"It is a miracle that curiosity survived a formal education."
-- Einstein
First, I'm going to start with rebuttals to two arguments Ong made. On page 52, he states that "[w]e know that formal logic is the invention of Greek culture after it had interiorized the technology of alphabetic writing, and so made a permanent part of its noetic resources the kind of thinking that alphabetic writing made possible." This is the Western notion that ancient Greece is where it all began. The Phoenecian and Semetic alphabets preceded the Greek alphabet by several centuries, and arguments can be made that the first alphabet was created in Egypt as far back as 1800 BCE (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/521235.stm). Since we can't fully translate these other alphabets, we have no way of knowing that they didn't have "formal logic." But if Ong's statement that the culture "interiorized the technology of alphabetic writing," we have no reason to think that these older cultures didn't have logic.
Second, on page 54, he discusses how the "illiterates" in Lurias's study struggled with self-analysis. "Self-analysis requires a certain demolition of situational thinking. It calls for isolation of the self, around which the entire lived world swirls for each individual person, removal of the center of every situation from that situation enough to allow the center, the self, to be examined and described." This is, once again, looking at definitions through a Western lens. I would argue that "the center, the self" can certainly be analyzed and described within the context of the situation (especially since we can never be out of a context), but it is a different form of analysis and is expressed in different ways from traditional Western expectations. If you ask an indigenous person a Western-centered question, of course the person is not going to provide a Western answer. But if you were to rephrase it into that person's cultural traditions, you would get a "valid" answer. Case in point: in my non-western rhetorics course I took, my professor had spent years studying Chinese rhetoric. When I asked her if the I Ching could be considered rhetoric, she said no way. But with some research, I was able to prove that this "book of mysticism" had actually been the most powerful rhetorical tool for the Chinese for thousands of years. As I mentioned in class, Chinese leaders would actually consult the I Ching before making major political decisions such as going to war or marrying a daughter off to another clan to avoid future battles. So the book was absolutely a rhetorical tool, but it was used in a manner foreign to Western tradition.
One quote I really like in Ong's article was that "[o]ral folk assess intelligence not as extrapolated from contrived textbook quizzes but at situated in operational contexts" (55). This is very much the American Indian belief that you cannot separate yourself from the land; once you do that, you are headed on a path of destruction. Or as Monroe mentioned in "Plateau Indian Ways with Words," "the Plateau Indian self is also a relational, interdependent self, a construct that also manifests in many ways, often simultaneously with the independent self" (w324). There is an "independent" self but it is always connected to the social; it is interdependent. What I took from Monroe's article was a clear definition of my philosophy of self, and I'm definitely a holistic thinker. But what also intrigues me is that my brother is not; we are definitely yin and yang. His life, as a Naval commander, prosecuting attorney, and a police officer, is all about right and wrong; there is no in-between. For me, there is only in-between. We both have the same blood quantum, yet I identify AI and he identifies white. And our self-identities showed in school as well: I always listened to the teacher and didn't speak out-of-turn (although I was taught to look at the teacher so that she or he would know I was paying attention); my brother was argumentative, and while he would take his disagreements with what another student said "outside," it was an absolute "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude that several times resulted in physical violence.
Both articles also answered a question I posted on FB yesterday: how could a student produce such a beautiful resume and have such an incredibly wordy cover letter? Re-reading her letter in light of oral culture, I can see that she was writing exactly how she would speak, and she did repeat herself several times and included information that wasn't pertinent to a cover letter, but information that would come up in conversation. So now, my job is to explain "the values [a cover letter] embodies" (w340) without engaging in "rhetorical imperialism." Any suggestions?
P. S. In case you were wondering, I prefer Word because it checks grammar. This editor didn't catch when I typed "rhetoric" instead of "rhetorical."
No comments:
Post a Comment