I Have a Dream of Holding on to the Dynamic Qualities of Interpersonal Communication

Legend has it that three quarters of the way through delivering his “I Have a Dream” speech, Martin Luther King decided to move away from the written text of his speech in order to speak from his heart.  Some people consider it ironic that the twenty-five percent of the speech that is most often quoted, and that is most often remembered and taught in history classes is the section that King delivered from his heart and not from the written text. But should we consider it ironic? Should we scoff at the idea that King’s written portion of the speech, although perhaps more rhetorically polished than the last quarter of the speech, was more removed from King’s heart-felt experience, and therefore, is not as easily memorable and recognizable to us today some forty-eight years after its utterance? Fast forward to 2011, and a similar question arises with respect to computer mediated communication. Should we be shocked that a good number of people, myself included, find that communicating in written text online is more removed from the actual face-to-face experience, and therefore does not have the same impact as communicating orally with someone face-to-face?  This question can be framed within the issue of orality as CMC moves our post-modern culture away from oral discourse and toward a more linear, and much more removed written discourse much in the same way as occurred in ancient Greek society when rhetoric moved Greek culture from a highly oral culture to a written culture. Although we should not be shocked by this movement--as it is a natural metamorphosis that occurs whenever oral communication transforms into written communication—we should take note that CMC is helping to make interpersonal communication less oral and more literate.

            Plato was one of the first philosophers to illustrate what he considered to be the dangers of moving from an oral culture to a literate culture. Although Plato was not against written discourse, in his 4^th century dialogue The Phaedrus, Plato—through the mouth of Socrates—warns that “even the best of writings are but a reminiscence of what we know” (Jowett translation, p.95), and are somewhat removed from the oral traditions which we find in our “own bosom” (p.95).  Here we see Socrates providing a caveat against the “novelty” of 4^th century written discourse and its perceived lack of engagement relative to what Raymond (1980) calls the “thrust and parry” of the more ancient oral dialectic (p. 60).   As Greek culture became less reliant on oral discourse and more so on written discourse, it is certain that Plato missed the nonverbals of oral discourse—its paralanguage, kinesics, affect displays, and haptics—as well as the oral mnemonic devices woven into the fabric of pre-literate, oral discourse that gave oral discourse its poetic beauty, it’s rhythm, and its heart.  Oral discourse, as illustrated by Dr. King’s moment of clarity in 1963, is from the heart. Written discourse is from the brain.

            In  Orality and Literacy (1982), Walter Ong sheds some theoretical light on Plato’s preference for the spoken word.  Ong (1982) notes that oral utterances exude a dynamic quality and a power deriving from their closeness to the “gut”of living organisms. Ong is particularly on to something here. When we reflect on oral utterances, we can see how closely related they are to actual experiences. Human babies become hungry, and so they cry. When my dog Max gets his claws clipped during a grooming session, the clipping hurts him, so he yelps. When my school’s football team wins a big game, we vociferously and enthusiastically cheer. In short, the oral utterance is closer to the gut, and to the heart of the experience than its written counterpart. It is perhaps this insight that is at the heart of Plato’s rejoinder.

            So here we are in 2011, in the midst of another cultural metamorphosis. Interpersonal communication is in a state of crisis, and by crisis, I mean “flux,” or “change.”  Crisis is not always bad. Crisis forces us to take stock of what is important, and to make some clear decisions about our future. The change that is happening in our culture is that CMC is reorienting how we do interpersonal communication. Face-to-face conversations are being replaced by texts, online chats, and discussion board posts. The question is not if CMC is going to replace face-to-face interpersonal communication or even if face-to-face interpersonal communication is better than CMC. The question is how we are going to react to the change, and how interpersonal communication is going to look after the change. Anderson and Rainie (2008) argue that by 2020 the evolution of user interfaces will have progressed to the point where our computer devices and cell phones will possess “subvocal” inputs that detect “almost speech,” a kind of verbal-nonverbal state of limbo that will supposedly positively impact the need for the dynamic quality of oral communication (p.14). Anderson and Rainie also predict technology that will be able to track desires by the movement of one’s eyeballs (p. 15). I have reflected in previous posts and papers my proclivity and preference for the “closer-to-the-heart” experience of oral, face-to-face interpersonal communication.  Perhaps in a former life I was a pre-literate member of a community that relied on bards and rhapsodes to help us remember the oral history of our community.

It is clear that interpersonal communication is moving from a more oral phenomenon to a more literate and computer-enhanced phenomenon. As we move into this new era, it is my hope that the technology does not abrogate the dynamic, gut-level, “closer-to-the-heart” qualities of oral discourse that prompted Martin Luther King to throw down his notes, and give one of the most inspiring, thought provoking, moving, and history-changing discourses in our country’s history.

References

Anderson, J. Q., & Rainie, L. (2008, December 14). The future of the internet
     III. Retrieved November 7, 2011, from Pew Internet and American Life
     Project website: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2008/
     The-Future-of-the-Internet-III.aspx.

Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. New
     York, NY: Methuen.

Plato. (360 B.C.E.). Phaedrus [Translated by Benjamin Jowett]. Retrieved
     November 7, 2011, from http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/phaedrus.html.

Raymond, J. C. (1980). Media transforming media: Implications of Walter Ong's
     stages of literacy. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 10(2), 56-61.