Hybridizing Folk Culture

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


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


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,


4/27


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)


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


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


7/27


8/27


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


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-


10/27


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


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-


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


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


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.


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;


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


24/27


, 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


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


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.


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 .

Documents

Hybridizing Folk Culture