More on Walter Ong and Marshall McLuhan

01Jul11

Next year, 2012, is the centenary of the birth of Walter Ong, SJ, distinguished scholar of orality and literacy. Ong was Marshall McLuhan’s one-time student at Saint Louis University (SLU), McLuhan having supervised Ong’s MA thesis on Gerard Manley Hopkins and advised him to study Petrus Ramus for his Harvard PhD dissertation. In this article, Ong scholar Thomas Farrell expands on the relationship between Ong and McLuhan, in the process of explaining Ong’s conception of modernity.

Collage of pictures of Father Walter Ong, SJ

July 1, 2011

Why Americans Should Try to Understand Modernity as Walter Ong Understands It

By Thomas Farrell

Duluth, Minnesota(OpEdNews) June 30, 2011: In The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man (University of Toronto Press, 1962). Marshall McLuhan (1911-1980) borrows the basic thesis about Western cultural history and shifts in communication media that his former graduate student and life-long friend Walter J. Ong, S.J. (1912-2003) works with in Ramus, Method, and the Decay of Dialogue: From the Art of Discourse to the Art of Reason (Harvard University Press, 1958).
But in addition to quoting Ong extensively, McLuhan amplifies Ong’s basic thesis with material of his own choosing. Moreover, McLuhan chooses to present his thought in an experimental way by using boldface captions in different type sizes to signal his various short subsections. Furthermore, he experiments with shifts in tone, perhaps most notably in the captions.

Ong reviewed McLuhan’s 1962 book
in the Jesuit-sponsored magazine America, volume 107, number 24 (September 15, 1962): pages 743, 747. Ong’s review is reprinted in An Ong Reader: Challenges for Further Inquiry, edited by Thomas J. Farrell and Paul A. Soukup (Hampton Press, 2002, pages 307-308), which is the version I will cite here for page references.

Toward the end of his review, Ong says, “If the human community is to retain meaningful possession of the knowledge it is accumulating, breakthroughs to syntheses of a new order are absolutely essential. McLuhan aids one such breakthrough into a new interiority, which will have to include studies of communications not merely as an adjunct or sequel to human knowledge, but as this knowledge’s form and condition. . . . What further syntheses [beyond McLuhan’s] lie ahead remains to be seen. But we shall have to work, as has the author ofThe Gutenberg Galaxy, to open all the sweeping vistas we can” (page 308).

Ong himself worked to open all the sweeping vistas he could in his own subsequent books and articles.

But we might examine certain points that Ong makes in the quoted sentences by imagining some people playing the role of the devil’s advocate and objecting to Ong’s claims.

The devil’s advocate might say, “No, we do not need breakthroughs to syntheses of a new order. So we do not need McLuhan or Ong to come to our aid.”

The devil’s advocate might say, “No, we do not need to retain meaningful possession of the knowledge that we are accumulating. Ong’s use of the term “meaningful possession’ just shows a tendency toward controlling. But we do not need to get our accumulating knowledge under control. We’re free spirits, and we don’t like control.”

The devil’s advocate might say, “No, we do not need to study how shifts in communication media have influenced the form and condition of human knowledge. Who cares how shifts in communication media influence the form and condition of human knowledge? We don’t.”

The devil’s advocate might say, “No, we do not need to open up all the sweeping vistas we can. It is far more fun to study individual trees in the forest than it is to try to study the forest as a whole. We’re tree huggers (aka specialists). We don’t want to see the forest as a whole. We just want to hug our individual trees.”

So McLuhan and Ong came to aid us, but the devil’s advocates among us turned down their aid.

Not that McLuhan and Ong came to aid us in exactly the same ways. To be sure, each man’s thought emerged along a trajectory that was at times parallel to the trajectory of the other man’s thought. Certain important claims made by each man are comparable to claims made by the other. As a result, there is admittedly a certain overlap at times in their respective claims. But there are also differences and divergences. In my estimate, Ong left us a legacy of thought that is far more valuable than the legacy of thought that McLuhan left us. Which is not to say that everything Ong said is perfect.

Read the rest of this lengthy article at: http://tinyurl.com/6fx9pag

  Petrus Ramus

Advertisements


No Responses Yet to “More on Walter Ong and Marshall McLuhan”

  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: