The Consequences of Literacy -Summary

In their article, The Consequences of Literacy, Goody and Watt (1968) explore the significance, development and movement of literacy from "man as animal" to “man as talking and writing animal” (p.1). In discussing the shift (and benefits of moving) from orality to a written culture, Goody and Watt note that “the intrinsic nature of oral communication has a considerable effect upon both the content and the transmission of the cultural repertoire" (p.2).  This quote sets a context for understanding what they see as the value of language as an important (but not necessarily primary) component for culture and its development; it is language that allows one to transmit knowledge to the other, and it is language that provides the basis for writing (either for the sake of memory as discussed on pg 5 or for communication as they discuss later on).

Interestingly, the researchers argue that the intimate relationship between oral language and culture create, what I would call based on their language, a simple economy of history and relationship whereby the "layers"  and contextualization of language meaning is flattened out between the immediacy and temporality of its use. Illustratively, they argue that "...words cannot accumulate the successive layers of historically validated meaning which they acquire in a literate culture" (p.3). Their use of the word accumulate speaks to a lapse in time that the authors feel occurs becuase of the dynamics and ever-present shifts of and in an oral culture. More interestingly to me in this claim is their use of the word "validated" in that it causes me to ask who or what is the authority (and by what means do they get their power) which allows for this validation? Are experiences valid only when they can be recorded and so cemented?  Are words and their associated meanings orally passed down from generation to generation not valid, if the speakers and listeners from a particular culture understand not only the words but their historicity through their retelling? Concomitantly and paradoxically however, the authors note that this same form of communication, although simplified on one level, is complicated by the "vocal inflection and physical gestures that combine to particularize both its specific denotation and its accepted connotative usages", illustrating the complexity and nuances that should not be ignored or dismissed when thinking about the role of oral language in a culture or as a part of history (p.2).

As Goody and Watt's article progresses, they argue that the social change brought about by literacy impacted significantly the ways in which society interacts with and recognizes oral tradition; their article begins by noting that orality leaves a place of tantamount importance as "the most significant elements of any human culture are undoubtedly channeled through words" and as time passed became seconded to the alphabet, later described as "the supreme example of cultural diffusion" (p.6 & p. 11). This shift speaks to the value of literacy as a true vessel for cultural creation. And although the intricacies and original place of oral tradition are well noted by the researchers, it is clear that the move towards what they deem to be literacy, is of paramount importance to the development of "verifiable" history and so recorded culture. For, as they see it, "the pastness of the past, then, depends upon historical sensibility which can hardly begin to operate without permanent records"(p.8). The privileging of the written word, given in this statement speaks, I think, to the belief that without a "permanent" record, we have no formalized or authenticated way of recollecting or thinking through (in what they may see as full or accurate detail) the events and moments of the past which make them so.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the pastness of the past does depend on permanent record, as the authors suggest, I wonder what this means then for the peoples who and histories that ceased to exist before permanent written record was an option? Or what does this mean for those whose existence wasn't seen as valuable or worthy and so wasn't recorded by the gatekeepers of history? Should we view them as a "pre-past"?