The Trobriand People.

During the research process for my first abandoned term paper topic, I ran into some info on the Trobriand people. I looked into it further and found quite a few articles that had been written on these primitive peoples. They interested me for a couple of reasons.

First of all, they are a tribe still nearly secluded in the oral tradition. They have texts in their language now after years of western missionaries influencing their society. However, many remnants of the oral tradition still remain. One of these, is the belief that the woman gives a child its body and soul. For them, this means that the male does not have a direct part in the baby making process. Copulation, for the Trobriands, is merely for shaping the baby and feeding it. This belief is also accompanied by many magical traditions where women have much more magical power than the males do.

These beliefs that seem quite strange to us in the literate tradition are quite natural for the oral tradition. The woman in a society that still values the feminine characteristics would probably see the female as a great symbol of fertility that must be protected and exalted for the advancement of their race. It is no surprise then that the Trobriand people trace their lineage through the female lines.

For more info, here is a start at Wikipedia: Trobriand People

Rough.

Here, a couple days late, is the rough draft of my term paper. Again, it takes a deeper look at the false dichotomy between the oral and literate traditions. Please let me know what you think!! I'm always down for some criticism.

An Extended Look At the False Dichotomy Between the Oral Tradition and the Literate Tradition

In Walter J. Ong's book, Orality and Literacy, the topics of the oral tradition and that of the literate tradition are differentiated and explored. Though each is explained in great detail, a problem exists that the text does not address. According to Leonard Shlain, in his book The Alphabet Versus The Goddess, literacy which is frequently seen as cultural progress, comes at a price. The stated dichotomy is based on an assumption that severely limits the understanding of the interactivity between orality and literacy. This also leads to limited explanations of the literate tradition's seemingly inherent patriarchal structure.

Ong expresses characteristics of oral thought as if they are in opposition to literate, or typographically based thought. For instance, while explaining orally based thought, he states that the oral tradition is “Aggregative rather than analytic” (Ong 38). Oral thought takes in information as a whole, whereas literate thought analyses and deconstructs. These two are clearly in opposition from Ong's standpoint. This is a valid observation, however Shlain uses this comparison to dig deeper into the origins of these two types of thinking.

The main problem with Ong's approach is that he opposes orally based thought to typographically based thought. In addition this also opposes the oral tradition to the literate tradition. This is a false dichotomy, and is seen as such when compared to Shlain's approach. Using Ong's term, the aggregative view of the thought process would not break it down into orally based and typographically based sections. This is because they are complements. They coexist in a medium which is impossible to destroy by any means lesser than death. If one is breathing and therefore thinking, they are allowing characteristics of each type of thought process to thrive.

As Shlain points out, “First writing, and then its more sophisticated refinement, the alphabet, tolled the death knell of feminine values” (Shlain 39). So the literate tradition caused the fall of feminine qualities in the thought process? Ong does not disagree on this point. Although it is only mentioned briefly, he believes that the rise of patriarchal values comes from the privilege of males to study certain languages which females were generally barred from learning (111). Shlain writes however, that the reason for literacy to bring about patriarchal constraints is that, “writing subliminally fosters a patriarchal outlook” (1). So the effects of writing are subliminal and not as obvious as a social construction already steeped in patriarchal tradition such as privilege.

The Alphabet Versus The Goddess starts out by defining the feminine outlook with the qualities of a holistic, simultaneous, synthetic, and concrete viewpoint. Subsequently, the characteristics of the masculine outlook are linear, sequential, reductionist, and abstract thinking. Shlain continues to explain his theory by talking about the evolution of the human brain to accommodate the invention of new technologies or other circumstances.

The right side of the brain, which developed long before the left side of the brain, handles such emotions as the state of being, and it understands things in a holistic manner. The left side of the brain developed with the evolutionary process to handle the different faculties needed to understand the growing complexity of language, and eventually written text. Shlain correctly points out that, “The left brain's primary functions are opposite and complementary to the right's” (21). It is already apparent that the characteristics of the functions of each side of the brain correlate to the characteristics of oral and literate based thought.

The next part of Shlain's argument is that the two sides of the brain function differently in concordance with the characteristics of each gender. This occurred through the evolutionary process and the early forms of gender roles. Women stayed around the home, cared for the young and gathered food, they used their emotional faculties heavily and therefore connected strongly with the right brain. Men hunted and needed to act without emotion, and think in linear forms planning the best ways to take down an animal. All of these actions relied heavily on the developing left brain which excelled in the methods of speech and eventually writing (21).

The process of reading is steeped in analysis. Shlain writes, “reducing the components of speech into their separate parts – is essential to understanding speech, especially if the content of the message concerns objective facts” (21). Taking a look back at Ong's characteristic of orality vs. literacy – orality is aggregative and literacy is analytic. Though speech uses primarily the left side of the brain, oral based thought relates in many ways to the feminine, or right brain characteristics. However, to deduce that oral and literate thought come from completely separate characteristics is a faulty assumption according to Shlain, and this mistake introduces the beautifully synergistic relationship between the characteristics of oral based thought and of typographically based thought.

Shlain says that, “the hemispheres work closely in concert with one another” (18). It is as if the two sides of the brain are dancers, hand in hand, arm in arm, moving across the floor in a complementary style. It is not that one partner is dominant over the other, but each has moments where they express their own qualities more so than their partner. If this is true with the left and right sides of the brain, it is also true for oral and literate thought. Each relates somewhat to the characteristics expressed by the individual sides of the brain, and their relationship is complex and complementary.

Continuing with the dancers, if the style of dancing relies on strength and speed, then one of the partners is probably going to express themselves the most. According to Shlain, this is precisely what happened four thousand years ago, after agriculture had already been invented, one of the dancers expressed their qualities nonstop, stifling the other. According to Shlain the reason for this was the invention of the alphabet. (39)

Because men had evolved to used their left brains more while hunting, they were stronger in the fields of linear thought and abstractions. When the alphabet made its entrance, the male was naturally equipped to comprehend writing efficiently. The female who had previously been seen as a power of fertility, now fell as the new system of literacy thrived, along with the patriarchal outlook. Ong's argument is at an immediate disadvantage because it does not look at the true origins of the characteristics that define oral and typographically based thought. Without this depth, the ways in which gender played a role in developing the patriarchal system are lost and subject to such guess work as rights of privilege. (Shlain 22)

Just as the brain works in a synergistic manner, so to does orally and typographically based thought. They cannot effectively be separated because in our current state, we cannot have one without the other. The true oral tradition was not in opposition to the coming literate tradition; the oral tradition was defined by the same characteristics as the literate tradition was going to be. In each tradition, one partner expressed their own qualities more than the other, one side of the brain worked more efficiently than the other. But now they are complements, and separating them only detracts from the whole they make together. They are not working against each other, but indeed differently for different purposes … like a dance between partners, “each of the worlds, pursuing its separate ends, resolves problems by contact with the other” (Kane 175).

Works Cited

Kane, Sean. Wisdom of the Mythtellers. Orchard Park NY: Broadview Press, 1998.

Ong, Walter J. Orality and Literacy. New York: Routledge, 1982.

Shlain, Leonard. The Alphabet Versus The Goddess. New York: Penguin Putnam, 1998.

Technical Things.

For the group presentation I did quite a bit of work making the graphics and putting everything together. I used Blender to edit some video, Photoshop CS3 for the graphics, and Flash CS3 for the actual presentation.

I have lots (seriously lots!) of images in all states (.psd, .psb, .png) and the flash files (.fla, .swf)

I consider all of this work to be free for anyone to use and enjoy, so if anyone is needing some Jeopardy graphics just send me an email and I'll be more than willing to send back whatever you need or want.


Click here to download the final .swf presentation file. (flash viewer must be installed)
(right click > save link as)

Group Presentation.

As I mentioned in the last post, my group (4) presented last Monday on the topic of complements as explained by Kane. We parodied SNL's Celebrity Jeopardy and brought into it many examples of complements.

First of all, the questions all came from chapter 5 of Kane. We touched on some of the stories that were told, and different ideas such as 'hierarchy,' that arises in complementary situations.

Secondly, the genre of parody is a good example of complementarity. The original first existed without the parody, but gains from the parody in one way or another. They are not opposites, but give each other a meaning entirely dependent on the context of the other. Interestingly, the same sort of argument can be made against primary and secondary text. Is the primary text, or the commentary more important. Answer: neither! Though an obvious hierarchy exists, each gain sufficient meaning dependent on the context of their relationship. Primary vs. Secondary.

Thirdly, Willy Quiet William's role was that of the Otherworld, which is complementary to our world. They are not opposites, but the relationship is interconnected and symbiotic.

Coming from the immersement of the literate culture, it is difficult to think in terms of complements. We as members of the literate tradition automatically think using analytic and deconstructionist methods. It seems unnatural to think of hot and cold / light and dark / black and white / God and Satan / Schooltime and Summer ( ha, two weeks! ) as complementary things and not opposites. The world however does not function as the literate mind would like. Complements surround us challanging the literate tradition's construction of the idea of opposite.

Complementary.

My group and I (group 4) presented last week with a parody of SNL's Celebrity Jeopardy. We presented chapter 5 of Kane which is Complementarity. The idea of complements is that two or more things do not act as opposites, but as complements. They complement the other in their differing levels of sameness. Often, the sameness is perceived as being so low that the objects are not just different but actually opposite.

The classic opposite is black and white. However, black could not exist without white. The ideas, notions, and symbolism that accompanies 'black' could not exist without the ideas, notions and symbolism that accompanies 'white.' These are not opposite but complementary. They exist only in context with the other.

Even when objects pursue specific outcomes that are different, sometimes very different, it is still necessary for each to exist. Kane writes, "Thus each of the worlds, pursuing its separate ends, resolves problems by contact with the other" (175). The first example that comes to mind is that of God and Satan. Two different worlds pursuing extremely different ends, needs the other to function. For instance, God seemingly works along side Satan in the persecution of Job. Though the motivations are different and could be confused as "opposite," without Satan in the context of God, the system wouldn't work -- God's plans would not function.

Complements are abundant in the oral tradition, as its characteristic holistic view allows for the understanding of two separate entities working in close relation even though highly different. The typographic tradition is highly analytic and delights in breaking things down into separate entities that can then be set on opposing sides.

Changing.

I have decided, for about the forth time, to change the subject of my paper. After doing a lot of research and finding our very interesting things about a specific primary oral culture (Trobriand) I have decided to go a different route.

In the book The Alphabet vs. the Goddess by Shlain, he talks a lot about the development and differences of the left and right brain lobes. This is very interesting and provides a very physical contradiction to Ong's false dichotomy between Orality and Literacy. More on this later.

and more on the Trobriand peoples later also.

Starting The Alphabet Vs. The Goddess

I just started the book that Shaman Sexson allowed me to borrow. It is called The Alphabet vs. The Goddess by Leonard Shlain. The very first thing that struck me while reading the preface was that Shlain is a surgeon by profession. He heads a medical department and is an associate professor of surgery and he writes books like this. First impression: this guy is making me look bad.

I just finished chapter 1 and find it to be extremely relevant to the topics of oral traditions, and closely related to Orality and Literacy and Wisdom of the Mythtellers.

Shlain argues that the invention and rise of the alphabet demoted the feminine goddess figure from her throne and replaced her with the masculine figure. He writes on page 3, "Literacy has promoted the subjugation of women by men throughout all but the very recent history of the West. Misogyny and patriarchy rise and fall with the fortunes of the alphabetic written word." He goes about explaining this by first setting up the characteristics of femininity. Shlain claims that they are a holistic, simultaneous, synthetic and concrete view of the world. The masculine qualities are opposite: linear, sequential, reductionist, and abstract.

Ong shares this point speaking about Latin on page 111, "For well over a thousand years, it was sex-linked, a language written and spoken by males." The culture that surrounded the academic Latin scene built it for the male population, however Shlain would add that the idea of Latin's alphabetic characters were the bases for why the culture catered toward the masculine and not the feminine.

Shlain argues that the process of writing and reading force a deconstructionist view in order to understand writing. This falls under the masculine qualities, as does the basic structure of writing which is linear. Since, according to Shlain, feminine views delight in images, the alphabetic word opposes a holistic, imaged based interpretation system.

I was originally going to write about the tacit connections in nature and how the attempt of science to explain those connections degrades the oral tradition. However, I might lean more toward the feminine qualities in nature and how literacy degrades them. As Shaman Sexson told me in class, "degrade" is a very strong word. I agree, however... for me to analyze the phenomenon, it is easier to see the worst, as lesser example are then easier to find.

I am looking forward to diving further into Shlain's book and learn about more interactions with the alphabet and its surroundings.