Folklorists' Interpretive Approaches

In assessing the interpretive methods used by folklorists as described in Living Folklore Chapter 6 “Approaches to Interpreting Folklore,” I was drawn to the post-structuralist approaches: feminist interpretations, reciprocal ethnography, and intersectionality. These three methods, in combination with each other, could be quite strong in capturing the total essence needed to best understand the dimensions affecting folklore interpretation.

It seems logical that male folklorists, who are in a profession that has been historically male-dominated, bring their masculine biases, viewpoints and approaches to their fieldwork and are inherently influenced by those masculine experiences, perspectives and stereotypes. What they studied and how they interpreted what they studied could be affected by their gender and past experiences in a male dominated society. This is supported in the statement that folklorists came to the “realization that a relatively small number of studies and articles had been published about women’s culture” (193). Without the feminine perspective, this has possibly created an unbalanced and misrepresented set of analysis results. It should be considered whether the studies of folk cultures by male folklorists have subconsciously and erroneously downplayed or dismissed the roles and influences of females in those studies. Therefore, for me, it introduces the possibility of flawed and incomplete studies, devoid of the female perspective, though women make up more than half of the population of the world.

A strong point is made that the feminist interpretations approach created a means “to think about all folklore study,” determining how “socially and politically constructed assumptions can marginalize some groups that don’t belong to a dominant group’s definition of mainstream” (195). This reiterates the probable gaps in the male folklorist studies as noted above and emphasizes the need for a worldview, calling for the interactions or intersection of a multitude of elements beyond just gender such as age, politics and power, religion, class, ethnicity, sexuality, and others. This defines and opens the door to understanding the intersectionality approach.

Intersectionality links with the feminist interpretations approach, acknowledging that there are a variety of factors “that shape the underlying values and relationships we often express through folklore” (199). To perform thorough analysis, the folklorist should take into perspective all of the influencing factors, versus adopting a parochial view, using just one or two factors. Intersectionality undertakes a way to hypothesize about the combination of varied interactions of all involved, the “performer, performance, audience and observers” (200).

In the feminist interpretations approach, it has been offered that “women’s communication is often “process-centered and collaborative” (195). This collaborative approach has opened the door to collaborating with folk insiders, and incorporating the insider viewpoint in the folklorists’ interpretations. This collaboration is a direct entrée to the reciprocal ethnography approach. The emphasis here is on the people who are being studied by the folklorist knowing best what the folk culture is and what it means. This requires the folklorist to collaborate with the insiders and incorporate their points of view in the interpretation, versus providing only an academic version from the folklorist’s perspective.

The feminist interpretations approach has been the genesis for two other, more complimentary approaches being developed to folklore interpretations – reciprocal ethnography and intersectionality. These approaches are more inclusive and multi-dimensional. They allow the larger influences and cultural forces to be considered to better understand the meanings of folklore.

This blog entry is my response to the Chapter Six Reflection Question.

References

Sims, M. C., & Stephens, M. (2005). Living folklore an introduction to the study of people and their their traditions. Utah: Utah State University Press.