On the other hand, the information that ancient scribes wrote needed to be accurate and well expressed. Eventually someone would organize the tales and many were written down. The same basic themes in folktales show up all over the world. People from the area that was visited would change the story a little and insert some of their culture into the folktale. When people traveled around, they would tell their version of the story. They were kept alive because they were so entertaining and people kept retelling them. I was just thinking that many of our old folktales and stories that have survived until the present were handed down by oral tradition. A good example is found in contemporary prisons, where the man or woman who can help others communicate with their loved ones is popular and respected. In these circumstances, those who can write will retain the status of scribe. (Something which was difficult when so many couldn't understand the complex Chinese characters in use at the time.)Īlthough modern society may encourage all members to be able to read and write, those who cannot are still disadvantaged. Similarly, the official Korean language of Hangeul was created in the 15th century, by a very forward thinking ruler who wished to create a literate nation. Some people respond by inventing their own written language, as Chinese women in early 20th century China did with Nushu. The question is, were people actively excluded from learning these skills? When I studied linguistics I learned that historically it has always been the case that more people could speak a language than could write it.Įxcluding certain groups from the world of literacy really means limiting their access to education and knowledge, which is useful in a society where there are clear class or gender divisions. Considering that many of the poorer people in a society were unable to read or write, those who could were automatically given respect and power. Something related to this topic which I find interesting is the status that the first scribes in any culture have. Naturally, there were far more Shudras than Brahmins - in fact, there were less Brahmins than any other caste, and that basically made them rulers by the power of their knowledge. I think it's fascinating how each caste's power and their access to literacy seemed to grow at the same time. Vaishyas, the next caste down, were only allowed to study the texts, not to teach or write them.įinally, the bottom rung, Shudras, were not allowed to study the texts at all - no teaching them, learning to write them, or even learning to read them, because the Shudras' roles in society were to serve the other three castes. The next-highest, the Kshatriyas, could read and scribe the religious texts but not to teach them. The highest caste, Brahmins, were allowed to read, scribe and teach the religious texts. My point about social control is perhaps most clearly illustrated by looking at the Hindu caste system during ancient times: I didn't know about the Chinese language the women invented with Nushu - that's very interesting! In the medieval era, people who could read and write held considerable power over those who could not. June 15, - You've got it absolutely right - literacy was in fact used as a form of social control back before education was mainstream.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |