The Khmer educating orally. Twice.
The Khmer is a group of people most associated with an empire spanning the centuries between 800ad and 1400 ad (for more general historical information on the Angkor civilization click
here and
here, especially ch 8), and with an awful genocide that took place 1975-1979 (a good
TIME article on the Khmer Rouge, and a
paper on Pol Pot). There is a connection between these two besides that they involved the same group of people: in each the majority of the people were kept illiterate by the governing institution and virtually all knowledge was transmitted orally.
Like most ancient feudal societies, the Angkor or Khmer civilization featured a class system. Royalty and nobility had access to better education consisting of reading, writting, politics, etc. The common people were educated in their crafts through demonstration, folk knowledge, and in religion and history through oral tradition. One major teaching aid were the large temples like
Angkor Thom,
Banteay Srei, and
Angkor Wat. These
temples were open to the lay people to come and learn the stories of the Krishna and Mahayana dipicted in murals on the walls. This seems much like the practice of putting the stations of the cross, murals, and stained glass windows in Christian churches. Having a visual connection helps to cement learning. The common people were educated in the basic Hindu or Buddhist beliefs in temples like Angkor Thom. Visual triggers, like seeing images of Apsaras in their village helped them to remember what they had learned orally.
When Pol Pot came to power it was his goal to take Camnodia "back to year zero; purging all intellectuals, businessmen, Buddhists, and foreigners" see the TIME article. In short he eliminated anyone who could be construed as a threat, people who wore
glasses were executed because it was assumed that they could read. The result was an illiterate society. In 1995, almost 20 years after the fall of the Khmer Rouge the
illiteracy rate was reported at 47% for men and 83% for women. Consequently, for several decades the primary modes of communicating knowledge have been oral and folk based. Information about where to go to reach refugee camps was transmitted orally. History, family genealogies,
proverbs, and fairy tales, if preserved at all, were preserved orally. Now, the stories of survivors are passed on as an
oral history, and the history of the Khmer Rouge itself is only spoken of, never written (
see page 3). Almost everyone who had a marketable skill was killed, recently
artisans from Thailand and Vietnam have gone to Cambodia to teach the crafts that were once a mainstay of the economy. This information is transmitted through explanation and demonstration. One that I find particularly meaningful is teaching blind women how to paint silk screens. They are taught almost entirely by explanation and can instruct others by telling them exactly what to do even without the help of visual demonstration.
The Khmer made and interesting study because they reverted back to education primarily by oral transmission. Often, we associate the oral tradition as part of ancient civilizations and not relevant to modern life. It was interesting for me to think about the fact that in times of crisis the safest place for knowledge to be kept is within the individual. Without the preservation of oral tradition, knowledge vital to culture's identity it would be entirely lost. I was frightened to think if we ever reached a similar crisis what of value I could contribute from memory.
The story of the khmer rouge has always been fascinating to me. They actually tried to stay in power by controlling comepletely the knowledge and education of the lower class. If they weren't literate or skilled they would be easy to subjugate and control.
ReplyDeleteActually I have an aunt who is from Cambodia. She and her family escaped in the 70's to the United States during the Genocide. Her story is fascinating. Her father actually was a teacher I think who wore glasses. That was probably the most dangerous situation for anyone so they were forced to run away and traveled through jungles and all that. Sadly, my aunt very rarely talks about it. It was an experience way too traumatic for her, although i guess my uncle and her kids are probably more familiar with the story. So we come to a dilemma where information that we might love to hear, has not been written down and someone is unwilling to talk much orally about it. It's kind of sad.
Interesting fact - when you ask her her age. She doesn't know what to say because when she arrived here in the US she had to give a false birthdate so that she could enter into high school and receive an education. That is how valuable it was to her to be educated.
ReplyDeleteWow. Amazing that the topic is close to you. I think you hit on one of the real values of modern technology in oral history: recording it. People who have lived through traumatic events have a very hard time talking about it. I you can record it when they do, they only have to tell their story once and yet we can be benefited multiple times.
ReplyDeleteWhat an interesting look at the interaction of oral history, written history, politics and literacy. We were talking the other day about how important a political tool access to education can be. It is interesting to consider what happens to a culture when you remove literacy to the extent that the Khmer Rouge did. Mike--how and when did your aunt learn to read?
ReplyDeleteThis begs the question of knowledge institutions in general and how much control they have over what we learn. It is interesting that they were so harsh towards anyone who could read. This shows how important they felt reading etc was to the society.
ReplyDeleteReading and education produces a pathway for individual thought, so it makes sense that they did not want people to learn to read. It would have have presented an opportunity for a revolution from the beginning. However, I'm not saying I agree with taking away people's right to an education and learning to read.
ReplyDeleteI think it is broader than just not wanting them to learn to read or write. Like Misa touched on it is a process of individual thought, but it is also a reservoir of collective thought. When oppressed people learn that it is not that way all over the world they want to change their own situation. The founding Fathers compiled our governmental structure from the information preserved about ancient governments. If you control the flow of information you control what people view as possible. You control what they think. Ex brain washing in Hitlerjugend during WWII; they believed the Nazi dogma because they learned it.
ReplyDeleteControlling knowledge includes not only what you don't let people know but what you choose to have them learn.
This whole discussion reminds me of the book Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury. (*Spoiler Alert*) In it the government is trying to control knowledge by burning all the books. In the end, the main character realizes how awful this really is, and he memorizes a section of the Bible that he saved so it could pass back from the written tradition into his mind and then the oral tradition as he and other refugees share their "books" around a campfire.
ReplyDeleteTo us, the tragedy of losing our written (and now online) tradition would be disastrous, and almost the stuff of imagination (hence the fictional Fahrenheit 451). But this has happened and does happen in our modern world, as your great post points out rather clearly. Governments and militant groups try and take over the institutions of knowledge, and the people have to go back to oral and folk traditions. This is one of the reasons I hope we never under-value memorization of facts and truly understanding general ideas, without having to look them up all the time.
Jake in the other group had a good post on the Mahabharata, the stories portrayed on the great murals I mentioned earlier in the post.
ReplyDelete