I just finished reading the text from Walter Ong’s Orality and Literacy. To begin with I had imagined it to be an interesting read…But as I began reading the chapters it seemed like an arduous task to get by…
It’s ironic that a text on orality could be so tedious and overwritten. I must confess I found it extremely difficult to grasp what the author was trying to convey – which seemed like pretty simple, and actually interesting concepts later on.
So with this tedious text, my take-out has been…
Very simply put, that medium affects the content. And while studying the societies which had a predominant oral culture, it’s important to understand the nature of orality as it affects communication. It urges the need to separate the content from the mode of communication.
The oral word is dynamic. And with lack of any method to store the oral word, there is a heavy dependence of the oral tradition on memory. And hence the use of meters or formulae based work from that era, which made it easy for people to remember and hence pass on the thought in a rhythmic, poetic format. Infact the Vedas, which are the oldest sacred Hindu texts are supposed to be passed on through the oral tradition. These, too, use meters (I just googled and found out!) Metophors, mnemonics and other forms used in oral expression were also byproducts of this characteristic of orality.
However the effect of this mode of communication is not only limited to the form. It also affects the content and thought process. Hence oral societies seemed to be more conservative, agonistic and stuck with the present and situations. Writing made it possible for societies to branch out to more abstract and objective thoughts to emerge.
These concepts were interesting and gave me a framework to apply to my existing knowledge of how media works. As a media planner, I intuitively knew the importance of media in communication – often more than the campaign it self. And I found this understanding of the difference that arose from the basic nature of medium – oral and literal in this case, to be easily extendable to differences between modern forms of media as well.
For example, in the era of newspapers, the written word had a captive involved audience. The nature of the medium assured that the reader was alone and not multi-tasking while reading the content. The result was lengthy, analytical content around issues that were often not of personal interest.
However the same written word is forced to package itself in a more entertaining, persuasive format when it comes to the internet. Powerful one-liners that capture attention are required. The audience on the net has lower levels of attention span and the power to choose.
However, the question that looms in my mind is whether the medium is the main perpetrator or does the audience define which medium rules? As in, if there really is an audience for lengthy, analytical texts shouldn’t the newspaper rule? And even with the advent of internet, the same content should just become more ubiquitous. Or because there is an inherent need within the audience to receive more entertaining, crisper content and hence something like internet come along. And if there was no net, newspapers would adapt themselves to cater to this need? In this case, then, is medium really the message?
