Recently encountering a bunch of content referencing a literacy vs orality culture, seeming to imply that literacy culture is specifically about WRITING rather than recording. This seems super weird to me. (And has a sort of ableist ā€œaudio doesn’t count as readingā€ vibe about it.) What’s especially odd to me is I’m seeing this expressed by a buncha folks who seem very thoughtful usually… like am I missing something obvious here? It just feels so odd to me. Like people are just parroting a meme…
Like a sentiment people will express is something to the effect of ā€œnow that we’re watching videos and listening to podcasts, we’re returning to an orality cultureā€ or, in the best cases, at least proposing that it is a post-literacy phenomenon (like not returning, per se, but moving into something new).
While I am inclined to embrace the possibility of ā€œsomething newā€ it just feels like a tremendously superficial understanding of what literacy got us. I really don’t think it was about writing!
Am I missing something obvious here? #linguist fedi, steer me right
As I understand it: orality vs literacy is about our ability to record concepts and transmit them, with relatively little proximity/relation between the person communicating and the person receiving the information. Like the golden records on Voyager and the audio we sent from Earth… that’s literacy culture! Right?? Just because it’s audio doesn’t change that!
@b_cavello Not a linguist, just a layperson, but your interpretation jives with mine. Tyson Yunkaporta talks about that transition in Sand Talk and discusses how it causes information to be abstracted as separate from the context it was produced in—the speaker, the environment, the web of relationships, etc. I can't see why this would be any less true for podcasts or radio recordings than the written word.
@spencer Thanks for sharing your perspective. At the least, it makes me feel less alone in being like ????