The main weakness of culture that is transmitted by word-of-mouth is that if the chain breaks in enough places, it could die out for good, unlike culture that can be stored in a medium.
Normally, we think of such threats to oral culture as pressures to assimilate to some other culture, such as a linguistic minority group. Growing up, the young people will pay little attention to the language of their parents, and more to the language of the world they will actually have to make it in. Slowly but surely, the language disappears.
I think, though, that there's a whole 'nother source that drains an oral culture from a community, namely when the members begin cocooning themselves from one another. We never need an outside threat to undo our culture -- we're perfectly capable of undoing it ourselves. Once we stop speaking so often to each other, there it goes.
It may not ever go quite that far -- like, we still speak to others now, but it's much more guarded than it used to be. There's an unspoken understanding not to just let it all hang out anymore. It has to be more canned, superficial, and delivered at an emotional distance. A thriving oral culture requires not being so alert, allowing spontaneity, and letting your guard down, as well as accepting it when others let theirs down. It takes two to tango.
Think of something as simple as telling jokes -- if the other person doesn't trust you or feel like being on the same wavelength as you, they might not respond at all, or give a polite social laugh, signaling that they will not spread the joke on to anyone else. And not because the joke isn't truly funny -- if you heard it from someone, they probably heard it from someone, who heard it from someone, and so on. By the time you hear it, it's passed a survival of the fittest test. For your own inventions, of course, your mileage may vary.
And don't you notice how hardly anyone tells jokes anymore? Let alone within a larger "cycle," like the dead baby jokes, Polack jokes, and blonde jokes of the not-so-distant past. You're allowed to make sarcastic remarks, rant about what pisses you off, etc., but you can't actually participate in the give-and-take of joke-telling in real life these days. I remember one day a few years ago, some of the cashiers at Whole Foods were asking customers to tell them a joke -- any joke -- as though they were begging travelers to share the details of the exotic lands they had only heard about.
Then there's the decline in legend-telling and folksong. Those were some of the first things I noticed when I stumbled onto the cultural effects of a rising vs. falling crime rate. Here are quantitative data on the death of the urban legend culture, and here is a qualitative review of the disappearance of children's subversive rhymes and songs.
There are actually even more telling signs at a more fundamental, phonological level. In a rich oral culture, the participants employ all sorts of devices to make sure that the items will be remembered later on -- they can't just be looked up, re-downloaded, or played back. As predicted by my theory that ornament is for memory, this need for easy recall leads to linguistic ornamentation in the form of repetition (with variation). The most common examples are rhyming (repetition of the sounds in the stressed vowel and everything after), alliteration (repetition of the initial consonants of stressed syllables), and reduplication (repetition of an entire syllable or word).
Right now I'm combing through a dictionary on mostly 20th-century English slang, and will have quant data to relate in a day or so. But in the meantime, try to think of how rare it is for current, commonly used slang to involve rhyming, alliteration, or reduplication. It's there, but just rare -- cockblock, Facebook friend, bling-bling... not a whole lot more.
I read through a book on youth slang as heard from 1972 to 1989, and what a reminder it was! It's hard not to find a page that didn't have some kind of repetition-for-memory device. Pedal to the metal, balls to the walls, space case, take a chill pill, bodacious bod, boom box, Suzie Sorority, stylin' and profilin', fake and bake, and on and on. Even us kids were being as creative as we could -- witness our playground game called smear the queer, and our use of metonymy in names like barf-breath, fart-face, and metal-mouth.
After the early '90s, I can only think of a couple examples, aside from the 2000s-era ones listed above. There was, Ain't no thing but a chicken wing, See ya -- wouldn't wanna be ya, Chillin' like a villain (or like Bob Dylan)... and that's about it. I read through a historical overview of 20th-C slang (organized by decade, not the dictionary mentioned earlier), and didn't come up with anything else either. There's probably a bit more from the '90s that doesn't spring to mind, but in any case way less than from the '80s.
To wrap up this scattershot examination, let's look at pop song titles. They usually are what's repeated the most, whose sounds have to pique our interest before even hearing them, and that afterward stick in our minds the most. Maybe I'll go through the decades more systematically later, but keeping for now to the recent shift, I'll just compare 1984 to 1994.
That's long enough for the decline to have really set in after the late '80s / early '90s, and it isn't even that far-apart of a time-frame. This should show just how fast the signs of a rich oral culture vanished into thin air. Those years are also emblematic of what people think of as '80s and '90s music. And most importantly, it prevents the lame technological argument that this is all due to widespread adoption of the internet and text messaging (which anyway is a free choice, and itself a sign of cocooning). The decline began well before that stuff.
Going to the Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles chart, for 1994 we find 4 titles with repetition: Any Time Any Place, Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm, Cantaloop (Flip Fantasia), Gin and Juice.
Turning to the good ol' days of 1984, we find 12 titles: Say Say Say, Karma Chameleon, Dancing in the Dark, Time After Time, Hard Habit to Break, Caribbean Queen, Sad Songs (Say So Much), Miss Me Blind, Dance Hall Days, Round and Round, Head Over Heels, New Moon on Monday.
Have things gotten better since 1994? No, there are only 5 titles from the 2011 year-end charts: We R Who We R, Tonight Tonight, 6 Foot 7 Foot, Barefoot Blue Jean Night, God Gave Me You.
This has only scratched the surface, but you see what I mean, jellybean. I'll have more quantitative and in-depth posts up later -- at least that's the plan, Stan. Till then, see you later, alligator.
60s-80s culture always treated nerds with contempt. I used to think that was unfair, but now I see how power-mad and deranged many of them are.
ReplyDeleteDo you have a greatest hits? The blog is interesting, wrong in places, but I'd be interested in what you consider the most representative posts. thanks
ReplyDeleteThe nerds who are in a position to act on their power-madness and derangement today were the young nerds treated with contempt by 60s-80s culture. Perhaps it was unwise to create so much resentment.
ReplyDelete"The nerds who are in a position to act on their power-madness and derangement today were the young nerds treated with contempt by 60s-80s culture. Perhaps it was unwise to create so much resentment."
ReplyDeleteI don't think their resentment was caused by the contempt, though.
many seem to have in-born psychological problems. Furthermore, by definition a nerd is physically unattractive, so that obviously tends to cause resentment.
In 1959, Alfred Hitchcock made the movie "Psycho". It was, at first, hated by film critics. During the 30s-50s, and especially during the 50s, nerd types tended to be lionized. Yet Hitchcock threw down the gauntlet and pointed out the obvious - many nerds are, well, psychotic. Of course, this is taken as common sense nowadays(though the media is trying to change that), but at the tail end of the Silent Generation falling crime period, it was revolutionary.
Interestingly, "Psycho" had become a "classic" by the end of the 60s, as the crime rate rose more and more.
Agnostic, I have a question: do you believe the crime rate will begin to rise in 2020?
ReplyDelete"Do you have a greatest hits?"
ReplyDeleteNot now, although it's something I've thought about for the summer. Also tagging my back posts for recurring topics.
"do you believe the crime rate will begin to rise in 2020?"
The last falling-crime period was 1934 through 1958, or 25 years. If this period lasts for roughly the same length, then 25 years after the 1992 peak would be 2017.
Of course I don't expect it down to the year, but I'd say the '20s could be another rising phase. A lot depends on the age pyramid. It's been moving in a more youthful direction over the past decade, though nothing very steep.
That's compatible with the prediction for a more youth-driven population by the '20s, and the rising crime rates that would result.
Pump and dump, fuck and chuck, hit and quit--how recent are these? I see they all have urban dictionary entries (2007, 2003, and 2007, respectively), but I'm not familiar with an online source of phrase etymology.
ReplyDeleteAbout nerds and "power-madness"
ReplyDeleteMy ideia is that "abstract intelectuals"/"schizoids"/"schyzotymes"/etc. (concepts that probably have a big overlap with "nerds") tend to fall in the extremes of power-madness scale.
For one side, because they prefer theory to practice, reflection to action, fantasy to reality, abstract to concrete, etc., they usually have low interest in acting in the world, and because that they are very laid-back and permissive (develop ideas in enough for them; they don't care much if their ideas are implemented); but, if they have enough drive to try to put their ideas in practice, they can easily fall in the opposite extreme - "the idealist with a machine-gun" who (exactly because he gives more importance to ideas that to reality) does not stop at nothing to realize his "vision" and is ready to destroy the present reality (including, if needed, the real living persons) to build his idealized future.
"For one side, because they prefer theory to practice, reflection to action, fantasy to reality, abstract to concrete, etc., they usually have low interest in acting in the world, and because that they are very laid-back and permissive (develop ideas in enough for them; they don't care much if their ideas are implemented); but, if they have enough drive to try to put their ideas in practice, they can easily fall in the opposite extreme - "the idealist with a machine-gun" who (exactly because he gives more importance to ideas that to reality) does not stop at nothing to realize his "vision" and is ready to destroy the present reality (including, if needed, the real living persons) to build his idealized future."
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't necessarily say that. Intellectual ability doesn't necessarily mean you're out of touch with reality - that's more a product of cocooning. Conversely, there are more than a few "practical" people who are dumb as bricks and consistently make bad decisions.
"Intellectual ability doesn't necessarily mean you're out of touch with reality"
ReplyDeleteI was not talking much about "intellectual ability" (="intelligence"="being good at solving intellectual problems") but more of "intellectual preference"(="intellectualism"="liking to solve intellectual problems"); probably there is a strong overlap between the two, but are not exactly the same thing. And I maintain my theory that "preference for intellectual activities" is connected (perhaps almost by definition?) with a preference by the "world of ideas" over concrete reality.
«there are more than a few "practical" people who are dumb as bricks and consistently make bad decisions»
I suspect that, in most cases, bad decision by "practical" people are the result of they being to much in touch with reality, creating difficulties in things like imagining alternative scenarios or predicting long-term effects; in contrast, bad decisions by "intellectual" people are more the result of being out of touch of the reality, like believing in an idea even if the available empirical evidence say that the idea is wrong.
"especially during the 50s, nerd types tended to be lionized"
ReplyDeleteThey were? For what I read, one of the weakest points of Adlai Stevenson in the elections of 1952 and 1956 was, exactly, his reputation of an "egghead".
And, looking for the famous films of the 50s, my impressions is that "nerdy"/"intellectual" characters were largely absent, at least in male roles (the female librarian or schoolteacher was a regular stock character) - if anything is in the 60s that more "intellectual" characters begin to have a relevant (even if a bit morally ambiguous) role (for example, "Professor Higgins" of "My Fair Lady", "Thomas Moore" in "A Man for All Seasons" or even, in a certain way, "Lawrence of Arabia").
But, returning to the original point of the post, in many ways the modern interactive on-line (and SMS) written culture can't be a replacement of "oral culture"? After all, what I think that are the main points of oral culture (small interactive communications between individuals, instead of big unilateral communication from one individual to the "masses", like in books or TV shows) are also typical of online communication; of course there is a difference in the "they can't just be looked up, re-downloaded, or played back" point
ReplyDelete"They were? For what I read, one of the weakest points of Adlai Stevenson in the elections of 1952 and 1956 was, exactly, his reputation of an "egghead".
ReplyDeleteMovies like "Its a wonderful Life" and "Man in the Gray Flannel Suit" celebrated repressed, homely men. Additionally, many of the '50s heros were engineers, scientists, etc.
""intellectual" characters begin to have a relevant"
ReplyDeleteWell, being intellectual is not the same thing as being a nerd. Nerds are repressed, asocial, and sexually unattractive. Professor Higgins, Laurence, and Thomas Moore were all risk-taking, dyanmic characters. They were also portrayed as sexually attractive(well, maybe not Thomas Moore).
"Of course I don't expect it down to the year, but I'd say the '20s could be another rising phase. A lot depends on the age pyramid. It's been moving in a more youthful direction over the past decade, though nothing very steep."
ReplyDeleteIs it really connected to demographics, though? In the past, you've argued that the onset of cocooning, and the opposite coming out, seem to be inborn evolutionary mechanisms - just as geese know when to migrate by the weather, humans can sense when crime has gotten too high, or too low.