The relationship between oral and written traditions has often been cast by postcolonial critics as one between indigenous and colonial modes of cultural expression, with the exercise of unequal colonial power through written texts. Within this framework, postcolonialism has been preoccupied with the cultural dynamics of oral and written traditions, which has reinforced a longstanding misunderstanding of both the cultural and--more importantly, in my opinion--the cognitive dynamics of oral and written traditions, and has perpetuated the demonstrably mistaken notion that there are such things as oral and written cultures. In fact, the central institutions of our supposedly written cultures--our courts and churches and parliaments and schools--are arenas of strictly defined and highly formalized oral traditions. And so-called oral cultures are rich in non-syllabic and alphabetic forms of writing such as woven and beaded belts and blankets, knotted and coloured strings, carved and painted trays, canes, chests, hats and masks. So cultural differences have much less to do with the predominance of either oral or written traditions than many postcolonial critics assume.
I propose to shift the focus from speaking and writing to listening and reading, and to undertake a reevaluation of the role of postcolonialism in addressing some fundamental cognitive as well as cultural questions about how we read and listen to texts, and whether our practices are common across cultures.


Ted Chamberlin