1
Introduction: scope and terminology
1.1
PREVIEW
The study of verbal arts and oral traditions has long seemed a Cinderella subject within British social anthropology, in the past often treated as more a matter for folklorists, oral historians or linguists rather than mainstream anthropology. But this position is changing. This book reflects both these developing interests within anthropology and their links with concurrent intellectual trends in related disciplines.
Anthropologists have in fact always taken some interest in patterned communication and tradition, in myth, and in ritualâeven if British anthropologists have in the past focused less than their American or European counterparts on the artistic or performance elements of these processes. The anthropological tradition of combining in-depth fieldwork with a comparative perspective has also influenced work in this area. This has become increasingly important as older divides between anthropology and such other disciplines as oral history, literary study and, in particular, folklore are now narrowing.
More specifically, recent moves in anthropology have led to more interest in the kinds of topics covered in this volume. Besides the longer-term and often-cited shift âfrom function to meaningâ, which has helped to heighten the visibility of verbal formulations and artistry, there is also now keen anthropological discussion of theoretical ideas relating to performance and to the ethnography of speaking. Older emphases on the primarily cognitive aspects of the ârationality debateâ or on the proclivities of the human mindâthemselves not unrelated to the topics covered hereâhave been broadening to include analysis of artistry and emotion, and their manifestation in words and in action. Perhaps the most influential development has been the increasing attention to personal creativity and experience, part of what Peter RiviĂšre sums up as âthe reinstatement of the individual as a thinking and feeling subject who is the creator of his society and cultureâ (1989:22). The socialâand often politicalâconstruction of such processes as memory, speech, literacy, myth, or the control of knowledge is also increasingly appreciated, issues now moving to the centre stage in modern anthropological thinking.
Not that the subjects discussed here are easy to define or delimit. Indeed it has to be faced that any description of the scope and limits of this bookâthe obvious topic for this introductory sectionâimmediately runs into complications. For not only is the âsubjectâ itself elusive, but the questions to be discussed are embattled between partly contrasting partly overlapping disciplines. Neither the central concepts nor what these fundamentally refer to are agreed.
This first chapter must therefore open with some consideration of these issues, including the problems in what at first sight seem innocent matters of terminology. This is followed, first, by a survey of some influential theoretical perspectives (chapter 2), then more detailed discussions of the once-typical stages of: preparing for the field (chapter 3), collecting and observing while there (4 and 5), useful questions and classifications (6 and 7), analysing and processing the data (8 and 9) and, finally, the ethical issues that social researchersâand particularly those involved in fieldworkâneed to bear in mind (10). Not all research on oral traditions and verbal arts follows this traditional order, of course. Fieldwork may be neither fulltime nor in another culture; analysis may be of texts recorded by others; and collecting, observing and processing may be continuous rather than separated stages. But since any texts or reports relating to oral tradition or the verbal arts are shaped through some such processes as those discussed in chapters 3â9 (and affected by ethically-contentious decisions too) understanding these phases is as relevant for those dealing with collections made by others as for those engaged in firsthand recording or observing.
Both this opening chapter and the later presentation are influenced by a view of oral traditions and verbal arts not as neutral textual dataâin the past often the dominant modelâbut as ultimately based in, perhaps constituted by, social processes. The procedures of recording, presenting or analysing them are, similarly, human and interactive processes which in turn play a part in structuring the objects of study. These themes will be familiar ones for anthropologists. They are consonant both with the continuing anthropological tradition of studying the conventions of human culture in their own meaningful context and with recent sensitivities to the processes, ambiguities and reflexivities of human action.
1.2
âLANGUAGEâ, âSPEECHâ AND âTEXTâ: SOME INITIAL QUESTIONS
Obviously it is impossible for either this volume or the keenest researcher to follow up everything on language or on âtraditionâ, and the focus here is on the kinds of issues which concern anthropologists. These could be summed up provisionally as the more formalised and recurrent conventions relating to verbal expression, considered in their cultural context. However, to say that is immediately to come face to face with the problems. For there is nothing automatic about just how and what someone interested in the cultural aspects of formalised verbal expression (or similar phrases) should be studying, nor does the âobject of studyâ present itself as already defined and separated for the observer. Given the seamless texture of speech, ideas, action, performance that make up human livingâor is it seamless?âthe processes of isolating its elements for abstraction and analysis are themselves problematic. For example:
How far do human beings in particular situations express and clothe their ideas, emotions or actions in recurrent verbal forms and in what ways are these traditional?
In what sense are certain forms of verbal expression more âformalisedâ or âheightenedâ, and whatâif anythingâis excluded?
How far is theorising or interpretation imposed by researchers, how far already there, and formulated in verbal expression?
Can we separate the âverbalâ from other aspects of communication and action?
Can oral texts be divorced from those in writing?
How can researchers go about settling such questions, developing a vocabulary, and carving out suitable phenomena for investigation?
These questions are not susceptible to once-and-for-all answers. Indeed researchers often bypass them and merely delimit their material in the light of their own interests and practicalities. Nevertheless, however the essential matter for investigation is selected, some decisions have been made, if often unconsciously, in response to such issues.
These decisions have both a theoretical and an empirical side (insofar as these aspects are distinguishable). So another theme throughout this book is the importance of being aware not just of comparative theory, but also of ethnographic specificities. Anthropologists sometimes forget that cultural relativity applies to verbal expression as much as to other cultural conventions, for here too categories we take as self-evident (even that basic western concept of âtextâ) may not be universally applicable. So responses to the questions above may also need to take account of culturally specifie values and practices. In a given cultural context how far are different verbal genres recognised, and by whom and how and by what criteria? Apparent parallels from our own cultural experience, or even apparently unambiguous statements by (some) participants themselves, may need critical analysis. Is âoral traditionâ transmitted in crystallised narrativesâcontrolled perhaps by a particular category of peopleâor is it undifferentiated âcommon knowledgeâ, elicited and formulated by the researcher? Do âoralâ and âwrittenâ traditions operate in separate spheres or is there overlap or interaction between themâand does this vary at different periods and places? How far is there a concept of verbal âtextâ divorced from, say, music or performance? Exploring these questions often needs to go beyond both prior generalisation and theoretical self-contemplation to detailed ethnographic investigation.
The issues examined in this volume do not add up to one clearly delimited subject. This is both because disciplinary coverage and key terms are not agreed, and alsoâmore interestinglyâbecause abstracting the elements for study is itself a controversial process. It needs to be constantly remembered that the units chosen for classification and analysisâwhether genres of âoral literatureâ, texts of âmythsâ, syntheses of âoral traditionâ, modes of verbal performance, or whateverâare seldom as self-evident as they seem in the published accounts. They have been partly formulated by particular groups of performers and adherents, partly constructed by researchers, in both cases in some sense abstracted from the flow of human action. Comparative terms can never be presumed in advance to fit exactly the ideas and practices they purport to describe, far less provide a definitive and unchallengeable account.
1.3
SOME CENTRAL TERMSâACCEPTED AND DISPUTED
Dissecting key concepts will be nothing new to anthropologists, with their sensitivity to the danger of squeezing the rich variety of cultures into categories set by our own cultural assumptions. But the terms used in the study of oral arts and traditions seem to be particularly prone to such dangers. Certain technical-sounding terms may give the appearance of being established and universally accepted: unambiguously âthereâ in the world. But most are at best elusive, either in principle or in their application to particular contexts, and often intensely disputed or value-ladenâeven, in some circumstances, offensive. As will quickly emerge too, the terms used in the title of this book are themselves contentious and ambiguous, not least that emotive word âtraditionâ.
Some terms have to be used to start from, of course. As always, though, terminology can only be illuminating when used critically. Furthermore, it may affect not only how you construct your subject of study, but how those cooperating with you envisage it. Some consideration of the most commonly used terms and their implications is therefore needed at the outset.
1.3.1
Oral and orality
The much-used adjective âoralâ is often used as a prime criterion for marking out particular disciplines or research interests. Thus âfolkloreâ is commonly defined in terms of orally transmitted material, the term is basic to âoral-formulaicâ and âoral literatureâ studies, and it also of course appears in the title of this book. It is also the subject of much current debate.
The dictionary definition gives a start: âuttered in spoken words; transacted by word of mouth; spoken, verbalâ (OED). This is frequently the primary meaning in much apparently technical terminology: âoral traditionâ, âoral literatureâ, âoral narrativeâ, âoral testimonyâ and so on. âOralâ is often contrasted with âwrittenâ (an apparently obvious but in practice somewhat slippery distinction), as in âoral literatureâ opposed to âor a parallel ofâwritten literature, or âoral historyâ as a pointer to non-documentary sources. âOralâ also qualifies general terms like âtextsâ, âpoetryâ or ânarrativeâ, either emphasising distinctions between written and oral forms or drawing them within the same comparative perspective.
âOralâ also contrasts with what is not verbal or not based on wordsâ thus the second dictionary meaning of âusing speech onlyâ, as opposed, say, to sign language. Hence âoral folkloreâ like stories, songs or proverbs is distinguished from material culture. Such contrasts need care for they sometimes reflect less local distinctions than unthinking western models of verbal âtextâ as self-evidently differentiated from visual, auditory or bodily signs. One of the themes in recent studies of orally-delivered art forms is that, though in one sense they centre on words, in another they involve more than words (see chapter 5 and 1.4 below).
Because âoralâ is thus opposedâsometimes contentiously opposedâ both to âwritten/literateâ and to ânon-verbalâ, its meaning is correspondingly ambiguous. âOral traditionâ sometimes means any kind of unwritten tradition (including physical monuments, religious statues or church frescoes), sometimes only tradition(s) enunciated or transmitted through words (thus excluding and contrasting with the previous examples).
The more generalised term âoralityâ has been increasingly in vogue in recent years. This usually implies a general contrast with âliteracyâ, sometimes associated with assumptions about the social and cognitive characteristics of oral communication or the significance of oral culture within broad stages of historical development. These questions are currently the subject of controversy. Some scholars are interested in establishing general features of âoralityâ as opposed to literacy, as in Ongâs Orality and Literacy (1982), partly inspired by the work of Parry and Lord (see 2.4.9) or by the more anthropologically-focused studies of Jack Goody (1968, 1977, also his more qualified analyses 1986, 1987). Others criticise this as technological determinism or as based on west-centred views of history; or even, in some cases, as evoking out-dated concepts of âprimitive mentalityâ. Such scholars would instead stress socially conditioned arrangements and usages (Street 1984, Scribner and Cole 1981, Finnegan 1988, 1989b, Goody et al. 1988, Schousboe and Larsen 1989; for further discussion or examples see also Stock 1983, Tannen 1982, Chafe and Tannen 1987, DeMaria and Kitzinger 1989, R.Thomas 1989; on the term âoralâ more generally see Henige 1988, Finnegan 1990, also Foley 1990a: chap. 1).
Ambiguities or controversy are not necessarily reasons for avoiding a term and âoralâ remains popular. But it is worth examining oneâs own and othersâ work for possible misreadings of whichever sense was meant or for overtones not intended.
1.3.2
Tradition(s)
Traditionâ is both common in everyday speech and a term much used by anthropologists, folklorists and oral historians, indeed sometimes regarded as at the heart of these disciplines (particularly folklore, see Bauman 1989c, Honko and Laaksonen 1983, Honko 1988:9â10). It has many different meanings however. It is used, variously, of: âcultureâ as a whole; any established way of doing things whether or not of any antiquity; the process of handing down practices, ideas or values; the products so handed down, sometimes with the connotation of being âoldâ or having arisen in some ânaturalâ and non-polemical way. It has other overtones too. Something called a âtraditionâ is often taken to somehow belong to the whole of the âcommunityâ rather than to specifie individuals or interest groups; to be unwritten; to be valuable or (less often) out-dated; or to mark out a groupâs identity. Recently there has been emerging interest in the processes through which âtraditionsâ are created or maintained in specific historical conditions to fit particular interests or values (as in Hobsbawm and Rangerâs concept of âthe invention of traditionâ (1983), and similar treatments in Cohen 1989, Finnegan 1988: e...