American Folklore Society

“Folklorists in the United States and the World Beyond”¹

Barbro Klein
AFS Executive Board Member

Folklorists in the United States² have long acknowledged the global dimensions of their discipline and have demonstrated — often more forcefully than colleagues elsewhere — a commitment to dialogues across national, political, linguistic, and ethnic borders. Americans do fieldwork outside their own country to an extent that folklorists elsewhere could only dream of, and great numbers of foreign students have been educated in folklore departments in the United States. Indeed, North American folkloristics is partially shaped by scholars born and educated abroad and more folkloristic research traditions are represented in the United States than in any other single country.

At the same time, folklorists in the United States do not always take the world outside their own continent seriously. Other countries are seen as sources of American ethnic groups but not as living political and cultural entities. Although American scholars are polite toward foreign colleagues, they are also frequently reserved. What foreign colleagues represent is not always seen as something that has bearing upon daily concerns at American universities, museums, and other places of work. By the same token, many folklorists in the United States say that they are isolated and poorly informed about folklore and folklore research outside their own continent. They want to reach out, but are uncertain of how to do it. Sometimes the best intentions come forth as insensitive or condescending.³

On the following pages, I will address aspects of the relationship between American folklorists and folkloristics and the world outside, outlining some of the communicative problems and suggesting ways to improve communications. I am writing not only as a member of the AFS Executive Board but also as a returned emigrant. An Indiana Ph.D. (1970), I lived in the United States for 22 years. Since 1984, I have taught ethnology in my home country, Sweden, often working with colleagues from other parts of the world. Like many other migrants, I have switched understandings and loyalties several times. After many years in the United States, I began to regard life in America as richer and more diversified than life elsewhere. Now, after more than 10 years in Sweden, my point of orientation has changed. It is essentially North European, and it is from this perspective that I am writing about the ways in which American folklore scholars interact with the rest of the world.

Expectations, Cultural Constructs, National Concerns,
and International Responsibilities

Many of the obstacles to an open dialogue between folklorists in the United States and their foreign colleagues lie in American expectations about the rest of the world. Some of these expectations are rooted in the distinctions that intellectuals draw between everyday life and scholarly life. They often take it for granted that everyday life in foreign lands must be exotic and different while academic life conforms to a transnational intellectual discourse that is essentially the same all over the globe. In addition, American scholars tend to expect others to be interested in the same theoretical issues that they are and to expect others to debate them the way they are debated in the United States. Essentially, foreign scholarship is good only when it resembles American scholarship. Few American folklorists have heeded Henry Glassie’s observation in his presidential address a few years ago that “this world is one of peasants” and that many folklorists in Asia and Africa wish to concentrate on investigating the arts and traditions of the large peasant groups in their own countries. Despite their best insights, American folklorists often take it for granted that other scholars around the globe are moving in the same direction as they are.

Another expectation among American folklorists is that foreign scholarship ought to deliver advanced theoretical insights, if it is to be worth their while at all. “Europe,” for example, is the home of such thinkers as Pierre Bourdieu, Michel Foucault, Julia Kristeva, and others who are currently important in a number of disciplines. Therefore, American scholars sometimes assume that “European” folklorists have integrated the perspectives of such thinkers into their scholarship more profoundly than Americans have. When it is discovered that this is not always the case, the works of the “European” colleagues are written off. Indeed, American folklorists often express disappointment with the level of scholarship outside their own continent and conclude that they do not really need to consider it. Consequently, there is little genuine interest in learning what goes on elsewhere and little motivation to listen to what people are actually saying, sometimes in poor English.

One result of such expectations and attitudes is that American folklorists often do not understand the relevance of the issues that are raised abroad to their own scholarship. Take, for example, the North and Central European debates during the 1960s and 1970s on the concept of the “folk.” That German folklorists had their own political reasons to come to terms with this concept, is by now well-known in the United States. However, it is less well known that similar debates took place also in other European countries. Recognizing the class-bias, the moralism and the spiritualism of the concept of the folk (Anttonen 36), Swedish scholars, for example, renamed its “folk” field at this time and created “ethnology” (etnologi).⁴ Actually, North and Central European scholars often find it curious that American folklore researchers persist in utilizing the concept of the “folk,” despite their apparent unease with it. What political ends does the term continue to serve in the United States?

With this we touch upon the problems that folklorists everywhere have in acknowledging the extent to which their fields are cultural constructs. Most have a tendency to generalize from their own experiences. My Swedish colleagues speak about “ethnology” when, in fact, they mean a very particular brand of it: “Swedish ethnology.” Likewise, North American folklorists write “folklore study” when, in fact, they mean “American folklore study.” For example, with a couple of exceptions, the articles in the important anthology Theorizing Folklore: Toward New Perspectives on the Politics of Culture (Briggs and Shuman) hardly mention the world outside the United States more than in such general terms as “global” or “transnational” systems. Nor is there a hint that the folkloristic developments in the United States (in particular the blending of the concept of performance with an emphasis on aesthetics and public sector work) have no real counterparts elsewhere. “Theorizing folklore” unabashedly means “theorizing American folklore.”

A related question is one that currently concerns a number of folklorists from disparate parts of the world. I am referring to the ways in which folkloristics has contributed to the creation of national symbols and national identities. Although this discussion is carried on also in the United States, there is a difference, namely that many American folklorists take it for granted that today such uses of folklore are rampant everywhere else but in their own country. With some exceptions (cf. Abrahams 1993), relatively little is said about the ways in which folklore and folklore studies in recent American history have been used to construct national or regional symbols, not least through public sector work. Even if, as Jay Mechling (272) notes, U.S. scholars emphasize that the population is fragmented and essentially divided, to outsiders Americans share an awful lot. To North Europeans it is astonishing that folklorists in the United States so seldom write about the ways in which their own debates and concerns play into the arenas on which national symbols are created.

There is nothing inherently problematic about the development of different scholarly profiles in different countries and cultural settings. On the contrary, it is essential for a discipline to develop diverse traditions and allow these to negotiate with one another. However, Americans appear to have an even harder time seeing their own scholarly products as cultural constructs than many others. Despite their best intentions, North Americans are part of a powerful system and tend to think hegemonically, sometimes myopically so.

This myopic Amerocentrism is often quite unreflected. At other times, it appears rooted in a conviction that North American folklore study is so interesting that there is little need to fetch inspiration elsewhere. Whatever the reason, the fact is that extremely few North Americans attend the meetings of international folklore societies. For example, the program of the SIEF (the International Society of Ethnology and Folklore) meetings in Vienna in September 1994 lists no speaker from the United States and two from Canada (Robert Klymasz and Gerald Pocius). This cannot be due to a lack of information as the AFS Newsletter and other American publications specifically mentioned this event. The North American showing was somewhat better when the same Society met in Bergen, Norway, a few years ago. At that time, however, several Americans expressed surprise at what they deemed a “low level” of discussions. There are many problems with the SIEF, not least its Eurocentrism. Despite the word “international,” the Society has long refused to admit delegates from Africa, Asia, and Latin America as full status members. However, problems of this nature should not frighten away North Americans. On the contrary, American participation is crucial, if folklorists are ever to engage in debates that will expose injustices and the unequal distribution of scholarly power. Do not well-known American scholars have a responsibility to participate in such debates?

It is not acceptable that American folklorists build walls against the world around them by refusing to travel to international meetings. None of us will redress injustices in our own part of the world by ignoring those that exist elsewhere.

Suggestions

Let me now list a few ideas — important issues as well as practical details — that might serve to improve communications and allow folklorists to benefit, more easily than now, from the strengths that exist everywhere.

Meetings and Panels

The AFS Board should urge its members, much more forcefully than it does now, not only to attend the meetings of international folklore societies but also to get involved in the work of these societies. The Board should also urge Americans to attend “foreign” panels at AFS meetings and to ask questions and initiate discussions. The program committee (Margaret Mills and John Roberts) preparing the Eugene meetings did an excellent job of placing American discussants on “foreign” panels and vice versa. Let us continue doing this systematically. Let us arrange many more panels that will make it possible to compare issues and debate them. We need to create meeting atmospheres that would make it possible for us to go beyond surface cordiality and begin debating difficult questions. That this is possible but takes a great deal of patience is demonstrated by the Folklore Fellows’ Summer School which took place in Finland in 1991 and 1993 and is scheduled for one more session during two weeks in the summer of 1995.

We should also think about ways to arrange special workshops and smaller meetings on important issues. It is not difficult to find themes. “Theorizing folklore on five continents” is one of many possible suggestions.

Mailing Lists, Resource Persons, Letters of Invitation

In order to arrange meetings and panels that encourage international participation, AFS members must be willing to spend effort and money on information. And with this we enter the bothersome topic of mailing lists, resource persons, and letters of invitation. Those who have worked with international mailing lists are familiar with the problems and expenses involved not only in the actual mailings, but in keeping lists accurate and up-to-date. Perhaps one solution is to pay someone to update these lists periodically. Perhaps this person could work together with a few resource persons in different parts of the world.

Indeed, it may not be a bad idea to establish a network of resource persons who could act as liaisons between the AFS and folklorists elsewhere. Such persons (six perhaps) could help to transmit news concerning the AFS within their parts of the world and vice versa. They could also encourage folklorists everywhere to join the AFS. To be sure, a centrally placed person must coordinate all of this, not least when it comes to address lists.

It is crucial that we improve the information that is sent abroad. It seems to me that North American folklorists do not truly realize how little foreign folklorists understand about the AFS. I know of foreign scholars who have attended the AFS several times and think that it is an organization whose main objective is to organize conferences whose fees are miraculously low by international standards. They do not grasp that the AFS is a professional organization whose members receive both the JAF and a high quality newsletter. The AFS must become much better at telling the world about the special American construction that it is. Perhaps this is the time to spend money on an informational letter and an invitation to join the AFS? Perhaps we ought to advertise in international journals?

Furthermore, we must once again think about ways to facilitate the process of joining the AFS. As it is now, it is cumbersome and costly to join from abroad, even apart from the difficulties with currencies. We need to think about this much more creatively than we have so far. Could we make it possible to join via a credit card? Also, we must think of ways to ease the mailing problems. There is, for example, the problem that members residing abroad often receive the Newsletter containing the Annual Meeting Call for Papers too late to plan and negotiate sessions with colleagues elsewhere. Another irritating issue is that foreign members seldom receive their August Newsletter in time to benefit from hotel conference rates. If they are not members, they receive no information about hotels at all, even though they have had papers accepted. I realize that these questions are complicated and I also know that Nancy Painter and others at the AAA membership department have worked hard to iron out problems. Nevertheless, we need to devote attention to all the difficulties that remain.

Publications

A third line of suggestions concerns the flow and accessibility of publications and information about them. In this section I partially go beyond the immediate concerns and responsibilities of the AFS and its Executive Board.

An expansion of the excellent series Folklore Studies in Translation (under the general editorship of Dan Ben-Amos) would be most desirable as would other similar undertakings. Scholars living in English-speaking countries do not always appreciate the worldwide significance of their efforts to translate works from other languages into English. Yet, the translations are important services to all those who can read English but no other international language.

On the matter of publications, I would also like to mention the need for updated lists of the important journals and publications that appear in English in different parts of the world. I realize that institutions and libraries provide such services and that a number of listings are available via the electronic networks. However, such lists ought to be available also to the many scholars in the world who do not have access to such networks. It is also desirable that these lists contain critical assessments of publications. Perhaps such lists could be compiled by liaison persons in a few countries and be published in the JAF or the AFS Newsletter?

A third need in the publication area is accessible, preferably annotated, lists of Ph.D. dissertations produced in the United States and elsewhere. Many folklorists around the world have no idea of the number and variety of folklore dissertations produced in the United States. Nor do they know how to get hold of them. A critical survey of such materials, perhaps published periodically in the JAF, would be an excellent service. Similarly, there is a need for information on dissertations produced outside the United States. Although a number of bibliographies exist or are being compiled, I am now speaking about briefly annotated lists that could be distributed with speed and ease. After all, dissertations constitute excellent gauges of the general development of a field. Perhaps we can identify resource persons around the world who could devote themselves to tasks of this sort?

Finally, on the matter of publication and information, what is needed is not merely information, but new attitudes toward it. Not only the Executive Board of the AFS but also all the members of the Society are responsible for raising the awareness of the importance of international information.⁵ Contemporary world events, including gigantic migrations and ever increasing diasporas, are matters of critical importance to folklorists everywhere. Perhaps the time is ripe for an anthology of essays on the importance of folklore in the world of the 1990s. I am speaking about something more analytical than the familiar “Folklore Around the World” format. Perhaps this kind of book could be based on the previously mentioned panels entitled “Theorizing Folklore on Five Continents.”

Seriously Real and Really Serious

It is sometimes said that the notion of internationalism was far more in the forefront in folkloristics in the days when the global diffusion of motifs and types was a main object of study. Whatever the case might have been at one time, many contemporary folklorists all over the globe recognize a need for informed, open, respectful, and tough dialogues across political, national, racial and ethnic borders. It seems to me that if we are to achieve these dialogues, we must make the effort to rethink our premises.

We must learn to start with the assumption that life everywhere is as rich and complex as our own. This is part of what we learn to do when we begin fieldwork. We train ourselves that we must respect our informants, that it is their point of view that counts. This means abandoning stereotypical notions, preconceptions and expectations. We need to do the same thing when it comes to scholars and scholarship elsewhere. This is hard since we are trained to judge and critique the merits of what colleagues have to say. Nevertheless, we must learn to take a more inquisitive and humble view of the work that is done in other countries. This point is particularly apropos for Americans who often take their own leading positions for granted and have little patience with the slower and less forceful demeanor of others.

Broadened perspectives are critically important to our field. Some developments in American folkloristics could be of central importance to the rest of the world, for example, those that concern minority participation and those that have taken place within feminist folkloristics. Conversely, North Americans have a great deal to learn from the current preoccupation in many parts of the world with issues of national construction. Finally, there are a number of issues which folklorists from different parts of the world must face together. One of these is ways to reverse the west-east and north-south flow of fieldwork and folkloristic analyses based on fieldwork. Fieldwork outside one’s own country is now largely an American and, to some extent, a West European enterprise. We must find ways to encourage folklorists from Asia, Africa, Latin-America, and Eastern Europe to conduct fieldwork in North America and Western Europe. Together we must break the givens concerning who studies whom. The American Folklore Society has important responsibilities regarding the directions taken.

Notes

1. This essay was originally prepared for the Executive Board of the American Folklore Society by Board member Barbro Klein. It appeared in the February 1995 AFS Newsletter. [Return to text]

2. Folklorists and folkloristics in the United States are the main focus of this text. “American” refers primarily to the United States; Canada is occasionally named or implicated. [Return to text]

3. One example is the “Sponsorship of Foreign Members” in the brochure “An Invitation to join the American Folklore Society.” Such sponsorship may in itself be a good idea. However, since no other aspect of foreign participation is mentioned, foreigners come forth in this document as objects of charity. [Return to text]

4. Indeed, many Americans might find it interesting (and perhaps instructive) that Sweden switched from “folklife research” to “ethnology” in 1972, the very same year that the University of Pennsylvania adopted the designation “Folklore and Folklife” for its “folk field.” [Return to text]

5. For example, I have the impression that the excellent columns in the AFS Newsletter by Regina Bendix informing on trends in international folkloristics are not read to the extent that they deserve. [Return to text]

Works Cited

Abraham, Roger D. “Phantoms of Romantic Nationalism in Folkloristics.” Journal of American Folklore 106 (1993): 3–37.

Anttonen, Pertti. “Nationalism, Ethnicity, and the Making of Antiquities as a Strategy in Cultural Representation.” Suomen Antropologi 19 (1994): 19–42.

Briggs, Charles, and Amy Shuman, eds. Theorizing Folklore: Toward New Perspectives on the Politics of Culture. (Western Folklore 52, numbers 2,3,4 [1993]: 109–400.)

Mechling, Jay. “On Sharing Folklore and American Identity in a Multicultural Society.” Western Folklore 52 (1993) : 271–290.