I just want to clarify a couple of things in this conversation.
On "fakelore:" this concept was developed by American folklorist Richard Dorson in the 1960s. To Dorson, distinguishing between "genunine" folklore and "inauthentic" imitations was part of the scholarly enterprise of folklore study, which he struggled to make into a respectable academic discipline. A parallel concept in European folklore study is "folklorismus," by which post-WWII German scholars such as Hans Moser attempted to distinguish the real thing from material manipulated for political (3rd Reich) or economic (e.g. tourism) purposes.
During the 1980s, these apparati for distinguishing the real from the fake, authentic from inauthentic began to disintegrate, as scholars became more aware of the process of tradition (rather than tradition as an object) and the inevitably constructed nature of all traditions, and indeed, of the idea of authenticity itself. [For more on this, see Regina Bendix, _In Search of Authenticity_ (U Wisconsin Press, 1996).]
Thus, at least in the US and in Germany, academics now essentially agree with Jason, who wrote:
>Perhaps the 'idea' of the
> hobby-horse as a fertility symbol (accurate or not)
> is more important and the participants are achieving
> important spiritual insights and communal and/or
> divine connections from the rite.
These days, it is the process of creating authenticity that becomes the object of study among academic folklorists. All traditions are authentic; the historicity or accuracy of a practice is not relevant to its efficacy for practitioners. Still, scholars like to trace the history of traditions and ideas.
This brings me to Jason's very good question:
>is a Balinese dance done
> mainly for tourists 'authentic'? Does it still have
> the same efficacy if it is done for an audience of
> non-Balinese?
It depends what one means by "efficacy." What is its intended effect when it's performed for tourists, as opposed to when it is an in-group thing? How do the performers and indigenous audience members feel about the changed context of the performance, and how does the performance change as a result of the new and different context? These are the questions folklorists deal with today.
If, as Pitch proposed, an author were to write a musical called "Oss Oss Wee Oss," or turn the May Song into a new musical composition, those products would no longer be considered folklore by folklorists, but part of the realms of popular and/or academic/ elite cultures (recall my earlier posting on these categories).
Best,
Sabina
Sabina Magliocco
Associate Professor
Department of Anthropology
California State University
18111 Nordhoff St.
Northridge, CA 91330-8244
|