Oral Culture: a useful concept relevant to information seeking in

context?
Deborah Maxwell, Catriona Macaulay
Interaction Design Lab, University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland, DD1 4HN
{debbie, catriona}@computing.dundee.ac.uk

Literacy dominates Western society to the extent that we are largely unaware of its presence and influence. Yet it is
increasingly important for information behaviours to address the needs of non-literate people as the technologies of literate
cultures seek to consolidate their grip on the developing world. Literacy is now undergoing its greatest changes since the last
500 years with technology as the driving force. As mobile technology offers a means for reaching wider audiences, research
is being carried out on how to tap into developing countries as a new market sector. Non-literates are perceived as
problematic, and though cultural approaches to technology and interfaces are being recognised, orality as a factor in cognition
and thus relevant to information requirements is not recognised. By examining literature in anthropology, cognitive
psychology and linguistics, this paper seeks to examine the validity of ‘oral culture’ as a viewpoint for thinking about
information behaviours in traditionally non-literate societies. Three main issues are identified and explored; (i) how is oral
culture defined, (ii) what are the perceived implications of literacy, and (iii) what role does technology play in orality, literacy
and cognition? This paper strives to show that literacy and orality, whilst obviously not the only cultural differences, are
significant parameters in how we think about the world and deal with information, however the terminology is inappropriate
for today’s society.

Keywords: oral culture, orality, literacy, cognition, technology, information seeking.

1 INTRODUCTION
Writing and literacy is an intrinsic part of Western society, however almost 800 million people in 2005
were classed as non-literate by UNESCO. It is increasingly important for information behaviours to address
their needs as the technologies of literate cultures (in particular information and communication
technologies) seek to consolidate their grip on the developing world [5, 6]. See, for example, the recent
‘green computer’ initiative to provide children in developing countries with cheap computers [15].
Issues of accessibility are now being recognised in technology, especially in regard to the World Wide
Web. CUIs (Cultural user interfaces) have been suggested as a means to provide localisation [24], though it
is useful to consider how appropriate the constructs used in computing are to different cultures (e.g. the
desktop metaphor).
The split imposed on societies into oral and literate provides one way of examining cultural
differences and yet is of necessity a blurred boundary as cultures and technologies overlap. It is important to
be aware of the potential ethnocentrism embedded in the terminology ‘oral culture’ and ensure that it is not
simply a pseudonym for ‘primitive’ or ‘savage’. To this end it has been suggested that use of ‘oral culture’ is
derogatory and that “to celebrate the significance of literacy was [is], even if inadvertently, to mark
nonliteracy or ‘orality’ as inferior” [17].
Through exploring the very concept of oral culture it is necessary to contemplate firstly, how oral
culture is defined and what differentiates it from literate culture. This leads naturally to reflection on
contemporary thinking on literacy and cognition in order to determine the differences and similarities
between ‘oral’ and ‘literate’ societies, i.e. can they be split into a stark dichotomy or is literacy present on a
sliding scale?
Society and technology have always been intertwined and writing as a technology is no exception.
Literacy has had profound influences on the way we design technology and conversely, technology is starting
to influence literacy. This highlights the relevance of contemplating oral culture in today’s society – we
should be addressing the needs of oral cultures, not only for their own sake, but for our changing literate
societies too.

2 THE AMORPHOUS NATURE OF ORAL CULTURE

Oral culture has no universally accepted definition; it is rare that an attempt is made to define it
explicitly. Even the terminology ‘oral culture’ has come under fire and, as mentioned previously, the very
concepts it embodies are in debate. The increase in globalisation and the resultant overlap between ‘literate’
and ‘oral’ has led to the lack of pure non-literate oral cultures, whilst all literate societies have degrees of
orality. Therefore oral culture does not necessarily preclude knowledge of literacy, but primarily manifests
itself though the prevalence of oral performances (e.g. recitals, oratory, ritual and poetry).
Written texts have an air of permanence, of disembodied voices transcending space, time and death.
Oral literature is more immediate, “sound exists only when it is going out of existence” [Ong 19], however in
pre-literate cultures [19] the amount of information that can be stored by an individual is finite. Thus
‘collective memory’ is codified in narrative using rich, descriptive language. The generational handing down
of knowledge helps to maintain the hierarchical structure of society as elders act as a knowledge repository,
reinforcing their status and the respect due to them (Goody [11]).
Amidst all the debate amongst scholars, a universally accepted facet of oral cultures is malleability –
knowledge is not necessarily passed on ad infinitum. Goody and Watt [10] describe how genealogies vary as
even collective memory has its limits. Genealogies naturally grow over time yet the additional numbers of
births are countered by dropping the oldest ancestors. Similarly, they recount how the Gonja of Northern
Ghana explain the subdivision of their state into seven by relating it to their founder’s (Ndewura Jakpa)
seven sons. Due to British colonisation two of these divisions vanished and the number of Ndewura Jakpa’s
sons correspondingly reduces to five. Thus narrative’s inherent flexibility can reflect historical and political
changes.
In a similar vein, it has been noted that verbatim recitation does not warrant the same attention in oral
culture as in literate. Meaning, or sense, is the criterion against which expressions are judged, i.e. two
expressions meaning the same are deemed to actually be the same (Olson [18]).
In the 1930’s, Milman Parry and Albert Lord’s study in Yugoslavia showed that epic poetry was
composed orally during performances using formulaic phrasings. These epithets were repeated throughout
the performance and were designed to fit into the metric structure of the poem, providing momentary
thinking time for the performer to prepare the next few lines (Finnegan [8]). That is to say, the narrative of
the epic was remembered in essence but not repeated exactly the same, allowing interpretation and creativity
to creep into what was previously considered a word-for-word recital.
However, many oral performances are rehearsed rigorously before recital (e.g. Somali poetry [1]) and
some are highly ritualised, for example oratory, where the content of speech is less important than its
traditional formalised structure and where the physical presentation is tightly defined including restricted
gestures, tone of voice and body position. (Bloch [3], Salmond [22], Postil [21]). These ritualised genres
uphold social structure as substantial time and learning is required to obtain the skills to perform.
The above examples give a sense of how varied oral culture can be, in both genre and setting. It can be
seen that the previously mentioned concerns relating to the validity of ‘oral culture’ are well founded. If the
diversity of ‘oral culture’ is so rich then we must examine whether the terminology ‘oral culture’ is valid – it
should be recognised as an aspect rather than a demarcation of culture.

3 THE IMPLICATIONS OF LITERACY

“…literacy’s contributions are neither well appreciated nor are its limitations grasped.” Graff [12]

In order to understand the character of oral culture it is necessary to consider the influence of literacy
in terms of societal and cognitive effects. There are two main schools of thought, namely the ‘autonomous’
model proposed largely by Goody and Watt [10] and the ‘ideological’ model coined by Street [23].
Goody and Watt claimed that literacy as a technology was responsible for ‘raising consciousness’,
promoting abstraction and reflection. The inconsistencies present in oral cultures’ belief systems are removed
by referent written records, leading to a more critical attitude of the world. Democracy, it was argued, was an
outcome of literacy, shown by the classical Greek democratic system. This highly influential work put
literacy as an autonomous agent and emphasised the ‘Great Divide’ theory between oral and literate societies.
It was also endorsed by Walter J. Ong; who said that writing led to the ‘evolution of consciousness’,
provided composition techniques and the ability to create intricate narrative. [20]
By comparison, more recent debate has focussed on the complexity of oral cultures. Street [23]
developed the ‘ideological’ model – an amalgamation of responses from Finnegan, Bloch, Graff and others to
the general claim of literacy described above. This model of literacy places more emphasis on the importance
of society on literacy, i.e. “the meaning of literacy depends upon the social institutions in which it is
embedded” (Street [23]).
Whilst Ruth Finnegan agrees that writing can promote abstraction she argues that ‘oral cultures’ can
have awareness of language and abstraction, using the Limba and Dogon of West Africa as examples; “their
reflectiveness strikes an observer immediately in the interest they take in their own language and in their
philosophy of speech.” [9] Another factor Finnegan cites against the autonomous theory is the diversity of
oral compositions and genres, even within the same society.
Maurice Bloch also subscribes to the view that literacy does not necessarily transform a culture, he
draws on his own experience with the Merina of Madagascar where he claims that literacy has strengthened
their oral culture; “literacy has not transformed the nature of Merina knowledge – it has confirmed it.” [4]
David R. Olson [18] appears to situate himself in the middle of these views, he admits that oral culture
is an all encompassing phrase but feels that literacy does effect cognitive changes, so narrows the
terminology to ‘Western scientific thought’. He views writing as a model for speech and stresses that writing
is not speech transcribed but that the process of reflecting on language as constituents components,
represented by a script, affects cognition as speech is brought into consciousness. He argues therefore, that
this metalinguistic knowledge of language is a key to ‘literate’ cognition. However, he acknowledges that
such metalinguistic or ‘literate skills’ can be passed on orally. [17]
Many case studies show that literacy does not produce predictable pre-definable effects and the
complexity of reality indicates that the ‘autonomous’ model is simplistic at best. However, there is
substantial evidence that cognitive differences exist and that literacy is an important component within
society and has an effect. The problems arise in trying to determine just what that effect is and how separable
it is from political and social factors. There can be no doubt about the differences between speech and
writing, writing becomes decontextualised, it can be harder to interpret the author’s meaning and the
illocutionary force of speech is lost.
The traditional ‘literate’ values of abstraction, reflection, critical thought and genres have been shown
to exist in differing forms throughout both literate and non-literate cultures, thus refuting Goody et al’s claim
that literacy has all encompassing cognitive effects. This is not to say that literacy is not powerful, but that its
effects vary with the society it is embedded in.

4 THE ROLE OF TECHNOLOGY

“The slow conventions of narrative will be overwhelmed by simultaneity.” Birkerts [2]

The influence of technology on society follows some of the threads discussed in the previous section,
for literacy can usefully be viewed as a technology. The two strands are then between whether society is
technologically determined or if technology is merely an enabling factor in social development. (Finnegan
[9]). Street claims that ‘technology is not neutral – it is a social product’ [23] and this is a view which the
authors of this paper subscribe to. It is impossible to imagine the creation of technology in a vacuum;
research and commercial development require a conducive societal environment which fosters certain types
of technology. This is not to say that technology cannot affect society, Olden [16] suggests that the traditional
respected role of elders in Somali culture is lost when they become refugees in the UK. Traditional
knowledge repositories may be lost.
Technology and communications have always been contentious, the introduction of writing was not
universally applauded (Plato saw writing as leading to the erosion of memory [10]), whilst the advent of
printing led to dismay amongst copyists, and computers are today hailed as reducing attention span and a
lack of appreciation towards traditional, print-based literature. [2]
It is now a question of whether the technology of literacy is affecting technology in general or vice
versa. It would appear that both events are occurring. Apart from the arguments proposed in section 3
(namely that literacy affects Western thought) it is obvious to note that literacy has affected the development
of computing, in terms of the higher abstraction of coding languages from binary to assembly towards more
natural language, not to mention the heavily text-driven interfaces and content. It has been suggested that as
we progress further into post-literacy, Western society is showing more oral cultural traits – surely this is due
in part to the rise of the internet and mobile technology. We are bombarded by a variety of media (e.g.
images, sound, video and animation) and literacy can also now be defined in terms of visual literacy and
computer literacy. [7]
Gunther Kress describes how print-based literacy is being affected by computer screens and writing is
having to contend with visualisation and experience its effects again. In essence, “alphabetic writing is
undergoing changes in its uses and in its forms as significant as any that it has experienced in the three or
four thousand years of its history.” [14]
This new media can now enable ‘everyone’ (i.e. those on the ‘have’ side of the digital divide as
opposed to the ‘have nots’) to be an author with little or no costs compared with conventional printing
(consider the success of blogging, MySpace, YouTube, and Flickr). It has never been easier for the ‘haves’ to
express either their individuality or homogeneity globally yet equally it can be said that it has never been
easier to be so lost and alone in a sea of ‘information’.

5 CONCLUSIONS
Literacy is changing. It is still a dominant force in Western society and we remain preoccupied with
our visual sense. New technologies have the potential to move away and embrace more senses than purely
visual (e.g. tangible, wearable computing and sonification) providing richer, immersive environments.
Cognitive styles vary across cultures, however if it is hard to define ‘oral culture’ coherently then it is
even harder to identify the effects of literacy on society and cognition. The complexity increases when trying
to draw parallels across societies. It has been suggested that a continuum of literacy exists, rather than a
dichotomy of ‘oral versus literate’ societies. [13]
This paper asserts that to consider ‘oral culture’ as an entity is to create a false boundary and that
alternative terminology should be sought to alleviate the problems outlined. Although current oral or
preliterate culture in a pure sense is an exaggerated construct at best, it has provoked debate, research and
reflection in other fields for decades (e.g. cognitive psychology, anthropology and linguistics) and its
application to technology, and information seeking in particular, could be highly valuable. By developing a
less ethnocentric approach to design, more thoughtful, user-centred methodologies can be adopted to the
benefit not only of undervalued oral cultures but to traditionally ‘literate’ cultures too.
This paper sets the stage for further work by the authors into looking at the ways communities with
strong oral characteristics communicate and perceive information, realised through ethnography and
participatory design. The aim for this future research is not to provide a conclusive technological product
designed for ‘oral cultures’ by ‘oral cultures’ but rather to open up the channels of discourse and understand
more about information behaviours.
We should realise that imposing our literate technologies on other cultures is perhaps not the best or
only way to design. The literate mindset is so deeply embedded that it can be hard if not impossible to
contemplate existence without it. However, there is no need to welcome the trend of homogeneity, the
technology exists to provide new ways to express, design and create. We should celebrate orality and not
demote or force it into emulating literacy.

REFERENCES

[1] Ahmed, Ali Jimale 1996. Daybreak is Near… Literature, Clans, and the Nation-State in Somalia. The Red Sea
Press, Inc.
[2] Birkerts, Sven, 1995. The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age. Ballantine Books.
[3] Bloch, Maurice 1975. Introduction. In Bloch, Maurice (ed) Political Language and Oratory in Traditional Society.
Academic Press Inc., London.
[4] Bloch, Maurice E. F. 1998. How We Think They Think: Anthropological Approaches to Cognition, Memory, and
Literacy. Westview Press Inc., Colorado.
[5] Chipchase, Jan, 2005. Understanding Non-Literacy as a Barrier to Mobile Phone Communication. [Online]
Available from: http://research.nokia.com/bluesky/non-literacy-001-2005/index.html [Accessed 14 May 2006]
[6] CITRIS (Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society) Newsletter April 2006 [online]
Available from: http://www.citris-uc.org/publications/newsletter/april2006#feature1 [Accessed 14 May 2006]
[7] Cope, Bill and Mary Kalantzis (eds) 2000. Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures.
Routledge, London.
[8] Finnegan, Ruth 1977. Oral Poetry: Its nature, significance and social context. Cambridge University Press
[9] Finnegan, Ruth 1988. Literacy and Orality: Studies in the Technology of Communication. Basil Blackwell Ltd,
Oxford.
[10] Goody, Jack & Ian Watt, 1968. The Consequences of Literacy. In Jack Goody (ed) Literacy in Traditional Societies.
Cambridge University Press.
[11] Goody, Jack, 1987. The Interface Between the Written and the Oral (Studies in Literacy, the Family, Culture & the
State). Cambridge University Press.
[12] Graff, Harvey J. 1981. Introduction. In Harvey J. Graff (ed) Literacy and Social Development in the West: A
Reader. Cambridge University Press.
[13] Gunkel, David J. 2003. Second Thoughts: toward a critique of the digital divide. New Media Society 2003; 5: 499-
522
[14] Kress, Gunther 2003. Literacy in the New Media Age. Routledge, London.
[15] MIT Media Laboratory - One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) [online] Available from: http://laptop.media.mit.edu/
[Accessed 14 May 2006]
[16] Olden, Anthony 1999. Somali Refugees in London: Oral Cultures in a Western Information Environment. Libri,
vol. 49, pp. 212–224
[17] Olson, David R., 1991. Literacy as metalinguistic activity. In David R. Olson and Nancy Torrance (eds) Literacy
and Orality. Cambridge University Press.
[18] Olson, David R., 1996. Literate Mentalities: Literacy, Consciousness of Language, and Modes of Thought. In
David R. Olson and Nancy Torrance (eds) Modes of Thought: Explorations in Culture and Cognition. Cambridge
University Press.
[19] Ong Walter, J. 1986. Writing is a Technology that Restructures Thought. In Gerd Baumann (ed) The Written Word:
Literacy in Transition (Wolfson College Lectures). Oxford University Press
[20] Ong, Walter, J., 1977. Interfaces of the Word: Studies in the Evolution of Consciousness and Culture. Cornell
University Press.
[21] Postill, John, 2003. Knowledge, literacy and media among the Iban of Sarawak. A reply to Maurice Bloch. Social
Anthropology, 11, 1, 79-99 (2003)
[22] Salmond, Anne 1975. Mana Makes the Man: A Look at Maori Oratory and Politics. In Bloch, Maurice (ed) Political
Language and Oratory in Traditional Society. Academic Press Inc., London.
[23] Street Brian V., 1984. Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press.
[24] Yeo, Alvin 1996. World-Wide CHI: Cultural User Interfaces, A Silver Lining in Cultural Diversity. SIGCHI
Bulletin Vol. 28 No 3, July 1996