Why Ong might have been wrong about orality

On the way home from Chicago, the TYCA-Midwest conference, I listened to a special on public radio about deaf culture. Deaf parents were stating, over and over again, how when they found out a new baby was deaf, they were overjoyed. If the baby could hear, they were very worried and sad, wondering how the baby would fit in the family, since, when you are deaf you develop alternative communication means that are very effective.

So, this idea that orality is "natural" - I have never bought that, or I have been troubled by it. Orality is only "natural" if one is born with the technology of the ear. Polanyi writes about how we kind of learn that arms and legs are "parts of us," and so they become integrated into our existence. "In this sense I should say that an object is transformed into a tool by a purposive effort envisaging an operational field in respect of which the object guided by our efforts shall function as an extension of our body" (p. 60). He is defining "tool." So he says, if results are achieved through an object which were not intended, then that object is not instrumental. So, if I were to send a personal email intended for my spouse, to a professional list serve, then in that case the computer I'm using is not instrumental, according to Polanyi's definition. His example is, if a rat presses a lever by accident and a food pellet is released, that is not tool use. But once the rat learns that by pressing the lever she will get a food pellet, then the rat is using a tool. Similarly, if I figure out how to check my sending information in emails so that I do not send a personal email out on a professional list serve, then I have learned to use the computer as a tool. As that youtube video asserts, the machine is using us but only until we figure out how to instead teach the machine. Then the machine becomes a tool. as far as how that relates to orality, if you have ears but don't use them, like you don't listen, then you really aren't using your ears as a tool. People who cannot hear find other "tools" to use to communicate. Orality is not natural at all; it's communication and language that is natural. For that reason I think Ong is wrong about how he positions writing with respect to orality (Beth Daniell has done a study which support my view). But I think he is right that writing causes you to think differently than you would if you only communicated orally. Similarly, individuals immersed in deaf culture are going to think differently than individuals who are not. Just as individuals who speak different languages will think differently than each other.

So I say, individuals who write with computers in such a way that the computer is a tool, the computer is at their service, think differently, and even perhaps more complexly, than individuals who do not. Individuals who use the law as a tool, make the law instrumental. But for those who do not, the law uses them.