Xe-eualuating t h e C ~ n c e p tof Group:
I C E N as an A l t e r n a t i v e
Beth Blumenreich and Bari Lynn Polonsky
University of C a l i f o r n i a at Los Angeled
A t t h e end of February 1972, out of a course on "ethnic f o l k l o r e " came t h e
question: What i s a "groufi"? The concept of "group1' i s i m p l i c i t i n most s t u d i e s
of f o l k l o r e , and c e n t r a l t o many conceptual schemes used i n a n a l y s i s . The
i m p l i c i t assumption i n most f o l k l o r i s t i c s t u d i e s i s t h a t t h e concept of "group"
i s assumed t o be t h e b a s i s f o r an a n a l y t i c a l c o n s t r u c t , designated by t h e same
term. The notion f o l k l o r i s t s operate upon i s t h e ass~imptiont h a t t h e r e a r e "group8"
and t h a t t h e s e "groups" have f o l k l o r e ( s ) , thus accounting f o r t h e tendency t o
Jan Brunvaand's statement ( i n The St,*
study t h e f o l k l o r e of various "groups ,'I
of American ~ o l k l o r e t) h~a t "the ( f i r s t ) t e s t of a f o l k group i s t h e existence
of shared f o l k l o r e " i s exemplary.
I f "group" i s a major means of determining f 01-klore , t h a t i s , f o l k l o r e i s
"group" based, then "group" i s a seminal concept f o r f o l k l o r i s t i c s . Yet, what
does "group" mean t o f o l k l o r i s t s ?
h i s introduction t o The St,~lrlyof b'01!~1 o n ? , Alan Dundas s t a t e s :
"The
t e r m 'folk1 can r e f e r t o any group of people whatsoever who share a t l e a s t one
common f a c t o r . It does not matter t ~ h z tt h e l i n k i n g f a c t o r is--it could be a
common occupation, language, or religion--but what i s i w o r t a n t is t h a t a group
formed for whatever reason w i l l havs some t r a d i t i o n s ~ r h i c hit c a l l s i t s own-..
Thus i f a group were conposed of lumberjacks or railroadnen, then t h e f o l k l o r e
would be lumberjack or railroadman f o l k l o r e . I f t h e group
or Negroes, then t h e f o l k l o r i s t could seek Jewish or Negro
l i k e other r e s e a r c h e r s , does not d e f i n e "group" ; and other
Dundes, a r e t h e determiners and d e l i m i t e r s of 'groups" and
were composed of Jews
iolklo~
b.
"
Yet D u d e s ,
~ ~ r v e s t i , d t c r s ,22-ke
t h e i r folklore.
Because ll groupH i s used as an important cornerstone i n f o l k l o r i s t i c i n q u i r y ,
an experiment was conducted among t h e f o l k l o r e and m4ythblogy graduate s t u d e n t s
a t U.C.L&A., which should, according t o t h e kinds of a r b i t r a r i l y e s t a b l i s h e d
c r i t e r i a employed by o t h e r s , c o n s t i t u t e a "group." I:ie d i s t r i b u t e d a questionnaire
t o e l i c i t information concerning t h e meanings t h a t t h e word "group" might have
t o those questioned. I n doing s o , ve assuned t h a t t h i s kind of experiment i s
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e e . , t h e p r a c t i c e and prerogative of t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r i n denoting
a u n i t ) and t h a t comparable r e s u l t s would be obtained r e g a r d l e s s of how one
delimited t h e "group." 'Je were a l s o aware of t h e f a c t t h a t t h e kinds of responses
obtained i n a survey such a s t h i s always depend upon who t h e informants a r e , and
t h a t t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r always decides i n advance t h e p o t e n t i a l informants t o i n v e s t i gate.
t
It was t h e purpose of our i n v e s t i g a t i o n t o determine what t h e nature of t h e
word "group" was from i n d i v i d u a l s ' c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s i n response t o a questionnaire.
On t h e b a s i s of responses t o t h a t questionnaire i t ria5 o w purpose t o determine
whether "group" i s meaningful a s a term, and whether it can be u t i l i z e d a s t h e
conceptual b a s i s f o r an a n a l y t i c a l construct.
Two b a s i c questions were asked: 1) whether o r not s t u d e n t s perceive and
conceive of a "groap" i d e n t i f i a b l e a s t h e f o l k l o r e and myt,loiogy ;.,:\:;i2tte otc12;T;2
a t U.C .L.A., and what t h e n a t u r e of t h a t "group" i s i f t h e 2uaTrer iras a f f i ~ a t i v e :
and 2) whether o r not those students conceive of themselves and/or o t h e r s as
belonging t o a "group" and why, and wh2.t t h e y consider "belonging t o t h e group"
t o c o n s t i t u t e or involve.
A t o t a l of 29 out of 35 questionnaires was returned, 80.5%--a s i g n i f i c a n t
response. To avoid i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , no names were asked f o r and each questionnaire
was given an i d e n t i f y i n g l e t t e r of t h e alphabet. Despite t h e s e "safeguards, I'
however, complete anonymity was d i f f i c u l t t o insure. A s one student asked, "How
many twenty-eight-year-old women who've been i n f o l k l o r e eleven q u a r t e r s , taught
Latin f o r four y e a r s , and work i n t h e department a r e there?"
'
It appears, from our survey, t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s of b r o ~ k ' are d33ndent
not only on i n d i v i d u a l s conceptions of what, t h e word "eraup" d e s i g n a t e s , 3 u t a l s o
on t h e i n d i v i d u a l s r conceptions of t h e nature of t h e u n i t s o designated ( t h e
f o l k l o r e and mythology students) and on t h e respondents conceptions of t h e
nature of t h e students c u r r e n t l y enrolled i n t h e program. Thus, although t h e
experience of being a f o l k l o r e graduate student was common t o a l l students
.
enrolled i n t h e program, t h e experience was conceived i n various ways among t h e
students. Findings suggest t h a t t h e word "group" i s a f a m i l i a r one, and t h a t
t h e word i s meaningful t o each person questioned. There were s i m i l a r i t i e s between
and among individuals conceptions of t h e meaning' of "group, " as w e l l as d i f f e r ences. By examining t h e s e s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s we attempted t o i n f e r
whether or not "group" i s meaningful as a term which can be u t i l i z e d t o designate
an a n a l y t i c a l construct.
'
'
'
What we discovered was t h a t "group, I I as a word appears t o be as
as "story" and "song. " iioreover , t h e respondents ' c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s
suggest t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s conceptions of what a "group" i s (what t h e
n a t e s ) vary s o s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h a t it i s questionable whether "group"
was kver u s e f u l a s a term t o be used i n analysis.
'
ambiguous
of "group"
word desig& eve?? o r
"What i s a group?'' was i n v a r i a b l y responded t o i n q u a n t i t a t i v e terms, t h a t
i s , it was s a i d t o designate a number of people. The minimum number was at l e a s t
two, y e t no maximum was s e t . The multiple conceptions of "group" have only t h i s
Thus,
common notion of two o r more people i n a common place a t a common
respondents described what t h e s e people a r e doing i n t h a t co~l~~lon
k i i ~ c! a l territ o r y a t a common time, or what they have i n common which makes it p o s s i b l e ,
d e s i r a b l e and/or necessary t o conceive of them c o l l e c t i v e l y , with t h e understanding
t h a t time and/or t e r r i t o r y may be e i t h e r perceivable, conceivable o r b o t h ? Hence,
t h e meaning of t h e word "group" evolved from the perceivable d i s t i n c t i o n of a
c o l l e c t i v i t y from an i n d i v i d u a l , and t h e r e f o r e , t h e concept of two o r more i s
xiMays i m p l i c i t i n c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s of what "group" means. Beyond t h a t , what
"groupu i s conceived t o mean b~ t o designate i s unpredictable.. Several common
elements were b a s i c t o t h e characterizations of t h e "group" by t h e f o l k l o r e and
mythology graduate students: time, t e r r i t o r y , experience, p a r t i c i p a t i o n , i n t e r a c t i o n and communication, but without s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t frequency.
ULU.~.
\ghat a r e t h e implications of t h i s a r b i t r a r y and ambiguous usage of t h e term
"group" t o f o l k l o r i s t i c research? Every f o l k l o r i s t d i s t i n g u i s h e s "groups, " but
it i s always t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r who l a b e l s the "group," t h a t i s , gives it a name
which i m p l i c i t l y characterizes i t s nature. I n doing s o , t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r assumes
a p r i o r j t h a t t h e r e i s g r e a t consistency i n t h e b'ahavior of a l l people which he
l a b e l s , o r others l a b e l , i n t h a t p a r t i c u l a r way. Lihat t h i s assumption suggests
i s t h a t the f o l k l d r e known by one member of a designated "group" i s obviously
known by others who a r e a l s o conceived t o be members of t h a t "group," because
i f they have the same l a b e l s they must have t h e same f o l k l o r e . Therefore, t h e
behavior of any one i n d i v i d u a l i s considered t o be a s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e
"group" as t h e behavior of any other individual. Thus, i n fieldwork,. t h e .
i n v e s t i g a t o r can presumably s e l e c t any individual whom he conceives t o be a
member of a given "group," assured t h a t whatever f o l k l o r e i s e l i c i t e d i s
representative or t y p i c a l of whatever i s conceived t o be t h e "groupfs f o l k l o r e . ll
That t h i s i s t h e common assumption among f o l k l o r i s t s c 5 n ne e a . ~ Q yi l l u s For example, i n J Barre Toelken ' s , "The ' k r e t t y Languagef of Yellowman:
trated
Genre, Mode, and Texture i n Navaho Coyote Narratives, "3 t h e "g-OUDi s e x p l i c i t l y
r e f e r r e d t o a s "the Navaho." Toelken i n f e r s t h e existence of t h i s "group" and
i t s very nature from a "single c u l t u r a l l y r e l i a b l e informant, I' whose f o l k l o r e he
conceives t o be representative of a l l Navaho. Daniel Growley's unpublished study,
"Bahamian b'olktales I l l u s t r a t i n g t h e Jirtist a s Comrnunicato r , "4- i s based on h i s
conception of a s i n g l e "group, " a " r e l a t i v e l y small population of 100,000, most of
them a t r u e f o l k ; " y e t t h e s e "folk" i n h a b i t a s t r i n g of 21 i s l a n d s s t r e t c h i n g
from Florida southeast t o H a i t i .
.
.
Lqith t h e exception of Toelken, who c l e a r l y s t a t e s what he i s doing, folkl o r i s t s tend t o generalize f r ~ ma few s e l e c t informants as t o t h e homogeneous
nature of both t h e "group" and t h e f o l k l o r e of t h a t "group: " y e t they r a r e l y
explain how or why t h e "group" can be considered t o be a c o l l e c t i v e , o r how and
why t h e f o l k l o r e of one member of t h a t "group" can be s a i d t o be "representative .I1
For t h e most p a r t t h e populations i n f o l k l o r i s t i c s t u d i e s are not described
i n terms of number, but r a t h e r i n s p a t i a l terms. The geographical l i m i t s a r e not
n e c e s s a r i l y physical o r p o l i t i c a l boundaries, but a r e a r b i t r a r i l y assigned t o
delimi't t h e "group." Americo Paredes, i n "Tributaries t o t h e iwminstream: t h e
Ethnic Graups, "5 s t a t e s t h a t t h e i"~exican-American "group" i s a "representative
e t h n i c group" f o r they a r e not outsiders t o t h e average American ( c u l t u r e ) y e t
t h e i r c u l t u r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t from t h a t of t h e ~ a j o r ii tr "ana covers a
w i d e geographical area.
A common d i s t i n c t i o n i s t h e one made between European and hmerican folklore.
A m e r i na ,6presupposes two d i s t i n c t "groups ;"
~ a klorc?
n
Christiansen s E ~ ~ r o Fol
y e t t h e boundary i s only i m p l i c i t l y made, i e , t h e "New World" versus t h e "Old
IJorld." A n t i t h e t i c a l t o t h i s l a r g e n a t i o n a l i s t i c conception of "group" a r e t h e
other notions of "group" a s " i s o l a t e d , I' "small, I' or "local. " Lynwood liontell 's
Sapma
of Coe IZidge7 d e a l s with a small community which lviontell conceives t o be
--a "group" by v i r t u e of t h e f a c t t h a t it i s geographically and c u l t u r a l l y i s o l a t e d ,
"a s c a r on t h e c u l t u r a l landscape of an otherwise homogeneous white society."
Space may a l s o be delineated conceptually. .tichard Dorson's "occupational grou s"
and t h e d i s t i n c t i o n s between urban and r u r a l i n " I s 'There A Folk I n The City?"
a r e based on cognitive c r i t e r i a , t h e nature of which i s never s t i p u l a t e d .
'
.
8
Other "groups" have been designated based on a v a r i e t y of equally a r b i t r a r y
and subjective c r i t e r i a , a s i n the cases, f o r i n s t a n c e , of Alan Dundes', "A Stddy
of Ethnic S l u r s : t h e Jew m d t h e Polack i n t h e U.S.,l19 Norine Dresser's study on
homosexuals, and t h e bulk of e t h n i c or immigrant "group" s t u d i e s . l D I n these
kinds of s t u d i e s , d i s t i n c t i o n s a r e based not s o much on perceptible physical
d i s t i n c t i o n s of time and t e r r i t o r y , as on cognitive d i s t i n c t i o n s made by t h e
investigator.
The popular notion of " e t h n i c i t y " a l s o involves cognitive discrimination on
t h e p a r t of t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r . Lhe "group" i s n a n a l l y conceived and l a h e l l e c as
an "ethnic group" by t h e researcher and any i n d i v i d u a l i d e n t i l'ieu. a.F a rne~iiue~,
of
t h a t "groupn i s conceived t o be a representative r e s e r v o i r of the "ethnic group's
folklore." "Ethnic groups" are considered t o be organic cluste7.s t h a t a r e homogeneous, cohesive wholes because collectivi'kies of individuals a r e l a b e l l e d i n
ways. Thus, Linda Degh, i n her essay, "Approaches t o r'olklore Hesearch Among
Immigrant kroups, "IP characterizes t h e ethnic groups as i n t e r a c t i n g with, and hwing
e f f e c t s upon each o t h e r , y e t Kichard Dorson s t a t e s t h a t t h e s e "groups.. .never
penetrate each o t h e r ' s f o l k l o r e , " t h a t "the strong force of e t h n i c separatism keeps
t h e in-group f o l k l o r e s apart."12 Hobert Klymasz i n "An Introduction t o t h e
Ukranian-Canadian Folksong Cycle". conceivhes t h e "group" which he l a b e l s
"Ukrainian-Canadian" as a s o c i a l u n i t which i s a cross between t h e old country
Ukrainians and t h e New World Canadians .I3
\%at t h e y a r e a l l saying o r implying then i s t h a t t h e r e i s an i d e n t i f i a b l e
group" Sehavior because people a r e assigned common l a b e l s , t h a t any i n d i v i d u a l
i n t h a t "group" behaves i n t h e same way a s any other indinridual i n t h a t "group,"
and t h a t , i n f a c t , i n d i v i d u a l behavior i s "group" behavior.
It
al
"Group" can be used a s an analy-kical term and serve as a t h e ~ r e t ~ i c constmcf,
only i f t h e r e i s consensus between and among i n v e s t i g a t o r s ' conceptions of what
II
group" designates. Examination of f o l k l o r i s t i c s t u d i e s illuminates t h e f a c t t h a t
a l l f o l k l o r i s t s do not conceive or use "group" i n t h e same way. There i s no consensus of i n d i v i d u a l ' s conceptions of "group," beyond t h a t of two o r more people
u s u a l l y conceived t o be i n a common place at a common time.
We can never assume t h a t everyone who r e a d s , w r i t e s , o r hears t h e word "group"
w i l l take it t o denote t h e same phenomenon o r even what t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r conceives
it t o mean, beyond two o r more people i n a delimitable space during a comaon time.
And s i n c e the- word "group" has been "defined" on t h e b a s i s of a v a r i e t y oQ
c r i t e r i a , it i s now s o imprecise and ambiguous t h a t it seems t o be of l i t t l e value
i n a n a l y t i o a l l v oriented studies of f o l k l o r e .
\fiat i s suggested by f o l k l o r e s t u d i e s i s t h a t f o l k l o r e i s i n d i v i d u a l l y
determined and based, not "group" determined and based. koreover , t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s
f o l k l o r e i s determined by t h e nature of h i s i n t e r a c t i o n s and experiences. This
suggests t h a t f o l k l o r e can be most p r o f i t a b l y studied i n terms of i n t e r a c t i o n a l ,
communicative and e x p e r i e n t i a l networks--ICEN1s, as we s h a l l c a l l them.14 ICEN is
based on a behavioral model i n which people are conceived t o i n t e r a c t and communic a t e on a first-hand, face-to-face b a s i s . I C E N 1 s involve dynamic human r e l a t i o n ships which c o n s t i t u t e the bases of experience. ICEN's a r e multi-dimensional,
and a r e not imposed by an i n v e s t i g a t o r b u t evolve from t h e behavior of those
i n d i v i d u a l s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e networks.
ICEN i s a construct t h a t can be u t i l i z e d t o d i s t i n g u i s h two o r more people
who a r e encoding, t r a n s m i t t i n g , and decoding messages between and among one
another, from those who a r e not doing so. The d i f f e r e n c e between those who a r e
and those Who a r e not can be perceived, and t h e p r c e p t i o n i s s i g n i f i c a n t enough
t o enable one t o a r t i c u l a t e t h e c o n t r a s t . Those enccding, t r a n s m i t t i n g and
decoding messages a r e t h e interactors/communicators;t h e a c t i o n i s t h e i n t e r action/communication; t h e people, t h e i r a c t i o n s and t h e output of t h e i r r e l a t i o n ships with each o t h e r , a r e a l l aspects of ICEN.
To exemplify t h e i n s i g h t s t h a t such a construct has t h e po'.ential t o qrovide,
I n Ameri can Negro
l e t us consider ~ i c h a r dDorson I s study of James D Suggs
Folkl-ore , I 5 Dorson gives us "The I I i s t o ~ yof James Douglas Suggs. " Suggs was born
of "mixed ancestry" i n 1887 i n lilississippi and died i n 1955 i n biichigan. I n 1907
he t r a v e l l e d from Newiiexico t o South Dakota i n a m i n s t r e l show; from 1908-09 he
played professional baseball. He worked as a brakeman f o r t h r e e y e a r s , and a l s o
.
.
_ _. --
-
on bridge' construction. He worked f o r a white p l a n t e r a s a cook and nurse.
He fought i n France i n ~ j o r l d\Jar I. He worked on a dredge boat, was a s h o r t
order cook, -and worked f o r a b i g o i l man i n Arkansas. He worked 'in a S t . Louis
foundry and by 194-0 was running a rooming house i n Chicago. Dorson recorded him
i n 29% i n Calvin County, &lichigan. He describes Suggs and %is r e p e r t o i r e o f .
t a l e s and songs a s representative of a "group," t h a t i s , he "mirrors t h e
ainpl'e f o l k t r a d i t i o n s o f t h e Southern Negro."
It should be obvious t o anyone t h a t Suggs cannot be representative of a
"Southern Negro group, 'I unless a l l individuals l a b e l l e d "Southern Negro" a r e
known t o have had experiences comparable t o those of Suggs. k t h e r , h i s
r e p e r t o i r e of t a l e s and songs represents h i s own unique experiences, h i s i n t e r a c t i o n s with men of every r a c e , and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a m u l t i p l i c i t y of occupat i o n s . The i n d i v i d u a l and h i s r e p e r t o i r e must be understood i n terms of t h e
i n t e r a c t i o n ( s 1 and experience ( s ) he has had.
The networks .of i n t e r a c t i o n s and communications, t h e IGNs, can be conceived of as complexes of r e l a t i o n s h i p s , o r s e t s of r e l a t i o n s h i p s between and
among people. That i s , although the focus i s on t h e i n d i v i d u a l and h i s experiences, f o l k l o r e based on common experiences of individuals can be st.u(lied
analv-t,icallv through t h i s notion of complexes of r e l a t i o n s h i a s , w SCENs
.
"Towards a Definition of Folklore i n Context, " by Dan Ben-mos suggests
t h i s i n e v i t a b l e d i r e c t i o n f o r f o l k l o r i s t i c research: " t o define f o l k l o r e , it i s
necessary t o examine t h e phenomena a s they e x i s t . . . f o l k l o r e i s not an aggregate
of t h i n g s , but a process--a communicative process, t o be exact." Unfortunately
t h e notion of "group" i s tenacious, and although Ben-Amos i s moving i n t h e
d i r e c t i o n of a dynamic model of communication, h i s d e f i n i t i o n of f o l k l o r e as
" a r t i s t i c communication i n small groups" points t h e way backward t o a s t a t i c ,
mechanistic, homogeneous model i n which "...the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e s.-,211 group
s i t u a t i o n have t o belong t o t h e same reference group, one composed of people of
t h e same age, or of t h e same profession, l o c a l , r e l i g i o u s , or e t h n i c a f f i l i a t i o n . "16
llhat we a r e proposing i s ana.lv@S;Sbased on i n d i v i d u a l ' s i n t e r a c t i o n s and
communications and experiences.
..
H e drew a c i r c l e t h a t shut me o u t ,
H e r e t i c , r e b e l , a thing t o f o u t ,
But Love and I had t h e w i t t o win
Ile c r e a t e I C E N and l e t people i n . . .
Notes
**This paper was presented at t h e limerican I'olklore Society meetings i n Austin,
Texas, November, 1972. liuch discussion was generated both a t t h e meetings, and
afterwards, and it w a s decided t o p b l i s h t h i s i n i t i a l paper. However, it should
be noted t h a t t h i s p a r t i c u l a r paper w a s w r i t t e n t o be-presented orallv. Also,
t h i s i s only p a r t of a more extensive and elaborate treatment of t h i s and similar
conceptual problems i n f o l k l o r e s t u d i e s being undertaken by Beth Blumenreich.
"Those are Fly Shoes; It must Be i ~ e /I Don't Care if D r .
Is I n t h e Next
-loom/~hatSounded Good; Nhat Are you Going t o C a l l i t ? /Every Eunuch Is An Event , "
by B a r i L y n ~Polonsky, Kathie O ' i ~ e i l l y ,and Bruce Guliz.no i s an unpublished work
a l s o dealing with these problems and with t h e notion, n a t u r e , and p r o b a b i l i t y
of u t i l i z i n g ICEN i n f o l k l o r e research.
1, Jan Harold B
(New York:
m
, The Studv-& American r'olklore: - A n & & & & , i o ~ ,
iJ. iJ. Norton & Co., 1968).
2. A l a n Dundes, a S%U&
H a l l , Inc , f%5)
.
.
-3,.
,
qb: F o L k b . , @nglewmd C l i f f s , . Bew Jersey:
'
J - B a r n Twlken, q h e 'Pretty L a t q p g e ' of &-,:_-_Genre,
l.-.and_
Texture i n Nayab-Copt.e. B a r r a t i v e s , " Genre. 2 (1%9 ): 211-235.
4, --el
Growiey, ~ a l m m h m
f oiktales 1171r~trating..The,Artist
ar, C
(unpublished manuscript).
- --
P&ice-
5.-Pmerico Paredcs ,
-
. ntar,"-,
" ' r r i b - u t a ~ i e st o t h e habinstre=:
.The Ethnic Groups, " in-.
Tristram P. Coffin, & Living_Traditions : & I 2 t S . b American *
1.New York: Basic Books, 1968) , pp. 70-80.
-
-
F
a
-
_.
a
-
.
. .+
in k r i c a (Oslo: Scandanavian
.3niversity Books, Studia Norvegica No. 12, 1962)
6 , 3eidar I'h. Cliristiansen, E u r o p e a Fol Wore
.
7.
.
-
-+wood
ILiontell,
: *I
A Study j , , ~ . G r a ~ H j s t o r(.koxvil&:
v
Jniver~ityof Tenri~:see P r e ~ ,1970).
,
8, Lichard
Dorson, "Is There a Folk i n t h e City? in ?
&c !J&gg~ b e r i a =
-
.
_-
\
a-
Tradition, ed. Arnerico ~ a r e d e sand E l l e n J S t e k e r t (Austin: U n i v e n i t g
_~f
Texas Press f o r t h e k s r i c m Folklore Society, 1971) , pp. 21-52.
I
7-
. &lan Dundes, "A Study of Ethnic S l u r s : The Jew and t h e Polack in the U.SaJr
[ournal
American m l o r e 84 (19.7111
:J.26-203.
0,
.a-
::orine Dresser, " 'The Boys i n t h e Band ' i s not Another iviusical: i W e
riomosemah and Their Folklore, " presented a t t h e American F o l k l a r e .Society
3eeIi.ngs i n Austin, iexas , November, 1972.
:a.
i
i
1.. Linda Degh, "Approaches t o Folklore rlesearch ammg I d g r a n t Groups,
iournal of f l r n a r i c a q & ~ . 79 (1966) : 551-556.
L2.- Jorson, !'-IsThere a Folk,-': p 48.
I
13.- In Part I of T&.Ubariia~ bdjrlter- Folkscnq Cycle (Ottawa:'. The NationalOnal
of Canada, B u l l e t i n No. 236, Folklore S e r i e s No. 9, l970), pp. &%
14..
-
"ICEN" i s an acronym representing " I n t e r a c t i o n a l ; Commu_!utimali ~xpefiknt a i l Ne-twords,"' The conceyt was developed i n conversations with rtobert A,
Georges , Tolklore and Mythology Group, U.C .L.A. There a r e no words t o
---- -. 1,
adequately-express our -a.ppreciati M t o Georges --agape . ,
15,. Richard
i'i, Dorson,
Tolktales
he
:'
History of James Douglas Suggs i n A m e r i c a
(Greenwictq Connecticut : Farnett -Premier Books, 1956) , pp.
/
*.
A
C
5%&-
-
16. 3an Ben-Amos , "Toward a Definition of l"o1klore i n Context, I' i n 'rowarcl N a
I j e r s ~ e c t i v e si n F o l k l o r e , ed. Americo Paredes and .Richard Bawnan usti tin.,
Universit,y of Texas Ress. for t h e 1imericanEoUrlore S o c i e t y , 19711, pp. kX.3\-.