Formulation of the claim
Oral narratives produce an entertaining miraculous meaning.
Explanation
Arkoun links the oral mode to a mode of reception based on enjoyment and amazement more than on critical examination. Meaning here does not appear as the result of analytical reading, but as an effect generated by storytelling when it is narrated within a horizon that accepts the miraculous and finds it pleasing.
This meaning stands in contrast to critical textual reading, which weakens the miraculous dimension and drives interpretation toward deconstruction and questioning. The difference between the oral and the critical, therefore, is not a difference in content alone, but in the function of meaning and the way it takes shape.
Its place in the book’s argument
This atom falls within Arkoun’s interest in distinguishing modes of meaning production in the tradition, especially the distinction between what oral narration generates as a miraculous effect and the different possibilities for understanding opened up by the critical approach. It is close to his broader thesis that some forms of circulation keep meaning within the sphere of enjoyment, whereas critical analysis seeks to reveal the mechanisms of formation and operation.
Limits of the claim
This atom should not be taken as a sweeping judgment on all oral narratives or reduced to entertainment alone, nor does it imply that the oral is devoid of significance or historical value. What is meant here is the description of a specific function of meaning as presented by the text.