Influential Folklorists

Why This Matters

Understanding the scholars who shaped folklore studies isn't just about memorizing names and dates—it's about grasping the theoretical frameworks they developed to analyze how communities create, share, and transform cultural knowledge. These folklorists gave us the tools to examine narrative structure, cultural function, material expression, and identity formation through traditional practices. When you encounter visual culture—from folk art to memes—you're applying concepts these thinkers pioneered.

You're being tested on your ability to connect specific scholars to their methodological contributions and explain how different approaches reveal different aspects of folklore. Can you distinguish between a structuralist reading and a functionalist one? Do you know which scholar to cite when analyzing narrative patterns versus community identity? Don't just memorize who did what—know what analytical lens each folklorist provides and when to apply it.

---

Structural and Narrative Approaches

These scholars focused on identifying universal patterns, motifs, and underlying structures within folklore, arguing that stories across cultures share fundamental organizational principles.

Vladimir Propp

• Morphology of the Folktale (1928)—identified 31 narrative functions that appear in fixed sequence across Russian fairy tales
• Character roles (dramatis personae)—defined seven archetypal figures including hero, villain, donor, and helper that drive plot action
• Foundation for narrative theory—his structural approach influenced literary criticism, film studies, and game design far beyond folklore

Stith Thompson

• Motif-Index of Folk-Literature—created the definitive classification system cataloging thousands of recurring folklore elements across cultures
• Comparative method—enabled scholars to trace motif distribution geographically and historically, revealing cultural connections
• Tale-type collaboration—expanded Antti Aarne's classification system into the Aarne-Thompson index, still the standard reference today

Claude Lévi-Strauss

• Structural anthropology—applied linguistic models to mythology, seeking deep structures beneath surface narratives
• Binary oppositions—argued myths organize human experience through contrasts like nature/culture, raw/cooked, life/death
• Myth as thought—positioned folklore not as primitive entertainment but as sophisticated intellectual systems for processing contradictions

---

Functionalist and Contextual Approaches

These scholars emphasized that folklore cannot be understood apart from its social context—it serves specific purposes within communities and must be studied through direct engagement with living traditions.

Bronislaw Malinowski

• Functionalism—argued folklore serves practical social needs: maintaining order, transmitting knowledge, validating institutions
• Participant observation—pioneered immersive fieldwork methodology, living among Trobriand Islanders to understand culture from within
• "Charter" function of myth—demonstrated how origin stories legitimize social structures and cultural practices

Alan Dundes

• Folk ideas and worldview—analyzed how folklore reveals unconscious cultural assumptions and belief systems
• Psychoanalytic approaches—applied Freudian frameworks to folk narratives, examining latent meanings beneath manifest content
• Contextual analysis—insisted folklore must be studied within its texture (language), text (content), and context (social setting)

Richard Dorson

• American folklore studies—established the field's institutional presence in U.S. universities, particularly at Indiana University
• "Fakelore" critique—coined the term to distinguish authentic tradition from commercial inventions like Paul Bunyan stories
• Dynamic tradition—rejected romanticized views of folklore as static, emphasizing its continuous adaptation and evolution

---

Cultural Relativism and Anthropological Foundations

These scholars established the principle that folklore must be understood on its own cultural terms, rejecting evolutionary hierarchies that ranked some traditions as "primitive."

Franz Boas

• Father of American anthropology—trained a generation of scholars who transformed how Western academics approached non-Western cultures
• Cultural relativism—insisted each culture's folklore be evaluated within its own value system, not against European standards
• Four-field approach—integrated linguistics, archaeology, physical anthropology, and cultural study, showing folklore's connections across disciplines

Ruth Benedict

• Patterns of Culture (1934)—demonstrated how folklore expresses coherent cultural configurations or "personalities"
• Apollonian vs. Dionysian—used Pueblo and Plains Indian folklore to illustrate contrasting cultural temperaments
• Culture and personality school—connected individual psychological development to the folklore environment in which people are raised

---

Identity, Performance, and Living Tradition

These scholars focused on folklore as active cultural practice—examining how communities use traditional expression to construct and negotiate identity in changing circumstances.

Zora Neale Hurston

• Mules and Men (1935)—pioneering ethnography of African American folklore collected in Florida and Louisiana
• Insider perspective—as a Black woman from Eatonville, Florida, she brought unprecedented access and understanding to her fieldwork
• Artistic legitimacy—argued folk expression deserves recognition as sophisticated art, not mere anthropological curiosity

Dan Ben-Amos

• "Artistic communication in small groups"—redefined folklore as a communicative process rather than a collection of texts
• Performance-centered approach—shifted focus from collected items to the event of folklore transmission
• Genre theory—developed frameworks for understanding how communities categorize and recognize traditional forms

Linda Dégh

• Legend scholarship—specialized in how legends function in contemporary society, from urban legends to conspiracy narratives
• Belief and disbelief—examined the spectrum of audience reception, showing folklore doesn't require literal belief to function
• Media and folklore—analyzed how mass communication transforms but doesn't eliminate traditional transmission

Barre Toelken

• Dynamics of Folklore—influential textbook emphasizing folklore as living process, not museum artifact
• Conservative and dynamic forces—theorized how traditions simultaneously preserve core elements and adapt to new contexts
• Visual and performance dimensions—connected verbal folklore to gesture, material culture, and visual expression

---

Material Culture and Place

These scholars expanded folklore beyond verbal traditions to examine how physical objects, built environments, and landscapes embody and transmit cultural knowledge.

Henry Glassie

• Vernacular architecture—studied folk buildings as expressions of cultural values, from Appalachian cabins to Irish farmhouses
• Material culture methodology—developed approaches for "reading" objects as cultural texts with grammar and syntax
• Place and tradition—demonstrated how folklore is embedded in landscapes and how environments shape traditional practice

Jacob Grimm

• Kinder- und Hausmärchen (1812)—collected German folktales that became foundational texts for folklore studies
• Linguistic scholarship—formulated Grimm's Law describing consonant shifts in Indo-European languages
• National romanticism—positioned folklore as expression of authentic Volk spirit, influencing (for better and worse) nationalist movements

Wilhelm Grimm

• Literary adaptation—refined collected tales across multiple editions, making them more suitable for bourgeois audiences
• Cultural preservation—framed folklore collection as rescuing disappearing traditions from modernization
• Editorial intervention—his revisions reveal how "authentic" folklore is always mediated by collectors' values and purposes

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. Both Propp and Lévi-Strauss sought universal structures in folklore—what is the key difference between analyzing narrative functions versus binary oppositions, and when would you use each approach?

2. If you're writing an FRQ about how a community uses folklore to maintain social cohesion, which two scholars provide the strongest theoretical frameworks, and how do their approaches differ?

3. Compare and contrast how Hurston and the Grimm brothers approached folklore collection—what does each case reveal about the relationship between collector identity and the material gathered?

4. Which folklorists would you cite to argue that folklore is a process rather than a product, and what specific concepts support this view?

5. How does Glassie's material culture approach expand the definition of folklore beyond the verbal traditions emphasized by earlier scholars like Thompson and Propp?