Millie Leadbeater April 2023
‘Two fundamental premises concerning media are at odds: the premise of radically different forms and the argument that a previous medium becomes the content of the new medium.’ (T. G. Gibson)
In the above quote, Gibson Discusses the transition from orality to literacy. Here particularly, we see the development of the idea that there was a complex and long standing relationship between the two, rather than a distinct divide. I will be discussing the theories of past scholarship concerning the concept of the coexistence (or lack thereof) between orality and literacy, mainly following the arguments of Gibson (2016), who writes in contrast to these older theories. It is generally accepted that these older views are not as authoritative as they once were, but still hold unreasonable weight in the study of oral history; in my opinion this is damaging to the study of this area. In contrast to Gibson, former scholars (such as Havelock, Ong, Parry and Lord) followed an argument of the superiority of writing and suggested that the content of the previous medium, orality, is absorbed by the newer. Yet at the same time, there is also an argument that the two mediums are radically different, with the newer taking place over the older seemingly instantaneously. These obvious contradictions are paired with the scholar’s curious attachment to Plato, who is heralded as a representative of this new level of human consciousness, writing.
So where does the idea of writing’s superiority over orality come from? Gibson describes how previous scholars characterised orality as ‘poetic, circular, imitative, emotional, primitive and uncivilised’ (Gibson 2016 p.112). This is an interesting list of descriptors, subtly transitioning from seemingly positive to negative. So, we see that the idea of literacy’s superiority stemmed from the belief that orality existed in a more primitive time, or place, which led it to be thought of as a less sophisticated medium. Alongside this, these early theorists believed that Plato was a proprietor of literary tradition, who rejected oral communications (Havelock 1963, Mcluhan 1964, Parry 1966). This developed into the idea that Plato used orality in order to ascend ‘to a higher, more civilised rung’ (Gibson 2016 p.74). This is certainly a rather harsh judgement of oral communication, which is not necessarily an accurate assessment of the introduction of literacy in these oral societies. Havelock suggests, for example, that the introduction of the alphabet up to Plato’s time was actually practically irrelevant to the lives of educated people. (Havelock 1963 p.38) In defence of orality, it was the first technology of communication, and today remains the most extensive global communication for imparting knowledge. Additionally, this characterisation of Plato is not exactly accurate when reading further into some of his dialogues, for example Phaedrus, where we see Plato clearly critiquing writing, with statements such as ‘he who thinks, then, that he has left behind him any art in writing, and he who receives it in the belief that anything in writing will be clear and certain, would be an utterly simple person.’ (Plato Phaedrus 275c-d). Continuing to compare the thoughts of some modern scholars to Plato’s Phaedrus, I will examine the story of Theuth. This cautionary tale describes the Egyptian king Theuth discussing the invention of writing with the God Thamus. Theuth is excited by this, believing it will improve the intelligence and memory of the Egyptian people. However Thamus disagrees, instead stating that this invention will cause forgetfulness, because people will no longer practise their memory, warning the king that this is an invention for reminding, that offers the Egyptians only the appearance of wisdom (Plato Phaedrus 274e-275b). This critique of literacy explains that writing does not provide wisdom, with clarity only coming from discussion and experience. Without these it cannot be implicitly clear, and this is furthered by the comparison of writing and painting made by Phaedrus. A painting has characters that are presented as living beings, but you cannot talk to them or ask them questions. Plato describes writing as much the same: subjects appear to be alive and intelligent but have no ability to defend themselves (Plato Phaedrus 275 d-e). This continues the idea of writing as weak, always needing its ‘father’ (the author), to give clarity and protect it, unlike orality where this is integrated into the form of communication itself (Kramer 2016 p.24). In Phaedrus, the art of dialogue is compared to the sowing of seeds. A sensible man would not plant his seeds in summer, although they would sprout quickly. Instead he would follow the rules and sow the seeds at the correct time in the correct soil. Here, Plato is reflecting on the idea of ‘sowing words’: discourse is far more honourable when one follows the dialectic methods, yielding seeds that sprout in other minds, allowing the process to continue (Plato Phaedrus 276b-277a).
Yet Plato does see some benefits to writing as a pastime. Again, using the comparison of words and seeds, Plato suggests a garden of letters, to be planted for amusement, to reflect on the forgetfulness of old age. We are shown a man who, rather than engaging in the amusements of banquets, passes time telling stories (Plato Phaedrus 276d). Plato does not completely disregard writing: he even goes so far to describe it as a noble pastime, but it is certainly not seen as something that is academically superior to dialogue and discussion. Overall it is clear that the idea of an old vs new media is something that is not exactly well judged by previous scholars. Postman (1992) also provides a similar view, describing technological change of mediums as ‘ecological,’ meaning it is neither additive or subtractive. Like Plato, he uses this to compare communication to nature: if you remove a caterpillar from an environment, it becomes not just that same environment minus caterpillars, but a whole new environment. So why did these older scholars reproduce these theories? Kittler (1986) puts forward the idea that the concept of an ‘oral culture’ was only discovered with the invention of sound recording, used on the Homeric style bards of Serbia and Croatia. This work then became the basis for the theories of scholars such as McLuhan. Parry and Lord then used this to argue that the patterns in Homer were mnemonic devices used in a pre-literary age, by comparing ancient Greek tradition with that of contemporary Slavic culture (Gibson 2016 p.155). Margalit Finkelberg contradicts Lord’s theory of orality and formularity in The Gatekeeper: Narrative Voice in Plato’s Dialogues (2019). By stating that formular and non-formular elements are ‘mutually complementary’, there develops a new concept of ‘formula economy’ which leaves formulas concerning ‘frequent recurrent ideas, themes’ but then leaves non-traditional subjects’ formula-free. But even these theorists did not always agree with each other. This is an example of the theories themselves beginning to move away from the truth of the argument and develop in a world of their own detached from the reality of oral history.
Despite these unyielding views, it is critical to remember how important oral communication is and has been for human history. Oral tradition was our first communication technology and was vital for the creation and experience of language, and today oral traditions remain the most widespread and diverse modes of communication for the transmission of both art and culture, and the definers of group identities. Furthermore, our understanding of Homeric poems, considered a fundamental element of the literary heritage of the western world, relies on the acceptance and understanding of oral communication, which should never be dismissed as archaic or uncivilised. I agree, as does Gibson, that although arguments to the contrary are provocative and exciting, they have no place in our modern understanding of orality and literacy and should no longer be discussed when there is now such an accepted understanding of the prolonged period of interaction which certainly outlasted the work of Plato.
This article was adapted from an essay previously submitted for assessment as part of the Communications and the Classics Module at the University of Bristol
Bibliography
Carlson, K., Fagan, K. R. and Khanenko-Friesen, N. 2011. Orality and literacy: reflections across disciplines. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press).
Ferrari, G. R. F. 1990. Listening to the cicadas : a study of plato’s phaedrus. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Foley J.M. 2011. ‘Oral Traditions’ in M. Finkelberg, The Homer Encyclopedia, Vol. 2 (Oxford: Blackwell).
Friedrich, R. 2019. Postoral homer : orality and literacy in the homeric epic. (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag).
Gibson, T. G. 2016. ‘Between Orality and Literacy: Plato’s Hybrid Medium and the Foundations of Media Theory’ in N. Friesen (ed) Media Transatlantic: Developments in Media and Communication Studies between North American and German-Speaking Europe (Cham: Springer).
Krämer, S. 2016. Medium, messenger, transmission : an approach to media philosophy (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press).
Mackay, E. A. 2008. Orality, literacy, memory in the ancient greek and roman world (Orality and literacy in ancient Greece, vol. 7). (Leiden: Brill).
McLuhan, M. 1964. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (New York: New American Library) Stein, E. 2010. Writing versus Speaking and the Quest for Self-Knowledge in Plato’s “Phaedrus” , (Montreal: Concordia University).
Homer’s Iliad , A. T. Murray (Author), William F. Wyatt (Author) 1999 Loeb Classical Library Harvard: Harvard University press.
Plato Phaedrus, Yunis, Harvey, et al. Phaedrus. Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Ekklesia Magazine 
Leave a comment