7/24/2019 Hybridizing Folk Culture
1/27
Hybridizing Folk Culture
Toward a Theory of New M edia and
VernacularDiscourse
TREV OR J . BLANK
ABSTRACT
From the Internet tomobile communication devices the integration ofnew media tech-
nologies into everyd ay life is fundam ntally changing the ways in which people con-
ceptualize and engage in ve rnacular expression. As a
result
thediscursive practices of
face to face and technologicallymediated interaction have becomehybridized extending
across both corporeal and virtual boundaries. Through the lens of material behavior
studies thisessay chronicles how and why thehybridization of olk culture is occurring
and demonstrates the ways in new mediatechnologies are influencing how many people
conceptualize
corpor eality virtuality and even
reality
itself in
contemporary
vernacular
discourse online and in person. Accordingly the author argues that folklmists mu st
account for
the
pervasive influence of
new
media in examining all
vernacular
processes.
KEYWORDS:
hybridization
Internet
newmedia materialbehavior corporeality virtuality
Writing over a decade ago, new media scholar Lev Manovich observed
that "all culture, past and present, is being filtered through a com-
puter, with its particular human-computer interface," adding, "Human-
com puter interface comes to act as a new form throu gh which all older
forms of cultural production are being mediated" (2001:64). Indeed,
as digital technology has progressed at exponential rates over the last
several decades becom ing smaller, faster, and m ore sophisticated with
greater functionalityits costs have consistendy decreased,^ while user
adoption has continued to steadily rise. The integration of these new
7/24/2019 Hybridizing Folk Culture
2/27
106 TREV OR J. BLANK
media devices into everyday life has been equally profound, particularly
in shaping how individuals com municate and make m eaning in contem-
porary society (Baym 2010; Turkle 2011;see also Fine and Ellis 2010),2
New media technologies possess the ability to digitally replicate
(or temporarily replace) the function and expressive range of verbal
communication in virtual interactions; they also allow individuals to
establish hybrid discursive practices by assigning meaning to interactive,
technologically mediated collaborations (de Souza e Silva2006;see also
Blank 2009; Bronner 2009; Chayko 2008), As such, new media plays
an integral role in the process of constructing social, linguistic, and
expressive forms that constitute the discursive practices of face-to-face
and virtual communication, especially in the discotxrse of a real and/or
virtual community,-^
Nevertheless, the same scholarly attention that folklorists have given
to reporting the manifestations of creativity and the traditional knowl-
edge of people in the physical world has no t yet been fully applied to
Internet contexts, despite the fact that many folklore genres or human
subjects have translated or modified their outputs in order to engage
the online world, whether exclusively or in juxtaposition with their origi-
nal, face-to-face derivations,'' This article provides a theoretical frame-
work for the study of new media and folk culture by exam ining how the
widespread adoption of the Internet and other digital technologies has
fundamentally changed how people communicate and conceptualize
reality across corporeal^ and virtual contexts, resulting in the hybridiza-
tion of vernacular discourse.
For evidence, I look to material culture studiesperhaps the most
corporeally focused genre of folkloristic inquiryto illustrate how the
cognitive hybridization of reality has also yielded emotional synchrony,
behavioral adaptation, and correlative (and/or wholly new) expres-
sive dynamics in online settings without disrupting the authenticity
or meaning of the experience for participants. In doing so, I discuss
how virtual corporeality renders vernacular expression a process and
hence facilitates the ongoing selection for successful traits that is the
definitive process of hybridization, and underscore the relevancy of a
behavioral approach to the study of new media and the hybridization
of folk culture.
In the past, hybridization has held various meaningsfolklorist
D,K Wilgus (1965) employed the term to describe the adoptive styles of
7/24/2019 Hybridizing Folk Culture
3/27
Hybridizing olk ulture
10 7
of Creolization (Kapchan and Strong 1999).^ Perhaps most famously,
Russian philosopher and literary critic Mikhail Bakhtin defined hybrid-
ization as a mixture oftwosocial languages within the limits of single
utterance, an encounter, within the arena of an utterance, between two
different linguistic consciousnesses, separated from one another by an
epoch, by social differentiation or by some other factor (1987:358; see
also Kapchan 1993). In the context of the Digital Age (and this essay),
hybridization exemplifies the process by which real world discursive
practices significantly influence , and are reciprocally influenced by, vir-
tualized discursive practices. Th e am algam ation of these discursive prac-
tices across corporeal and technologically mediated contexts is critically
important to understanding the processes of contemporary folk culture.
As a process, hybridization proliferates by advantageously adopting
discursive proclivities that enhance and adaptively respond to the chang-
ing needs and traits of the vernacular as it is distinguished as alterna-
tive from the institutional (Howard 2005, 2008a, 2008b). Likewise,
it discards or suppresses undesirable functions so as to enhance the
prevailing desirable ones (Stross 1999:261). The construction of mean-
ing within a text or verbal utterance can be coUaboratively negotiated
between a speaker, a listener, an d /o r the other voices who con tribute
to the ongoing dialogue's heteroglossia (Bakhtin 1987:428; Flower
1994:98).^ By the same token, vernacular expression is emboldened by
the multiplicity of new media technologies; they frequently encourage
users'
participation in developing the discursive practices that shape
the dynamics of interaction across corporeal and virtual contexts. That
is, the vernacular practices of online discourse are shaped by a col-
lective body of users who cultivate these into everyday interactions.
Corporeality, or lack
thereof
is nevertheless maintained through a
virtual sense of co-presence (see Danet 2001:112, 145, 351-52; see also
Biocca 1997; Lombard and Ditton 1997). Today, even the novice user of
new media technology is a contributor to a dynamic vernacular web of
interaction that relies on the seamless hybridization of folk process and
its simultaneous enactm ent across virtual and corporeal realms.
The hybridization of folk culture derives from the technologically
mediated convergence of corporeal and virtualized expressive forms
and meanings. Although this convergence is a result of the perpetual
integration and adaptation of digital technologies into everyday life,
it does not serve to destroy or undermine the vitality of analog media,
7/24/2019 Hybridizing Folk Culture
4/27
108 TREV OR J. BLANK
also Blank 2012; Bronner 2009; Dundes and Pagter 1978 [1975], 1987,
1991a, 1991b, 1996, 2000; Preston 1974, 1994; Smith 1991). Instead,
analog media and face-to-face communications may collaborate, influ-
ence, duplicate, and/or reject integrating the discursive processes that
emerge in digital media and virtualized expression. This convergence of
new media has also come to redefine how technology is being produced
and consumed. Indeed, the hybridization of folk culture may be attrib-
utable to individuals' cognitive perception of reality
itself,
mediated by
the changing ways in which people choose to express themselves in the
Digital Age.
As sociologist Erving Goffman wrote in 1974, what people under-
stand to be the organization of their experience, they buttress, and
perforce, self-fullingly, adding that social life takes up and freezes
into itself the understandings we have of
it
(562-63). Today, new media
technologies force individuals to conceptualize and differentiate the
meaning of reality across corporeal and virtual contexts.** As folklorist
Robert Glenn Howard notes, new media can be more folkloric than
old media because much online communication is more like a process
than an object (2008a:200). Through symbolic interaction and expres-
sive communication with others (in person or online), senders adjust
the ways in which they imbue their intentions in communicating with a
receiver, particularly sthey come to understan d how their messages are
received and interpreted (de Souza e Silva 2006; McNeill 2007; Sutko
and de Souza e Silva 2010). In the next section, I will explore and show
applications of these ideas through the lens of material behavior studies.
S E N S A T I O N , P E R C E P T I O N , AN D M A T E R IA L B E H A V I O R
IN H Y BRID CO N T E X T S
At the crux of the hybridization of corporeal and virtualized folklore
is the dissolution of the need or ability for individuals to separate the
material from the virtual. It is tempting to conceptualize hybridity in
binary terms (corporeal/virtual, analog/digital, Internet/non-Internet,
public/private), but to do so undervalues the importance of process
(Tuszynski 2006). For the most part, technologically mediated forms of
communication have been able to achieve the same or acceptably simi-
lar expressive, interactive, and information-seeking/sharing capabilities
as their face-to-face correlates. Many of these technologically mediated
forms of communication (especially the Internet and mobile devices)
7/24/2019 Hybridizing Folk Culture
5/27
Hybridizing olk ulture 109
interactive, and information-seeking/sharing capabilities as their face-
to-face correlateswithout displacing these corporeal traditions.
All reality is mediated by our senses. Humans rely on audio and visual
cues to interpret and assess incoming perceptive information, and use
touch to confirm their physical connection to reality or verify informa-
tion collected from other senses; intrinsically cultivated sensations, like
the emotions of happiness, sadness, anger, and pain, are directly shaped
by one's cognitive interpretation of information collected from one's
senses (Loomis 1992). The various forms of technologically mediated
communication available today are not only sophisticated enough to
provide expansive opportunities for symbolic interaction and vernacular
expression, they are already being widely utilized by an ever-increasing,
demographically diverse body of users, and have been for some time
(Gahran 2011; Shirky 2009; Washington 2011).
Those who utilize technologically mediated communication inter-
faces for information retrieval, entertainment, or meaningful engage-
ment (with others, with media, etc.) are not only sensitive to the
nuances of audio and visual stimuli transmitted
through
such devices
but also to the sensations emanating from touch and physical attach-
ment to the devices themselves (Jaimes and Sebe 2007; Sutko and de
Souza e Silva 2010). An individual's emotional response to an inter-
action or personal experience in a simulative, online environment,
or their delocalized^ perception of space and place while using new
media technologies like smartphones and tablets, all critically rely
upon the individual's cognitive interpretation of the information
relayed by their
senses.
The very same visual and auditory cues that ori-
ent individuals in the corporeal world also guide them in simulative/
virtualized interactive domains. All of the sensory data gleaned from
using technologically mediated communication forums are perceived
to be jus t as real as any oth er sensory ph enom enon in the corpo real
world (Blascovich and Bailenson 2011). In short, this facilitates vir-
tual corporeality a state in which a user of new media technology
becomes so cognitively immersed in their digitally mediated experi-
ences that they perceive them to be just as tangibly real as their sense
of corporeal embodiment.'
The context of the medium through which symbolic communica-
tion takes place is undoubtedly important, but it is the behavioralcom-
ponents of communication that reveal the most salient information
7/24/2019 Hybridizing Folk Culture
6/27
li o TREV ORJ. BLANK
have become hybridized in order to process and compartmentalize
visual, spatial, aesthetic, and other contextual cues when observing or
interacting with an object. As Lev Manovich notes, the concept of an
aesthetic object as an
object
that is, a self-contained structure limited
in space and/or time, is fundamental to all modern thinking about
aesthetics (2001:163, emphasis in original). W hether in person or
remotely, individuals use the same sensory data to recognize an object,
and subsequently draw on past experiences and contexts to frame their
interpretation of the interaction, Virtualized communications employ
the same behavioral patterns as face-to-face interactions in the process
of imbuing an object with symbolic meaning. These technologically
mediated immersive interactions construct a hybridized paradoxical
sense of reality: virtual corporeality. Because this conceptualization
requires reconciliation between the physical and intangible, virtual
corporeality renders vernacular expression a process that shapes both
the composition of hybridization and mediates the processbywhich folk
culture becom es hybridized,
M aterial objects are represented in new media through digital sim-
ulations of their corporeal, aesthetic composition; they are constructed
in ways that enable individuals to recognize their distinguishing visual
traits and imbue them with meaning (or use them) in the same ways as
they would in the real world (see Danet 2001:350-71), Aesthetic, tan-
gible items can thus transcend the boundaries of corporeality and elicit
correlating, or even wholly un ique (but equally satisfactory) behavioral
responses for individuals in online contexts. However, this involves pro-
cess,especially as individuals work to reconcile their emotional response
to new stimuli across corporeal and virtual contexts, Simon Bronner
(2004) employs the term pr xis in reference to activity resulting in
production [and consu mption] of an ob ject, , . where the , , , processes
involved and the conditions present, rather than solely the end, is para-
mount (19-20); he adds that the objective in a study ofpr xisis to seek
things that connec t makers and users in an intimate comm unal setting
(22).Shouldn't this be the objective of all folklorists who engage in the
study of material culture?
In 1997, Michael Owen Jon es pub lished the influential and impor-
tant article, How Can We Apply Event Analysis to 'Material Behavior,'
and Why Should
We?
in which he urged folklorists to employ a behav-
ioral frame of analysis to the study of artifacts and their makers, Jones
7/24/2019 Hybridizing Folk Culture
7/27
7/24/2019 Hybridizing Folk Culture
8/27
112 TREV OR J. BLANK
innovation; as folklore disseminates it is repeated, revised, and reinter-
preted before shifting into new contexts where it obtains new meaning
among new actors (Dgh and Vzsonyi 1975). The transition from a
face-to-face medium into a virtual one^which requires the shifting
visual contexts of three-dimensions to two-dimensionsis an inhe rendy
hybridized process.
Since virtualization became possible, every symbolic interaction or
behavior found online is indicative of a merger between the two formats.
As such, imagining online behavior as a hybrid with corporeal correla-
tions may he lp researchers and analysts sort out the different aspects of
contemporary communication events. On the Internet, for example,
the process of creation comes more into public view and is open for
commentary^ whereas in the physical world, the product may be less
susceptible to communal commentary without direct solicitation. Even
so,
cyberspace undeniably supports and modifies the folk process by
com bining the familiarity of face-to-face practices with the conveniences
and conventions of online interaction.
While new media technologies hybridize expressive behavior, the
online venue itselfaids in creating a sense of belonging and connection
to the outside worid (see Azua 2009; Blank2013; M. Gray 2009; Howard
2011;Kibby 2005). This virtualized expression functions differendy from
face-to-face interactions by blurring the boundaries between public and
private spheres. Issues of public and private domain are perpetually
brought to the fore. The individual is able to reach out into ambiguous,
imagined virtual terrain and make connections with others in a simula-
tive setting of trem endous intimacy. Personal connections made between
individuals online are often perceived as real and more immediate, and
the residual impact of the human desire to connect quickly coalesces
around blogs and virtual communitieshardening the influence of
symbolic behaviorin ways that the physical world cannot similarly con-
struct without the benefit of more time (Baym 2010; Shirky 2009).
In the online realm, every user has the potential to become an
instrument of expression; they are empowered by the simulation of
community and are able to invoke vernacular authority in conjunction
with groupth ink (Howard 2008b). As such, a registry of the aesthetic
values and preferences for creating an appropriate website or blog
are constantly being acquired through cultural osmosis and the sub-
conscious consumption of predominant schemies found online during
7/24/2019 Hybridizing Folk Culture
9/27
Hybridizing olk
ulture
11 3
sanctioned and malleable values placed upon an Internet-based aes-
thetic via variable repetition.^^
Consider an artist's personal website and the deliberate manner in
which he or she may present themselves; or more importantly for con-
sumers, how these artists present their craft and its background. In the
cases where the artists themselves manage their site (and do not hire
an outside entity): do they conform to certain aesthetic expectations
in the presentation of their materials on their websites? What kind of
information do they provide? Are there patterns among artists and can
a typology be mapped out by folklorists? Certainly, there is no manual
or official guide for artists to follow on how they should create their
websites. And yet, several websites of southern folk potters in the United
States seem to feature many of the same components: a folksy narrative
back-story, homage to heritage or family/regional tradition in some
form (usually in prose), pho to galleries of their work an d /o r family his-
tory, news clippings or press, basic information on their region or craft,
and contact information for personal or purchasing inquiries. These
patterns of similar website organization and aesthetic choices may con-
stitute forms of virtual folk architecture that reflect vernacular construc-
tions of meaning (see Davis 2010).'^
How and why does folklore remain stable and change? has long
been one of the three questions that are central to folkloristics
(Georges and Jones 1995:317). Folklore theory explains the reason
behind the broad similarities among artists with no relation to one
another beyond their shared craft: variable repetition, which has been
observed in popular Internet culture as well as with the folk cul-
ture (see Blank 2009; Bronner 2009; Frank 2011). What else could
possibly explain the widespread departure from colorfully patterned
backgrounds; bold, fancy texts and images; frame-based websites; or
idealizations of what constituted a professional-looking website du ring
the Web 1.0 era of the early 1990s? Aesthetic patterns emerged, were
accepted as being desirable, and then rephcated through imitation
until the archaic models faded away. This same process is imprinted
on the minds of amateur website builders, including artists (when a
template is not forced upo n the use r). Folk knowledge about Web aes-
thetics becomes the user's default frame of reference for guiding their
artistic self presentation online. And assumptions about certain types
of websites may dictate the users ' expectations for the aesthetic or infor-
7/24/2019 Hybridizing Folk Culture
10/27
114 TREV OR J. BLANK
Folklorist William W esterman observes that: a work of art inherently
has the poten tial to transform (2006:118). Where a quilter may have
been taught or shared their knowledge of a particular skill through
oral tradition in years past, they are now able to find similar advice
through virtualized communications online either throu gh static
websites that simply host lists or linked sources of information for curi-
ous information-seekers or (and of more interest and applicability to
folklorists) through dynamic websites that host simulative interactions
between peers that faithfully replicate the communicative experiences
and expressive repertoires possible in face-to-face settingsthese can be
seen on mostblogs,forums,
s
well as the com ments section of news sites
and stories, participatory mediums like
YouTube
or social networking
sites.
Dynamic expressive venues allow for symbolic textual communica-
tion as well as visual expressions such as digital art, including mmes
and Photoshopped humor (Foote 2007; Frank 2004), live \ddeo feeds
or videos, and the proliferation of symbolic icons that signify anything
from emotions to personality traits of an individual user thro ugh an ava-
tar (Aldred 2010; Blascovich and Bailenson 2011; see also Danet 2001,
2005;
Soffer 2010).
Up to this point, I have relied upon examples from primarily static
websites (of folk artists) that are not highly interactive. However, I
would like to apply my proposed framework (albeit briefly) with a more
dynamic sampling of material behavior online: quilters' blogs, which
serve as a vibrant locus of virtual community, self-curation of one's
abilities as an artist, and the aesthetic presentation of everyday life as
it interrelates with an overarching shared interest in the traditionally
corporeally oriented craft of quilting.
DYNAMIC HYBRIDITY: QUILTERS' BLOGS AND MATERIAL
BEHAVIOR ONLINE
It is important to note that quilters have been working to embrace
com puter technology for some time. In The Quilter s Computer Companion
(1998), a reference book for quilters adapting to the bourgeoning
Digital Age, authors Judy Heim and Gloria Hanson assert that:
there are some pretty amazing things that you as a quilter can do with a
home computer... You can design quilt blocks, templates, appliqu pat-
terns,and stencils. You can print photos on muslin, organize your fabric
stash, and prowl on the Internet for art to use in your quilt designs. You
7/24/2019 Hybridizing Folk Culture
11/27
Hybridizing olli ulture 115
put your quilts on display in cyberspace for everyone to see, (Heim and
Hanson 1998:xx)
Although it
w s
written in an effort to guide techno-sawy quilters toward
utilizing the burgeoning World Wide Web, the volume's core underly-
ing message still holds true today: ju st because the Intern et is seemingly
at odds with the motives or practices of traditional quilt culture does
not necessarily mean that there is not some common ground that can
actually supplement or even enhance the creative process in the reinter-
pretation of quilting traditions,'^ This should not be entirely surprising
considering that quilters have a well-documented tradition of accumu-
lating creative guidance and artistic knowledge about quilting from
newspapers, magazines, and catalogsas well as from their peerslong
before the Internet existed (Blanchard, Feather, and Wilson 1999),
As sociologist Brenda Danet observes, many quilters jux tapose con-
siderable skill using computers with nave, group-based artistic expres-
sion resembling traditional folk art in important respectsdespite two
main, apparent anomalies, the lack of tangibility and of face-to-face
contact between participants (2005:120), The rhetorical discourses that
typify participatory blog sites forged by quilters and quilting enthusiasts
comprise a vibrant locus of hybridized folkloric interactions. Moreover,
these quilters' blogs and virtual communities often host meaningful
symbolic interactions between site administrators and blog patrons, as
well as between fellow blog patrons. This communicative dynamic ful-
fills the unique intrinsic needs within the community's social hierarchy,
whether they are creators, consumers, or mere admirers of quilts and/
or the creative processes behind their construction,''' Unlike a tradi-
tional diary, which is confined to a private audience (usually the self),
blogs intentionally bring private musings into public space. Andrea
Lieber (2010) explains that:
While traditional diaries represent a form of private writing that might
come to be widely read through publication, blogs rejournals that at
once combine the intimacy of personal reflection in the diary format
with the instantaneously and globally accessible arena of the World
Wide Web, , , , They provide the illusion of intimacy, but are in fact
fully public, (261)
Lieber's observations again suggest that face-to-face and virtual behav-
7/24/2019 Hybridizing Folk Culture
12/27
116 TREVORJ BLANK
notions of public and private conten t. Indeed, many bloggers (and their
blogs' patrons) regard their blog postings as inherently public writings
whereas their corporeal counterpart, the diary, is often conceptualized
as an inherently private creation. yinvoking this public/private binary,
however, these bloggers ignore the clear correlations that link the tra-
ditionsof (supposedly private) diariestothoseof (supposedly public)
blogs. For exam ple, in earlier Am erican traditions of diary writing, some
entries were intentionally kept private by their author, while many other
entries were openly circulated among friends and family, much inth e
way that blogs do today (Johnson 2011; see also Aldred 2010),
I
raise
these points not to undermine Lieber (2010),
or
the perceptions held
by bloggers in general, but rather toaccentuate thecomplexitiesof
establishing and/or deconstructing notions of public and private spaces
in a hybridized cu lture.
Especially in theearlie r daysof the World Wide Web's existence
(which usually necessitated that users have advanced understandings
of computersinordertoaccess and fully engage with p eers) , quilters
were forced to acquire technical competencies or establish easy-to-learn
ways of participating on line .
y
virtue of their collective efforts to spread
virtual roots, quilters have resultantly dom esticated themediumof
computer text art, formerly the domainof transgressive hackers,in a
m anner th at reinforces traditional values of family and friendship, social
acceptance and support asthey established conventionsofgreeting,
congratulating,orsymbolically gesturing through textual messagesor
digital art creations (Danet 2003:138; see also Rheingold 2000; Shirky
2009),
In
addition to group reinforcement, there are many contextual
factors that likely influence thepresentation ofoneself in thequil-
ters'
blogosphere, such as the individual blogger's personality, recent
events in their lives, personal aesthetic preferences, or the need to con-
nect and engage with o ther hum an beings. These and o ther such factors
can be profitably explored in the future by folklorists.
INTO THE DIGITAL ETHER
Tobesure, theaesthetic landscape of the Internet is constantly
changing, and users who occupy such virtual, symbolic territory act as
proprie tors and cultivators of symbolic space. As with any folk architec-
ture that is built
in
the physical world, amateur website-builders must
also utilize cues from their surroundings and imitate the patterns they
7/24/2019 Hybridizing Folk Culture
13/27
Hybridizing olk
ulture 117
may feature some occupants who get creative with their self-expression;
others may conform to contextually expected notions of presentation
(Rheingold 2000). Those who use site-building templates are n't all tha t
different from someone who hires a construction team to build their
dream house. And much like a real neighbor, the owner of
website is
expected to maintain the ir space or face reprim and or ridicule from the
community as being outdated or ignorant. Either way, the motivations
that dictate many behaviors in corporeal and virtual formats are essen-
tially the same. The psychological pay-off
is
similar, with varying levels of
exuberance depending on the individual's preference for face-to-face or
online interaction. The venue of expression and its context ultimately
filters their expe rience.
Virtual interactions not only hold the potential to facilitate whole
interactions and games that revolve around themes of material cul-
ture, they at times host the symbolic sharing or transaction of digitally
rendered material objects that semiotically convey the intentions of a
sender to their recipient. For example, children and adults alike can
not only manage crops, raise animals, and maintain a barn through the
popular Farmville Facebook application online,'^ they can also send,
create, an d /o r receive gifts throug h the medium and some gifts
even require payment in order to be sent (Wittkower 2010). Even these
simple, everyday interactions require a semiotic translation of symbolic
information in ord er for o ther individuals to decode an d categorize dig-
ital information in a way that makes it meaningful. Nevertheless, these
virtualized renderings often cognitively register with similar feelings of
appreciation , even if they are only playful ones, as a similar transaction
may invite in person. This begs the question: Does the lack of corporeal
tangibility in a virtual gift bear avatar disqualify it as a material object,
or is it more important that the gift is interpreted the same, psycho-
logically? I believe it is the latter. After all, the most important aspect
of studying material culture is not the physical artifact or architecture
its lf but what it means to both its creators and those who derive m ean-
ing from the product. The bonds of corporeality should not p reclude its
study in virtualized formats.
The greater adoption and everyday use of these technologies has
also yielded the creation of unique folkloric forms (Photoshopped art,
mmes, emoticons, etc.) that are native to the digital environment;
nevertheless, they are easily extractable and can be circulated in the
7/24/2019 Hybridizing Folk Culture
14/27
1 18 T R E V O R J . B L A NK
face-to-face transmissions (chain letters, email hoaxes, and urban leg-
end transmissions). Whereas most early forms of Internet folklore were
clear adaptations of corporeal traditions (and thus demonstrated fewer
signs of repetition and variation from the existing folkloric forms and
patterns), much like its precedents in photocopylore,'^ today's digitally
conceived folklore often includes material that would not othermse be
generated in the corporeal world, or at least circulated with equal fan-
fare.Both medium s are produ cers of original content; both inform and
influence each other, and collaboratively shape the discursive practices
of vernacular expression. The circulation of information between cor-
poreal and digital mediums is so fluid that the disseminating origin of
some folkloric material is indecipherable.
The ways in which people now engage in meaningful discourse
online or in personare inherently influenced by the hybridization of
reality, even if it is outside the realm of their own awareness. Americans'
use of technology is so prolific and embedded in day-to-day life that
many of the devices individuals habitually and incessantly usecell
phones, smartphones, laptops, portable electronics, among many oth-
ershave blurred the boundaries between where a user actually begins
and a device ends (Chayko 2008; Clark2003;Sutko and de Silva e Souza
2010).^ Individuals perceive and manage their technologically medi-
ated communications as if they were speaking to someone with their
own mouth, in person; that is, they do not conceptualize their techno-
logically mediated communications as a surrogate transmission of data,
but rather an extension of their ovm actual, authentic voice.
New media technologies are often cognitively immersive, meaning
that they entice users to attune and fully engage their senses in a m anner
which causes some detachment from their immediate, physical plane of
existence, even if
only
briefly (Blascovich and Bailenson
2011;
de Souza e
Silva
2006;
Graham 2002:187-99; Hayles 1999; McNeill 2012; Kaku 1997).
A new media device's digital screen is the tangible gateway to cogni-
tive immersion in technologically mediated communication (Manovich
2001:94-115; see also Hayles 1999:26-30). The screenbe it computer
monitor, smartphone, tablet, etc.extends and transports a user's cor-
poreal body into a digital realm. This is not virtual reality, an intention -
ally simulative form of digital immersionit is ctu lreality for engaged
users,despite any lack ofre lcorporeality. Individuals' subjective concep
tualization of reality influences how they communicate with others.
7/24/2019 Hybridizing Folk Culture
15/27
Hytriding olk ulture 119
they were technically transmitted by a phon e company, a social network-
ing host, or an email server client. Here again, sensation and percep tion
is important: because /
h ve
man ipulated this technology to do my bid-
ding, /
m
the catalyst behind its transmissionan expressive act is not
always perceived as being made possible in virtualized settings through
technology, even if itisfundamentally obvious that a cell ph on e provider
carries a text message to another person's phone and not the sender
themselves. In technologically mediated communication, individuals
typically do not acknowledge the role of technology in transmitting
their message (except for when the technology fails to complete the
task)cognitively, not only do they feel fully responsible for the act of
transmission itself theyare the means of transmission.
The manifestations of folklore online and in-person are constantly
being shaped by the influence of technological progress, particularly
as new devices or expressive mediums arrive, take hold, and impact the
dynamics of expressive communication and its dissemination across
the transparent wall separating the physical and digital realm.^i As new
technologies become popularly adopted by individuals, their percep-
tions of reality will adaptively expand to register them as meaningful
extensions of themselves. Neverthelessdespite my rath er positive treat-
ment throughout this essayit is important to note that are inherent
downsides to virtual corporeality. Although it may feel (to individuals)
as though a tangible connec tion can be virtually achieved throug h video
chatting or even a phone conversation, some would say that the loss of
actual touch or physical closeness, or the absence of smell or texture
or taste when sharing a meal from afar (versus in-person) fundam en-
tally changes the perception of the experience for those parties. They
do. And while new media technology has allowed for the expansion of
more intimate and immersive communication opportunities, the prov-
erb seeing is believing can only go so far for some. I do no t mean to
suggest that technologically mediated communication fully replicates,
improves, or replaces the dynamics of face-to-face communication; I
merely wish to underscore how it has contributed to the hybridization
of folk culture and by extension, acknowledge the ways in which it has
helped to gready expand and complicate how vernacular discourse takes
place in the Digital Age.
In the midst of electronic hybridity^where conceptualizations of
reality, corporeality, and embodiment are undergoing redefinition;
7/24/2019 Hybridizing Folk Culture
16/27
120 TR EV OR J. BLANK
across face-to-face and virtual contextsit is clear that folklorists are
well-equipped to docimient and interpret the ways in which people
express themselves and contribute to the hybridization of folk culture
in the Digital Age. As Robert Glenn Howard notes, the importance
of recognizing the hybridity of the vernacular is the importance of
acknowledging our complicity in the processes that create the symbolic
webs of our world (2008a:212). The influence of burgeo ning new
media technologies on folk culture is undeniable, but identifying and
chronicling the ways in which they h ve changed, supplemented, or
even supplanted oral and face-to-face traditions remains an important
and unfinished task. Identifying and chronicling the ways in which
burgeoning communication technologies facilitate the creation of new
expressive modes (and thereby contribute directiy to the richness and
complexity of individuals' expressive repe rtoires as a whole) is essential
if folklorists wish to remain fully equipped to engage and interpret the
growing and inevitable influence of technology in shaping the dynamics
of folk culture.^^
As global society inches closer toward the reality of universal access
to computer-mediated communication technologies, the very ways in
which we classify patterns of folkloric dissemination merit reconsid-
eration, especially with regard to the methodological and conceptual
assumptions we employ in documenting the transmission of vernacu-
lar expressions that exist across both corporeal and virtual domains.
Folklorists must account for the increasingly complex components
that epitomize the Digital Age, and attempt to utilize (or at minimum,
acknowledge) the new technologically mediated avenues from which
many new or hybridized traditions are emerging. The documentation
of hybridized folklore must annotate and account for the salient char-
acteristics found within the varying disseminative contexts that host or
launch folk knowledge, traditions, and symbolic interactionswhether
online or in a real work place. Quality and integrity can be found in
all forms of creative outputs, both in face-to-face and virtual formats
alike. Estonian folklorists Mare Kiva and Liisa Vesik (2009) articulate
an important rationale for documenting emergent folklore through
computer-mediated sources, noting that:
Internet folklore is well suited to characterise tradition as a means
of social self-realisation wherein traditions are viewed as a chain of
phenomena, a constant process created by the person and whereby
7/24/2019 Hybridizing Folk Culture
17/27
ybridizing Polk ulture 121
tradition-determinator is not the finding and naming of single objects,
rites and beliefs but following their progression, (100)
Indeed, the Internet venue is capable of empowering folklorists with
the abili ty to not only trace and quantitatively document folklore as
it disseminates, but also tbe opportunity to chronicle and holistically
analyze the evolving dynamics of tradition and accompanying folkloric
processes as they surface in real-t ime.
More than anything , the In ternet and o ther new media technologies
represent a t remendous opportuni ty for folklorists to engage and docu-
ment artist ic creations, expressive events, or communities as they take
shape and evolve both online and in face-to-face settings, Folklorists'
perspect ives and methodologies should not only broaden the scope of
Internet and new media studies, but provide important insights into
the processes of everyday life in the modern technological world. Thus,
in complement to our famil iar corporeal reposi tories and sources of
folkloric disseminat ion, new mediaone of the most exci t ing, sponta-
neous ,
and f luid conduits of vernacular expression and contemporary
traditionslies in wait, literally right beneath our fingertips, ripe for
observation and analysis.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Robert Glenn Howard for his exceptional dedi-
cation, guidance, and active involvement in helping this article reach its
fullest po ten tial, I am especially grateful for his scru pulo us an d perce ptive
feedb ack on earlier drafts of this essay, which he lpe d s ha rpe n its overall
focus an d p res en tatio n. I wou ld also like to express my app recia tion to
Simon Bronner, Michael Owen Jon es, Tok Th om pson , and the anony-
mous WFpeer reviewers for their thoughtful suggestions and crit iques.
NOTES
1,
These trends are consistent with Moore's law, which holds that the
number of new transistors that can be placed on a computer chip doubles
approximately every two
years;
in d oing
so,
the size of these chips perpetu-
ally shrink as well (Kaku 1997:14-15, 28-30; Schaller 1997; see also Moore
1965),
2,
I should no te that the majority of my genera l claims abo ut the ubiq-
uity of new media technologies in everyday life, unless explicitly noted
otherwise, are informed by usage statistics and the overarching cultural
7/24/2019 Hybridizing Folk Culture
18/27
122
T R E V O R
J.
BLANK
observations and analysis of hybridization is also framed by, and geared
toward American folk culture.
3. Today, virtual communities may be grounded in the form of popular
blogs,
individual websites, or moderated discussion foioims. The common
denominator for all venues, though, is habitual participation in the com-
munity. Interestingly, material culture appears to have a strong foothold
in virtual communities (from quilters' blogs to groups devoted to sharing
folk recipes for Southern cuisine). While the expressive venue is different,
the emotional intent remains unchanged; this once again speaks to the
applicability of studying technologically mediated folk culture. For a truly
remarkable, expansive, and thoughtful ethnographic case study ofavirtual
community comprised of individuals who share a passionate hobby of col-
lecting rare Japanese anime art, see Ellis (2012).
4. For example, take Hewell's Pottery or Meaders' Pottery, the two folk pot-
tery-making families profiled by Henry Glassie in The Potter s Art(1999:36-
47).While Glassie provides an historical context of their lives and work in
his volume, the Hewells and Meaders have nevertheless branched out into
the digital world by maintaining personal websites (www.hewellspottery.
com and www.meaderspottery.org, respectively) dedicated to advertising
their merchandise in addition to drawing attention to their history and the
deep appreciation of tradition that binds them to their trade. The duality
of their real world and virtual personas make their work known and rel-
evant to a much wider audience.
5. I use the word corporeal throughout this essay in an effort to distinguish
materials or contexts that derive from the physical world (in contrast
to material observed or collected from online sources). For clarity (and
variety),
I also use the terms face-to-face, real world, physical world,
and in-person to articulate instances in which I am referring to tangible
objects,
traditions, and/or occurrences that may appear outside of a com-
puter-mediated context.
6. Post-colonialists, as well as media and cultural studies scholars have also
turned to hybridity for analyzing the cultural impact of social media and
computer-mediated communication technologies, especially the ways in
which such technologies deterritorialize or translocalize communica-
tion and cultures. Of course, this scholarly discourse extends beyond the
scope of my lone article, but I wish to point readers to several non-folklor-
istic examples of scholarship that fruitfully analyze the concept of hybridity
in differentiating contexts: see Basch et al. (1993) Candini (2005); Grillo
(2007);Grimson (2006); Kalra et al. (2005); Kraidy and Murphy (2003);
Papastergiadis (2000).
7. Ba khtin describ es heterogloss ia as another s spee h in another s language,
serving to express authorial intentions but in a refracted way.Such speech
constitutes a special type of double-voiced discourse. It serves two speakers
7/24/2019 Hybridizing Folk Culture
19/27
Hylmdiiing Folk ulture
12.S
intention of the author (1987:324, emphasis in original). It should be
noted that language, inxhis context, is not necessarily limited to ethnic
or regionally foreign language differences between speakers, but how (and
in what
ways
communicative dialogue is phrased by another individual
8. There is no simple definition for new media, as it can be broadly con-
ceived as the digitization of traditional or analog media forms; as cultural
objects and paradigms that use digital computer technology for distribu-
tion and exhibition; the digital representation (and computer-based deliv-
ery) of communication and information, expressive or otherwise; or the
high-speed delivery and increasingly efficient means of transmitting digital
data through computer-mediated platforms, among others (Manovich
2003:16-23; see also Manovich 2001:27-48; WardripFmin and Montfort
2003). Throughout this essay, I typically discuss new media as it relates
to the actual devices that people use to participate and contribute to the
hybridization of contemporary folk culture.
9. See McNeill (2012) for an expanded examination and analysis of the ways
in which portable new media technologies like smartphones, tablets, and
laptops influence folk culture hy delocalizing users' sense of place as they
comm unicate with othe rs.
10. Postmodern literary critic N. Katherine Hayles defines virtu lity
as
the cul-
tural perception that material objects are interpenetrated by information
pattern s (1999:13-14). In othe r words, virtuality is a hybridized no tion of
corporeality as rendered by a digital medium. Either way, sensation and
perception are at the heart of
how
individuals orient vernacular discursive
processes in a hybrid culture (see Blascovich and Bailenson
2011;
Graham
2002:187-99; Thompson 2011).
11.
By this, I am referencing to the way that many extraordinarily popular
social media sites (like Facehook, Twitter, and Skype, or fading venues like
MySpace) or even instant messaging and text messaging technology serves
keep a constant social barometer attached to an indi\'iduars current status,
be it their location, activity, and/or mood. The ability to attach photo-
graphs, GPS coordinates, live vid eo / audio , etc., only further cements the
perceived authenticity of
a
real interaction with anoth er individual, even
if that interaction is sometimes one-sided. In doing so, these forums also
invite input from otherssometimes very thoughtful and engaging, other
times rather cursory (see Wittkower 2010). Knowing that family and peers
either enjoy or expect this level of close communication via new media
technologies, many actively individuals strive self curate their online per-
sona in order to meaningfully engage with others in their social network.
For an extensive look at these emergent dynamic processes of curating
tradition online, see Kaplan (2013).
12. This is no t to say that people can not be instruments of expression offline.
Mypoint here is that the Inte rne t helps to ease the tension of performative
7/24/2019 Hybridizing Folk Culture
20/27
1 24 T R E V O R J , B L A N K
13, Richard Dawkins (1976) refers to such cultural production s as mm es,
a topic that has been adopted into the popular lexicon and utilized by
folklorists. See Pimple (1996), for a folkloristic examination and review of
the term and its context. For applications, see Foote (2007) and McNeill
(2009).
14,
Robert Glenn Howard (2005) has analyzed personal vanity pages to this
extent in compelling ways as well,
15, For example, amateur chefwebsitesoften contain the same kinds of infor-
mation (just as folk artists' sites do) , but th e
kin s
of information are fun-
damentally different since they inhabit a different genre altogether. These
sites may be expected to have more pictures of food and wine, for instance.
16,
Recently, the Quilt Index (quiltindex.org) has become a popu lar meeting
spot for quilters to exchange ideas and /o r p resen t their work in a com-
munal setting. See MacDowell et al, (2011) for a scholarly overview of the
site and its function,
17, This observation would seem to suggest that interaction m ust take place in
order for folklore to be transmitted. However, interaction shovild not be
confused with communication, In many cases there are rand om visitors,
or more often lurkers, site patrons who regularly visit and observe the
goings-on without actually participating directly themselves. These indi-
viduals are all capable of learning the same information as the most talk-
ative community members are; thus, they acquire a virtual venue's shared
knowledge just as viably. What is more, these individuals are also just as
capable to apply their newfound knowledge and insights in their corporeal
lives, which again speaks to the difficulties of documenting the complex
hybridization of folk culture across corporeal and virtual mediums,
18, would argue that user interactions with Farmville dem onstrate symbolic
(perhaps subconscious) attachment to the vernacular landscape through
such play in cyberspace,
19,
For exce llent examples of scholarship on this subject, all which include
scores of primary data, see Dundes and Pagter (1978 [1975], 1987, 1991b,
1996,2000) and Preston (1974, 1994). See also Smith (1991).
20,
Radical though it may seem, it appears as though hum ans are evolving (at
least cognitively) into a hybrid of man and machine: cyborgs. See Clark
(2003);Graham (2002); Gray (1995); Haraway (1991); Hayles (1999); and
Thompson (2011) for additional perspectives on this concept and its rela-
tion to perceptions of technology and humankind,
21,
It is important to note that technology users actually help to shape subse-
quent iterations of products. As technology producers look to both satisfy
customers' desires and provide additional functionality for even greater
and more continuous, optimal use (while also encouraging consumption),
and they at times rely ou customer feedback or by examining popular
trends in how/ when/ why people use a particular device or application
7/24/2019 Hybridizing Folk Culture
21/27
Hybridizing FolkCulture 125
technolog ies created by ma nufacturers mo st certainly inf luence an d
help shape how people use communicat ion devices , consumersrep-
resenting the folkdirectly and indirectly collaborate with institutional
forces in the creation of the next big gadget (or refmed, exist ing gadget) .
22. Altho ugh we tend to disagree on the im po rtan ce of studying the Inte rne t , I
nevertheless reco m m en d O ring (2012) for a com pell ing discussion on the
why folklorists n ee dn t study technolog y in orde r to rem ain contem porary.
W O RK S CI T E D
Ald red, B. G ra nth am . 2010. Identity in 10,000 Pixels: Livejourna l U serpics an d
Fractured Selves in Web 2.0.
New
Directions
in
Folklore8 ( l /2 ) : 6 -3 5 . h t t p : / /
Scho la rworks . iu .edu / journa l s / index .php /nd i f / i s sue /a rch ive .
Azua, Maria. 2009.
The Social
Factor:
Innovate, Ignite, and Win through Mass
Collaboration
and
SocialNetiuorking. Indianapolis, IN: IBM Press.
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1987 [1981]. The Dialogic
Im agination;
ed. M ichael H olquist ,
t rans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Basch, Linda, N ina Glick Schiller, Cristina Szanton B lanc. 1993.
Nations
Unbound:
Transnational Projects,
Postcolonial Predicaments
and Detenitorialized Nation-
States.
New York: Routledge.
Bauerlein, Mark. 2009.The Dumbest
Generation: How
the
Digital
Age Stupefies
Young
Americans andfeopardizes Our Future.
New York: Tarcher Books.
Baym, Nancy K. 2010.Personal Connections
in
the
Distal Age.
M aide n, MA: Polity
Press.
Biocca, Frank. 1997. Th e Cyborg s Dilemm a: Progressive Em bo dim en t in Vir tual
Environments , foumal of
Computer Mediated
Communication 3 ( 2 ). h t t p : / /
j cmc . ind iana .edu /vo l3 / i s sue2 /b iocca2 .h tml .
Blascovich, Jim , a nd Jere m y B ailenson. 20 11. Infinite Reality: Avatars, Eternal
Life, New Worlds, and
the
Dawn of
the
Virtual Revolution.New York: William
Morrow.
Blanchard , RebeccaT. Betty
L.
Feather , and Laurel Wilson.1999. Docum enta t ion
of Swedish Patchwork Quilts: 1830 to 1929. Cbthing and
Textiles Research
Journal \7:134A3.
Blank, Trevor J. 20 09. Toward a Co nc ep tua l Fram ew ork for the Study of Folklore
and the Internet . In
Folklore
a nd
theInternet:Vernacular Expression
in a Digital
World
ed . Trevor J. Blan k, 1-20. Lo ga n: U tah State University Press.
, ed. 2012.Folk Culture in
the
Distal Age: The
Emergent Dynamics
of Human
Interaction.
Logan: Utah State University Press.
. 2013. The Last Laugh: Folk Hum or,
Celebrity
Culture, and
Mass Mediated
Disasters
in the Distal Age.Folklore in a Multicultural World Series. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.
Bron ner , S im on J . 1988. Ar t , Per fo rm ance , and Praxis : Th e R hetor ic of
Contemporary Folklore Studies.Western Folklore47 2)-.75-101.
7/24/2019 Hybridizing Folk Culture
22/27
1 26 T R E V O R J . B L A N K
. 2009. Digitizing and Virtualizing Folklore. In Folklore and the Internet:
Vernacular
Expression
in a Distal
World ed. TrevorJ. Blank, 21-66. Logan: Utah
State University Press.
Canclini, Nestor Garcia. 2005.
HybridC ultures:
Stratges
for Entering and Leaving
Modernity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Carr, Nicholas. 2010.The
Shallows:
What the Internet is Doing to
Our Brains.
New York:
W. W. No rton & Co. Publishing.
Chayko, Mary. 2008.Portable
Communities: The
Social Dynamics
of
Online
and
Mobile
Connectedness.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Clark, Andy.2003.
Natural-Bom Cyborgs: Minds Technobgies and the
Future
of Human
Intelligence.
NewYork Oxford University Press.
Danet , Brenda.2001.Cyberpl@y:Com municating Online.O xford,UK Berg Pu blishers.
. 2003. Pixel Patchwork: Quilting in Tim e O nline . Textile: The Journal of
Cloth
and
Culture1 2)
:118-43.
-. 2005. Ritualized Play, Art, an d C om m un icatio n o n In ter ne t Relay Chat.
In
Media
Anthropology eds. Eric W. Rothenbuhler and Mihai Coman, 229-46.
Th ou san d Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Davis,
Je nn y 2010. Archi tecture of the Personal In teractive H om epa ge:
Constructing the Self through MySpace.
New Media
and
Sodety 12(7):
1103-19.
Dawkins, Richard. 1976.
The Selfish
Gene. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press,
de Souza e Silva, Adriana. 2006. From Cyber to Hybrid: Mobile Technologies as
Interfaces of Hybrid Spaces.
Space
andCuZare 6(3)
:261-78.
Deetz, Jam es. 1996. In Small Things Forgotten: An
Archaeology
of
Early American
Life.
New York Anchor Books.
Dg h, Lind a and Andrew Vzsonyi.
1975.
Hypothesis of M uld-Cond uit Transmission
in Folklore. In
Folklore
Performance and
Communication
eds. Dan Ben-Amos
an d Ke nne th S. Goldstein, 207-55. Th e H agu e.
Dundes, Alan, and Carl R. Pagter. 1978 [1975].
Work Hard and You Shall Be
Rewarded:
Urban
Folklore
from the
Paperwork
Empire.
Bloom ington: Indiana
University Press.
. 1987. When
You re
Up to
Your
Ass in Alligators: More
Urban Folklore from
the
Paperwork
Empire. De troit, M I: Wayne State University Press.
. 1991a. The Mobile SCUD Missile Launcher and Other Persian Gulf
Warlore: An American Folk Image of Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Western Folklore
50(3):303-22.
. 1991b. Never Try to Teach a Pig to Sing: Still More Urban Folklore from the
Paperwork
Empire.
De troit, M I: Wayne State University Press.
. 1996.Sometimes the Dragon
Wins:
Yet More Urban
Folklore from
the Paperwork
Empire.
Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
. 2000.Why Don t SheepShrinkWhenIt Rains? A Further Collectionof Photoco pier
Folklore.
Syracuse, NY: Syracuse U niversity Press.
Ellis, Bill. 2012. Love and War and Anime Art: An Ethnographic Look at a
Virtual Community of Collectors. In Folk Culture in the Distal Age: The
7/24/2019 Hybridizing Folk Culture
23/27
Hybridizing FolkCulture
12 7
Fine ,
Gary Alan, and Bill Ellis. 2010. The Global Grapevine: Why Rumors of
Terrorism, Immigration, and Trade Matter. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Foote, Monica. 2007. Userpicks: Cyber Folk Art in the Early Twenty-First
Century .
Folklore
Forum37
1
:27-38. h t t p s : / / s c h o l a r w o r k s . i u . e d u / d s p a c e /
h a n d l e / 2 0 2 2 / 3 2 5 1 . Accessed
11
July 2010.
Flower Linda. 1994.
The Gonstruction of
Negotiated
Meaning: A Social Gognitive
Theory of
Writing Carbonale, IL: Southern I l l inois Universi ty Press.
Frank , Russe l l. 2004 . W hen the Go ing Ge t s Tou gh , the Tough Go
Ph otosh opp ing : Sep tem ber 11 and th e Newslo re o f Vengeance and
Victimization. New Media Society 6 5):633-58.
.
2011.
Newslore:
Gontemporary Folkloreon the Internet. Jackson: University
Press of Mississippi.
G ah ran , Amy. 201 1. Hispan ics Lead U.S. Em brac e of Mo bile Technology. CAW.
com May 20) . h t tp : / / t i nyur l . com/3haqzq7 . Accessed 9 Sep tember 2011 .
Georges, Ro ber t A. and Michael Owen J o n e s . 1995.Folkloristics: An Introduction.
Bloomington: Indiana Univers i ty Press .
Glassie, Henry. 1968. Pattern in the Material Folk Gulture of the Fastern United
States.Ph ilade lphia : University of Pennsylvania Press.
. 1999.
The
Potter s
Art
Bloomington: Indiana Universi ty Press.
Goffman, Erving. 1974.Frame
Analysis: An
Fssay
on the Organization ofF xperience.
New York: H arp er C olop ho n Books.
Gr i l lo , Ralph. 2007. Betwixt and Between: Trajector ies and Projects of
Transm igration. Journal of Fthnic and Migra tion Studies 33(2)-.199-21 7.
Graham, Ela ine L . 2002.Representations ofthePost/Human: Monsters, Aliens, and
Others in Popular
G ulture.
New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Gray, Chris Hables, ed. 1995. TheGyborgHandbook New York: Routledge.
Gray Mary L. 2009.
utin theGountry:Youth, Media, andQueer Visibility in Rural
America.New York: New York Un iversity P ress.
Grimson, Alejandro. 2006. Cultures are More Hybrid than Identif icat ions: A
D ialog ue on B ord ers from th e So ut he rn C on e. La.s4 l/2):96-l 19.
Haraway, Do nn a J . 1991. A Cyborg M anifesto : Science , Technology, a nd
Social ist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century In Simians,
Gyborgs
and
Wom en: The Reinvention of Nature, ed. D on na J. H araway, 149-81. L o n d o n :
Free Associat ion Books.
Hayles , N. Kather ine . 1999. H ow We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in
Gybemetics, Literature, and Informatics.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Heim , Jud y and G lor ia Han sen . 1998.TheQuilter s GomputerGompanion: Hundreds
of
Fasy
Ways to Turn the
Gyber
Revolution into Your Artistic Revolution. San
Francisco, CA: No Starch Press.
Howard, Rober t Glenn. 2005. Toward a Theory of the World Wide Weh: The
Case for Pet Cloning,foumal ofFolklore Research 42 3):323-60.
7/24/2019 Hybridizing Folk Culture
24/27
128 TREV OR J. BLANK
, 2008b, Th e Verna cular Web of Participatory Media,Critical StudiesinMedia
Communication25:490-512,
-, 2011,Digital Jesus: TheMaking of a NewChristian Fundamentalist Community
onthe
Internet.
New
York
New York U niversity Press,
Ivey, Bill, 201 1, Values and Value in F olklore (AFS Presid ential Plena ry Add ress,
2007).Journal ofAmerican Folklore
124 491 )
:6-18,
Ja imes , Ale jandro , and Nicu Sebe, 2007 , Mul t imoda l Hu ma n-Co mp ute r
Interaction: A Survey,Computer Vision andImage Understanding108:116-34.
Jenkins, Henry, 2008 [2006],ConvergenceCulture: WhereOld andNewMedia Collide.
2nd edition. New
York
New York University Press,
Joh nso n, Alexandra, 2011, A BriefHistoryof Diaries:From Pepys to Blogs.L o n d o n ,
UK: Hesperus Press,
Jones, Michael Owen, 1989, Craftsmen oftheCumberlands: Tradition and Creativity.
Lexington: University Press of Kentucky,
, 1997, How C an We Apply Event Analysis to M aterial Behavior, an d Why
Should W e?Western Folklore56 (3 /4 ) :199-214,
, 2001, The Aesthetics of Everyday Life, In Self-Taught: The Culture and
Aesthetics ofAmerican Vernacular Art, ed,, C harles Russell, 47-60, Jac kso n:
University Press of Mississippi,
Kalra, Virinder, Ram inde r Kaur, and Jo h n Hutnyk , 2005,
Diasporas
and Hybridity.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications,
Kaku, Michio, 1997, Visions: HowScience WillRevolutionize the 21st Century. New
York: DoubleDay; 1st Anchor Books,
Ka pcha n, D eb ora h A, 1993, Hybridizat ion an d the Marketplace: E me rging
Paradigms in Folkloristics, Western Fotklcrre52{2 :S0^-26.
Kapchan, Deborah A, and Pauline Turner Strong, 1999, Theorizing the Hybrid,
Journal ofAmerican Folklore112 (445)
:239-55.
Kaplan, Merrill , 2013, Curation and Tradition on Web 2,0, In Tradition in the
Twenty-FirstCentury: Locating the Role ofthe Past in thePresent eds, Trevor J.
Blank and Ro bert G lenn How ard, 123-48, Logan: U tah State University Press,
Kibby, Marjorie, 2005, Email Forwardables: Folklore in the Age of the Internet,
New M edia f Society 7:770-90,
Kiva, Mare, and Liisa Vesik, 2009, Contemporary Folklore, Internet and
Communities at the beginning of the 21st Century, In Media f
Folklore.
Contempcyrary
FolklareTV
ed. M are Kiva, 97-117, Tartu , Estonia: ELM Scholarly
Press , h t tp : / /www.foIkIore ,ee/ r l /pubte/ee/cf /cf4/CF4_Koiva_Vesik ,pdf .
Accessed 5 May 2011,
Kraidy, Marwan M., and Patrick D, Murphy. 2003, Media Ethnography: Local ,
Global, or Translocal? In Global MediaStudies: AnFthnographicP erspective, eds,
M arwan M, Kraidy an d P atrick D. M urphy, 299-307, New York: R ou de dg e
Press,
Lieber , Andrea, 2010, Domestici ty and the Home(Page): Blogging and the
Blurr ing of Public an d Private amo ng O rthod ox Jewish W omen. InJews at
7/24/2019 Hybridizing Folk Culture
25/27
Hybridizing Folk Culture
129
Lombard, Matthew, and Theresa Ditton, 1997, At the Heart of It All: The
Concept of Telepresence, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication
3(2), http:// jcmc,indiana,edu/vol3/issue2/lombard,html.
Loomis,Jack M, 1992, Distal Attribution and Presence,
Presence
1:113-18
MacDowell, Marsha, Amanda Grace Sikarskie, Mary Worrall, and Justine
Richardsou, 2011, The Quilt Index: From Preservation and Access to
Co-Creation of Knowledge,
New Directions
in
Folklre 9 1/2)-.8-40.
h t t p : / /
scholarworks,iu,edu/journals/iudex,php/ndif/issue/archive.
Mauovich, Lev. 2001.
The Language
of
New
Media. Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press,
, 2003, New Media from Borges to HTML, In The
New Media
Reader
eds,
Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Nick Montfort, 13-25, Cambridge, MA:
Th e MIT Press.
McNeill, Lynne S.2007. Portab le Places: Serial Collaboration and the Creation
ofaNew Sense of Place,
Western Folklore
66(3/4):281-99,
, 2009, The End of the Internet: The Folk Response to the Provision
of Infmite Choice, In
Folklore andtheInternet:Vernacular Expression in a
DigitalWorld ed, Trevor J. Blank, 80-97. Logan: Utah State University
Press.
. 2012, Real Virtuality: Enhancin g Locality by Enacting the Small World
Theory, In
Folk Culture
in
the Digital
Age:
The Emergent Dynamics
of Human
Interaction, ed, TrevorJ, Blank, 85-97, Logan Utah State University Press,
forthcoming,
Moore, Gordon E, 1965, Cramming More Components onto Integrated
Circuits,
Electronics
38(8):82-85,
Morozov, Evgeny, 2011.
The NetDelusion:The Dark SideofInternetFreedom.
New
York: PublicAffairs Publishing.
Or ing, Elliott,
2012,
Jokes on the Inte rne t: Listing toward Lists, In
Folk Culture
inthe DigitalAge:The Emergent Dynamicsof Hum an Interaction,
ed, TrevorJ,
Blauk, Logan: Utah State University Press, forthcoming,
Papastergiadis, Nikos, 2000.
The Turbulence of Migration: Globalization,
Deterritorializationand Hybridity.
Maiden, MA: Polity Press,
Pimple, Kenneth, 1996, The Meme-ing of Folklore,
JournalofFolkhre Research
33(3):236-40,
Preston , M ichael J, 1974. Xerox-lore,
Keystone Folklore Quarterly
19:11-26.
. 1994. Traditional H um or from the Fax Machine: All of a Kind .
Western Folklore
53(2) 147-69.
Rheingold, Howard. 2000.
The VirtualComm unity:Homesteading on the Electronic
Frontier.Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Roberts, Warreu E, 1988,
Viewpoints
on Folklife:
Looking
at the
Overlooked.
Ann
Arbor: UMI Research Press,
Schaller, Robert R, 1997, Moore's Law: Past, Present, and Future.
Spectrum
7/24/2019 Hybridizing Folk Culture
26/27
130 TREVO R J. BLANK
Smi th , Pau l . 1991 . Th e Jok e Mach ine : Co mm unica t ing Trad i t iona l H um ou r
Using Compute r s . In Spoken In fest, edited by Gil l ian Bennett , 257-77.
Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press.
Soffer, Or en . 2010. Silent Orality : Toward a Co nce ptua lizatio n of the Digital
Ora l Features in CMC a nd SMS Texts. ommunication Theory20(4):387-404.
Stross, Brian . 1999. T he Hy brid M eta ph or: From Biology to Culture./oMm aZ of
AmericanFolklore 112(445)-.254-67.
Sutko, Daniel M., and Adriana de Souza e Silva. 2010. Location-Aware Mobile
Media and Urban Sociability.
New Media andSociety
13(5):807-23.
Th om pso n, Tok. 2011. Beat-boxing, Mashups, and Cyborg Identi ty: Folk Music
for the 21st Century.Western Folklore70{2):171-9S.
Turkle, Sherry. 2011.Abne
Together:
WhyWe Expect More from Technology and Less
fromEach
Other
New
York
Basic Books.
Tuszynski, Stephanie. 2006. IRL (In Real Life): Breaking Down the Binary of
Online Versus Offl ine Social Interaction. Ph.D. Dissertat ion, Bowling
Green State University.
Wardrip-Fruin, Noah and Nick Montfort , eds. 2003. The New Media Reader.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Washington, Jesse. 2011. For Minori t ies, New 'Digital Divide' Seen. USA Today
( January 10) . h t tp : / / t in yu r l .com /4m w vuc t . Accessed 9 Septem ber 2011.
Wehmeyer , S tephen C. and Kerry Noonan. 2009. Re-envis ioning the
Visionary: Towards a Behavior Definition of Initiatory Art.Western Folklore
67(2/3) :199-222.
Westerman, William. 2006. Wild Grasses and New
Arks:
Transformative Po tential
in Applied and Public Folklore./oumaZ o/Ammcaw/^oWore 119(471):lll-28.
Wilgus, D.K. 1965. Current Hillbilly Recordings: A Review Article, foumal of
AmericanFolklore7 8(30 9) :267-86.
Wittkower, D. E., ed. 2010.Facebookand Philosophy: What s on Your Mind? Chicago,
IL : Open Cour t Publ ishing.
Wojcik , Daniel . 2009. Outsider Ar t , Vernacular Tradi t ions, Trauma, and
Creativity.Western Folklore67(2/3) :179-98.
7/24/2019 Hybridizing Folk Culture
27/27
C o p y r i g h t o f W e s t e r n F o l k l o r e i s t h e p r o p e r t y o f W e s t e r n S t a t e s F o l k l o r e S o c i e t y a n d i t s
c o n t e n t m a y n o t b e c o p i e d o r e m a i l e d t o m u l t i p l e s i t e s o r p o s t e d t o a l i s t s e r v w i t h o u t t h e
c o p y r i g h t h o l d e r ' s e x p r e s s w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . H o w e v e r , u s e r s m a y p r i n t , d o w n l o a d , o r e m a i l
a r t i c l e s f o r i n d i v i d u a l u s e .
Top Related