ONG, in conclusion

"Writing introduces division and alienation, but a higher unity as well. It intensifies the sense of self and fosters more conscious interaction between persons. Writing is consciousness raising" (Ong 175).

In the final chapter of Orality and Literacy Walter Ong efficiently summarizes the arguments made previously in the text, and also uses that information to delineate between the modern schools of thought in regards to "the word".

Throughout his book Ong has explored the ways in which Orality has influenced literacy; and in his final chapter he informs the reader of the timing and various degrees this has occurred in literary history. His evidence lies in written texts, and the various degrees to which those texts reflect the orality of the culture at that time. He asserts that most writers during the medieval era "continued the classical practice of writing their literary works to be read aloud", based upon their "always rhetorical style as well as the nature of plot and characterization" (154-5). He states that oral residue lingers in the literature of the Renaissance to a large degree, and does not see a true decline until the age of Romanticism in the late 18th century. The most effective way to summarize this shift in authorial thought, is that writers in the lingering oral culture wrote for an audience (i.e. they meant for their work to be read aloud), while writers of the literary tradition write for an objectified hypotheses. 

As a student of literature, I found the the discussion of texts as isolated objects to be the most engaging section of this chapter. I have had several classes that have debated the extent to which authorial intent should be considered while conducting literary analysis, and it seems to be a highly controversial issue. According to the prevailing modern school of New Criticism, texts should be considered as separate entities from their authors, or "verbal icons" (157).  In a similar vein of thought, the school of Russian Formalism tends to "minimize or eliminate from criticism any concern with the poem's 'message', 'sources', 'history', or relationship to the biography of its author" (158). This is where oral and literate cultures differ, orators do not have the luxury of isolating themselves from their work. I personally enjoy studying texts in an iconic fashion, it tends to simplify the process when one needs to make an argument in the academic environment. However, I do recognize that this is not always possible, and many texts cannot be understood outside of their time period without some background knowledge. But regardless of thoughts on authorial intent, there is no denying that orality continues to influence interiorized thought, in its various forms. 

No matter how far we progress into the typographic world, there will always be some lingering oral residue. Orality and literacy are not separate from each other, but two parts that form a whole. As father Ong concludes in his book,

"Orality-literacy dynamics enter integrally into the modern evolution of consciousness toward both greater interiorization and greater openness" (176).