If there has been a trend since the 1970s, it has been that writing on folklore in American studies appeared more “ethnographic.” The basis of fieldwork using interview and observation to describe the communication of symbols among people in contemporary cultural scenes became increasingly important. The ethnographic oriemation of folklife and material culture with its uncovering of cultural persistence and diversity was notably added to the folkloristic relation to American studies (Bronner 1992; Glassie 1968). With the addition of folklife and material culture, a rejuvenation of the historical component of tradition was evident, thus forming a new folkloristic synthesis of art, literature, culture, and history (Bronner 1986). Rather than trying to describe America as a whole, scholars turned more attention to describing the complexity of American scenes and people that influence, and have influenced, the sense of the whole and its parts. Thus, studies of Louisiana Cajuns, Pennsylvania Germans, city firefighters, and corporate humorists were all “American studies” that connected to cultural studies in parts of the United States and abroad. Implying the importance of social identities, these studies were complemented by a movement in folklore and folklife research to consider the importance of settings and practices they suggest (schools, workplaces, and leisure spots, for example) within the common scenes of American life. Particularly in its emphasis on the processes of “tradition” in sociocultural context, folklore and folklife research significantly contributed to American studies by identifying longstanding values and beliefs inherent in socially shared expressions that connect to individual lives as part of the American experience. Judging from the keywords in American studies to describe American life, during the 1970s the anthropological and folkloristic “culture” replaced the humanistic “civilization.” The increasing use of folkloristic terms such as “tradition,” “narrative,” and “folkways” in American studies suggests a more behavioral understanding of American experiences (see Jones 1982). Examining the symbolism of American images and artifacts from wildlife to the New Jersey Turnpike, American-studies scholars have included folklore as a means to analyze the rhetorical meaning of ways that Americans present themselves (Gillespie and Mechling 1987; Gillespie and Rockland 1989). Another indication of the scholarly appeal of folklore in American studies has been the rise of folklore and folklife courses in American-studies programs and departments from a few in 1971 to 13 percent of all folklore courses offered in the United States in 1986. The previous domination of ballad and song gave way to American folklore and folklife as the dominant folkloristic subject taught in American colleges (26 percent) just behind the introductory course (Baker 1971, 1986). Indiana University allows for a joint Ph.D. degree in folklore and American studies, and George Washington University offers a folklife program within the American studies Ph.D. Other American studies Ph.D. granting institutions, such as the University of Pennsylvania, the University of New Mexico, Bowling Green State University, and Michigan State University, have strong folkloristic components. In American studies, folklore studies are used to demonstrate the persistence and diversity of America’s social groups and the interplay between folk and popular cultures. In the area of folksong, for example, where previously studies of British-American balladry dominated, significant new research has considered the theme of railroads in American country music (Cohen 1981) and the cultural meanings of blues (Oliver 1984). Ethnic folk music received its due in American studies with studies of klezmer, polka, and Cajun music. In keeping with the trend toward community and personal experience, many of the newer titles use the keyword of “makers” to draw attention to individual performers in the process of cultural production. Other identities such as age, gender, disability, and sexual preference are the subjects of study in other genres such as legend, humor, and proverb. With the influence of folklife study, American-studies scholarship also has studies that explore a number of different expressions, tangible and intangible, in the round of everyday life within communities. Besides expanding the range of folklore to folklife concerns of material culture and community life, researchers increasingly seek out the multiple cultures that interact in an American commonwealth. American folklorists increasingly ask questions about the influences of tradition on the behaviors and identities that Americans take on in many settings, organizational and physical, in the United States and abroad. The guiding problem for the relation of folklore and folklife research to American studies no longer revolves exclusively around the simplistic opposition of imported and emergent traditions, an opposition that in its formation seeks to create an American exceptionalism. Instead, the main problem statement concerns the rhetorical uses of traditions from various perspectives—the individual, the community, the region, the nation. The goal of interpreting cultural process and social context historically and ethnographically undergirds many new American studies of tradidons. The promise of these studies is their inquiry into the adaptive nature of everyday lives and the ways that these lives represent the American experiences. Simon J.Bronner References Baker, Ronald L. 1971. Folklore Courses and Programs in American Colleges and Universities. Journal of American Folklore 84:221–229. ——. 1986. Folklore and Folklife Studies in American and Canadian Colleges and Universities. Journal of American Folklore 99:50–74. Bauman, Richard, Roger D.Abrahams, and Susan Kalcik. 1976. American Folklore and American Studies. American Quarterly 28:360–77. Bronner, Simon J., ed. [1985] 1992. American Material Culture and Folklife. Logan: Utah State University Press. ——. 1986. Grasping Things: Folk Material Culture and Mass Society in America. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. ——. 1993. Exploring American Traditions: A Survey of Folklore and Folklife Research in American Studies. American Studies International 31. Bronner, Simon J., and Stephen Stern. 1980. American Folklore vs. Folklore in America: A Fixed Fight? Journal of the Folklore Institute 17:76–84. Cohen, Norm. 1981. Long Steel Rail: The Railroad in American Folksong. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Dorson, Richard M. 1976. The Birth of American Studies. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. ——. 1978. Folklore in America vs. American Folklore. Journal of the Folklore Institute 15:97– 112. ——, ed. 1980. The America Theme in American Folklore. Journal of the Folklore Institute 18, nos. 2–3. Dundes, Alan. 1980. Interpreting Folklore. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Georges, Robert A., special ed. 1989. Richard M.Dorson’s Views and Works: An Assessment.
Journal of Folklore Research (Special Issue) 26, no. 3.
Gillespie, Angus K., and Jay Mechling, eds. 1987. American Wildlife in Symbol and Story.
Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.
Gillespie, Angus K., and Michael Aaron Rockland. 1989. Looking for America on the New Jersey
Turnpike. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Glassie, Henry. 1968. Pattern in the Material Folk Culture of the Eastern United States.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hufford, Mary. 1991. American Folklife: A Commonwealth of Cultures. Washington, DC:
American Folklife Center.
Jones, Michael Owen. 1982. Another America: Toward a Behavioral History Based on
Folkloristics. Western Folklore 41:43–51.
Jordan, Philip D. 1946. Toward a New Folklore. Minnesota History 27:273–280.
Nye, Russell B. 1966. This Almost Chosen People: Essays in the History of American Ideas. East
Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
Oliver, Paul.1984. Songsters and Saints: Vocal Traditions on Race Records. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.