Enchantment by .but lack of charm of the oralist theory

2 Enchantment by .but lack of charm of the oralist theory

We said above that, on analysing bertsolaritza, its oral character is often ignored. We have tried to show how such an approach lacking in rigour results in dysfunctions.

Given the inability of written poetry to describe bertsolaritza, some analysts have tried to see, in the oralist theory, the only valid method for its analysis. By “oralist theory” here, we understand the overall research derived directly or indirectly from Homeric studies. The origin of the theory as such goes back to 1928 when Milman Parry began to publish his studies on Homer.

Party to this oralist theory, more or less in an orthodox manner, there are investigators from the widest range of disciplines, the most outstanding names being Adam Parry, Lord, Notopoulos, Havelock, Ong, Zumthor, Finnegan, amongst others.

Regarding studies of Basque popular literature, it should be pointed out that the most direct and influential reference is, undoubtedly, Walter J. Ong, whose work has been repeatedly quoted and paraphrased by almost all analysts. Next to this main influence and also from the French anthropological tradition, Marcel Jousse enjoys great standing amongst the analysts of Basque popular literature, particularly through Ives Beaupérin, disciple of the great French anthropologist.

The enchantment induced by the oralist theory in the person who, coming from the written tradition, discovers it for the first time is, without doubt, quite understandable. This discovery is also essential and beneficial in that it illustrates for us the existence and the differentiated character of orality.

Beyond this discovery, the orality theory shows itself as an insufficient instrument for investigation, due to several dysfunctions, some of which we can deal with now.
In the first place, and as several authors have shown, the opposition between orality and writing is not so radical as the oralist theorists would have it:

“…the differences between oral and literate expression, although considerable, are not so profound as is widely assumed.(36)

…there is no clear-cut line between oral and written literature, and when one tries to differentiate between them —as has often been attempted— it becomes clear that there are constants overlaps”.(37)

From our research experience into improvised bertsolaritza, we can only endorse the cogency of this viewpoint. Orality and writing are not two mutually exclusive realities, as the oralists would have it, but they live together, at least in modern societies, and in continuous interaction.

The presentation of orality and writing as a black and white duality is seen as inadequate when one subjects an object to concrete study. As Scheunemann pointed out:

The construction — primary orality, written and print culture, secondary orality— takes on an almost biblical configuration. I am afraid, that —apart from the narrow focus of the description of the age of secondary orality— it is precisely this configuration which causes particular weaknesses in the formula.(38)

Apart from this quasi-biblical character of the oralist theory in general, it has to be pointed out that its application to different manifestations of oral literature has been carried out many times without reference to the specificity of each one of these oral manifestations:

So we encounter concepts of orality and literacy which have been worked out in too rigid a fashion and polarized in the form of ideal types which inevitably adds to the despair of everyone who tries to apply the set of categories to any concrete work or area of study. There is also no doubt that the qualities and effects ascribed to the different modes of cultural expression —whether the wisdom of the storyteller in oral cultures or the emergence of individualism and nationalism as a consequence of writing— very often remain global assumptions lacking contextual investigation which might disclose the range of other factors which, along with dominant communicative forms, give shape to cultural study.(39)

Champions giving each other advice Photo: J. Gallego / Source: Ikastolen Elkartea