Between the oral and aural: immediacy and hearsay (Postman, 33)
Orality has made a comeback but quite uniquely than its ancient style. Orality is not a certain person but a certain message. Not close relatives but foreign populists.
Orality was the way of old. The entire society was commenced by the oral order. A model bequeathed by word of mouth rather than documentation. Law was orally understood by the community. It was a shared comprehension of the interconnected society. Yet as a societies grew more complex and non-communal members joined the system, documentation was ordained to assist in facilitating this shift. To compensate those not privy to the internal chasm. Yet this was more so internationally rather than nationally. On the tribal level the oral was the epitome of expression. Orality demonstrated a deeper link and devoted knowledge to the community, to one’s identity. Orality bound the people under the knowledgeable lens. People by virtue of their tribal counsel rather than tribal council would know how to act.
Orality offered a cohesive model. Literacy embedded norms in documentation. Eternalising the truth in encoded form. Despite literacy’s use for religiosity and legality, it didn’t impact the common man to the same degree. It was seen as an esteem model of knowledge. A method for the elite to inscribe and transcribe their will. A way of genuine foresight and utility. The common man did not have this opportunity. He was poor and illiterate. He spent most of his time in the oral world. The text world was an aspiration, a holy sphere above the conversational spectacle. Mostly they were taught to read religious works. They were taught to read at times in a language they didn’t understand nor would it translate to their own language. This was the argument against the Danes. Learn to read and write but this was of a specific style. To read latin rather than danish or middle English. Latin happened to be a purposeful medium but most importantly a religious understanding.
The Renaissance brought back the books of old. The publications and translations offered the Italians to indulge as their islamic counterparts had done so half a millennia earlier. For the most part it didn’t reach the masses until the birth of democracy. The reformation inspired more personal engagement with texts. As more commoners began to read, more began to write. With writing hitting an all time high in the nineteenth century. Authors not actors were celebrities. What they wrote was the truth and was scared. The word of the text transitioned from world of mouth to the text. From religious texts to novella to newspapers. The text was the word. Just as it had with the religious community it had with the political community. Writing as a way of conveying truth. Instead of saying it, writing empowered the self to revel in the words. The word is definite and eternal. The word is unmistakably a seal of approval. Imploring the truth with words. It doesn’t need a preacher but a journalist. A scribe drew treaties now a writer conveys events. The status of writing was in high esteem. The textual overpowered the sages of old. Their world was irrelevant to the zeal of daily national coverage.
Who needs biblical stories when you have a whole slew of genre. The realm of fiction and fantasy, thrillers and humour. Books for all ages, written for men and women. Catering to each. Instead of an ancient text these were promoted by the newspapers. They would feature in a column bimonthly. Encouraging the readership, encouraging the entertainment. It was contemporary stories. A way forward from the ancient cultivations. These were at times more realistic and pressed on the struggles of the time. Narrating the issues through fictional creations rather than preaching from a pulpit. The reader was amazed and engulfed in the experience. It was sheer reflection. It wasn’t mere words but an experience. Not imposed by the sayer but internalised by the reader. The reader never met the author but words cut deep. The reader reads them as if they are a reflection of the true reality. They are embedded in the times. They are an illustration that follows a more realistic person rather than the supernal epics of yore. Even if the modern age turned away from religion they didn’t from texts. Texts were the replacement from the archaic old. The text was the holy aspiration but now it was in their hands. They had conquered it and they would enjoy it. Recognising its prowess.
The textual stint was short. Advanced technology began importing inventions. The radio became an alternative to the newspaper. While the latter has remained in business, they slowly died out. The only reason they are still around today is due to rituals, advertising and preference. There is something to be said about reading a newspaper like reading a book. There are e-books but they are not the same as the physical text. The smell and composition are original. Watch a video on Kant or read Kant. Reading is a personal endeavour. Textuality has lost its edge but it is still powerful. That being said television has become increasingly popular. This does not deride newspapers. Only that television more than radio gives a face to the voice. Radio revived the oral preaching but there is a difference with television. There is an extra layer to the oral. It is not just a voice but a visual. It is not just a story but current events. The newspaper is written but the television is verbal. It is more trustworthy because it is straight from the mouth. It is on display live. It is hyperreal.
The text while covering events fails to fully imbue the emotion and emphasis. It is lacking in its connective aspect. News networks fill in this gap. The preacher is back at the pulpit. He is relaying information rather than instructing but it is a model of Sage related ideals. The newspaper is the text that speaks truth without divulging a face. It is a text that determines one’s opinion. The author is irrelevant. The author is but second rate to the writing. While it does matter since the author may be inconsistent, the writing is challenged not necessarily the person themselves. Alternatively, for the news network the person themselves is challenged. Their words are held against them since they said them live on air. They are beholden to their preaching type style. The newspaper is a medium of information while the network is confrontational and direct. The preacher has been re-ordained as a news anchor. Just as the religious trust their priest so too the viewer trusts their anchor. The Sage reappears in the oral sense. Blindly followed for his information. He provides values that are readily accepted by the viewer. The voice is calm and clear. Happy and wilfully accept.
It is easier to critique a book than a person. The book has no feelings and nor respect. It does not reciprocate nor sulk. The reader dislikes what he reads and writes a review about his distaste. It is the terminological play that is disorienting and vague. There is little emotion and little influence. The film may be disliked and scorned but the pieces of visual art impact the viewer. The message of the film resonates more whether in rejection or in acceptance. A book is an active experience but is an imagined construction where the plot and its consistency are deliberated rather than the content and personification. The film projects its ideology on the viewer compelling them to soak up the ideals. The fervent rejection or acceptance is based on the film's coercion. The film like the news outlet asserts their visual competence. Their words are gospel. They are lecturing the reality of things whether fictionally or realistically. The presentation of humanity reflects the normative behaviour of people despite its falsehood. The visual is stimulating while the book is dull. The book is a private endeavour while the visual is a fluid internalisation.
In the same way, television programs have a stronger pull than their book counterparts. The visual puts the entire frame into perspective. The trust of the oral is mixed with the visual. The oral lectern is invisible. The book is but a product of imagination while the program is a product of visualisation. A projected assault of truth. This is no pastime but the present moment. Documentaries do this also as they relay the picture with verbal undertones. The oral is more profound with visualisation. It is only further elevated. Dickens and others did place images in their works but was quickly recanted later on. Nonetheless, the interest, the reliance on the visual is mixed with verbal altercation. The oral is the knowledge internalised mainly by seeing it. Projected to the self. Lessons are taught on television. Just as books these are on full display. The viewer can dissect the oral transparency clearly. It is not imagining the dialogue but watching it in real time. This is how life works. The director like the actor has taught a lesson. Yet unlike the novel, the visual distances the director. Who cares, what matters is the actors. The characters and their expression. The visual is the truth. The characters are imbued with life force and dangle the novelty.
How much more for networks to pass on their message. Even with networks losing their touch and many upset, podcasts have taken their place. Oral messaging from elsewhere. Newspapers haven’t regained popularity but new oral agents have. From mainstream gurus to podcast gurus. Influencers selling their workouts to follow. Digitised formats to watch and repeat. Listening to their every word and then buying their merchandise. The Sage is some guy on television. Some successful individual parading his knowledge whether he has a big house or big biceps. The visual authenticates their prestige and the message is fluidly accepted. Unlike networks that work on the viewership trust, this works on viewership seduction. Viewership aspiration and viewership desire. It is not sitting in for current events but for sage advice. While television sales have decayed, influencers have risen. The modern Sage is a jacked guy in the gym teaching his technique. Requiring more payment for more advice. A facade eating at the gullible. He is speaking to me. His video is legitimate and his words prophetic. Such insolence and ignorance. Yet it is the model of trust to those who can be seen and provide.
The new oral has overtaken much of the literary world. New sages are received and aspired to. Yet maybe the oral needs a reevaluation. Maybe more books need to be read. Maybe the textual needs a revival. More engrossment in literature for more knowledge. Using the text to decipher patterns and decide for oneself. The text acts as an aspirational piece but also enables the self to decide for themselves. The old prophetic-priestly era was imposed by the Sage. The Sage and the contemporary influencer presuppose knowledge on others. The textual enabled the brilliant and the passionate to delve into the texts and add their nuance and their perspective. In a world of literacy and opportunity such a return to the text can elevate critical thinking. A person is taken at their word but not a text. Oral is necessary in a trustworthy community but that is not the case. The virtual-oral is a facade of hope and dreams. Promises by new sages that hold different values and seek to impose their values. This is not the world of the ancient oral. The ancient oral was communally tied. Today orality is used to attack one another. This word beats on that world. At the same time, no one is trustworthy and testimony is misconstrued for personal privilege.
Perjury is another day at the office. One’s word means almost nothing. Eyewitness testimony is an inaccurate as well as agenda driven assault. Today it can even be modified. The post-truth world is a matter of choosing the value. Yet that value is in arbitrary means that seem to be the sole way of enjoyment. People spend so much time looking for random others for advice. What about one’s parents or friends? They are smarter than you think. What about a community scholar? Someone in the neighbourhood that can be easily talked to? So often the easier solution is the better one. What does the old geezer know. This guy is rich or this actor said that. The values are projected by the visual to then be receptive aurally. The digital needs to be regressed just a little or internalised as junk. A time of relaxation with little personal impact. The textual needs to resurface for personal engagement but that ought not replace the local scholar/sage to speak to. Religious communities still have this but this exists everywhere. Someone to confide in and ask for direction. Someone who has experience and can guide. This is the oral world of necessity. Not some virtual guru but a friendly voice answering the call.
The oral and textual can live side by side. The textual of the other can be scrutinised. Harmonising efforts for truth. While advice can be found amongst the locality. Orality is important but it is a central facet of intimate connection. The lesson from a friendly voice can be the change. Textual can override the influencer orality to then redirect the oral to its ancient roots.
No comments:
Post a Comment