Oral Memory
I know it has been said many times over that oral cultures develop their faculties of memory more than literate cultures, but I am struck by it moreso through recent experiences. My two and 1/2 year old Asante sometimes memorizes books before I do. I think this, strangely enough, means he is interacting with the text more deeply simply listening than I am reading.
Likely he knows (in a manner of speaking) that once memorized, he has unlimited access to the text and no longer must depend on my readings. This freedom gives him more access to the life of the book. And though I have much freedom afforded me through literacy, memory has ceased to be a natural part of my engagement with the story. If I want the memory I must specifically apply effort, except in the case of extreme repeition (read: Where the Wild Things Are).
The main point, though, is the internalness which allows one to really live within a story that is not fully our own (one that becomes our own with time) that literacy dependancy has made unnatural to us is a great loss. It prevents us from that instantaneousness in which most of life occurs.
Some things are better referenced than memorized, but we have caused ourselves to default to reference, and our unawareness of this fact leaves us less connected with the world around us than we might hope for.
June 24th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
We highlight this when we talk about Hindus and the so-called indigenous religions. It is truly amazing that people can memorize works that are 8 times as long as our Bible.
In religious studies we praise this orality because it allows for the sacred oral text (or set of stories, etc) to be modified to speak into changing circumstances. Their stories change (in a good way) to better bring together their core and the liver’s story.
I agree that consuming written stories is much more limiting for there is less malleability and there is such a barrier (it is harder/takes longer to speak than to read).
And you are right to point out that we now default to reference rather than to immersion. What we gain in width we sacrifice in depth.
Do you think this is more of a problem with the digital age than the written age? I know I had much more memorized before the internet.
Last question – how much of this is connected with a tendency to prize nonfiction, facts, over fiction, myth, historical narratives?
June 25th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
I certianly agree that for religious purposes mass memorization (done properly) can be greatly beneficial for tacitly changing one’s life and affecting one’s choices,though I don’t believe it is limited to such spheres. I think all of discourse can be improved through the rapid-fire access that needing reference destroys.
As for the digital age, I think there are two waves, one which helps and one which hurts.
The Information Age first overwhelms us by how much is available to be known, which leads us to feel wasteful for trying to remember anything because it’s :just a drop in the bucket.” And, of course, now that information can be referenced pretty quickly, which is good enough for many situations.
I think the real skill is to realize what is 5 second material and what is instantaneously needed.
Now the beneficial part of this age is the proliferation of non-text information which we are still (though maybe this is changing) more likely to memorize, in a manner of speaking, than to only reference.
As for the last question, I would imagine the masses have always preferred fiction and narrative and I think this is certainly the case now. I think it is only the academics (perhaps only those of recently past centuries) who strongly favor decontextualized facts.