In Applen’s “Writing for the Web: Composing, Coding, and Constructing websites” he first talks about writing as a technology and later he gets into oral communication and written cultures which allows his readers to explore how these things shape how we communicate and share knowledge.
In Defense of Writing as a Technology
When most people think of technology, the first thing that comes to mind is not usually writing on pen and paper. However, thousands of years ago someone had to invent an alphabet, then find something to write with and write on to record what they were thinking about in their mind. Writing is undeniably one of the most significant technologies in history. Writing solved a common problem which was how to communicate with others more efficiently.
The only thing that has changed over time has been the tools people have used to write. For example, early societies used to write on clay with a stylus, which later evolved to writing with pen on paper. In more recent years, many have traded pen and paper for typing on computers or phones. Ultimately, writing itself remains one of our most important technologies, constantly adapting while preserving its intended purpose. This evolution is especially important when considering the transition from oral communication.
Oral Communication and Written Cultures
Thousands of years ago, all communication was oral. Even today, many languages only exist in oral form. In oral cultures, communication has to happen in real time. For example, if someone were trying to cook a particular dish, they would have to observe and listen to the person making the dish. Later, they would perform those same steps to get the same product. This person would have to remember the steps and hope the dish turns out the same. Whereas in written cultures, someone cooking a dish can read a recipe and go back and read previous steps if they need to.
The point of this example is to show that “in speech, communication is not arrested in time” as Applen points out. In speech, it is much more difficult to reflect on what you have heard versus what you have read. Communicating through speech relies heavily on memorization. Writing allows for reflection, the ability to revisit information, and the ability to communicate with others across time.
So What’s Better?
If you’re looking for a clear straightforward answer, I cannot give you one, sorry. However, the best I can do is tell you that I lean more toward written communication. However, I still believe some things are better communicated through speech.
This part of the reading was interesting to me because, on the one hand, Ong tells us that “By writing things down they could move onto other things; they did not have to spend so much of their time and energy remembering what they had just heard, as people do in oral cultures: it “freed the mind for more original, more abstract thought.” This is a great point because once something is written down, it is very easy to just look it up when you need that information again. Right now, I’m moving back and forth between this page and Applen’s text to write this blog. Luckily, I do not have to worry about memorizing every piece of information in his text because it is much more time-efficient to look back and also it allows me to take in more of the text.
On the other hand, Applen cites Plato who says “For this invention [writing] will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it because they will not practice their memory.” I could not even tell you how many times I have looked something up just to look it up again because I forgot. Plato makes a good point here and I agree with him, somewhat. In written culture, we do not practice our memory enough because every piece of information we might need is available to us at our fingertips.
Leave a Reply