Phil wrote,
>But what print literacy allows is organization
> across vast tracts of space _and_ time (oral literacy only usually manges
> control over people through time, but not through very much space; hence
> their localised nature). It's not my intention to denigrate oral
> traditions
> but to emphasise the enormous control that can be exercised by small and
> powerful groups by combining print with electric communication
> technologies.
I the Soviet Union the feedom of speech existed in the form of oral literacy
of joke telling (with anonymity of the authors). The jokes spread very
quickly in the vast territory of the USSR in a few days without use of
press, or Internet, or phone by ways of mouth. I'd not also assume that
oral literacry can be easily controlled (KGB tried) or very stable is a
sense that Phil wrote,
> Oral traditions (ie verse,
> myth, anything with theme, rythm, but not necessarily with fixed content)
> are literacies (which are technologies and mechanisms for social
> control/reproduction).
It has very improvizational and democratic character. It can be very
critical. It give individuals "narrative weapons" at hand. One thing I
feel lost in US is constant reference to jokes. In the US there is no
common culture of oral literacy as it was in the USSR.
I think it may be very difficult to appreciate oral literacy without
expereincing it yourself especially when we have well established narratives
of devaluing it from the past.
What do you think?
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Graham [mailto:pw.graham@student.qut.edu.au]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 1999 8:21 PM
> To: ematusov who-is-at UDel.Edu
> Subject: Re: Print-literacy, oral literacy, and critical thinking
>
>
> At 11:38 19-05-99 -0400, Eugene wrote:
> >I respectfully disagree with an idea that print literacy is the same as
> >literacy.
>
> I didn't say that. Literacy does also not equate to being able to use
> language of some sort.
>
> >I think that literacy can be oral and print (and in any
> >combination of them,of course).
>
> I do too.
>
> >I also argue that critical thinking is not
> >rooted in print literacy.
>
> Same here.
>
> >It can a be a good question if literacy in any
> >form is connected to critical thinking. Definitely, I personally
> >encountered with cases of oral critical literacy (i.e., critical thinking
> >expressed and embedded in the form of oral literacy and supported by it).
> >Literacy as mastery of stories, narratives, and texts has many faces.
>
> Yes. My point is this: literacy and language are different. One is
> socio-biological, the other is a technology. Oral traditions (ie verse,
> myth, anything with theme, rythm, but not necessarily with fixed content)
> are literacies (which are technologies and mechanisms for social
> control/reproduction). But what print literacy allows is organisation
> across vast tracts of space _and_ time (oral literacy only usually manges
> control over people through time, but not through very much space; hence
> their localised nature). It's not my intention to denigrate oral
> traditions
> but to emphasise the enormous control that can be exercised by small and
> powerful groups by combining print with electric communication
> technologies.
>
> >Without doubts that in our society (unlike in some other traditional
> >society) a lot of official bureaucratic communication of power is done
> >through print literacy. However, things may change dramatically in a few
> >decades from now.
>
> I doubt it. But all that is prognostication, either way. Right now, the
> reality is that most of the earth is dominated by print and
> electronic comm
> technologies. A study of history shows that literacies build on one
> another, usually in the interests of the dominant classes.
>
> >Also, in some places
> >in US you can already encounter talking ATM. In addition, incoming
> >multimedia with multiple communicative channels and redundancy may also
> >undermine monopoly of print literacy on societal communication
> (especially
> >official one).
>
> I find this unlikely in terms of social control. I'd love to be proven
> wrong though.
>
> >As Nate recently wrote we should be careful in not making
> historically and
> >cultural particular as universal. I think we should critically
> investigate
> >of modernist ideological discourse bashing "illiteracy".
>
> I'm not bashing illiteracy, I'm saying that literacy is a
> resource, just as
> the internet has more and less beneficial uses. Some of the most brilliant
> and creative people I know are "illiterate" or "dyslexic".
>
> >I think it was a
> >tool for fighting traditional societies and probably contributed to
> >colonialism.
>
> That fight is redundant. Colonialism, as you note, can only be established
> by communication technologies, the most basic of which is encoded
> language.
> Colonialism and nationalistic expansionism have merely taken on new faces
> and techniques.
>
> >I do not want to romanticize traditional societies either but
> >I do not think it is only either-or approaches. By the way, we
> should not
> >scare ourselves to death by Third, Fourth, and Fifth, and so on ways of
> >doing things (I'm teasing at our recent xmca discourse
> suggesting that any
> >attempts to deviate from traditional "right" and "left" ideologies will
> >unavoidably lead to the EVIL like nazism) :-)
>
> Neither should we sit by and swallow the policy platforms. I'm
> not reacting
> to the badge, but the policies. I have spent the last 2 years
> investing the
> "Third Way". Historical similarities with the 30s are remarkable. I do not
> expect it to look the same or play out in the same manner. However, the
> effects of the current "Third Way" trajectory, I believe, will be no less
> repressive or destructive. It's not necessarily the intention behind the
> platforms, but the reactionary responses to them that are dangerous. You
> may think I'm being unnecessarily alarmist, but I can assure you I'm not.
> Already in Europe, overtly fascist parties are coming to prominence and
> winning elections. It's a considered observation, not a reaction
> to a name.
>
> Critical thinking is isolated without the technology to spread it.
>
> Phil
>