Folk and Folklore

Abstract

IF THE DEGREE OF ADVANCEMENT of a science is to be judged by the development of its systematic theory, it must be admitted that as a science, has not yet passed its early infancy. Not only has it not yet elaborated laws, explanations and a general theory of the facts it studies, but it is still seeking its subject matter. To prove this, nothing is more convincing than to glance over the twenty-one definitions contained in the recently published Dictionary of Folklore.' Folklore, if we are to believe these specialists, could include anything from anthropology, sociology, mythology, musicology to the study of oral literature. And none of these authors seem to agree. If we disregard, however, some minor differences between these various definitions, we could group them into three main categories. According to ten authors out of twenty-one, there is practically nothing that folklore is not deemed to include: beliefs, mores, customs, traditions, religion, art, techniques; three of them-Botkin, Espinosa, and Jamesonshow a tendency to account for the fact that the phenomena which folklore must study are social facts; and that the point of view developed by the various social sciences should be taken into consideration. In the case of these three authors, folklore could therefore be considered a social science, the only difference being one of terminology. What they call folklore, others call sociology or social anthropology. So long as the methods, concepts and acquisitions of the social sciences are taken into account, not only in definitions but also in the treatment of the data, it matters little if the title of the science varies here and there. Because of its acquired implication, the word however, always tends to lead to confusion. Four other authors believe that folklore is concerned with the study of oral literature and customs -queer customs no doubt. The remainder of students would restrict the study of folklore to that of oral literature. Although many definitions, chiefly those which include in folklore the study of beliefs and customs as well as oral literature presuppose the idea of folk, only three authors expressly mention that term in their definition. But another classification of these definitions might be made. So I attempt to correlate the definitions given by one particular author with his training and his publications. Authors mainly interested in the social sciences, particularly anthropology, tend to restrict the definition of folklore to the study of oral literature, whilst those mainly interested in literature and art are apt to give a wider definition to folklore. An analysis of these definitions poses three problems which, to a certain extent, are correlated: (i) Does the discrimination that folklorists usually make between the cultural and social phenomena (and which is generally based on value-judgments) preclude their discipline from gaining the status of a regular social science? (2) Does the actual conceptual equipment of folklore permit this discipline to advance from the study of oral literature so as to