Conquest of the Illiterate

Todorov's thesis roughly states that literate societies with an alphabetic language have more power to dominate than societies based on an oral language, as evidenced in Cortes's conquest of the Aztecs. He develops his thesis by explaining how an advance knowledge/familiarity with the abstractions involved in a written language and the ability to manipulate new symbols as the opportunity arises, directly led to Cortes's ability to dominate Monteczuma. He says that these aids stem from the fact that Cortes emerged, well-read, from a literate society where Monteczuma existed all his life in an oral-based society, slow to part with tradition, virtually incapable of grasping a new culture with different values.

For Walter Ong, a language theorist, Monteczuma is only capable of the traditional, conventional thinking of an oral society: He is incapable of organization, analysis, and identification of individuality, separate from the group. For Ong, Monteczuma is from a society which implements situational thinking - problem solving on a case-by-case, everyday basis. He is incapable of reaching beyond the everyday situation and specific example.

Monteczuma believes that everything that will happen has happened before, So it becomes a complicated puzzle for him to deal with the Spaniards, a foreign issue with no clear set of directives. For the first time in his life, he is completely without an answer or plan of action.

Jack Goody, another language theorist, describes Monteczuma's thinking through his discussion of oral-based societies versus literate societies; re-describing oral cultures as closed and literate ones as open. For Goody, Monteczuma's thinking is wrapped up in a magical view of words. In an oral society, where words are not abstracted as things on a paper, words - especially names - are powerful and come alive. Thinking this way makes it nearly impossible to separate concepts clearly, analyze, and organize. Goody and Ong say very much the same thing here: There's an inability to self-analyze in oral societies because the societies lack the ability to objectify themselves and essentially destroy situational thinking to look beyond at the general concepts behind each situation.

Goody also points out that oral based societies view traditional beliefs and established views with a protective attitude: In order to maintain stability, the society must rely on tradition, the cultural history orally transmitted through mnemonic patterns throughout generations. The society can not question the time-honored beliefs. This foundation makes it impossible for Monteczuma to decide how to take action against the Spaniards. From their very arrival, he is thrown into a struggle between the protective attitude of his society for relying on the past and the imminent issue of the foreign arrivals & a new situation all together.

When the language theorists apply the same views to Cortes's situation, their theories appear supported by this case.

Cortes, well steeped in literacy, well-versed in rhetoric and logic, is from a society that thinks categorically, people in the society have the ability to grasp complex logical connections. The language theorists say this is because the acquisition of an alphabetic writing system changed the cognitive structure of human beings through its abstract nature. The separation of the words from speech and sound, the rigid capturing of the sentiments on a paper medium, makes it more possible to re-examine thoughts, history, observe these things from alternative points of view, conceive of multiple answers to the same problems. There is objectivity in the written language that allows for thinking that goes beyond the specific situation and specific person(s), and grasps at more universal concepts.

Where regulated, memorized speech was rewarded in the Aztec society, Extemporaneous; persuasive speech was rewarded in Spanish society. This gives Cortes more possible solutions, more of an ability to think on his feet than Monteczuma has.

Ultimately, these differences between the societies the two leaders emerged from, are the key elements to determining which person would dominate over the other, according to Todorov & language theorists. For Todorov, the ability of a literate person to manipulate signs to their advantage will regularly enable them to dominate a person from an oral society, married to tradition and convention. To substantiate this, Todorov assesses the ability of each leader to manipulate and understand signs and compares their relative success or failure to illustrate his point.

He explains Monteczuma's dilemma from the beginning to deal with an unprecedented situation. When Monteczuma received information from informants and the news was unfavorable, he had the messenger executed. When Cortes, on the other hand, received any information at all, he handsomely rewarded the messenger. In this case, Monteczuma fails to manipulate the situation to his advantage where Cortes succeeds: Monteczuma discourages all new information, causing all potential informants to fear his interpretation and thus not be forthcoming, Cortes encourages a flood of useful information.

Monteczuma desires that the Spaniards just leave the Aztec land all together. To achieve this, he offers women and gold to the greedy Spaniards, in pursuit of more women and gold. This only serves to encourage the Spaniards. When Monteczuma stages a scene of horror for the Spanish soldiers, where they see their comrades dismembered, cooked and eaten, instead of being frightened away, the Spaniards are filled with a new determination to defeat the threatening savages. Monteczuma, incapable of conceiving of a people so foreign, cannot know in advance what it will take to make the visitors leave, and has cut himself off from the possibility of having that communicated to him.

However, Cortes is able to both think on his feet and collect information about the natives enough to control the situation to his benefit. His manipulation of the native's religion - Especially how he capitalizes on their myth of a fair-skinned Quetzalcoatl returning to them via the sea - Is a superb example of a person with fine ability to direct signs to their advantage. Cortes learns enough of their supernatural beliefs to work out a niche where he can control them by appealing to their religious beliefs.

Cortes's key tactics are manipulation and dissimulation - at all points, he is conscious of his appearance and effect on others and actively seeks to control the signs to his benefit.

In this comparison, Todorov claims to show how the backgrounds these men emerged from pre-determined the outcome of their social interaction and struggle for dominance.

In evaluating Todorov, it's clear he stakes a case for why the societies and values and ways of thinking these men emerged from shaped their abilities respectively to dominate, and the language theorists back this instance up with their theories. However, it seems like it would be a valuable enterprise to examine other conquests or clashes between literate and oral societies and see if the theory holds true for other societies. Todorov, at least as much as has been spoon-fed to us by you, stakes his claim yet only uses one historical example. There are many factors that influenced Cortes's ability to dominate Monteczuma, and until more evidence is put forth that the best explanation is the languages used in the men's cultures… I just don't buy it. I don't think the cognitive ability to deal with new situations stems solely from being raised in a society with an alphabetic language - I think to reduce it to that is over-simplifying a myriad of other possibilities.

It seems that guns, germs and steel contribute far more than the success of a people to dominate another historically. However, until another situation is analyzed, one can only really supposize.

Casting more doubt on Todorov's theory, If Cortes had not led the Spaniards, would they have been successful at all? If Cortes had not fortuned upon La Malinche, a woman so grounded in Aztec tradition and eager to betray her own people to help him, would he have had the success he did? To me, it does not seem conclusive that the outcome of these two men's clashing necessarily happened the way it did. I think it is a great error to assume that events in history have been inevitable. Given different circumstances, I see this could have gone very differently, in ways that have little to do with language specifically.

Lastly, I am offended by the way in which the term "Dominate" is used throughout the Todorov we have been exposed to, as well as the snippets of language theorists' works. To begin with, I don't think domination is a clear-cut relationship with a victor and a loser. All the texts we have been given exposure to treat domination as the desirable end, and this is not a value I hold. That people who spend their whole lives training themselves to be terrorists of others will dominate over a people who spend their lives training themselves to be compassionate and trusting towards others may be so… however, I'd rather live in a society that wasn't so disgustingly driven to competition, objectification of others, and the anhiliation of all imagined competitors. To me, living in such a way is no success at all. Someone with a gun may be able to brutalize me - someone who will never own a gun - However, in my mind that hardly renders them the more enviable human being.