Martinez Dettinger: Walter Ong and Secondary Orality

"Language conceals out relationship from the world" 

Walter Ong is his discussion of secondary orality observed that in writing you can't revise what is written whereas in orality you can revise the meaning. This goes hand-in-hand with the observation that a fundamental difference between oral cultures and literate cultures is the difference in the importance of the exact words that are said rather than the intended meaning. When speaking, the words disappear as they are created. A person listening most likely will not remember the exact turn of phrase or know the verbiage verbatim, but they will walk away with the intended meaning. In a literate culture, we get debates over the exact wording of so many foundational documents. Take for example the Constitution. There are two categories of interpretations of constitutional law: originalism and living constitution. Originalism is the category of people who believe that the constitution should be taken literally and as it was intended at the time of its creation. Living Constitution is the belief that the constitution should be reread and applied to the modern context. An example of how the wording of the Constitution is interpreted differently depending on these theories can be found in the debate over the second amendment, the right to bear arms. An originalist will most likely protect that right whereas someone who subscribes to the Living Constitution theory would say that the context has changed and we no longer need to form armed militias to protect ourselves as we did then. Ong's idea here connects to Gadamer's idea that "Language is the house of being".  Gadamer in his "Hermeneutic Phenomenology" argues that language disguises our biases and preconceptions and we require a disruption in language to reveal these. I think this can apply as another difference between oral cultures and literate ones as well. In an oral culture, because the spoken word is spoken to others, I think it would follow that spoken language would not be able to disguise biases and preconceptions as easily because it is constantly subjected to others. When others listen to stories and conversations they are able to participate in the co-creation of meaning. By interacting with the speaker, they can point out preconceptions and ask questions about perceived biases. They co-create the meaning of the language by participating in communication along with the speaker. With literature, there is no direct interaction between the writer and the reader. While the reader still participates in co-creation because their interpretation of the text cannot be controlled by the author, they are not able to easily point out perceived preconceptions and biases to the author. This makes it more difficult for a jarring experience to happen with the co-creators are separated from interactions with others.