ORAL CULTURES VS. LITERARY CULTURES

1.) What are the differences between primary oral cultures and literary cultures? How are they related with each other?
- In order to comprehend primary oral cultures and literary cultures, it is paramount that their differences be understood. One notable disparity is the method of storing information. In primary oral culture, information is stored in the mind – people rely on memorization in order to pass down information. Orally transmitted traditions must be rigorously and accurately passed on in order to survive in all their subtlety, and in the smallest of details. Meanwhile, literary culture does not have to depend on memorization as information can be preserved through writing.

Another notable difference between primary oral culture and literary culture is the way information is visualized. Primary oral culture visualizes information in relation to the environment: they associate a certain word based on its connection to their surroundings. On the other hand, literary culture envisions information through symbols. While primary oral culture may visualize the word ‘round’ as something like the moon, literary culture will correlate the word into its corresponding symbol or character.

In terms of permanence, literary culture is more conducive.  Writing allows people to formulate, store, and retrieve information when needed in a more efficient and accurate manner. Thus, information that is put into writing is more likely to survive than information passed merely through words of mouth. Primary oral culture’s lack of technology made preserving of complex ideas difficult; hence there are gaps in information when passed down.

With the development of oral communication, it didn’t take long for the humans to develop systems of writing. Literary culture modified the oral culture making a more practical system of communication. Therefore, both cultures are related in the sense that literary culture emerged from primary oral culture.

2.) What does Walter Ong mean by the inter subjectivity of  communication? How does this differentiate communication from media?

- Intersubjectivity” has been used in social science to refer to agreement. There is “intersubjectivity” between people if they agree on a given set of meanings or a definition of the situation. Thus, “intersubjectivity” in this sense is simply an academician’s word for “agreement”.

Intersubjectivity also has been used to refer to the common-sense, shared meanings constructed by people in their interactions with each other and used as an everyday resource to interpret the meaning of elements of social and cultural life. If people share common sense, then they share a definition of the situation.

There is a process to communication: the sender forms a message, then it will be encoded, passed through a medium, then the receiver will decode the given message. After decoding, the receiver will give his feedback. In short, communication is a two-way process wherein the sender and the receiver will have the opportunity to exchange thoughts. They could hear each other’s ideas then agree to a certain situation. This is what intersubjectivity is in the context of communication.

Intersubjectivity in communication is like agreeing on a certain topic or situation, making it the norm or the standard to be followed. By smoothing out the communication process by virtue of intersubjectivity, people can understand each other easily.

Media on the other hand, has a wider scope. It is too wide for the sender and the receiver to converse resulting in a one-way information highway. Yes, the public can receive and decode the given information but they can’t react or directly send their feedback. One example is reading the opinion section of a newspaper. We all have different understandings and stands on certain issues. It is likely that the reader’s opinion will contradict the editor’s stand, and yet he cannot communicate to the editor to voice out his ideas without having to go to extreme lengths; there is no platform for agreement, no intersubjectivity. This is what makes media different from communication.

3.) How does the 'media' model of communication show chirographic (i.e writing) conditioning?

-Chirographic conditioning allows one to be willing and able to live with the media model of communication, since both media model of communication and chirographic conditioning treat communication as a one-way process with no real feedback mechanism – something that oral cultures cannot agree with.

Chirographic conditioning happens when one transitions from an oral culture into a literate one. Two things happen here: speech becomes informational text, and text becomes prima facie (taken as true unless proven otherwise) and a one-way communication process for no real receiver – there is no better way to describe traditional media communication.

Take for instance radio broadcasts. This media communicates news to the masses in a structured and informative – speech becomes informational text – and the masses consume this news as absolute truth – prima facie – yet, none of them can actually respond or react to this news because there is no real intended receiver for these messages, and since there is no real intended receiver, there is no platform for feedback.

This is why Walter Ong says that “the willingness to live with the media model of communication shows chirographic conditioning.” Oral communication relies on platforms for agreement and feedback (dialogue) to build understanding which is vital to how information is processed, stored, and disseminated – something that the media model of communication does not provide. On the other hand, literate cultures allow one to store, process, and disseminate information without having to go through the process of developing understanding (because it’s already written down), by means of chirographic conditioning, reliance on platforms for feedback and agreement (dialogue) are done away with for the sake of efficiency, allowing the media model of communication to work.