Reflecting on some of today’s more memorable speeches and communicators, it is both amusing and interesting to note the differences between those events, and what made them memorable. This is especially interesting when examined in light of Ong’s text of orality psychodynamic characterizations, some of which we will examine are: additive rather than subordinative, aggregative rather than analytic, redundant or ‘copius’, conservative or traditionalist, close to the human lifeworld, agonistically toned, empathetic and participatory, and homeostatic. (Ong, pg. 37-48)
To illustrate the first two characteristics of subordinative and aggregative, Nikita Krushchev’s speech to the 20th Communist Party Congress of the USSR in 1956 is a good example. In his speech, he frequently refers to “enemies” of the party, revolution, or socialism. This speech also goes into great detail about abolishing the “cult of the individual” once and for all, referring to Stalin’s previous involvement and power over the USSR (“Great Speeches of the 20th Century” 2010).
During the 2008 vice presidential debates, John McCain’s full name was used 33 times by Governor Palin, not a mixture of John McCain, John, or Senator McCain. Then-Senator Biden spoke his full name 51 times, while the moderator used his name and his title of Senator. (New York Times 2009) Both main speakers wanted the emphasis to be on the perceived negative and positive aspects of his name. The effect was, in all likelihood, negative on both Biden and Palin; much of the debate centered around the repetition and the inability to seem aware of the impact of their words. There are some times when redundancy is a positive reinforcement in public addresses – such as the readings and public writings of Winston Churchill or Maculay. (Ong, pg. 41).
Traditionalists as orators can come in many forms; according to Ong, “narrative originality lodges not in making up new stories but in managing a particular interaction with an audience at this time – at every telling the story has to be introduced into a unique situation.” (pg. 42) During the women’s suffrage movement, social reformers and women’s voting rights activists had to counter traditional oration in its most basic sense – women had simply never had the right to vote before 1920. Countering the traditional belief that women must be seen and not heard and still expressing their beliefs, while not being offensive to traditionalists, these suffragists had to walk the line.
An oral culture that is close to the human lifeworld, and expressed in modern speeches or events, can be found in French General Charles de Gaulle’s wartime radio addresses, broadcast by the BBC from London in 1940. He says, “I call upon all French servicemen of the land, sea, and air forces; I call upon French engineers and skilled armaments workers who are on British soil, or have the means of getting here, to come and join me…I call upon the leaders, together with all soldiers, sailors, and airmen of the French land, sea, and air forces, wherever they may now be, to get in touch with me…I call upon all Frenchmen who want to remain free to listen to my voice and follow me.” According to Ong, this is laying out specific commands and actions; de Gaulle told the people of France to rise up against the German force and contact the resistance movement.
Nelson Mandela’s 1964 speech before the opening of his sabotage trial is a classic example of an oral narrative of enthusiastic descriptors of sacrifice, violence in South Africa, and praise. “It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.” (“Great Speeches of the 20th Century” 2010).
Empathetic speeches, in a somewhat generic form, can be found in funeral homes and churches around the world. Friends and family generally want to sympathize with the family that is hurting, and offer words of condolences for those who might need it.
Oral people groups are homeostatic, according to Ong. Looking at speeches from Aneurin Bevan (“Great Speeches of the 20th Century” 2010) speaking about the Suez Canal incident —and the vastly different verbiage that he uses of half a century ago — while comparing it to President Obama’s memorial speech at the CIA Headquarters (“Whitehouse.gov” 2010) with simple phrases while carrying the same meaning, we can see the generational shift of terminology and phrasing.
Our society has many more existing examples and cases of these features of oral cultures; it will be interesting to see what future examples our public and private figures have in store for us.
The Guardian. (2010). Great speeches of the 20th century. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/series/greatspeeches/
The New York Times. (2009). Transcript: The Vice-Presidential Debate. Retrieved from http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/vice-presidential-debate.html.
Ong, W.J. (1982). Some Psychodynamics of Orality. In T. Hawkes (Ed.), Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. (pgs. 30-77). Metheun & Co.
Shaw, A.H. (2010/1915). The Fundamental Principle of a Republic. Retrieved from http://gos.sbc.edu/s/shaw.html/
The White House-Office of the Press Secretary. (2010). Remarks by The President at Memorial for CIA Officers. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-and-cia-director-panetta-speak-cia-memorial-service/
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
