Of Names, Professional Identities, and Disciplinary Futures

Abstract

This article advocates a reevaluation of the term folklorefor designating afield of study. The term's ideological legacies and its unmistakably negative connotations both in and academic discourse impair the effectiveness of scholarship and public service. Recent name change debates in Europe provide encouraging models to consider. The field has much to contribute toward understanding the problems of a transculturating world. Creating new, institutionally appropriate names for the kind of learning we produce is a small but vital step for thefield's future viability. FOLKLORE BEGAN ITS CAREER as a name change. In 1840s England popular antiquities had become lexically inappropriate: the term did not fit the subject. William Thoms, using a pseudonym, argued the subject would be most aptly described by a good Saxon compound, Folk-lore-the Lore of the People (Thoms 1965[1846]:4-5).' The name change was dealt with in a parenthesis; his note largely concerned the need for collecting, the major dimension of the field's project even as he wrote. William Thoms was a pragmatic man, not lacking in personal ambitions.2 In