top of page
book1.JPG

 

 

Introduction

 

            In the book, ‘Orality and Literacy: The Technology of the world by Walter J. Ong and John Hartley, Ong makes clear arguments about the disparities in the views of orality and literacy psychodynamics. All the claims Ong makes are defined as the concept of Ongism (Walter & Hartley, 2015). It is worth noting that Ongism theory focuses on media change concerning orality and literacy over long and short-term periods (Walter & Hartley, 2015). Further, Ongism suggests that the ideas presented in orality and literacy form the basics of the way people use the technology and social media today. Therefore, the distinctions and relationships of orality and literacy psychodynamics presented by Ong define some of the elements of technology and social media such as privacy regarding writing and verbal communication.

 

 

Orality and Literacy

 

 

Orality and literacy are the basic ideas presented by the concept of Ongism to describe the short and long term trends of media. Orality is the era where there was no form of writing to store or refer information (Walter & Hartley, 2015). During this era, people used to depend on their memories to remember or share a specific piece of oral culture. Therefore, people had to continually keep on reminding themselves about the knowledge they possess to retain.

On the other hand, literacy is the era where people used to store knowledge through written forms or media. Ongism describes this as the era of modernism that used to distant itself to the primitive was of ancient times (Walter & Hartley, 2015). It is poignant to note that can be identified as the oral culture while literacy as the secondary oral culture.

 

 

The Psychodynamics of Orality and Literacy as Presented by Ongism

 

 

Orality psychodynamics way of thinking is aggregative and conservative while literacy psychodynamics way of thinking is redundant and agonistically toned.  Ongism argues that in pa primarypa oral culture, the memory relies on formulas such as phrases or clauses, antithetical terms to conserve knowledge (Walter & Hartley, 2015). Literacy perceives this as cumbersome due to its aggregative weight. On the contrary, Ongism argues that in sa econdary oral culture, people do not think outside the box where they have to refer to the written data in case they deviate (Walter & Hartley, 2015). Further, it is agonistic because it stores knowledge that engages people in verbal and intellectual arguments. Based on orality and literacy, the psychodynamics of social media is antagonistic and conserve knowledge hence not private.

The relationship between Orality and literacy

Ong notes that the two ideas of Ongism do not engage in a superiority contest over the other but a separation of the distinct modes of learning such as auditory and visual, which are present in today’s world of technology and social media. Throughout the book, Ong and Hartley (2015) place emphasis on the valuable information the literates and illiterates possess and various ways they transfer their knowledge from one person to another. Like in the era of illiterates, people use oral or auditory forms in current technology such as social media to transfer knowledge. Similarly, people use written or visual forms in current technology such as social media to spread their knowledge (Walter & Hartley, 2015). Based on these facts, as much as social media is described as a private and personal mode of communication, it entails the public transfer of information.

 

 

Conclusion

 

 

In my view, the broader implications of this study are that the ideas posed by the concept of Ongism are still applicable in the present world of technology and social media. The agonistic psychodynamic nature of literacy re-awakens the redundant thought process that results in an aggregated and conservative argument among the people. Further, ideas of orality and literacy entail the spread of information from one person to another. It means that the concept of storing abstract knowledge is not to keep it private but to spread it. In term of my research interest I think when this is translated to the current use of social media such as Snapchat and Twitter, this technology is meant for privacy purposes but for spreading or communicating data. Therefore, privacy is dead in the Social media platform.

 

 

Thank you for spending your time I would like to have your feedback.

Have a great Day

 

Ream

 

 

References

Walter, J.O., & Hartley, J. (2015). Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the World. London, UK: Taylor and Francis.

bottom of page