albert Lord and Eric Havelock expanded on his theories, linking oral tradition with early Greek philosophy's evolution. Havelock specifically showed that the introduction of vowels into the Greek alphabet enabled deeper analytical thought. Today, the ongoing relevance of Parry's insights permeates multiple fields, assisting in understanding how oral traditions shape cultures even in literate societies. The ongoing study of oral and literate consciousness continues to reveal the complexity of human cognition and culture, suggesting that our understanding of orality needs to adapt to the insights afforded by recent research.
The work of Walter Benjamin offers a lens through which to analyse the relationship between oral cultures and modernity. By exploring concepts such as the aura of art and the role of reproduction in culture, Benjamin provides valuable insights into how oral traditions transition into literate contexts. His analysis encourages us to consider the ways in which the digital age continues to reshape our understanding of orality and cultural preservation.
3. SOME PSYCHODYNAMICS OF ORALITY
Oral cultures, those unaffected by writing, rely entirely on spoken words, which exist as fleeting sounds rather than stable entities. In these cultures, the concept of "looking up" information is nonexistent, leading to a unique understanding of language, learning, and memory.
Sound is transient and perceived in its immediacy. Unlike visual stimuli, which can be captured and analysed, the ephemeral nature of sound influences the dynamics of thought in oral cultures. Language in these contexts acts as a mode of action rather than a mere symbol for thought, carrying powerful associations tied to oral traditions.
Words possess significant power in oral cultures, viewed almost as magical entities because they are inherently dynamic expressions of lived experiences. This contrasts with written languages viewed as static entities, where words are seen as labels or tags, often divorced from their expressive, powered origin.
Oral cultures utilise mnemonic techniques to organise knowledge, employing formulas, rhythm, and repetition to aid memory recall. This reliance on mnemonic patterns shapes both the expression and structure of thought, which is organised around oral formulas that facilitate easy recollection.
Oral thought tends to be:
- Additive: Rather than subordinative, oral expression builds on ideas through additive structures.
- Aggregative: Favoring clusters over individual statements, oral thought incorporates epithets and repetitive expressions.
- Redundant: Relying heavily on repetition to ensure comprehension and recollection, especially during public speaking.
- Conservative: Strongly tied to tradition, oral cultures often resist change, preserving knowledge over generations.
Oral traditions often embody an antagonistic spirit, characterised by verbal competition and challenges. Communication is frequently interactive, with a significant emphasis placed on performance and engagement with the audience.
Memory in oral traditions is distinct from literate cultures, as it operates through sound and performance rather than through text. Oral memorisation favours flexibility and adaptability, with individual presentations changing each time, drawing upon a shared repository of formulas and themes.
In oral traditions, the physicality of expression, such as rhythm and gestures, plays a crucial role in communication, enhancing both audience engagement and memory through a non-verbal dimension that enriches the spoken word. The spoken word fosters a sense of community and unity, grounding individuals within shared experiences. In many societies, the spiritual dimension of communication remains closely tied to verbal expression, emphasising the event-like nature of spoken language in conveying sacred meanings.
Oral cultures focus on the lived experiences of sound, contrasting with the visual, stationary nature of written text. This emphasis shapes their worldviews, centering on identity and communal bonds rather than the detached observations familiar to literate societies.
4 WRITING RESTRUCTURES CONSCIOUSNESS
A deeper understanding of oral cultures aids in comprehending writing's function in shaping human consciousness. Writing, more than any other invention, has drastically transformed how literate individuals think, structuring thoughts that originate from natural powers processed through the technology of writing.
Writing generates 'context-free' language or 'autonomous discourse,' detached from its author, unlike oral communication, which can be questioned directly. While oral cultures submit to a kind of autonomous discourse through rigid formulas, writing presents a challenge to refute due to its permanence.
Plato's scepticism about writing is echoed today in concerns about technology such as computers. He argued that writing is inhuman and weakens memory, similar to modern fears about calculators. Furthermore, once written, texts cannot engage in interaction or debate, presenting them as static entities unlike spoken words. Although contemporary society has internalised the use of writing, Plato viewed it as an alien technology. Writing is governed by external tools and requires conscious control, whereas oral speech emerges naturally from culture. Writing enhances consciousness and facilitates a degree of internal reflection and analysis.
True writing, beyond mere marks or memory aids, allows precise recording and complex structuring of thoughts. It evolves from pictographs to a coded system representing utterances, ultimately leading to written forms that have substantially influenced human perception and cognitive processes.
Various independent scripts have evolved, each with roots in pictorial representations. Cuneiform and hieroglyphics illustrate how writing systems have developed from basic visual symbols into more complex coded systems that define languages and cultures. The alphabet, a unique and efficient writing system, emerged from earlier scripts and proved highly adaptable. Unlike complex character systems, it simplified the representation of sounds, thus allowing for broader literacy and communication.
Initially, literacy emerged as a craft practiced by a select few, and the societal transition to widespread literacy took time. Written records began to replace oral memory, yet a lingering preference for oral testimony persisted, especially in societies new to writing. As writing became prevalent, oral traditions began to lose dominance. However, many societies continued to view oral testimony as having greater authenticity compared to written texts due to personal engagement and the ability to challenge statements directly.
The sentential isolation resulting from writing has profound implications on meaning-making. Unlike oral communication, which exists in a shared temporal context, literacy relies on removing context, demanding precise interpretation and greater analytical reflection. Rhetoric evolved alongside written forms, serving to bridge oral and written communication. Learned Latin exemplifies a language pivoted around writing and academia, highlighted by its critical role in shaping scholarly discourse over centuries.
5 PRINT, SPACE, AND CLOSURE
Ong explains how print transformed human thought by making language appear as a fixed visual object. In oral cultures, words exist primarily as sounds and depend on memory, performance, and interaction between speaker and audience. Print, however, separates words from the speaker and places them in visible space on a page. This allows readers to examine, reread, compare, and analyse language privately and repeatedly.
Ong argues that print encourages people to think spatially. The arrangement of words, lines, paragraphs, chapters, indexes, headings, and page numbers gives knowledge a visible structure. Printing also makes individual words more clearly distinct through spelling, punctuation, spacing, and standardised layouts. As a result, readers become more aware of language as something that can be organised, classified, and manipulated visually rather than only heard and remembered.
The chapter also focuses on the idea of “closure.” Printed texts usually appear complete, stable, and separate from the circumstances in which they were produced. Unlike oral communication, which can change through repetition, performance, or audience response, a printed work seems to have definite boundaries and a finished form. This sense of closure supports the idea of a complete argument, a final edition, and a text that can be studied independently of its author or original audience.
Ong connects print with the development of individualism and private reading. Because printed materials can be read silently and alone, readers engage with texts in a more detached and personal way. Print also strengthens the concepts of authorship, ownership, originality, and intellectual property, since a work can be identified as a stable product created by a particular person. Overall, Ong’s main argument is that print does not simply preserve spoken language; it restructures consciousness by making communication visual, fixed, orderly, and closed.
6 ORAL MEMORY THE STORY LINE AND CHARACTERISATION
The transition from orality to literacy impacts various genres of verbal art, particularly narratives. Narrative has largely absorbed other forms such as drama, serving as a backbone for many verbal arts and methodologies of knowledge transmission. While acknowledging other societal developments influencing narrative, this analysis emphasises the orality-literacy shift's effects on narrative structure, suggesting it remains central in all cultures, including in oral traditions.
In primary oral cultures, traditional storytelling is vital for storing and organising knowledge, as individuals cannot generate abstract categories for comprehension. Significant oral narratives, like the stories from ancient Greeks or Native American traditions, serve as major repositories of cultural lore. Narrative's capacity to bond extensive lore results in substantial and repeatable forms of knowledge communication, outpacing shorter, more transient forms like maxims.
Examining the evolution of narrative reveals how oral traditions function distinctively compared to literate forms. In oral cultures, memory influences narrative plots that diverge from conventional climactic linear scenarios prevalent in literate cultures. The organisation of narratives in oral traditions is episodic rather than strictly chronological, relying heavily on mnemonic structures and poetic techniques, as exemplified in ancient Greek epics.
The effects of literacy on narrative structure foster a tighter, more organised storyline compared to the episodic nature of oral narratives. Literacy allows for self-contained narrative arcs, leading to the more defined structures of modern literary genres such as detective stories. The complexity of characterisation evolves from the simplistic, flat characters of oral traditions to the more nuanced, round characters present in novels influenced by psychological depth.
The emergence of the round character illustrates changes in narrative intentionality resulting from writing and print. Whereas flat characters served primarily as vessels to maintain storylines in oral culture, round characters, characterised by depth and unpredictability, emerged in response to increasing introspection and complexity demanded by literate audiences. This shift reflects broader cultural advancements in psychological understanding and personal identity, influenced by the technologies of writing and print.
7 SOME THEOREMS
Literary history is beginning to utilise insights from orality-literacy studies, analysing oral performances and elements in texts. Despite significant findings, many literary historians still overlook the importance of orality-literacy polarities in understanding genres, characterisation, and writer-reader relationships. Historical literature requires acknowledgment of its oral roots, as found in medieval and Renaissance works.
The transition from orality to print and, ultimately, electronic forms has significantly affected narrative forms and plot development. Genres like epics have evolved with the demystification of oral origins, while the novel reflects a shift towards more conversational, rather than performance, styles, especially among women writers who often lacked access to rhetorical training.
Orality-literacy contrasts have implications for New Criticism and formalist approaches, which emphasise textual autonomy and often ignore the contextual nature of oral performance. These movements highlight the disconnection between the text and its broader life in an oral culture.
Structuralism, particularly in the works of Lévi-Strauss, has focused on oral narrative without adequately considering the psychological dimensions of oral expression. Textualist and deconstructionist theories often neglect the oral substratum of texts, framing literature as merely a later manifestation of a flat, textual existence.
Speech-act theory and reader-response criticism highlight the dynamics of oral and written communication, noting differences in intent and response between them. These theories suggest that understanding reader engagement could benefit from insights into primary orality.
Orality-literacy studies should impact social sciences and philosophy. They raise questions about how the evolution of writing has influenced human consciousness and how different cultural frameworks interact with textuality. Insights from orality could enrich understandings of religious texts, particularly Christian teachings on the nature of the Word of God.
Human consciousness has evolved alongside textual development. Writing has led to greater self-awareness and interaction between individuals. The relationship between orality and literacy influences religious traditions and how communities articulate their beliefs.
Themes
Media shape consciousness
Ong argues that communication media influence how people think, remember, and relate to one another. Speech emphasises presence, interaction, memory, tone, and shared experience. Writing creates distance from the speaker and encourages analysis, reflection, and private reading.
Print strengthens these effects by organising knowledge into stable, standardised texts. Electronic and digital media create a secondary orality: communication becomes immediate, interactive, conversational, and participatory, but still depends on literate technologies.
Media do not simply transmit ideas. They shape attention, memory, authority, identity, and community. However, Ong presents these as tendencies rather than strict rules: media influence thought without completely determining it.
Secondary orality
Digital media combine several forms of communication at once:
- Oral: Messages can sound conversational through voice notes, podcasts, livestreams, and video calls.
- Literate: Users write posts, articles, comments, captions, and messages that can be edited, saved, and reread.
- Visual: Meaning is communicated through images, videos, emojis, graphics, and layout.
Unlike traditional print, digital media are also interactive. Audiences can respond, share, remix, and alter content immediately. A single social-media post, for example, may include written text, a photograph, a short video, emojis, hyperlinks, and comments. This creates a hybrid form of communication. Digital messages may be written but imitate casual speech, using abbreviations, informal grammar, and conversational tone. At the same time, they can be carefully edited and permanently stored like written texts.
For Ong, this represents secondary orality: a renewed emphasis on speech-like immediacy and participation, but one made possible by literate and electronic technologies. Digital communication therefore combines the permanence of writing, the immediacy of speech, and the persuasive power of visual media.
Media influence attention
Ong’s ideas suggest that different media encourage different ways of paying attention:
Spoken communication unfolds in real time, so listeners must follow the speaker’s sequence of ideas. Repetition, rhythm, tone, and storytelling help maintain attention. Because speech is temporary, listeners cannot easily pause or reread it.
Writing and print allow slower, more focused attention. Readers can pause, reread, underline, compare sections, and think privately about an argument. This supports sustained concentration and detailed analysis.
Electronic and digital media often encourage faster and more divided attention. Television, websites, and social-media platforms use images, sound, movement, notifications, links, and rapid changes to attract users. People may move quickly between topics rather than follow one long argument.
Digital media also encourage selective and interactive attention. Users choose what to open, skip, share, or comment on. They are not only receiving information, they are constantly responding to it.
This can produce both benefits and drawbacks:
- Faster access to information
- Greater engagement and participation
- Easier multitasking
- More visual and interactive learning
- More distraction and interruption
- Difficulty sustaining attention
- Preference for short or simplified content
- Less patience with slow, complex arguments
Ong’s point is not that one medium is simply better than another. Each medium trains attention differently. Print may support depth and concentration, while digital media may support speed, connection, and responsiveness. The important issue is recognising how the medium influences what users notice, remember, and ignore.
No comments:
Post a Comment