To understand the foregoing phrase, it would be best fit if we try to describe the variables involved: the term ‘reality construction’. The words may seem contradicting because according to a realist, real cannot be constructed since it is already ‘out there’, given, concrete or it is a finite thing. Others may argue that to perceive something ‘real’ one should accept that fact that it is a product of human social interaction thus, we came out with a term ‘socially constructed reality’ as pointed out by Berger and Luckmann. This social constructed reality is the biggest influence on what we perceive as reality and how we perceive it, especially in the world as we know it today. The main vehicles which convey this meaning: symbols, including language, cultural myths -- larger social meanings of objects, actions, signs, episodes, the structure and practice of our institutions, our rules for congruent action. These vehicles of meaning together construct: our world-view -- our sense of how the world works, what is valuable, why things are the way they are.
To view reality is something that is also universally accepted knowledge, ideas, actions, events and situation. One classical example is that if all Christians believe that God really exist then He is ‘real’. But this doesn’t hold true if only one person or even group of person would claim that they’d seen Jesus.
But how are these viewed realities become universally acceptable? There must be an agent that affirm or reinforced people’s view towards reality. Is this agent serves only to depict what is real or is it an effective vehicle to construct reality?
The agent that I am talking here refers to the media who serves as an active player in the process of constructing reality. According to John Pungente, the media do not present simple reflections of external reality. Rather, they present carefully crafted constructions that reflect many decisions and result from many determining actors. In his paper Media and the Construction of Reality, Stefan Weber highlighted variations in constructivism: the ontological and empirical approaches, which to him are important basis to understand more how media constructs reality. The common thread between all forms of constructivism is that they do not focus on an ontological reality but instead on a constructed reality. The ontological constructivism presupposes the ‘constructed nature of the world as an unalterable fact’. It means that construction of reality is not something made by a man because it is ‘always there, whether one wants it or not’ or simply Reality-As-It-Is-In-Itself. To apply this in the media context, I look at it as something that media will and will always have construct reality even it is not told to do so. On the other hand, the empirical constructivism as what has been proposed for instance by Walter Benjamin, is concerned with ‘constructiveness as an empirically measurable trend on the basis of a non-dualistic epistemology’. This form of constructivism asserts that media is consciously and deliberately constructs reality to the extent of turning a fiction thing to a ‘real’ thing. However, I will not set an argument between these two forms of constructivism but I will be looking more if it is really possible that media can really present the exact reality or it just merely construct for a human to perceive what is ‘real’.
To some extent I agree with the perspective of constructivism. Its foundation is analytically useful as it focuses on the processes of media’s construction of reality. However, to doubt the possibility of experiencing reality sensually would seem futile. No concrete evidences could deny the fact that reality can indeed be experienced by human beings. But to the level of extent on how media presents reality is that which I am not keen to defend. Therefore, it would be safe to say that media serves dual purposes: to present what is only ‘out there’ – the absolute reality and to re-present ‘something’ to make it real - constructed reality. To illustrate the first function, media include or cover genuine events as newsworthy items. Genuine events are independent from mass media and their reporting, they take place whether the media notices them or not and do not change in character if they do. Such events are natural disasters, crime or incidents of every day life (Scherer et.al). These particular events are reported objectively since media is beyond its control to alter anything while these things unfold and therefore it has to present only the ‘absolute reality’ of the event. On the other hand, all media products such as news and advertisements are said to be a construction of reality. Lang and Lang expose the media’s image of reality as artificial and not at all similar to what witnesses on site observe. This is particularly true in news which is difficult to be a true reflection of reality, due to many factors involved in the production of news. Human error, human interest and the fallacies of management all conspire to blur the line between truth and friction. Potter (1998) stated that “news is not something that happens; instead, news is what gets presented. We almost never see news events as they happen. Instead, we are shown the media’s manufactured construction of the events.” Moreover, the media being an agent of socialization can affect our way of thinking and change our perception of reality. We tend to believe that drinking a certain brand of alcoholic beverages as projected in advertisement can bring us real fun and enjoyment and that acquiring a unit of cellphone makes us to believe that we are “in” a society. All of these perceived realities are reflected by this powerful and influential agent – the media.
References:
1) Berger P.L & Luckmann T. (1967). The Social Construction of Reality; a treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Penguin, Harmondsworth
(2) Pungente, S.J. From Barry Duncan et al. Media Literacy Resource Guide, Ontario Ministry of Education, Toronto, ON. Canada, 1989.
(3) Scherer, Helmut., Arnold, Anne-Katrin. and Schltz, Daniela . Media’s Creating Reality: Construction as a Social Process. (Available online at www.allacademic .com)
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Second Orality
I. THE SECOND ORALITY
In his book, Orality and Literacy: Technologizing the Word, Walter J. Ong examines the transformation in consciousness which occurs when oral cultures become chirographic or writing based. By oral culture, we mean, a culture that rely on communicating purely an oral-based and has not been exposed to written communication. It has two forms: primary orality and residual orality. Primary orality refers to language and its use in both thought and speech that exists completely outside of the knowledge of writing. Residual orality, on the other hand, refers to a language that has been exposed to writing but has not completely incorporated it into daily use. Ong had put emphasis more on primary oral culture on the aspect on how human consciousness reacts when oral cultures are shifted to chirographic-based form of language. He took side on oral culture by defending its value and importance as compared to that of written-based language. In addition to pinpointing fundamental differences in the thought of processes of the two types of culture, Ong also had mentioned an emerging form of language culture he dubbed as ‘second orality’. This second orality combines the elements of chirographic (i.e writing) and orality modes but practically uses new technologies in communicating. According to him, the arrival of electronic media has led to a change in our thinking. He has foreseen a society that is more engross in spoken words than written words. Ong had drawn his conclusion primarily on the non-linear structure of an oral culture, which is also to be found in the structure of the internet, for instance. What is also interesting to note here is that Ong made a presumption that the 21st century will become a market of ‘interactivity’ – a place where words (spoken, read, and thought) stream from the screen to the page, from virtual to actual and whose information speed is by far exceeding what McLuhan predicted more than forty years ago. Ong also added that the ‘second orality’ will be a period in which the principles of both and literary culture will coalesce.
This Second Orality also provides us a handful of implications from the human individual thinking and his social interaction to the development of his languages. With the growing opportunities provided to us by the electronic and mainstream media, people are becoming more independent in terms of acquiring new learning, in sharing information and expanding its horizon through its active involvement in different virtual activities. In other words, second orality liberates human from his ideals and actions. Meanwhile, Ong also suggested that people in oral cultures live in close, intimate connection with their environment and with each other. This ‘collectivism’ way of thinking in oral culture was later transformed to ‘individualism’ as reading or writing is commonly an individual activity. Second Orality likewise will generate a strong group sense but will be much more global oriented. This is a case where internet chatting, email, voicemail and social networking become a commonplace for everybody to communicate and to social interact and also to identify themselves as active member in this ‘global village.’ What is also interesting to note here is the way people interact with the spoken and written word now that second orality prevails in the modern world. In print culture we gather news at distance, in an oral tradition people tell about happenings in person. In second orality, people are not a passive player but “contributes to the work in performance. The listener is author, scarcely less than the performer is author (Paul Zumthor, in Fowler 1994). It goes to show that people can freely interact and to intervene in a discourse albeit written or spoken. Since it is participatory, people can verify, add or question information in any forms (documents or video) that will be included in a body of knowledge thus, making it more reliable and accurate. On the other hand, second orality will not only bring positive development in human thinking and to society but as well as the negative consequences. Since people are now immersed with using modern technologies, too much exposure & consumption in it could lead to a destructive effect. It is feared that more people (even literate people) will not engage into reading anymore since it is replaced with modern mode of learning (books versus audio-books and classroom vs. virtual setting). There is a contention also that second orality changes the uses of our language. I am referring those languages that are used in the Internet that for some are quite difficult to comprehend. And lastly, second orality is castigated because it promotes gap to individual member of society since more will be convenient to communicate via phone or email instead of a face-to-face contact which is more personal and intimate than communicating virtually.
To recapitulate and to give light to the topic, second orality seemed to be in effect today and indeed the changes that Ong had mentioned are now taking place. Second Orality emerged because we anticipate it to happen but more so because human continue to embrace to many changes of his environment brought about by cultural and technological developments.
Second Orality
(1) Dekker, Annet. Language in Art. (Available online at http://www.montevideo.nl/en/nieuws/detail.php?id=1&archief=ja&showjaar=2002&beginjaar)
(2) Fowler, Robert M., 'How the Secondary Orality of the Electronic Age Can
Awaken Us to the Primary Orality of Antiquity or What Hypertext Can Teach Us About the Bible with Reflections on the Ethical and Political Issues of the Electronic Frontier', http://www2.bw.edu/~fowler, 1994
(3) Ong, Walter, Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word,
Methuen &Co. Ltd., 1982 (reprinted by Routlegde, London & New York)
In his book, Orality and Literacy: Technologizing the Word, Walter J. Ong examines the transformation in consciousness which occurs when oral cultures become chirographic or writing based. By oral culture, we mean, a culture that rely on communicating purely an oral-based and has not been exposed to written communication. It has two forms: primary orality and residual orality. Primary orality refers to language and its use in both thought and speech that exists completely outside of the knowledge of writing. Residual orality, on the other hand, refers to a language that has been exposed to writing but has not completely incorporated it into daily use. Ong had put emphasis more on primary oral culture on the aspect on how human consciousness reacts when oral cultures are shifted to chirographic-based form of language. He took side on oral culture by defending its value and importance as compared to that of written-based language. In addition to pinpointing fundamental differences in the thought of processes of the two types of culture, Ong also had mentioned an emerging form of language culture he dubbed as ‘second orality’. This second orality combines the elements of chirographic (i.e writing) and orality modes but practically uses new technologies in communicating. According to him, the arrival of electronic media has led to a change in our thinking. He has foreseen a society that is more engross in spoken words than written words. Ong had drawn his conclusion primarily on the non-linear structure of an oral culture, which is also to be found in the structure of the internet, for instance. What is also interesting to note here is that Ong made a presumption that the 21st century will become a market of ‘interactivity’ – a place where words (spoken, read, and thought) stream from the screen to the page, from virtual to actual and whose information speed is by far exceeding what McLuhan predicted more than forty years ago. Ong also added that the ‘second orality’ will be a period in which the principles of both and literary culture will coalesce.
This Second Orality also provides us a handful of implications from the human individual thinking and his social interaction to the development of his languages. With the growing opportunities provided to us by the electronic and mainstream media, people are becoming more independent in terms of acquiring new learning, in sharing information and expanding its horizon through its active involvement in different virtual activities. In other words, second orality liberates human from his ideals and actions. Meanwhile, Ong also suggested that people in oral cultures live in close, intimate connection with their environment and with each other. This ‘collectivism’ way of thinking in oral culture was later transformed to ‘individualism’ as reading or writing is commonly an individual activity. Second Orality likewise will generate a strong group sense but will be much more global oriented. This is a case where internet chatting, email, voicemail and social networking become a commonplace for everybody to communicate and to social interact and also to identify themselves as active member in this ‘global village.’ What is also interesting to note here is the way people interact with the spoken and written word now that second orality prevails in the modern world. In print culture we gather news at distance, in an oral tradition people tell about happenings in person. In second orality, people are not a passive player but “contributes to the work in performance. The listener is author, scarcely less than the performer is author (Paul Zumthor, in Fowler 1994). It goes to show that people can freely interact and to intervene in a discourse albeit written or spoken. Since it is participatory, people can verify, add or question information in any forms (documents or video) that will be included in a body of knowledge thus, making it more reliable and accurate. On the other hand, second orality will not only bring positive development in human thinking and to society but as well as the negative consequences. Since people are now immersed with using modern technologies, too much exposure & consumption in it could lead to a destructive effect. It is feared that more people (even literate people) will not engage into reading anymore since it is replaced with modern mode of learning (books versus audio-books and classroom vs. virtual setting). There is a contention also that second orality changes the uses of our language. I am referring those languages that are used in the Internet that for some are quite difficult to comprehend. And lastly, second orality is castigated because it promotes gap to individual member of society since more will be convenient to communicate via phone or email instead of a face-to-face contact which is more personal and intimate than communicating virtually.
To recapitulate and to give light to the topic, second orality seemed to be in effect today and indeed the changes that Ong had mentioned are now taking place. Second Orality emerged because we anticipate it to happen but more so because human continue to embrace to many changes of his environment brought about by cultural and technological developments.
Second Orality
(1) Dekker, Annet. Language in Art. (Available online at http://www.montevideo.nl/en/nieuws/detail.php?id=1&archief=ja&showjaar=2002&beginjaar)
(2) Fowler, Robert M., 'How the Secondary Orality of the Electronic Age Can
Awaken Us to the Primary Orality of Antiquity or What Hypertext Can Teach Us About the Bible with Reflections on the Ethical and Political Issues of the Electronic Frontier', http://www2.bw.edu/~fowler, 1994
(3) Ong, Walter, Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word,
Methuen &Co. Ltd., 1982 (reprinted by Routlegde, London & New York)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)