On the Concepts of Folklore

Elliott Oring

Although the word "folklore" is regularly employed in our everyday speech, its precise definition presents a problem. The term is clearly a compound made up of "folk," implying some group of people, who have something called "lore." In his prefatory essay to The Study of Folklore, the eminent folklorist Alan Dundes attempts to simplify the issue for the introductory student: "'Folk' can refer to any group of people whatsoever who share at least one common factor." The common factor creates a sense of collective identity, so that any population with such a sense could be regarded as a "folk," according to Dundes. This sense of identity can be based upon such salient social factors as ethnicity, occupation, kinship, religious belief, sex, age, or on an almost limitless number of other factors, such as health (e.g., people suffering from heart disease), spatial proximity (e.g., people in the same room), or personal habit (e.g., cigar smokers). Theoretically, the number and kinds of folk groups are limited only by the number and kinds of elements which can serve as the basis for group identities. Since Dundes argues that "folk" can refer to any group based on any factor (rather than a specific group formed on the basis of select factors), it would seem that the term "folk" does not contribute significantly to the definition of "folklore" as a whole (other than suggesting that it characterizes human rather than nonhuman populations). Consequently, the semantic weight of his definition must rest upon the notion of "lore."

Dundes attempts to define "lore" as an itemized list of genres. Even though the list is lengthy, he considers it only a sampling of folklore forms:

Myths, legends, folktales, jokes, proverbs, riddles, chants, charms, blessings, curses, oaths, insults, retorts, taunts, teases, toasts, tongue-twisters, and greeting and leave-taking formulas (e.g., See you later, alligator). It also includes folk costume, folk dance, folk drama (and mime), folk art, folk belief (or superstition), folk medicine, folk instrumental music (e.g., fiddle tunes), folksongs (e.g., lullabies, ballads), folk speech (e.g., slang), folk similies (e.g., as blind as a bat), folk metaphors (e.g., to paint the town red), and names (e.g., nicknames and place names). Folk poetry ranges from oral epics to autograph-book verse, epitaphs, latrinalia (writings on the walls of public bathrooms), limericks, ball-bouncing rhymes, jump-rope rhymes, finger and toe rhymes, dandling rhymes (to bounce the children on the knee), counting-out rhymes (to determine who will be "it" in games), and nursery rhymes. The list of folklore fonns also contains games; gestures; symbols; prayers (e.g., graces); practical jokes; folk etymologies; food recipes; quilt and embroidery designs; house, barn and fence types; street vendors' cries; and even the traditional conventional sounds used to summon animals or to give them commands. There are such minor forms as mnemonic devices (e.g., the name Roy G. Biv to remember the colors of the spectrum in order), envelope sealers (e.g., SWAK — Sealed With A Kiss), and the traditional comments made after body emissions (e.g., after burps or sneezes). There are such major forms as festivals and special day (or holiday) customs (e.g., Christmas, Halloween, and birthday).

This list is exceedingly useful in providing the novice with a sense of what folklorists document and study. Included are forms that the beginning student undoubtedly expects to find (e.g., myths, legends, folktales, folksongs, and superstitions), as well as some that perhaps appear as something of a surprise (e.g., fence types, envelope sealers, latrinalia, epitaphs, and practical jokes). In any event, it is important to recognize that this list in no way defines "lore." For a list to do so, the items included must be clearly defined (which they are not) and the list must be complete (which it is not). Dundes himself acknowledges that the terms are not well defined and that his list is not comprehensive. Even if one could define each genre on the list, an incomplete list would still remain unacceptable as a definition. How would we go about deciding whether something not on the list were "lore" or not? For example, is a barn decoration or a football cheer a kind of lore? Barn types and quilt designs are mentioned, but not barn decorations. Taunts, rhymes, and games are mentioned, but a football cheer only accompanies a game, and if it were neither a taunt nor in poetic form, how would we decide?

Perhaps the list is meant only to provide examples of lore, and only a common denominator for the numerous items need be identified to formulate an adequate definition. Then it should be relatively easy to decide whether any particular form (including barn decorations and football cheers) is or is not "lore". In theory. this approach could work; however, it is no easy matter to identify this common factor. Not only must this denominator adequately characterize all the items on the list, but it should not characterize any significant items omitted from the list. For example, it might be argued that all the items on the list are products of human invention and creativity. But so, too, are law, agriculture, marriage, and the parliamentary system. If "products of human invention" is indeed the informing principle of the list, we should certainly expect these items to be given precedence over tongue twisters and practical jokes. So it is not sufficient to find merely a common denominator; it is necessary to find a common denominator which is peculiar to the items on this list and which does not require the admission of glaring omissions or oversights.

Readers are encouraged to search for a principle in Dundes's list, but it is unlikely that they will find one that meets both qualifications for an adequate definition. Either the proposed principle will not characterize all items on the list, or if it does, it will force us to acknowledge glaring omissions. Of course, the possibility always exists that a principle fulfills both conditions but is otherwise trivial. For example, we might define "lore" as those forms of human expression that Alan Dundes so identifies. Such a definition includes everything on the list and probably omits nothing major. (If it did, Dundes probably would have included it.) But this definition is altogether unhelpful because it lacks intersubjectivity. "Folklore is wha t Alan Dundes studies" is a definition to which not even Alan Dundes would subscribe.

The enumeration of forms not only frustrates the successful definition of lore in its own right, but also raises questions about Dundes's previous characterization of "folk" as well. If "folk" really implies "any group of people whatsoever," why should this term be needed as a modifier for some items on the list? Why do...