>
>Print culture or "writing" literacy is non-authoritarian, non sadistic, only
>so long as it is subordinate to the central human literacy of speaking and
>listening and responding to what one hears. So subordinated, it is a
>powerful tool of freedom.
>
I know this valorization of speaking over writing has a long and
celebrated history in Western thought, but I don't follow the reasoning
here. Speaking and listening can be a tool of freedom or oppression,
just as written communication can. --A simple example: if someone is
being tortured for opposing political authority, it matters not one wit
whether the torture order was given verbally or in writing. And as we
demonstrate in this forum, writing at its best can provoke thoughtful
consideration of different perspectives; at its worst, the words are
blunt tools to inflict ridicule. However, those same possibilities of
language use occur in oral communication! We've all been party to
verbal interactions that are inspiring and others that are literally
oppressive ("you're fired!").
So--why consider oral literacy central or primary?
Miles