To Write or Not to Write?

To Write, Or Not to Write?

Blog #2

Many cultures utilized an entirely oral tradition to maintain their myths, stories and traditions. Plato had reservations about introducing writing into society. P lato along with many other rhetoricians used an art known as the Art of Memory for facilitating their recall. Humans project concepts or ideas into a visual place internally to later be recalled. Since writing has been introduced into civilization the art of memory has been placed to the wayside.
The ancestral stories of an oral culture are told time and time again and this is the only way the story can be preserved. This regular repetition allows the myths to be passed on and mold and adapt to the constantly changing circumstances of the time. The mythic creative story telling process is unlike the biblical writings of the world’s creation. The description of the events in the Bible is assumed to have happened only once in ancient times whereas the act of storytelling is an ongoing process that requires active participation.
The spoken word can only be passed on to so many people before it becomes exaggerated or embellished, whereas the written word is able to go on forever with no change prior to the public’s knowledge (in most cases). For example, when an author publishes a book, it has forever been stamped in history, and if an unknown person chooses to embellish or change the original, it is possible to go back in time and trace.
Recording events in writing establishes a permeance of those events. Once put in writing, mythic events can no longer shift their form to adapt to current situations-which eliminates myth from our written culture. Socrates once said to Plato“…writing is unfortunately like painting; for the creations of the painter have the attitude of life, and yet if you ask them a question they preserve a solemn silence. And the same may be said of speeches.” (Plato. From Phaedrus) The irony of this quote is that it may have never been known or passed down through the generations unless written.
Oral tradition is an intimate personal experience that allows humans to bond or connect with one another. Although written communication can be, it mainly allows knowledge to be passed on throughout time without a deep personal level. Writing can be impersonal, it does not convey the extent of emotional value as oral tradition and lacks the main identifying characteristics such as pitch tone, rate etc. that define a speaker. Sadly, oral tradition can disappear when a culture becomes extinct. Writing can also confuse the message or convey it in a way that was unintended.
Ultimately, just as we transitioned from an oral to a written culture we are slowly progressing towards a “virtual culture”. With each we may have lost some valuable things but we have also acquired many other new and important things. As I contemplate the importance of the oral and written word on my blog, I can’t help but imagine the new alternate methods of communication the future has in store. From oral, to written to virtual, there is one thing all of these cultures have in common, the need to communicate with one another.

References:

Ong, W.J. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing. London: Routledge.

Plato, (1973). Phaedrus: And, The Seventh and Eighth Letters. (Hamilton, Walter trans.) New York: New York. (Penguin Classics)

Communication Technology Today

Caitlin Robirds, January 26 2009 Reflection Essay #1

Professor Alexander Kuskis, Gonzaga University

The internet has created a cultural phenomenon that has forever changed the way that human beings interact and communicate with one another. According to internet scholar Philip Howard, the internet is a form of “embedded media”. This term refers to the way in which people are becoming increasingly more reliant on the internet for a variety of daily activities such as shopping, advertising professional services, socializing, playing games and even listening to music (Thurlow, p.75). This dependence on the internet in today’s society can have both positive and negative affects-but regardless is molding our culture.
Computer mediated communication, CMC, “is a process of human communication via computers, involving people, situated in particular contexts, engaging in processes to shape media for a variety of purposes” (Thurlow, p.15). CMC has become much more common in recent years because of the number of people with access to computers and the internet.
The internet has also brought a new element into our learning environment. Online classes, web discussions and informational web encyclopedias are now at our fingertips. Thurlow stated that “as a student in the twenty-first century you’re a “cyber student”, if only because your writing practices are usually typing practices and because the internet is one of your major information sources” (Thurlow, p.3) I agree with this observation just from my educational background. I started my schooling career in 1989 when computers were seldom seen or used by common folk. As my education progressed so did computer technology. I remember in second grade we were the first class to have a computer in the entire school-which would be considered a dinosaur today.
I did not start typing papers or using the internet for research until I was in about eighth grade and have since never looked back. I rarely go to the public library to do research anymore because there are so many credible web sites available with a click of a button. At the same time, the internet allows anyone to post blogs (ie. Me) create web sites or start discussions that can be mistaken as factual instead of opinion based. I believe this is one of the major problems with CMC from a learning point of view.
Information can get misconstrued or there can be negative slurs or facts to support an opposers opinion and slander the name of a public official or celebrity or anyone. This is why it is very important to always check your sources when in an online environment. There are positive aspects as well. I now am able to communicate with others across the world and share thoughts and opinions about current events and even just pop culture which would have been virtually impossible before the internet.
Thurlow even suggests that CMC allows users to express negative thoughts and use vulgar language they otherwise may not due to the anonymity the internet provides. It is much easier to post hateful things and spread rumors online when you do not physically have to look someone in the eyes or can hide behind a screen name. It is as if you can take on a whole entire new identity with the web-which can be both positive and negative. This allows people to express themselves in ways they aren’t able to in person-whether nervous, anxious or have been previously stereotyped into a specific category. Many teens and adults have fallen under the spell of myspace and facebook-which I do admit can be addicting. These sites are a social community in which people interact, post pictures and talk about their weekend trists.

In the end just like any other form of technology it is up to each individual to use it responsibly. I believe the internet is a great tool that allows us to communciate in ways previous generations could have never imagined. There are negative aspects to everthing, but I think the positive definitely outweigh anything negative when it comes to computer mediated communication...

References
hurlow, C., Lengel, L., & Tomic, A. (2004). Computer Mediated Communication: Social Interaction and the Internet, Chapter on Computer Mediated Communication (pp. 1- 85). London: Sage.