The recognition of the importance of folk groups (as they are called by folklorists) or
subcultures (as sociologists usually refer to them) indicates a set of similar concerns.
How do groups of various sizes create shared meanings, and what is the nature of the
culture that is created. Louise Pound reminded folklorists in 1945 that folklore was
simply traditional lore found among homogeneous groups. Gary Alan Fine speaks of a
phenomenon he labels “idioculture”—referring to the collective traditions of a small
group (Fine 1982). This model has been pursued both by folklorists who examine groups
of eversmaller size and by sociologists who expand the model of small-group culture to
other substantive venues.
Sociologists argue persuasively that group culture serves a “boundary—maintenance”
function: excluding outsiders from participation and also providing justification for
internal cohesion by recognizing external threats. Everyone who has just joined an
ongoing group recognizes how difficult it is to understand the humor and gossip swirling
around. Family culture perhaps provides the most dramatic instance of this process by
which tradition is localized: an intimate group, whose members are separated legally
and/or biologically from those outside and whose traditions emphasize these boundaries.