While much of the focus in the first couple of sections of this chapter focuses in on a sort of transformation from oral to visual, Ong maintained a steadfast appreciation for the importance of the word and what surrounds it. The sound associated with our use of words is still a focal point of scholarship. Ong was quite particular in focusing on words, their sound, and what they in fact seemed to reveal about the interior condition of the individual (Soukup, 2004). Ong (1962c) stated:
There is, indeed, no way for a cry to completely exteriorize itself. A mark made by our hand will remain when we are gone. But when the interior—even the physical, corporeal interior, as well as the spiritual interior of consciousness—from which a cry is emitted ceases to function as an interior, the cry itself has perished. To apprehend what a person has produced in space—a bit of writing, a picture—is not at all to be sure that he is alive. To hear his voice (provided it is not reproduced from a frozen spatial design on a phonograph disc or tape) is to be sure. (p. 28)
Soukup (2004) pointed out the significance of the interior as it related to Ong. Essentially, the interior refers to what is happening within the individual. A glimpse of the interior can be revealed to us as a society through the words and sounds coming up from out of the individual. It may not completely reflect the condition within the individual, but it serves to give us insight. Ong’s commentary of the word is occurred during a period of time when other scholars were touching on similar ideas. Lord (1960) and Havelock (1963) were mentioned in Farrell’s (2000) commentary of Ong, seeing him as a sort of cultural relativist. Lord (1960) visited the issue of performance relative to storytelling in an oral tradition. Havelock’s (1963) work dealt with issues very similar to Ong and the word, but more applied to the area of poetics. Heavily entrenched in the work is an emphasis on the oral, which relates to Ong’s commentary about the word. Soukup (2004) mentioned that Ong (1962a) produced striking commentary on the human voice as being one of an invasion into the atmosphere. The thought of the voice and word through this line of thinking is one that is rather self-revealing. Essentially, the voice coming from out of the interior of the individual reveals something of that person. It is through such revealing that individuals connect with one another. This is an important aspect that Ong would not have us miss. This commentary of interiority and sound of the word probes the issue of authenticity. How something comes out is telling of the feeling or mood associated with the word. When considering prior Ong commentary relative to Ramus and the development of learning from sound to visual, it is interesting to see that Ong went back to the perspective of language and sound and stressed the importance of investigating sound associated with the word. This is a good reminder of the idea that sound is still a relevant and important point of study. While stressing that such focus is not semantics or wordplay, Ong acknowledged that while one can draw out a lot from the process and experience of communication through investigating sound, voice, word, and interiority, the fact that there could be more going on than what he could conclude is something that he sensed (Soukup, 2004). This area of focus for Ong revealed his linguistic side of scholarship. Given discipline cross-over in communication, it still serves as a relevant piece of discussion and contribution.
Further advancing the concept of word and sound, Ong began to draw from a couple of scholars (some already mentioned above) who would prove to be peers. The work of Havelock (1963) and Lord
(1960) was mentioned earlier, but it is also worth noting Ong’s draw from McLuhan (1962) and Parry (1928). Soukup (2004) identified the contribution of such scholars to Ong’s work. Havelock
(1963) reinforced Ong’s assessment of the development of learning in his analysis of Ramus. The idea that the transition of learning went from that of oral to written is something that Havelock
noticed. From that, he commented on how that essentially changed the pattern of thought process. This idea ties back into Ong’s (1958a) assessment of the transitional development of rhetoric to
logic. While the shift seemed to be a gradual one without an absolute mark of distinction, it still impacted the process of thought. Parry (1928) and Lord (1960) studied the process of thought
and recall in poetics, the way in which Ong studied rhetoric (Soukup, 2004). Finally, as a testament to Ong earning the respect of fellow scholars, McLuhan (1964) drew heavily from Ong’s
(1958a) work on Ramus. Mentioned briefly earlier in the chapter, McLuhan is widely seen as an influential scholar in the discipline of Communication. McLuhan, in some respects, was an
influential factor in pushing Ong forward in his research endeavors. In tracing the scholarship of Ong, his input on the work of McLuhan (Ong, 1952) was substantial. McLuhan saw a good deal of
potential in the work of Ong. He supervised Ong’s thesis and at the beginning of Ong’s (1958b) close follow-up to his dissertation, he pays tribute to McLuhan by writing, For
Herbert Marshall McLuhan who started all this
(dedication). While they were similar in age, McLuhan was seen as an influential factor in encouraging Ong in the direction that he did (P.
Soukup, personal communication, September 16, 2005).
Ong continued further in his commentary on the word. As he probed the word and investigated further, Soukup (2004) pointed out that he introduced the concept of “the sensorium.” Essentially, this dealt with using human senses and experience to communicate. This was introduced by Ong (1967a) in what was known as his Terry Lectures at Yale University. The lectures (oral) were bound and put into print. In some respects, that statement is a humorous sort of irony. The focus of Ong (1967b) was to set apart the oral when considering human senses and communication. Ong further exercised a commentary about cultural awareness. He acknowledged the idea that when it comes to expression, specifically with the oral, it looks different within other cultures:
Cultures vary greatly in their exploitation of the various senses and in the way in which they relate to their conceptual apparatus to the various senses. It has been a commonplace that the ancient Hebrews and the ancient Greeks differed in the value they set on the auditory. The Hebrews tended to think of understanding as a kind of hearing, whereas the Greeks thought of it more as a kind of seeing, although far less exclusively as seeing than post-Cartesian Western man generally has tended to do. (pp. 3-4)
While this was the case for Ong in assessing Western culture, he clearly pointed out that not all cultures adhere to an oral standard of such importance.
Continuing with the word, there are two other aspects to touch on relative to Ong—the use of words and stages of communication consciousness. Ong’s focus on the use of words for debate and argumentation are worth noting. In some respects, an investigation of Ong and pedagogy reveals the setup of the education system with regard to debate and argumentation as being structured more for men than for women. Such an analysis makes sense when one considers the history of the system of Western education. As touched upon in Soukup (2004), Ong’s (1967a) work on the word revealed that people within oral cultures use words as a potential alternative to calling up arms against one another. In essence, words insert themselves into a sort of combat. One could draw from this the study of argumentation and debate. In many respects, this could be seen as and advantage to developing as an oral culture. For more commentary relative to this particular area, see Soukup (2004).
Communication and consciousness is the last area to touch upon in dealing with Ong and the word. In many respects, this is where one of Ong’s most famous works, Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word (1982) is considered. Ong noted the development of consciousness through stages within culture. Inclusive within this consciousness is the idea of knowledge and learning. How cultures develop in the area of consciousness is what Ong sought to provide commentary on in the text. Ultimately, Ong sees communication gradually developing from an oral stage into a stage of print. In his thought on Western society, Ong noted the development of a third stage of communication consciousness known as electronic communication (Soukup, 2004). Ong’s (1982) book is certainly popular, but does not provide an accurate picture of the vast amount of work covered over his career. Farrell (2000) noted that it does not serve to provide a general overview of the scholar. There is much more to his line of thought than simply this one text. While there are many to applaud the commentary of Ong in this particular text, there are also those who see it as lacking. Montenyohl (1995) took Ong to task, citing a sort of generalization about orality that was not comfortable to him as a scholar. Farrell (2000) defended Ong from Montenyohl’s criticism, citing that he was not sure that Montenyohl had done enough background research on Ong to provide just criticism of his work. With such a successful text as Ong’s (1982) was, it is hard for many not to simply read the text and see it as a fair representation of all of Ong’s work. To back Farrell, simply reading Ong (1982) does an injustice to the vast amount of work that he had contributed over a long career. While it is an excellent book and provides substantial commentary for discussion, Ong did much more as a scholar years before penning that text in the later part of his academic career.
An examination of the word relative to Ong deserves even further investigation. However, the goal of the chapter is to consider the impact of a particular scholar in communication, in terms of both scholarship and in influencing scholars. If the interest in Ong is peaked at this point, it is strongly encouraged that the reader investigates the work of Farrell (2000), Soukup (2004) for commentary.
- 1229 reads
