From Studyplace

Contents 1 Discussion 2 Reaction papers 2.1 Desirae Kim 2.2 Philibert Leow 2.3 Adena Stevens 2.4 Latonja Taylor 2.5 Myrtle Jones 3 Archives

Discussion

Reaction papers

Assignment

Each reaction paper should be between 500 and 1000 words long. Each should minimally focus on one of the issues raised in one of the required readings in term of one of the other required or recommended readings. Maximally, and particularly as the course progresses, the reaction papers should cross reference more of the required or recommended readings, including those for earlier sections.

Guidelines

1. Write up your paper on a word processor like Microsoft Word
2. Find your name on the list and click on "Edit". It should open up a box that shows a space for you to enter text
3. Copy and paste your paper from the word processor onto the StudyPlace window
4. Click on "Show Preview" if you want to see what it looks like
5. Click on "Save Page" to finalize your changes
6. Email a copy of your paper to Professor Varenne and Aaron Hung. If you are stuck at any point, feel free to email Aaron.
7. Feel free to comment on other students' assignments. You can put your comments at the bottom of the other student's paper. Be sure to sign your name by typing ~~~~. This will automatically sign and date your comment.

You can also watch a video tutorial of this on Youtube.

The assignment should be on StudyPlace by the time class starts on the day that it is due.

Desirae Kim

The Hanunoo utilize their literacy skills in such an extraordinary way that it seems almost incomprehensible in relation to our highly literate society. As Ong states in his book Orality and Literacy, we are so accustomed to operating within a literate society that orality in turn has become a variant, and perhaps considered an inferior one, of literate practices (Ong, 8). However, the Hanunoo are a puzzling case because they are a people who possess literacy but do not use it in the same large-scale fashion as other literate societies do.

The literacy practices of the Hanunoo prompt one to consider them from the theory of ‘deep play.’ If one believes that human developments are wrought as a form of ‘play’ rather than as a result of utility-based calculation, then the Hanunoo’s practice of using script in courtship rituals seems to be that of playfulness rather than usefulness. If their ability to read and write were really implemented in a ‘useful’ way, it might be presumed that literacy would predominate in practical or commercial contexts. Hanunoo literacy also does not seem particularly utilitarian because of the linguistic difficulty of the script; why would the Hanunoo exert such difficulties in order to employ the language in such a seemingly ineffective way?

What if, however, the Hanunoo were not actually indulging in a form of ‘deep play’ but instead their practice is indeed borne out of utilitarian thinking? Although it is difficult to think of it this way from a vastly literate standpoint and our own notions of utility, it is perhaps a useful practice to employ literacy in courtship rituals if nothing else.

It is helpful to consider this question according to Ong’s analysis of oral versus literate cultures. Ong examines the psychodynamics embedded in oral cultures that contain deeply rooted, fundamental differences from those present in literate cultures; it is possible that the Hanunoo operate within some of these psychodynamics. The Hanunoo are an agricultural people who live in scattered communities in a mountainous area. Each family is responsible for its own crops, and the family is the primary social group – there is no rigid clan or political organization. Considering these conditions, it seems to make more sense to use language in a way that is grounded in real-life context – the literate deals with increased abstraction and removal from the physical significations that are communicated, whereas the oral keeps language rooted in one’s immediate surroundings. From this perspective, orality makes sense in which the family is the central social unit as well as economic institution.

A more problematic question is then why the Hanunoo do incorporate literacy into the courtship process. Why does this ‘necessitate’ script where other social rituals or events depend upon oral practices? The issue of deep play primarily figures here, for it seems somewhat superfluous to incorporate literacy in this particular aspect of life. However, when examining Ong’s psychodynamics once again, it seems that there may be certain tendencies in literate communication that lend themselves appropriately to the interaction of courtship. Employing script in this particular context may stem from a form of practical if not conventionally utilitarian thinking.

Courtship would be a very specific, delicate process, one in which communication (or miscommunication) can yield serious, perhaps life-changing consequences. I believe that it also holds universally true that this kind of interaction can prompt awkward shyness, nervousness, and lack of eloquence. It is in such a context where oral communication can easily fail to express abstract or ambiguous emotions, as well as perhaps be a difficult form of communication to use. Script possesses different qualities that may help those who are ‘courting’ in several ways. Script can express a wide range of abstract emotions that do not necessarily relate to one’s real-life context. It also enables the writer to think for a long time about what to write, and it enables the reader to read the text over and over again if s/he wishes to do so. Perhaps most importantly, script allows the writer to express his or her feelings without talking in person, a relief for the nervous suitor.

Although courtship doesn’t necessitate written communication, script may help to facilitate a process that directly leads into family building and thus the continuation of fundamental social patterns. Perhaps the Hanunoo’s use of script in courtship is still rooted in some form of deep play, but it does also seem that there are utilitarian aspects in the writing of love letters. By finding ways to overcome natural reservations about speech by writing instead, people can express feelings and thoughts that may otherwise pass unvoiced.

Philibert Leow

Adena Stevens

Oral heritage, as Ong speaks of in Orality and Literature, is something that is still part of my culture. In the Jewish culture, after someone dies, the family sits shiva. This is a way to pay one’s condolences to the family, but I’ve also found that it’s a time when people talk and tell stories about the deceased. I know when both my aunt and grandfather died, I heard stories being told that I hadn’t been aware of when they were alive. And some were stories that were almost infamous within the family. These stories aren’t written down anywhere, but have been shared and will continue to be shared when someone asks about the family member. Some of the stories told I don’t remember and those may not get told to the next generation. It’s not intentional editing, but just the result of what each person remembers and what they are able to recall when retelling the stories.

I remember doing a family tree project when I was in elementary school. I called up distant relatives to get the names and birth and death dates of relatives that they could recall. I remember that depending on whom I spoke with, they might have also included some information, such as a job description or story about the person. It was this extensive family tree with all sorts of great tidbits of information about my family. And then the teacher lost it. I don’t even think she fully apologized for losing it. At the time, I could have called back the relatives and asked for the information again, but I think I was frustrated and angry and slightly embarrassed that I didn’t call. Years later I wish I had as many of those relatives have now died and with their deaths, some of that information is now forever gone about the family. Yes, I could look up the names and find some important dates, but the stories that accompanied those names is now lost. The stories weren’t told often enough for the next generation (the living generation) to be able to retell. Makes me wonder if we all should write down more of our family histories, as I’m sure this scenario has happened in other families as well and the oral history can’t be replaced.

My maternal grandfather and my maternal uncle have taken it upon themselves in the past few years to trace back the family on my maternal side of the family. And they are writing it down as carefully as possibly. Recently it was discovered that a town some family was supposed to be from in Austria-Hungry might actually have been a town in Romania. For many generations as the family history was told, it has been retold that my family has its roots in Austria-Hungary and Russia. As they have done more extensive research, it appears the country boundary lines may have shifted and that in fact some of my family members may actually have Romanian roots. I think it’s really fascinating that oral history that does get passed down from generation to generation can also change or be tweaked as more information and new information gets added to the fold.

As with my family history, I remember hearing some Yiddish when I grew up. Not enough to speak fluently by any means, but a few words here and there. It’s a language I felt that got passed down from generation to generation, but only verbally, not in a written way. Not that one couldn’t find Yiddish writing, but the use of it in my Jewish family was only verbally. If we look at the family structure as a mini society, without the repetition of the Yiddish language as the generations came to pass, then it soon vanishes, as my brother and I have almost no Yiddish in our vocabulary. Yiddish itself is a combination of German, Hebrew and a few other languages. At times it was considered jargon and not always acknowledged as an autonomous language. Sometimes considered a colloquial language, it is still a language spoken in many Jewish homes today and even though there are difficulties at times find a practical use for the language, there are still efforts being made to revive and keep the language alive.

Latonja Taylor

Literacy and Education

People have ways of communicating with each other by writing, speaking, using sign language, or drawing pictures. Although people often communicate by speaking to each other, I believe that written communication is becoming a more popular way of expressing oneself in today’s society. Text messaging and social media are changing communication and literacy over time, and it is used as the bases for reading and writing from a formal or informal setting. In terms of electronic literacy, text messaging allows a person to send from a mobile phone a short typed message of no more than 160 characters. Of course, this method of written social networking changes the way people write; users have started to abbreviate words by using both numbers and characters in conjunction. Literacy, in my opinion, has shifted from the informal writing of the colonial era, where authors and scholars wrote without grammar rules or regulations, to a more formal structure in the 21st century, where written literacy is now regulated through institutions and politics, as was discussed in the lecture.

Ong (1982) discusses the era before written communication in terms of the effects of human language and how sound plays a part in communication. He writes that language and sound interact with each other, “yet in a deep sense language, articulated sound, is paramount. Not only communication, but thought itself relates in an altogether special way to sound” (p. 7). There are many languages, and, according to the lecture, tribal or cave people spoke their own language, but it was never written down in characters or numbers for the purpose of communicating. Ong believes that “the basic orality of language is permanent” (p. 7), and I agree with Ong claim that permanent oral language is sustainable. It reminds me of the American south, where the oral language is different from that in the north. When I lived in the south, it took me a while to pick up the dialect that had been passed down through the generations within my friend’s family. In the lecture, the discussion of literacy and written text are translated differently between oral and written expression. For example, in the south, the English dialect is completely different when written down on paper, especially in academic work. As Professor Varenne stated, “Written language is not real if not in text.” Also, according to Ong, “in this way, even orally composed speeches were studied not as speeches but as written texts” (p. 10). Therefore, some languages are not officially accepted as such unless they are in text. I can see why indigenous communities have a difficult time integrating with other cultures based on acceptance of their language, because certain languages must be written in text to be considered real.

According to the Conklin (1949) reading, the Hanunóo society located in the Philippines has a different literacy setting. The male uses the sound of chanting to sing romantic songs to the female and uses bamboo and a knife in order to write. In its written form, the Hanunóo language has no rules or regulations; it is a language with no policy or politics connected to governing. According to Conklin, the Hanunóo have very little organization as a clan of tribal people, and they live without official politicians like chiefs or elected head men. The Hanunóo, in my opinion, live a simple life and have no need for Western formal education. The culture seems traditional like a man courts a woman for a period of time before marrying her.

In conclusion, depending on the culture, literacy is determined by having a language that communicates some type of meaning to a person through oral or written means. As technology changes, literacy may also change, such as how text messaging or SMS (short message service) encourages cell phone users to shorten words. As stated in the lecture, in the past, verbal communication via the telephone was the main way in which people communicated, but now people communicate more often through written forms of social media. Society sets the stage for how literacy will find expression, be it through electronics such as cell phones, text messages, or computers (portable or mini), or through other means. I believe that institutions will have difficulty trying to keep literacy formal and standardized. I have seen standard written English translated into unofficial shorthand and used in letters and postcards as if it were formal writing. I believe that as long as technology changes, literacy will change along with it, and each new generation will have an effect on literacy standards.

Reference

Ong, W. (1982). Orality and literacy: the technologizing of the word. New York: Methuen

Conklin, H. (1949). Bamboo literacy on mindoro. Pacific Discovery 2: 4-11

Myrtle Jones

When considering the “literacy” of the Hanunoo in Conklin’s article, Bamboo Literacy on Mindoro, where “the popularity of both men and women during these get togethers (paludan) is largely determined by the number of traditional love songs they are capable of singing and their ability to fit every occasion with a suitable chant…To collect and learn a large number of these chants it is most essential that one be able to read” (1949: 8-9) In contrast Grey Gundaker’s article, Hidden Education Among African Americans During Slavery, “suggests some of the forms African American ‘hidden’ education took during the slavery era in the southern states” (2007: 57) It is interesting that both accounts involve permanent, semi-permanent and impermanent forms of literacy. Ong writes about the impermanence of speech and how “sound exists only when it is going out of existence” (1988:32) These writings bring some interesting theories to bear on texting and cell phone conversations given that they can be both oral and text, permanent and impermanent. I will outline a scenario from my summer 2009 fieldwork in which the above theories offered some new insights.

During my summer 2009 fieldwork one participant, Stella attempted to call another participant, Janet on her cell phone to inform her that she was running late for their mother’s group meeting. As cell phones rarely rang during the mother’s group meeting, when the participant Stella walked through the gates to the park where we were meeting waving her cell phone and saying I have been trying to call you. What are the implications of calls made while a cell phone is either off or on silent or vibrate? For most cell phones if a call is received while the phone is off and no message is left the number does not register on the phone. There is no record of the call. In this case the call exists at the same time that it is going out of existence. What happens then if the phone is on, in which case there can be several forms of recording the call, a voicemail message, which although sound based in that it is recorded there is a permanence of sort, or text based in the logging of the number on the phone. Ong suggests “writing and print and the computer are all ways of technologizing the word (79). If so then what new paradigms does the cell phone offer?

Now considering these new paradigms for “the word” in the context of cell phone use, what does this have to say about “literacy?” There is a hidden nature to cell phone use, as demonstrated by countless studies which lament the use of cell phones by youth in schools to do everything from cheat, bully, send sex related messages, contact parents, record teacher misconduct, anything you can imagine be done with a cell phone. This use follows some of the interrelated activities Gundaker discovered, “1) invisible or seemingly extraneous aspects of schooling and efforts to orchestrate school like activities; 2) hidden and not so hidden literacy acquisition; and 3) expressive practices with educational dimensions for participants that remained largely invisible to outsiders” (57) In the case of my attendance at the mother’s group meetings, no one ever told me to turn off or put away my phone. I just noticed that cell phones never rang and made a point to keep mine on silent. I don’t know if it was necessarily schooling but it was definitely a hidden “policing” of cell phone use. I’m still working through any potential connections but in comparing participants’ cell phone use with literacy practice of slaves I see some parallels.

The semi-permanence of the bamboo writings of the Hanunoo also offers new insights to my summer fieldwork observations. Asking people when they have their phones on, off or on silent will be a salient question if I wish to conduct further research in this area as it matters as to the permanence and type of record left. If someone never turns their cell phone off a log of their calls is generated, whether a message is left or not. Additionally if someone is known to never turn their cell phone off does that change the behavior of those around them, as they know their call will be logged whether they wish to have a record of the call or not.

The above readings brought new insight to observations of cell phone use which I hope to continue as I conduct further research.

Works Cited Conklin, Harold (1949) “Bamboo Literacy on Mindoro.” Pacific Discovery 2:4-11

Gundaker, Grey (2007) “Hidden Education Among African Americans During Slavery.” Teachers College Record 109, 7: 53-74

Ong, Walter. (1982) Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. New York: Methuen

Archives

Archived discussions