Orality and literacy 25 years later

Communication Research Trends, Dec, 2007 by Paul A. Soukup

Writing in the Quarterly Journal of Speech, Gronbeck (1984) praises the book as "both accumulative and analytical," "traditionalist and radical." "It solemnly pays homage to great anthropological, rhetorical, linguistic, and classical scholarship" (p. 207). He finds it an invaluable resource, but he recognizes that it will not satisfy all.

   How might we evaluate it? Students of rhetoric, of course, will
   applaud its celebration of their self-interests and its discussion
   of rhetoric's classical/ renaissance/contemporary heroes. Though
   Father Ong is careful to note that: "Orality is not an ideal, and
   never was" (p. 175), oral language and culture assuredly are the
   foci of the book. Perhaps this is only natural for someone
   underscoring the existence and operational features of oral culture
   in a time when writing and print dominate communication studies.
   But, more than that, given Ong's position on the interiority of the
   spoken word--his ability to harmonize psychological and
   experiential life--he certainly does more than present us with
   dispassionate evidence of orality-literacy relationships. In spite
   of his effort to discuss briefly the virtues of literacy cultures
   (especially in Chapter 5), Ong cannot help himself; orality and
   life in oral culture are lionized. Rhetoric and rhapsody together
   forge mind and life into a whole.

   The book, however, will be read, one suspects, in quite a different
   manner by literary theorists and critics. The arguments of Chapter
   7 ... are not dilated fully enough to have an impact on the works
   of such giants as Claude Levi-Strauss, Jacques Derrida, Stanley
   Fish, Wolfgang Iser, H. P. Grice, Tzvetan Todorov, Michel Foucault,
   and Jacques Lacan. Ong's pivotal notion of "oral residue" which
   ultimately makes writing a "pretext" needs more complete
   integration with the methods of these currently popular theorists
   before his arguments can run. (pp. 207-208)

Gronbeck's balance seems prophetic. Reviews in journals of rhetoric, communication studies, and philosophy do indeed praise the book, while those in literary studies appear more cautious.

Enos (1984) in the Rhetoric Society Quarterly calls the book "brilliant" and then highlights what for him forms the book's lasting importance. "Ong's great contribution is in showing how the transformation and adaptations of classical rhetoric from oral to written discourse helped transform the cognitive processes of cultures; in brief, the adaptation of rhetoric to new technologies helped restructure thought--even in societies which retained a 'heavy oral residue' (p. 99)" (p. 157). This recognition that Ong concentrates on rhetoric and expression will set the stage to refute the claims of some that Ong sets up a "great divide" between human cultures based on writing.

Bacon (1983) also praises the book, but cautions about its generalizations:

   It is probably out of necessity that Ong yields (with enthusiasm)
   to large generalizations. It would require, as he notes, a far
   longer book to deal with all the ramifications of the views he
   champions. One must be sympathetic; but it is also possible to feel
   that the generalizations are often too large, the considerations of
   physiological processes of the human mind too briefly sketched, to
   quiet the uneasiness which readers may feel in following the flood
   of detail amassed in the volume. While the essential view is
   persuasive, to accept the argument in full remains in part an act
   of faith. (p. 271)