to Ten Articles Main Page




Abrahams, Roger D.  1968.  “A Rhetoric Of Everyday Life: Traditional Conversational Genres.”  Southern Folklore Quarterly 32: 44-59.
   

“A Rhetoric Of Everyday Life: Traditional Conversational Genres”
Roger D. Abrahams

[beginning of page 44]

There have been few studies made of the shorter forms of traditional expression, and those we have are primarily catalogs of collected materials.  The reason for this lack of interest may lie in the easy availability of such data, even among the so-called “nontraditional” groups.  Another reason may be that the lack of complexity of these forms makes them of less interest than the larger genres.  Further, their study has been hampered by the lack of definition of the genres in either formal or functional terms.  This definition problem is certainly true of the two most widely observed short forms, proverbs and superstitions, for we know of them mostly through dictionaries or other encyclopedic presentations.  Consequently, though we have an abundance of texts of these forms, we know little of how, why, and by whom they are used.

That this is an important oversight has recently been demonstrated by E. Ojo Arewa and Alan Dundes in regard to proverbs (Arewa and Dundes), and Linda Degh with superstitions (Degh).  Arewa and Dundes have shown that a large part of the life of the proverb lies, not only in what it apparently means and how it can therefore influence, but also in who uses the saying with whom, and what range of uses are possible with each specific proverb.  They argue effectively that we cannot really know what a proverb “means” until we find out such contextual information.  This is perhaps clearer in traditions other than proverbs in English, but we can demonstrate that such situational data is also present and important in our own total understanding of a proverb.

Let us take the example of a proverb that has retained a vitality in our culture that regards most traditional sayings as cliches: “Little pitchers have big ears.”  This is the kind of proverb whose metaphorical description might not be understandable to members of other cultures [beginning of page 45] because of the comparison of the pitcher handle (large enough to enable a good grip even on a small container) with an ear.  The surface “meaning” of the saying is something like “children have good memories but bad sense of discretion, so one should not say things in front of them which don’t bear repeating.”  But this explication does not tell us much about the actual range of uses for the proverb, including how its voicing is part of a system of social behavior.  The most common use of the proverb is by one adult speaking to another while a child is near, resulting in a restriction of subjects in future conversation.  A less common use is a situation in which the proverb is directed at a child by an adult (who must know the child well) to inform the child that he has heard something which should not be repeated.  It is hardly conceivable that the proverb be directed by a child to an adult, or even that it be used by one child in conversation with another.  This is one of a class of proverbs in English used to establish a hierarchy based on age distinction, usually that between child and adult.  It is therefore capable, when described effectively, of helping to explain the workings of one important facet of our social institutions

As proverbs are often used as a response to this kind of recurrent social problem, the recording of contextual data is absolutely central to an understanding both of expressive style of specific groups and of the ways in which proverbs (and other genres of traditional expression) are related to the value structure of the community and the daily workings out of institutional life.  On the other hand, superstitions occur in contexts in which the problems confronted are not social, and therefore they are seldom used primarily to define status.  Rather, they function in places in which man is confronted by natural or supernatural forces and seeks to control them.  There is less need to distinguish who uses superstitions with whom, for in such use situations the group tends to cohere rather than stratify.

This does not mean that there are not important contextual materials related to the use of superstitions which have been overlooked in the presentation of these materials.  Linda Degh has shown, for instance, that superstitions are seldom encountered in the form of the “if _____, then _____” formula in which one commonly finds them in the collections.  They are often elicited in that form by the folklorist (or rephrased that way by him), for he has usually been concerned with gathering the greatest number of such beliefs in the shortest time.  Degh argues that the most usual way in which superstitions are expressed and transmitted is through memorate legends -- stories illustrat- [beginning of page 46] ing the working out of the belief in a specific occurrence.  These stories not only illustrate the belief, but fill in other important information as to who follows the superstition, in what way, and under what circumstances.

An example of just this point was brought to my attention recently while collecting life-history data from the Arkansas ballad-singer, Alameda Riddle.  While speaking of the old-time practices, she told me the following story half jokingly:

Clearly the superstitions which she mentions here are of less interest than the way in which they expose Mrs. Riddle’s attitudes, and their relation to those of other members of her community.  In telling this story, Mrs. Riddle is establishing a value-laden point of view which is intended both as an explanation and a model for possible emulation.

What is needed, then, for the study of these smaller genres of folklore is a frame of reference which will allow both for a description and relation of form and an analysis of recurrent use.  In this paper I will look at proverbs and superstitions, comparing their forms and functions.  I will point to those functional variables which parallel differences in form.  I will then discuss other small genres in light of the [beginning of page 47] distinction between proverb and superstition.  Finally, I will argue that the study of the smaller genres is of greatest importance to the student culture, for it is through such traditional forms that the basic institutions of society are often put into practice.
 

I

Both proverbs and superstitions confront and attempt to control recurrent anxiety situations by giving them a “name.”  Humans, as cultural beings, have a “rage for order.”  Anxiety arises with the intuition of chaos, of disruption of the orderly procession of life, and of dissolution of group.  Proverbs “name” situations in which social stability is repeatedly threatened, the potentially disruptive forces coming from within the group.  Superstitions give a name to occasions in which order is in danger of being disrupted (or susceptible to being reinforced) through forces outside the group.

These traditional genres may handle problems in various ways, depending upon whether the question is being faced immediately or whether the crisis has already passed but left a residual feeling of disorientation.  In the case of the former condition, the item employed will recommend a future course of action; in the latter, though it still promotes the adoption of an attitude that will allow one to handle the same situation in the future, its immediate function is more of a realignment procedure -- the proverb or superstition arises to take the edge off the shock of the disorienting experience, reimposing a sense of order, by aligning this experience with others of its class through giving it its traditional name.  For instance, a proverb like “haste makes waste” may be used in two quite different ways, which one might designate “active” and “passive.”  In its active use, the proverb may arise in a discussion in which one person is confronted with a problem of having to decide whether to rush a job or not, and then the proverb recommends a specific and immediate course of action.  In its passive use, a person may hurry a job and make a costly mistake as a result, and the use of the proverb then would simply provide the consolation of placing the mistake in an understandable -- and therefore controllable category of happenings, one that can perhaps be avoided in the future through following the dictates of the proverb.

The same could be pointed to in certain uses of superstition.  For instance, the widely reported, “if a black cat crosses your path, you’ll have bad luck,” can help someone handle the experience of having an [beginning of page 48] ebony feline pass in front of him.  If this should happen, the repetition of the superstition (even if it is only repeated in the mind) will prepare you for a future calamity, thus eliminating the shock potential.  This will cause a change in your future actions, whether through adopting a guarded attitude or simply by enacting a counteractant practice to eliminate the bad luck (like spitting and turning around three times).  This would be the active usage of the belief.  On the other hand, if something should happen to you of a disastrous nature, this may remind you of having had a black cat cross your path recently.  You will therefore be able to assign a cause to the happening, giving it a name, and thus you are able to more effectively cope with the situation psychologically.  This would be the more passive use.
 

II

Proverbs and superstitions share a great deal.  Not only are they both control devices which arise in recurrent problem situations, but they use similar cause-effect arguments for proposing their solutions.  Both are concise and sententious statements which appear to embody the wisdom accrued through the past practice of the group.  But they differ not only in the area of life in which they occur, but in the devices and formulae which they employ.

Proverbs are expressions suggested in the popular mind at those times when a member of the group collides in some way with others, or at least threatens to do so.  Therefore one can fruitfully use the occurrences of proverbs in context as an index to the places where the social structure of the community is weakest and needs the greatest amount of control.  Consequently the study of proverbs in a situation of that sort would call for an indication not only of the repertoire of sayings available to a group, but how often individual items crop up. 

Looked upon in this way, proverbs can be seen to regulate to a certain extent man’s relation to his neighbors; they do this by setting forth solutions to the problems that arise between them repeatedly, phrasing them in such a way that they are at one and the same time concise, witty, memorable, forceful, and illustrative of past usage.  But most important for the implementation of their rhetorical strategy, they are phrased impersonally, so that the very personal problem becomes more universalized.  The argument of the proverb, in other words, achieves its ability to influence by being couched in objective, third-person terms.  The appearance of objectivity is further heightened when they employ analogic or metaphoric techniques of argument.

[beginning of page 49] Superstitions, too, are impersonal in their approach and concise in their phrasing; yet they do not generally employ poetic techniques to emphasize this concision.  Superstitions do not call attention to themselves as meaningful statements to the same degree as proverbs; it may be for this reason that they are so often accompanied by exemplary legends.  While superstitions are as concise as proverbs, they operate in a different sector of man’s experience, and this is reflected in the different themes and strategy of the two.  Proverbs attack the problems of social behavior, while superstitions attempt to handle man’s confrontation with extrapersonal (natural or supernatural) forces.  In most cases, these forces threaten to disrupt the continued existence of individuals, and by extension, the group.  Most superstitions attack potentially malevolent forces.  Some, however, recognize the existence of benevolent external forces and try to convert them to the advantage of the individual or group.  All superstitions present a technique for handling change when it is brought on by forces external to the group, whether the force is invoked by a member of the group (as in magic), or emerging from a totally external, uncontrolled source.  But these forces are handled in superstition in different ways, depending upon whether they have had their effect already or simply have been predicted to have an effect. 

Superstitions work: 

1.  by allowing for the prediction of the coming of these forces, therefore eliminating the shock potential which is really what man cannot psychologically handle.  This is most clearly seen in those superstitions called omens or portents, like “if you dream of marriage a close friend is soon to die” or “if your right palm itches, you are going to get some money, but if your left palm itches, you are going to lose money.” 

2.  by providing a counteractant for these forces once they have had effect, as in counterspells or cures, like “if you get measles, rub goose grease on the bumps.”  These are often found in combination with those above, as in “if a dog howls at night, a neighbor will die, unless you go to the crossroads, spit at the center, turn around three times, and make the sign of the cross.”

3.  by setting up an atmosphere in which benevolent forces (good luck) prevent the onslaught of these forces, as in preventatives like “if you put up a horseshoe with its face up over your door that will give you luck” (or “keep away bad luck”). 

[beginning of page 50] Both proverbs and superstitions, then, present a course of future action to the spoken-to when confronted with a problem which threatens to disrupt the smooth working of life.  And they both argue impersonally, bringing to bear the manner in which the problem has been handled before.  Their major difference is in the sectors of life in which they work, and the language which they use to suggest action.  Perhaps the superstition is not phrased in as arresting and artificial a manner as the proverb because it is commonly part of a legend and the narrative gives it the force of authority and past usage which is built into most proverbs through their phrasing.  On the other band, the differences in technique seem more readily explainable through the demands arising out of contextual differences in usage.  Since the proverb-sayer (who may be described as a protagonist) is treating a social problem which may have multiple proverbial solutions, he is in the position of asserting one sanctioned approach over others equally sanctioned.  The poetic, often metaphorical language of the proverb can be seen at least in part as a consequence of the protagonist’s recognition of the fact that the assertion may not find common agreement.  To avoid possible conflict over the content of the assertion, and to psychologically remove the protagonist as personally-involved arguer from his argument, his recommendation is couched in indirect and impersonal rhetoric.  The proverb-sayer is strategically recognizing the complexity of action in the social sphere and formulating a recommendation in such a way as to de-emphasize possible interpersonal conflict and thereby to assure the greatest stability for the continuing conversation.  For a statement dealing with social interaction to survive and become a part of traditional expression, it will probably have to afford the proverb-sayer the kind of conflict protection that poetic language provides.

On the other hand, the superstition-sayer, commenting on the effects of natural or supernatural forces, gives voice to what he can assume to be a belief held by both himself and those to whom he is speaking as a response to a common problem.  Since he is more or less sure that his assertion will meet with agreement, the speaker need not fear conflict as a result of ego assertion or conflicting ideas for resolving the problem, and thus he can formulate his statement using much more direct language.  He knows beforehand that his statement will receive sympathetic response in most cases, and be needn’t couch his assertion in terms that will avoid possible conflict.  Conflict already exists between the individual affected (or threatened) and the extrapersonal [beginning of page 51] forces doing the affecting.  The speaker is announcing what must be regarded under most conditions as a helpful point of view.

There are certain kinds of superstitions which consistently are found in poetic form; for instance, weather superstitions (often, in fact, called “weather proverbs”).  They are cast in this form not because a greater amount of potential conflict is involved between speaker and spoken-to but because a greater and more persistent conflict exists in these areas between man and nature.  A sailor must be able to remember ways of predicting a storm.  His casting of “Red sky in morning, sailor take warning; red sky at night, sailor’s delight” in poetic form makes the knowledge more immediately available.  This is the central function of all mnemonic devices, in fact -- to make knowledge more memorable so that under stress conditions it can be recalled more easily.  In this sense, the mnemonic, of all small forms of traditional expression, involves the least amount of interpersonal involvement (and threat of manipulation for personal reasons) of any folklore genre.
 

III

If the mnemonic device is the least susceptible to use for the establishment of higher status through the manipulation of words, there are a number of interpersonal types of traditional expressions which are considerably more available for such purposes of ego-gain than proverbs and superstitions.  These include taunts, teases, boasts, charms, spells, curses, and prayers.  As with the forms discussed earlier, these traditional utterances commonly arise in the course of everyday interpersonal communication, and thus we might group them all under the rubric of conversational genres.  All of them employ the pattern of the back-and-forth movement of converse, though tiny enter into different sectors of the communications experience.  All of them can be voiced by individuals who need not play any specially licensed roles to bring them into use.  In other words, they share a similar structure of context -- in the face-to-face situation in which they all arise -- and a similar dramatic structure as well -- in the way in which they set up a protagonist-antagonist relationship between the speaker and spoken-to, and proceed to only suggest a possible resolution to the conflict.  However, they differ in the situations in which they arise and therefore they utilize different techniques from different points of view and with varying strategies of argument.

Before we examine the strategies however, it seems important to isolate the technical and contextual variables.  Proverbs are not the only [beginning of page 52] conversational genres which confront social problems and attempt to adjust social positioning.  Boasts and taunts also arise in this sector of life, though they attack the problems with the technique of the personal (first person) point of view.  Similarly, superstitions are related to charms, spells and prayers in their attempt to control extrapersonal forces, but like boasts and taunts, they use the vantage of the direct personal approach.  Thus we can discern two variables operating here creating four possible classes of conversational genres. 

Personal (first person) point of view 
Confronting inter-personal forces (social) --
boasts, taunts. 
Confronting extra-personal forces (natural, supernatural) --
prayers, spells, charms.
(blessings, curses are on the borderline between the above two categories) 

Impersonal (third person) point of view
Confronting inter-personal forces (social) --
proverbs.
Confronting extra-personal forces (natural, supernatural) --
superstitions. 

These differences are paralleled by variations in the rhetorical strategies used by these related genres.  Boasts and taunts attempt to establish a direct interpersonal power and domination.  Charms, spells, and prayers attempt to control extra-personal forces for individual gain by personifying these forces (as a deity) and then by addressing them in the rhetoric of direct appeal.  Boasts and taunts function by assuming a position of superior status operating through the power of sheer invective; prayers and charms rather work through the strategy of taking an inferior position to the larger inexorable forces.
 

IV

The major distinction established here in the personal conversational genres is between those, like boasts, which seek to persuade and to control the situation through the simple power of words, and others, like prayers, which attempt to invoke supernatural power for assistance in attaining personal control.  Perhaps this can most clearly be demonstrated through the different uses of the curse, and its close relative, the blessing.

Looked upon from the rhetorical point of view, the curse seems to operate completely in the social realm.  And many curses do, in fact, [beginning of page 53] work like taunts, consigning the spoken-to (cursed-at) to an inferior social position.  Such curses as “You’re a son-of-a-bitch” or “You’re a bastard” obviously arose in a cultural milieu in which parentage and especially legitimacy meant a great deal more than it seems to today.  These utterances consigned the cursed-at to a despised social realm by intent, and they preserve some of this force in present usage.

However, most curses do not work in the direct way.  Rather, they invoke the aid of an extrapersonal force to place the cursed-at in the interior position.  That this is the more common method of addressing the problem is clear in the definition of curse from the Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology and Legend: “A malediction; the wishing of evil upon a person; ...A curse invokes a power -- divine, demonic, or magical -- against which the person cursed has no defense, unless he in some manner propitiates the power or brings to bear against it a stronger power” (Leach, Vol. I:271).  This kind of invocation of supernatural power is found in modern parlance, in such exclamations as “May your body rest eternally in Hell” or even “God damn you!” even though these may have lost some of their rhetorical force perhaps through the celebrated demise of God, or more likely because of their overuse.  Consequently, there are curses which fit into both categories of the personal conversational genres.  The same is true of the blessing.

However, even with those curses which call upon supernatural forces, they do so to adjust social alignment.  This is not true of the other genres in this area of the grid: spells, charms, and prayers.  These rather attempt to enlist the aid of a supernatural power to ensure the well-being of the speaker.  Prayers use a different approach than charms and spells; they address the deity as a person, and through the rhetoric of supplication and appeal attempt to gain a favor.  Prayers are “an address to a higher power [a deity] requesting some boon or guidance” (Leach, Vol. II:884).  This is often simply an appeal for protection, as in the common
 

Now I lay me down to sleep I pray the Lord my soul to keep;  And if I die before I wake,  I pray the Lord my soul to take.

The charm is generally described in much the same terms: “An object, rhyme or chant used to perform magic by enlisting the aid of [beginning of page 54] helpful spirits or by discouraging malevolent ones” (Clarke 8).  However, the strategy of the charm is different from the supplicatory techniques of the prayer.  The charm or spell (the two can be used interchangeably) speaks directly to the personified force, and often in demanding tones: 
 
 

Rain, rain, go away,  Come again another day.

or:
 

Bees, stop [here]! Wax go to Sainte-Vierge, Honey come to me! Come down, beauties, beauties, beauties.    (Fife 154)

 On the other hand, charms often speak “in the name of” some deity in order to influence the spirit to whom it is directed.  The reference to the deity only compounds the magic rather than being the object of the appeal.  ere, for instance, is a Manx charm for a toothache:
 

Saint Peter was ordained a saint Standing on a marble stone, Jesus came to him alone, And saith unto him, “Peter what makes thee Shake?” Peter replied, “My Lord and Master it is the toothache.” Jesus said, “Rise up and be healed, and keep these words for my sake, And thou shalt never more be troubled with toothache.”    (Moore 98)

The idea clearly is that through verbal reenactment, the original miracle will be also replayed.

In the interest of clarity, it must be noted that though the distinction has been made between prayer and charm or spell, certain charms assume a rhetorical approach very close to that of the prayer.  For instance, the Manx charm against the fairies is:
 

Peace of God and peace of man, Peace of God on Columb-Killey, On each window and each door, On every hole admitting moonlight, On the four corners of the house, [beginning of page 55] And on the place of my rest, And peace of God on myself.    (Moore 99)

Their connection with uncommon ritualized practices raises the question whether charms or spells are “conversational” forms of folklore, but they have been included here because they involve the same mode of personal address for the same kind of persuasive purpose as proverbs and the other members of this group.

The same question might be raised concerning taunts and boasts, since in many groups they arise primarily as items in the performance of the verbal contest or “flyting.”  Nevertheless, both boasts and taunts are to be observed also in heightened forms of conversation.

There is little difference between a boast and a taunt.  The boast is, of course, a series of exaggerations about the powerful capacities of the speaker, intended to place his hearers in a subordinate position, usually in terms of strength and endurance.  The symbols used are almost always closely tied to animal masculinity:
 

I was born in the backwoods, suckled by a bear;  I’ve got three sets of jawbone teeth and an extra layer of hair. When I was three I sat in a barrel of knives.  Then a rattlesnake bit me, crawled off and died.  So when I come in here, I’m no stranger, ’Cause when I leave, my ass-hole print leaves “danger.”

The taunt, on the other hand, is directed toward “the others,” toward “the others,” toward individual onlookers, and talk in terms of their lack of virility, as in such phrases as “You lily-livered, yellow-bellied sapsucker.”

Taunts are, in a very real way, the proverbs of children. That is, they are the traditional devices by which the members of this tradition-oriented sub-group take care of their recurrent interpersonal problems by announcing their values and their approved ways of acting.  Taunts, like proverbs, point out where a problem is and propose an avoidance formula by directly “making fun” of the errant one.  But they can do so much more directly than the proverbs of adults, presumably because  children cannot be expected to have sufficient control over words to know the proverbs and to use them in establishing canons of conduct and social relationship.  Thus, they are able to obtain license to legislate such matters by talking directly about the problem.  For instance, tattlers are placed in temporary social isolation by children with: 

[beginning of page 56]
 
 

Tattle-tale tit Your tongue shall be split, And all the dogs in town Shall have a little bit.

Or the excessive bawler is greeted with: 
 

Cry, baby, cry Stick your finger in your eye And tell your Ma it wasn’t I.

V

By viewing taunts as regulators of social behavior, especially among children, and as means of establishing a social hierarchy (temporary as it may be), we have been emphasizing traditional techniques for controlling through exclusion.  Proverbs, curses, taunts and boasts all attempt to induce future action through the establishment of the speaker as arbiter of values (and therefore modes of action).  These are the traditional ways of aggressively assuming the mantle of power, proverbs being only the least apparently aggressive of these forms because of the impersonal language used.  There are however traditional ways of social ordering by principles of inclusion: pledges, greetings and partings and other conversational punctuation marks, traditional repartee, and jargon, slang, argot, and all other special code language.

All of these are the traditional ways in which a member of a group proclaims his membership; through this proclamation, he also demonstrates the group’s solidarity.  This group may be so exclusive that an extreme amount of esoteric expression is connected with membership, or it may simply involve a demonstration of friendship.  Consequently, the forms which are included here range from the password which must be repeated at the beginning or ending of each meeting of two or more members, to the simple greetings and partings which are common to everyday parlance.

Traditional greetings may range from the formal (like “How do you do?” or “Happy to meet you”) to the very familiar (like “Hi,” “What’s up?” or “How’re you cuttin’it?”).  The same is true in partings, ranging from “It’s been a pleasure making your acquaintance” to “Lator, ’gator”).  Each of these is designed to establish a social relationship which will affect future actions between the speakers.  They work through a principle of acceptance simply by establishing verbal contact.  The more interpersonal the relationship becomes, the more com- [beginning of page 57] munity of interest is established, and the less formal the exchanges become.  But the less formal the conversations become, the more special traditional “in-group” expressions emerge in the exchanges. There is a direct relationship between the amount of in-group traditions invented and utilized and the amount of emotionally charged time spent together, the values and special activities shared, and the need felt to exclude others who do not share these attitudes and activities (Jansen).  Consequently, though these forms are primarily used as means of denominating principles of inclusion and community, they may operate exclusively at the same time if a non-member of the group is present.  Nothing can be more disorienting and frustrating than an extreme expressive demonstration of group solidarity to an onlooking non-member. 

Similarly, there is a direct proportion between these esoteric factors (time, intensity, special activity, out-group exclusion) and the amount of traditional expression observable in the in-group.  This is especially observable in the development of code languages (special vocabularies).  An occupational group which is involved in highly dangerous work or whose members must spend a lot of time together because of the demands of the job will develop a large number of items of jargon, most of them relating to their occupational activity.  The same is true of special interest groups (like spelunkers or hot-rudders or science-fiction fans).  Groups formed primarily for social purposes will develop a body of slang terms, usually relating to their social activities and in many cases will utilize more involved, composed mottoes, pledges, and proverbs which will be brought into the discourse of the meetings of these groups.  The most extreme form of these special vocabularies are languages like “Pig Latin” which involve such esoteric coding that only those who know the rules, that is, how to make the proper language transformation, can understand.

This esoteric demonstration of community is not just observable in such languages.  It is a dimension of most of the larger, more complex genres of folklore.  For instance, the performance of a tale or a ballad, by calling together a group and asking them to identify with and approve of the enactment, asks for the same kind of ratification of community and community values.  In a more limited way, a proverb such as “Never mind the weather as long as we’re together” functions as a demonstration of solidarity in the face of outside threat, and this, as [beginning of page 58] we’ve seen, is a motive in the voicing of many superstitions: community approved solutions to threatening external forces.

These conversational forms which emphasize community often do so in the face of external threat.  While functioning as a normative and integrating influence in the social workings of the in-group, they work aggressively from the point of view of “the others.”  Quite obviously, the taunt and the boast and even the proverb can also function in this manner in specific use situations.  Indeed, it is only those genres like the prayer which assume the passive pose that do not function aggressively.  Some, like the proverb, generally direct the aggressive impulse at other members of one’s own group while casting their advice in impersonal and normative terms.  Others, like the taunt, often channel their onslaught onto members of another group, and therefore can talk in more personal terms.  (There seems to be an axiom at work here--the more you know someone personally, the more impersonal or stylized your approach must be in arguing traditionally.)  And finally, there are those genres like slogans and code languages which function both aggressively and normatively at the same time but in regard to two different groups of hearers.
 

VI

The point of these remarks on aggression and normation in the uses of conversational forms of folklore is that with these short genres we can see the complexity and totality of traditional usage most clearly.  Folklore is a social phenomenon: it articulates the relationships between individuals as they group themselves institutionally; it allows a definition of group; it points out the places at which the members of the group habitually conflict with each other and represents techniques by which the conflicting factors can be regulated; it establishes the confines of the group and proposes methods for handling forces external to the community, whether arising from other groups or from nature and the supernatural.

This view of folklore builds upon Georg Simmel’s premise that community is established through a combination of associative and dissociative phenomena.  Conflict, even though it does not necessarily further the ideal aims of the group, nevertheless is an element of sociation (social interaction).  “If every interaction among men is a sociation, conflict -- after all one of the most vivid interactions, which, furthermore cannot possibly be carried on by one individual alone -- must [beginning of page 59] certainly be considered as sociation...  Conflict is...designed to resolve divergent dualisms; it is a way of achieving some kind of unity, even if it be through the annihilation of one of the conflicting parties” (Simmel 13).  Folklore represents the traditional means by which all kinds of sociations are manifested and manipulated, those founded upon ego-based conflict and those arising out of sympathy.

In this overview of the small genres, the most pervasive of the traditional forms, we have been examining the traditional elements of the rhetoric of everyday discourse.  This is an area which demands a great deal more observation and analysis from folklorists.  Some recent studies from sociologists and sociolinguists have shown that there is a traditional structure to conversations, or at least such a severe limitation of vocabulary and syntax that items of conversation which occur are highly predictable (see Bernstein: he gives a number of other studies in his bibliography).  And this predictability has been pointed to as an element of esoteric group identification: “the [restricted and traditional] code will develop wherever the form of the social relation is based upon some extensive set of closely shared identifications, self-consciously held by the members” (Bernstein 61).

We have not investigated the occurrence, nor the invention, of these in-group expressive phenomena.  We know little about the functioning of special languages in specific groups.  It is clear from casual observation, however, that in-groups like gangs, clubs, secret societies, and occupational units under severe stress, folklore develops as an esoteric statement of groupness and reflects the common aims and practices of the group and their shared ideals.  The amount of apartness felt by the group and the amount of anxiety under which they exist will be reflected in the amount of traditional expressions developed and the intensity of the life of such items.  Even our concept of the family may ultimately have to be described in terms of the shared expressions which arise out of the shared experiences. 

University of Texas 
 
 
 

Bernstein, Basil.  1964.  “Elaborated and Restricted Coda: Their Social Origins and Some Consequences,” American Anthropologist 66, No. 6, Part 2: 55-69.

Clarke, Kenneth and Mary.  1965.  A Concise Dictionary of Folklore.  Bowling Green, Ky.

Degh, Linda.  1956.  “Processes of Legend Formation.”  In Proceedings of the IV International Congress for Folk-Narrative Research in Athens, Georgios A. Megas, ed., Athens.

Dundes, Alan, and E. Ojo Arewa.  1964.  “Proverbs and the Ethnography of Speaking Folklore,” American Anthropologist 66, No. 6, Part 2: 70-85.

Fife, Austin E.  1964.  “Christian Swarm Chorus from the Ninth to the Nineteenth Centuries,” Journal of American Folklore 77: 154-9.  (Roger D. Abrahams’ trans. from the French.)

Jansen, William Hugh.  1959.  “The Esoteric-Esoteric Factor in Folklore,” Fabula 2:205-211.  (Reprinted in:  Dundes, Alan, ed.  1965.  The Study of Folklore.  Englewood Cliffs, N. J., pp. 43-51.)

Leach, Maria, ed.  1949.  Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology and Legend, New York.

Moore, A. W.  1891.  The Folklore of the Isle of Man.  London.

Simmel, Georg.  1955.  Conflict and the Web of Group Affiliations, Kurt H. Wolf, trans.  Glencoe, Illinois.