Critical heritage work: public folklore in the United States

In 2012, at the first International Conference of the Association of Critical Heritage Studies (ACHS) held at Gothenburg University, I presented a paper on the work with which Clifford Murphy and I were involved at Maryland Traditions, the public folklife programme of the state of Maryland. The paper gave an overview of the public folklore paradigm that is distinctive to the United States and through which Maryland Traditions – the oldest state folklife programme in the nation – grew. In addition, it outlined the programme’s main aims and gave an example of a local-level, collaborative ‘heritage intervention’ that we helped to facilitate, as examined in this issue. After the presentation, several attendees expressed surprise at the fact that the United States cares about intangible cultural heritage (hereafter ICH), as well as noting that it was refreshing to hear from professionals, and not only scholars, on the ‘frontlines’ of ICH-related efforts. From this, I realised that there needs to be a stronger bridge built between public folklore – a longstanding framework of theories and intimately associated field practices – and the international heritage discourse, especially the bourgeoning and increasingly widespread area of ICH.

It is safe to say that the ICH discourse and necessary discussions and debates concerning its safeguarding throughout the world are a direct result of the 2003 Convention on the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO); the ‘ICH’ concept has been given its life, as well as shape, through it (UNESCO 2003; Article 2). Thus, due to the fact that the United States has yet to become a States Party to the 2003 Convention, it is understandable to think that this particular discourse is lacking in the United States context. This is true to an extent. On one hand, it ought to be highlighted that in recent decades, US-based scholars and professionals have been deeply involved with the development of global instruments seeking to raise awareness of ‘ICH’ and its precursor concept, ‘traditional culture and folkore’, such as with respect to the initiatives of the Centre for Folklife and Cultural Heritage (CFCH) of the Smithsonian Institution, well before – and during – the drafting of the 2003 Convention (see Seitel 2001). Moreover, US-based scholars, professionals and students continue to participate in ICH conferences and meetings, contributing to discussions and the growing scholarship.

On the other hand, however, it is also true that another system – public folklore – has already been in place, gaining significant footing in the late 1960s when awareness of the importance of vernacular cultural practices and expressions was raised at the national level. Most notably, a nationwide infrastructure of state-level folklife programmes was established during the mid-1970s as a result of funding from the newly formed Folk and Traditional Arts Programme of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Specifically, state arts agencies were financially supported to hire folklorists who could help to expand access to grants and other programmes, which often focused on Western/fine arts interests, to historically underrepresented cultural and traditional arts communities (see Feintuch 1988).

For instance, the Maryland Folklife Programme, as it was originally called, began in 1974 as a pilot partnership between the Maryland State Arts Council and the NEA with one folklorist responsible for researching and documenting living cultural traditions throughout the state (see Stefano and Murphy, this issue). In addition to state folklife programmes in arts agencies, numerous others operate in other ways: from within universities, such as Traditional Arts Indiana, which is a partnership between Indiana University Bloomington and the Indiana Arts Commission; at regional levels, such as the Western Folklife Centre based in Nevada; and at city levels, including City Lore of New York City, the Philadelphia Folklore Project in Pennsylvania and the Folklife and Traditional Arts Programme of the Houston Arts Alliance, among others.

Over several decades, public folklore has become a distinctive discipline, preparing new generations of folklorists to research, document, interpret, safeguard and promote living traditions through a variety of means, including the administration of grants for cultural apprenticeships and publicly-oriented projects and programming. Here, the ‘public’ component of this discipline is crucial: it brings a deep level of professional commitment and accountability to wide-ranging audiences, not least because a main funding source is the taxpaying public. As such, professional reflexivity – an ongoing self-questioning and reconciliation of the power imbalances and ‘authoritative’ issues inherent to public sector work – has become a strong tradition in and of itself within the discipline, and certainly with respect to our practices out in the field.

On a similar note, the recent efforts of ACHS in building a global, critical heritage studies movement underscore the need for greater professional reflexivity and accountability to the cultural communities, groups and individuals with whom we are fortunate to work. There is also a need to be accountable to each other, through reflexive scholarship that brings to light the issues with which we grapple, overcome, and by which we may be constrained. While the concepts and methods of ‘sharing authority’, ‘co-curation’ and even striving for full community control over decision-making processes within the heritage and museum sector are not necessarily new, a more critical heritage studies certainly remains needed. Indeed, the mainstream heritage enterprise too often relies on the authority of ‘experts’ in deciding what is designated as ‘heritage’, and how it will be subsequently treated and disseminated. This is particularly important for the identification, ‘celebration’, and safeguarding of ICH, which by its very definition is given its lifeblood at the local level by those who embody, transmit, and develop it.

This issue represents a bridging of the theories and practices of public folklore to the discourses of ICH and broader critical heritage studies, helping to enhance the interdisciplinarity of heritage in general. It offers a step towards greater exchange of not only concepts and methods, but also of the issues and challenges that ICH can bring and the ways in which such challenges can be better mitigated in diverse contexts. At their core, the articles present and examine key facets of public folklore, bringing to light its historical development as an applied discipline and its emphasis on local-level, collaborative work. As a whole, the issue reflects a national infrastructure that favours ‘bottom up’ ICH safeguarding and promotional processes over those that are ‘top down’.

Specifically, Robert Baron opens the issue with an analysis of two interrelated and foundational practices of public folklore: professional reflexivity and the dialogical approach, both of which are argued to heighten community ownership over heritage initiatives. Examining projects that were undertaken in Houston and New York City, as well as the well-known Smithsonian Folklife Festival facilitated by CFCH, he illustrates a certain flexibility embedded in public folklore practice that is both acknowledged and valued by folklorists as a tool for maximising the exertion of community agency during heritage interventions. Comparing the United States folklife infrastructure with that of the 2003 Convention, he argues that prioritising true, two-way dialogues with cultural community members identifies their needs and agendas, leading to a sharing of authority and, thereby, more effective and appropriate ICH safeguarding schemes. Similarly, Clifford Murphy and I provide an in-depth analysis of a dialogical and collaborative heritage intervention, which we have termed a ‘co-intervention’, with a particular cultural community in Maryland and Delaware. The article offers a critical reflection – from our perspectives as heritage professionals – of the process of helping to safeguard and publicly promote their sacred tradition by bringing it out of its source, religious contexts and into the public folklore paradigm of festival and performance venues. Along the way, a nuanced understanding of how ‘authenticity’ is defined by community members in relation to their tradition, and the changes it has undergone, has been learned, and decisions about how to proceed were made together: an exchange between two separate groups with different, yet sometimes overlapping, areas of expertise.

Gregory Hansen takes the reader into the historical development of public folklore and its divergence from folklore studies, which has traditionally been situated as a scholarly discipline within academe. In particular, he examines the ‘ideological underpinnings’ of ‘folklore’ in Romantic Nationalism, a historical relationship similar to that of ‘heritage’ and colonialism. Acknowledging the scholarly critique over this past century of these terms in relation to their heavy, historical baggage, he argues that instead of creating new terminology and discarding the old, this baggage that ‘folklore’ carries can guide a more socially responsible conceptualisation of ‘ICH’, one that can be strongly aligned with the critical heritage discourse. Here, Hansen reminds us that ‘ICH’ has been shaped more so from the global ‘heritage’ concept – and related policies – than that of folklore; indeed, use of the ‘folklore’ term was decided against during the drafting stages of the 2003 Convention due to its problematic roots (Seitel 2002). However, as he alludes, those roots are important for not only conceptualising ICH in relation to legacies that can still be considered to continue today, but also for guarding against its use in ‘authorised heritage discourses’ (Smith 2006).

Closing the issue and providing a poignant ending note, Mary Hufford’s article questions dominant conceptualisations of heritage and ICH in terms of their potential neglect of the broader ecological systems within which they develop and operate. The tangible/intangible dichotomy, especially with respect to UNESCO policy, can interfere with more holistic understandings of the deep relationships between cultural knowledge, expression and place. She grounds her arguments in a long-term research and documentation project she led as a folklorist in the West Virginia communities dealing with mountaintop removal mining. Hufford’s fieldwork demonstrates that the industry devastatingly affects not just regional ecosystems, but also the human relationships with them and, thereby, longstanding local knowledge systems and traditions. She offers significant insights into these relationships, and serves to spotlight how ‘folklore’ – both definitionally and in applied practice – embraces more holistic understandings of the daily lives of people and their deep links to local environments. Furthermore, her article signals the need for heritage/ICH to include, and be more responsive to, social and ecological justice movements, mainly through approaches that are customised to specific, local contexts.

Together, the articles demonstrate a deep care for ICH within the context of the United States. While we work with a different set of terms, such as ‘folklore’, ‘folklife’ and ‘living traditions’, to name a few, there is no denying the overlap with ICH efforts elsewhere. Nonetheless, the aim of this issue is to cast in high relief how folklore can be instrumental to the ICH discourse, and to further pave the way for dialogue on how ICH can contribute to folklore. What folklore, and public folklore in particular, can offer is a philosophy of and practice in local-level, dialogical and co-interventional approaches to heritage safeguarding and promotion that have been tried and tested, developed and critiqued for half a century.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.