Ingrid Slavec Gradišnik Slovenian Folk Culture: Between Academic Knowledge and Public Display Abstract: Up to the second half of the twentieth century, Slovenian ethnologists and folklorists were concerned almost exclusively with the phenomena of folk culture in the “traditional” sense generally used in European ethnology—that is, as the rural, low, simple culture typical of an ethnic community and, later on, a nation. Due to historical, economic, and social changes, the concept’s semantic alterations (as relected in academic deinitions and public reception) were followed by more and broader ways of transmitting it. From the perspective of knowledge formats and other genres, the Slovenian case may offer some comparative insights into the establishment, development, and popularization of scholarship. These processes are the outcome of the scholarly reconceptualization of culture research as well as the commodiication of culture. This articl e ch ar acter izes ethnology and folklore studies in Slovenia and focuses on “folk culture” as a speciic segment of Slovenian culture in academic and nonacademic discourse. The concept of folk culture as a subject of scholarly and general public interest has changed radically over the last two centuries, as have its forms, functions, and meanings, as well as its social and symbolic implications in various historical and sociopolitical contexts. In spite of the modernist ethnological critique beginning in the 1960s, the concept exhibits its persistence: ethnologists and folklorists studying living traditions and cultural heritage realize the fundamental importance of performative enactments of (traditional) folk culture. Revivals and reconJournal of Folklore Research, Vol. 47, No. 1–2, 2010 Copyright © 2010 Department of Folklore and Ethnomusicology, Indiana University 123 124 Journal of Folklore Research Vol. 47, No. 1-2 structions of folk culture are a segment of contemporary popular culture, empowered by professional discourse and media communication promoting heritage politics. The academic paradigm of ethnology and folklore studies in the late nineteenth century established itself in highly formalized academic texts, such as explanatory ethnographies. Other genres were published mostly in nonacademic publications throughout the second half of the nineteenth century and carried rich information about customary and popular cultural characteristics. However, they were not read as “ethnographic” by mainstream ethnology until the wane of the twentieth century. Especially in the last two decades of that century, literally every means of communication, ranging from scholarship to advertising, re-presented content marked as “folk” or “traditional.” Although the diversiication of knowledge transfer—in terms of authors, genres, and media—is a transnational occurrence, “the particulars of knowledge production and the circumstances of the use and absorption of societal knowledge remain nationally, regionally, sometimes even institutionally speciic” (Bendix and Welz 1999:111). The perspective of knowledge formats and other genres presented by the Slovenian case may offer comparative insights regarding both scholarship and popularization of folk culture. When discussing ethnological knowledge, we essentially think about speciic knowledge that has been accumulated and continues to be produced in ethnology. Today we regard ethnology as a segment of discourse in contemporary humanities and social sciences and as the heir of its own disciplinary history. The history of ethnology and folklore studies demonstrates the knowledge reproduction of speciic topics (folk, vernacular, local, popular, everyday, common sense, culture). In addition, this intellectual history reveals the discipline’s methodological characteristics and its social entanglements, i.e., the historically, socially, and culturally determined practices of individuals and the scholarly community. Folklore studies and ethnology are discussed either as one or two ields in Slovenia. How they are viewed depends on how scholars deine folklore as a subject of their research, how they determine a speciic folkloristic methodology, and how they practice the inter- and trans-disciplinary nature of folklore studies. Discussions about these issues, which were very animated throughout the second half of the twentieth century, have been documented in detail (cf. Slavec Gradišnik 2000, 2008; Stanonik 2001, 2004). Ingrid Slavec Gradišnik Slovenian Folk Culture 125 Up to the second half of the twentieth century, ethnologists and folklorists were concerned almost exclusively with the phenomena of folk culture in the sense that had been historically used in European ethnology—that is, folk culture was understood to be the rural, low, simple culture typical of an ethnic community and, later on, a nation.1 It is worth acknowledging some differences between American and European approaches to folklore studies and practices. For instance, the meaning of folk in the continental European ethnological/folkloristic tradition differs from its use in American folkloristics (cf. Bendix 1995, 1997), where “[t]he absence of nationalism as a component of folklore was unique to the American coniguration of folklore” (Ben-Amos 1998:259). In European scholarly use, folk only exceptionally denotes “popular” culture or the culture of “common” people. Furthermore, “public folklore” as practiced in the United States (cf. Baron and Spitzer 2007) and elsewhere is not a specialized disciplinary sector in Slovenia. The absence of overt scholarly engagement in the public sphere is also the reason that the cultural production of folklore has been observed critically only in recent years. The mass commodiication of folklore and cultural heritage and the consequent “crisis” of traditional folklore studies has helped to shift scholarly attention to public displays of folklore in Slovenia (cf. KirshenblattGimblett 1998). The meaning of genre as it is used here also diverges from the meaning of folklore genre as used in American folklore studies (e.g., Oring 1986). In this article, I use it in its broadest sense, as “a recurrent language-based category that guides or constrains communication” (Gunn 2009). In scholarly communities and in larger society, disciplinary practices are transferred through speciic carriers for speciic content, and these carriers include both knowledge formats and genres. Knowledge formats may be “deined as a special presentation of knowledge tailored to a special form, structure, and content” (Fenske 2008:24). A knowledge format provides a framework that structures, shapes, transmits, and reproduces representations of research data. While the meaning of genre originates in philosophical, rhetorical, and literary traditions, the term has been theorized extensively in modern scholarship, and— thanks to Bakhtin’s theory of language and speech genres—has also been extended to extra-literary genres and transferred to other schol- 126 Journal of Folklore Research Vol. 47, No. 1-2 arly ields (e.g., linguistics, literary studies, history, art theory) and to non-scholarly forms (e.g., art, music, ilm, video, electronic media). In terms of Wittgenstein’s family resemblances, a genre is akin to a knowledge format because it is a pattern of discourse, a tacit or explicit convention of language use in speciic situations (Cobley 2005). From a Bakhtinian point of view, genres as “relatively stable types of . . . utterances” are not just sets of conventions that shape oral or written texts, but are ways of conceptualizing reality, forms of seeing and interpreting particular aspects of the world (Bakhtin 1986:60). Since context plays an important role in shaping texts, genres are recognizable patterns of language in context. Their lexibility stems from the fact that they have loose sets of criteria for composition; that is, they are “vague categories with no ixed boundaries” (Breure 2001). However, genres are usually bound to speciic audiences, media, and publications. Bakhtin’s concepts of heteroglossia and hybridity, which brand the landscape of writing culture, are derived precisely from the versatility and intentionality of genres, and from the polysemous nature of language (as Bakhtin phrased it, language is “shot through with intentions and accents” [1981:293]). In ethnography, for example, the implications of a literary genre, with its “particular generic features and means of argumentation and persuasion,” are deined in terms of the production of narratives. Narratives are seen as an outcome “of particular motivation and argumentative purposes, which are both academic and non-academic.” Their scientiic status “calls for the explication of the ways of writing—the poetics and aesthetics—as well as the motivations and meanings —the politics—of the ethnographic practice and the entire research as a process of objectiication” (Anttonen 2005:23). While early twentieth-century ethnology in Slovenia constituted itself as a scholarly ield with patterned authoritative texts, modern ethnologists and folklorists take into account a more variegated and democratic type of knowledge production. In turn, today’s scholars utilize a corresponding set of representative and recognizable knowledge formats and heterogeneous genres. Rather than adopting previous textualization patterns that relied on explanatory paradigms of representation (Anttonen 2008), these scholars acknowledge that the cultural worlds we study are constructed in a multi-voiced or heteroglossic way. In this context, distinctive scholarly genres (i.e., knowledge formats) constitute just one type of voice, and the character of each Ingrid Slavec Gradišnik Slovenian Folk Culture 127 is intimately linked to the respective discipline’s methodology and practices and constitutes a framework for scholarly and organizational communication. From the perspective of knowledge formats, the ive aspects of genre (dynamism, situatedness, form and content, duality of structure, and community ownership [see Berkenkotter and Huckin 1995:4]) it well into the discourse on knowledge production. These aspects also distinguish scholarly writing from other representational forms (or genres). Although today academic discourse, common-sense interactions, and media offerings often appear to be joint ventures, the stakes involved in creating knowledge formats are as signiicant as they were when ethnology and folklore studies irst aspired to academic (“professional”) status. The production of academic texts results in (but also reverberates with) cultural representations, as scholarly and non-scholarly genres inform issues in the politics of textualization and representation more generally. Privileging the Written Word: Philological Paradigms and “Minor” Genres Alongside scholarly societies, museums, and universities, writing is certainly one of the sites where a discipline shapes itself. Scholars’ thoughts, observations, and commentaries on people and culture have been recorded in various forms—written, drawn, photographed and ilmed, staged, and exhibited in museum collections. All disciplines are founded on a corpus of inherited information documented in archives, museum collections, and knowledge institutions. As researchers publish and organize academic conferences, they reproduce the institutional memory and routines of professional enculturation and engage in the social transfer of knowledge. In scholarship, written texts remain the principal form of knowledge representation, and most of what we know about our professional ield we have learned from reading canonical texts. These texts not only inform us about our founding fathers, topics, theories, and research agendas, but at the same time they also reveal unobserved or marginalized topics and issues, as well as personal and disciplinary biases. When we examine general ethnological knowledge from the standpoint of various non-canonical genres—each a speciic representation of culture—the proile of the discipline’s evolution is suddenly much more diversiied; it has multiple voices (cf. Fikfak 1999). Moreover, 128 Journal of Folklore Research Vol. 47, No. 1-2 attention to genre types reveals different concerns and controversies, unveiling actors other than the “qualiied” experts. These nonacademic individuals actively shape cultural knowledge by virtue of their diversiied interests and their relationship to the world. Non-canonical genres not only animate our interest in different life experiences; they also turn our attention to alternate representations of everyday life and cultural practices. In this sense, disciplinary knowledge is not the only source of what we know about cultural landscapes, past and present. An examination of the “images of ethnography”2 (Fikfak 1999) in Slovenia in the nineteenth century is very instructive. The topics we today deine as ethnological and folkloristic were often recorded in “literary” forms, such as travel literature (cf. Stagl 1995, 2002) and Heimatkunde (local writing), as well as in various specialized texts about history, geography, literature, language, and so forth. The authors of these texts were educated men (including teachers, priests, and other men of letters), but they were not trained ethnologists, professional ethnographers, or folklorists. However, the effort these “literary ethnographers” took to describe natural and cultural environments “objectively” creates links between their work and the goals of scholarly writing. Their narratives depict scenes from everyday urban and rural life, characterizing domestic and foreign places and people, presenting the basic relationships between “the home” and “the world,” shedding light on Slovenian self-perceptions and attitudes toward the Other, and unveiling categories of inclusion and exclusion. An important source for ethno-historical reconstructions and interpretations, nineteenth-century writing of this kind offers broad coverage of topics, chronotopes, and social groups; thus, it can expand perspectives on the everyday culture of the past. The texts from that period singlehandedly relect the boundary-crossing nature of the folk-culture concept, as deined later in the scholarly discourse. However, in the last decades of the nineteenth century in Slovenia, there was a tendency to “ix” a divide between scholars and “amateurs” (Fikfak 1999). In later (re) interpretations of folk culture, this split reverberated in ethnological/ folkloristic scholarship and among the wider public. From the standpoint of disciplinary history, these ethnographically rich cultural portrayals (said to be canonical for continental European ethnology) transcend competing perspectives about the origins of ethnology and also rise above particular orientations: anthropological (interested in cultural universals and cultural particularities imprinted Ingrid Slavec Gradišnik Slovenian Folk Culture 129 in people’s everyday practices) or folkloric (in the traditional sense, akin to literary studies of oral tradition). During the Enlightenment and Romantic eras, the disciplinary boundary between Volkskunde and Völkerkunde3 was unknown or unclear—at least in Slovenia. For example, history textbooks of the time contain a great deal about cultures outside Europe. From today’s perspective, these texts are relatively more informative about the culture of that time than are nineteenth-century folklore collections, which, despite their adherence to Romantic patterns, are used to date the birth of European national ethnologies or folklore studies. Collections of folk literature (especially songs), inspired by Herder and his followers, served nationalist ends: they demonstrated the cultural richness in which national consciousness was rooted. This knowledge format is a recognizable genre of the Romantic movement within a wider European context. In Slovenia, such collections were irst compiled by Stanko Vraz (1839) and Emil Korytko (1839–1844) as part of a more ambitious ethnographic plan to present the nation’s wealth in its totality (including local customs, livelihood strategies, food, clothing, and religious practices [cf. Novak 1986]). Their aspiration was to offer a comprehensive ethnographic portrayal of Slovenian people and their highly valorized (folk) culture. Only in the second half of the nineteenth century, with the development of the middle class and its institutions, did Slovenian linguistic and communicative space start to take shape and thus reinforce Slovenian national consciousness. This development was important, since Slovenian ethnic territory was part of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. Literacy and education spread, newspapers lourished, and various societies were founded to promote the growing national consciousness. In addition, ethnographic topics were popularized in daily newspapers and specialized journals. Because a Slovenian university was not established until 1919, intellectuals from Slovenian areas were educated abroad, primarily at Austrian universities. The philologists who studied there in the last decades of the nineteenth century also canonized ethnography. However, these scholars wrote their most prominent texts in German, and educated Slovenians became acquainted with their indings only through summaries in the specialized or popular culture sections of Slovenian newspapers. Editors of these specialized sections did not shape these texts too ambitiously, but rather tailored content to their niche readers. A different selective process was implemented in the rare scholarly journals, for they did 130 Journal of Folklore Research Vol. 47, No. 1-2 not accept texts that did not meet their expectations and standards (e.g., discussions of mythology were rejected by positivist philology publications because of the lack of empirical evidence and inadequate methods). Moreover, at that time it was unimaginable that reports and expressions from everyday life that overtly showed banality, social deviation, misfortune, morally unacceptable behavior, and marginal existence should be printed. A kind of self-censorship seems to have been applied to such topics. Thus, for example, the history professor and writer Janez Trdina (1830–1905) recorded his daily observations and comments on the everyday life of the common people in Lower Carniola in his private notebooks. He focused on subject matter that was deined as ethnological only a century later (see Trdina 1980), with the result that the publication of Trdina’s ethnographic material was delayed by 100 years (Kramberger and Štabi 1987). Philological scholarship was read almost exclusively by experts abroad, especially in German and Slavic intellectual circles. It was based on the academic paradigms of the time, and so adopted a positivistic style that insisted on critical presentations and comparative interpretations of material. The academic world codiied the forms and venues of publications in terms of monographs and papers in scholarly journals, edited by scholars in academic institutions. The form of this academic output was recognizable in the systematic structure of the work and in its precise scholarly format—with thorough citations of all available sources and literature and extensive commentaries and notes. One typical example of this academic format is the nearly 900page Einleitung in die slavische Literaturgeschichte (Introduction to Slavic literary history), irst published in 1874 (with a second enlarged edition in 1887) by the philologist Gregor Krek. His long-term study was intended to reconstruct literature (both belle-lettres and oral, or folk, literature) and to conirm Herder’s thesis that language, in all its forms, is a medium of the nation’s spirit and its cultural history. He also adhered to the Grimms’s notion that mythological traces are of essential importance to nation-building projects. Thus, Krek’s monograph was based on a comprehensive presentation of historical, etymological, literary, ethnographic, and mythological material, not only from the Slavic and European cultural areas, but also from IndoEuropean sources, which Krek analyzed using a historical comparative method and textual analysis. Although the Slovenian press reported on Krek’s publication, it was largely neglected until recently, except Ingrid Slavec Gradišnik Slovenian Folk Culture 131 for limited attention in professional circles (e.g., Fikfak 2006). Before philological ethnography and folklore studies had their own institutions, this type of monograph and other similarly structured scientiic papers shaped a scholarly model that was based on focused questions, approved methodological tools, a recognizable writing style, and a target audience. It was a model restricted to an academic community, for scholarly writing at the time was relatively hermetic and esoteric, at least from a Slovenian perspective. It was written abroad in a foreign language, and its key references were comparable scholarly papers by foreign experts. Lectures constituted another important nineteenth-century knowledge format that consolidated the philological branch of ethnography. These were delivered in German by Slovenian scholars at universities in Graz and Vienna (Bockhorn 1994; Kropej 1995; Fikfak 2006). Thus the “difference between the scholarly and non-scholarly was deined largely by language because German as the lingua franca formed the extra linguistic and extraterritorial discourse” (Fikfak 2006:146). Two other philologists—Karel Štrekelj and Matija Murko—experienced a somewhat different reception during the transition from the nineteenth to the twentieth century. Both of them were active abroad at universities in Vienna and Graz, where they were educated and established themselves as distinguished scholars. However, at least part of their work was formulated in Slovenian and directly oriented to the Slovenian national community. Karel Štrekelj decided to issue a complete collection of Slovenian folk songs (1895–1923). Because he planned to produce a “critical edition,” he had exceptional dificulties with the publisher,4 who measured scholarship in terms of morality and with the public in mind. The publisher argued that readers should not be tainted by the scandalous songs Štrekelj proposed to include; Štrekelj, on the other hand, maintained that they deserved a place in a collection that followed scholarly5 methods, most particularly Josef Pommer’s production theory (1906) and philological strategies for pursuing comparative poetics. Philology and other text-based disciplines of the time adopted standard procedures from ancient philology, which relied on textual criticism and critical editing techniques.6 Consequently, the preparation of Štrekelj’s collection was accompanied by numerous invitations to ield collectors, who were given strict instructions about collecting procedures. Štrekelj’s guidelines were often published in 132 Journal of Folklore Research Vol. 47, No. 1-2 the main Slovenian newspapers and, from today’s vantage point, they were signiicant in popularizing his ambitious plan. Matija Murko, inspired by Prague’s ethnographic exhibition in 1895, drafted a program for the ambitious and systematic development of Slovenian ethnography, or narodopis, as he termed it (1896:132–37). Murko clearly explained the substance, purpose, and value of ethnography, in addition to describing how collecting and research should be organized. He canonized ethnography as the investigation of material, social, and spiritual culture and set up novel methodological standards in ieldwork. In addition to the study of historical sources, observations, and descriptions, Murko urged ield researchers to set up archival iles (sketches, photographs, paintings, and, later on, phonograph recordings). In this way, sketches and photographs became an important element of scholarly papers. Both Štrekelj and Murko drew rather decisively from the work of both amateurs and academics. As university professors, they educated a series of philologists who subsequently developed philological ethnology, especially along the lines of cultural historical methodology. Throughout the irst half of the twentieth century and beyond, this method became the ruling paradigm for studying folk culture. In addition to the “scholarly” breakthrough strengthened by Štrekelj’s and Murko’s work, another factor signiicantly deined the academic genres of ethnographic writing: relexive elements become an integral part of scholarly texts. Relexivity was evident in methodical guidelines, introductions, responses to criticism, reviews, and (especially in Murko’s case) thorough documentation of the research process in the form of ield reports.7 Expanded Perspectives Through the irst half of the twentieth century, Murko’s conception of ethnography as an approach for researching folk culture was put into practice relatively slowly and in a fragmentary manner. It is important to note that Murko saw folk culture as only one part of the culture of the entire nation, as that segment or layer with the deepest historical roots. He stressed that Slovenians should be familiar with folk culture in order to communicate conidently with European nations that had already established ethnological institutions (museums, universities, and academic societies). With the founding of the Ethnographic Ingrid Slavec Gradišnik Slovenian Folk Culture 133 Museum in Ljubljana in 1923, a philological orientation joined with a museum-oriented practice. Nonetheless, the history of preserving “ethnographic artifacts” goes back at least to 1821, when the Museum of the Carniolan Provincial Estates was founded in Ljubljana (after 1888, the institution was renamed the Carniolan Provincial Museum, or Rudolinum). Its collection of non-European items, contributed primarily by missionaries, was more extensive than the Slovenian collections. This extra-European emphasis resulted partially from the development of museums in Slovenia (Hudales 2008), but it was also due to the fact that nineteenth-century folklorists privileged the collection of intangible phenomena rather than material objects. In comparison to certain European countries, the institutional lag is therefore obvious. The irst ethnographic program in a museum goes back to Matija Murko (1892, 1896), who was ahead of his time in foregrounding the signiicance of ethnographic collections and exhibitions, as he was with many of the tasks of his ethnographic program. The Ethnographic Museum was hard-pressed to follow the museological standards of the time for its exhibits. More important than the exhibits were the museum’s research and publishing activities. In 1926, the museum began issuing Slovenia’s irst journal dedicated exclusively to ethnology, Etnolog (The Ethnologist).8 This publication helped set standards for scholarly writing as practiced in etymological and ethnogenetic studies, physical anthropology, archeology, and ethnography. Until the founding of the University of Ljubljana’s department of ethnology and ethnography in 1940, the Ethnographic Museum was the only professional institution of ethnology in Slovenia.9 The museum operated under exceptionally disadvantageous conditions with regard to facilities and staff (Rogelj Škafar 1993). The researchers active in studying folk culture were not trained ethnologists, but philologists, art historians, and archeologists who studied folk culture in terms of opposition, i.e., high versus low culture, urban versus rural culture, modern versus traditional culture. One of the main tasks of ethnography, even at the beginning of the twentieth century, was to contribute knowledge about the national spirit and national character, along with cultural and historical comparisons that broadly extended into (and sometimes beyond) European space. As a result, a distinct segment of research implicitly sought to identify characteristically “Slovenian” cultural forms. The geographical and cultural position of Slovenian ethnic territory—squeezed between 134 Journal of Folklore Research Vol. 47, No. 1-2 Romance culture to the west, Germanic to the north, Hungarian to the east, and Slavic and Balkan to the south—greatly contributed to the perceived urgency of this objective, as did Slovenia’s historical and political fate, which, at least implicitly, motivated Slovenians to delimit and differentiate themselves from others. (Following the fall of the Austro-Hungarian state in the early twentieth century, Slovenia became part of the “irst” Yugoslavia.) If, in principle, experts were able to discard the notion that an individually autonomous Slovenian culture could be extracted from ethnographic data and historical records, the public (as well as nationally oriented politics, to some degree) nevertheless demanded some sort of list characterizing Slovenian culture. This demand had been an issue since the Spring of Nations (1848), and even today, when “being” or “feeling Slovenian”10 is discussed more in terms of intercultural dialogue and multiculturalism, ethnologists are expected to provide answers about what constitutes the core of “Slovenian” culture. In ways similar to the situation in the nineteenth century, when the nationalization of folk culture began (Löfgren 1989), from the twentieth century onward folk culture has been viewed as a handy repository of cultural heritage, always ready to serve national, regional, or local interests. From the irst decade of the twentieth century to the Second World War, this role was manifested in a rekindling of “national style.” The strategy for constructing “national” (sometimes synonymous with “folk”) song, music, dance, food, art, and so on was selective and primarily emphasized aesthetic elements. Thus, an interest in artistic creations (e.g., architecture, interior design, and embellished dishes, clothing and other textiles, and furniture) moved to the forefront, explicitly underlining the aesthetic dimensions and values of folk culture. A product of detached urban perspectives on the “Other,” the discursive mainstays of the ethnic/national paradigm were devolutionary (antiquarian), rural, and aesthetic (cf. Dundes 1969; Johler, Nikitsch, and Tschofen 1999; Köstlin 1984, 1999)—emphases already common during the Romantic era (and often still in force today). At the academic level, this type of discourse, which imposed a “paradigm of loss” (Anttonen 2007:18), was implicitly manifest in the selection of research topics and interpretive approach. Scholarly texts primarily presented typological cultural and historical reconstructions and interpretations of phenomena under study. Regardless of the topic, form followed the prescribed philological Ingrid Slavec Gradišnik Slovenian Folk Culture 135 pattern, aiming to explain the origin, distribution, development, and decay of cultural phenomena. Scholarly interpretations were not always and unavoidably meant to promote the national idea. Although scholars foregrounded ethnic or nationally interwoven cultural, ideological, and political meanings, they did not treat culture unequivocally as a single entity. Many researchers after Matija Murko emphasized that one of the main markers of folk culture is its regional variability11 and that the speciic reception, or assimilation, of “other” cultural elements (from “higher,” urban, “international” culture) is a vital and characteristic process of folk culture. Systematic collections and studies of these phenomena (subsumed in the descriptive deinition of rural, peasant culture) were the core goal of research practice, and scholars were rarely engaged in “translating” knowledge into formats more comprehensible to the general public. Thus, ethnographic knowledge largely reached the wider public in mediated and reinterpreted forms, and it was often reduced to stereotypical images in public performances that decontextualized and abridged scholarly knowledge into visually pleasing images (e.g., “folk” dress during folkdance festivals, or portfolios of folk ornamentation). Scholars and amateurs alike were involved in these enactments of the “folk,” whose function was to represent the nation and reinforce people’s identiication, particularly in urban settings. Since we have no detailed research from the interwar period on the genres used for displaying selected elements of folk culture, we can illustrate their popularization with the activities of two researchers who in particular sought to propagate information about and popularize the values of folk culture. France Marolt, who was a founder of the Folklore Institute in Ljubljana in 1934, demonstrated his commitment to folk culture (especially song and dance) by founding and directing the Student Choir (Akademski pevski zbor) and organizing folklore festivals. Apart from his scholarly activities, Marolt worked primarily on stage adaptations of ritual practices whose main elements were song, dance, and instrumental music. Niko Kuret—who began his career as a secondaryschool instructor and became a prominent folklore scholar after the Second World War—was engaged in considerably broader activities. A philologist by education, Kuret had an early interest in medieval and religious theater. He found traces of these forms in folk theater, and he popularized folk theater’s religious content through numerous stage adaptations. In 1934, Kuret founded the journal Ljudski oder (The folk 136 Journal of Folklore Research Vol. 47, No. 1-2 stage), which ran for thirty issues. He also made use of the growing medium of radio, for which he prepared many scripts and broadcasts on folk heritage.12 Kuret saw Christian theology and values as central elements of folk culture; in addition, he found the idea of community (Gemeinschaft) culture-sustaining. During the hard living conditions of World War II, Kuret dedicated himself to “family culture.” His early love for puppetry and children’s games in general led him to edit a collection of games (1942a), a guide for hand puppetry (1942b), and the 1941 booklet Delajmo jaslice (Let’s make a nativity set), intended to promote the typical traditional family celebration of Christmas. Immediately after the war, systematic research13 agendas for the national Ethnographic Museum and the Institute of Ethnography (founded in 1947) were drawn up. The goal of both institutions was to ill in the unknown and unstudied terra incognita of past and contemporary folk culture in a systematic way. This thematic specialization, for which we could use the old “Rock und Kamisol” metaphor of Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl (1859), came under attack in the 1960s by proponents of the “new,” modernist ethnology. However, the critique of folk culture began at least implicitly right after the Second World War. The oficial Marxist ideology regarded folk life as conservative and backward, something that had to be overcome and replaced with new values that favored modernization and social progress. On the other hand, Yugoslav policy animated the idea of the “brotherhood and unity” of the Yugoslavian people by emphasizing the cultural wealth of the various nations (the principle of “unity in diversity”). Elements of folk culture (folk dress, traditional foods, folk dances, etc.) were used for representative purposes. Then again, without “traditional” comprehensive studies—of literary, dance, ritual, architecture, craft, and artistic traditions, for example—ethnology and folklore studies potentially lacked a basic knowledge of past cultural forms. In part, then, the purpose of these research plans and studies was still “salvage” ethnography. Research was justiied on the basis of its concern for the general cultural, historical, and national consciousness and for highlighting European comparative dimensions, which were important for disciplinary selfperception. During this period, research indings were published in two characteristic formats: monographs and articles. The main ethnographic journal, Slovenski etnograf (Slovenian ethnographer), succeeded Etnolog (1926–1944) in 1948 as the publication of the Eth- Ingrid Slavec Gradišnik Slovenian Folk Culture 137 nographic Museum. The journal preserved a similar genre structure (discussion papers, reports on events, and book reviews) to Etnolog, but had a more pronounced ethnographic proile than the mixtum compositum content of its prewar predecessor. From the 1960s, “modern” ethnology set itself a different conceptual and theoretical framework. By empowering historical, dialectical, and materialistic perspectives, ethnological studies have sought to demonstrate that culture is differentiated primarily through social structure. Everyday life (and the social context of culture more generally) had also come to the fore in “new,” or different, knowledge formats, such as local studies. Projects within this category included ethnographies of places (village or towns), local professional groups (which the model of functionalist-structuralist monographs had penetrated), and communal topographies. Concurrently, the national/ethnic perspective in culture research began to recede for two reasons. The irst was contextual, namely, the Yugoslavian ideology of “brotherhood and unity,” which—at least in oficial discourse—privileged proletarian and social concerns over ethnic ones. The second reason was the acceptance of current trends in European ethnology. Thus the “ethnographic picturesque” no longer igures in today’s theoretical debates, except perhaps for the discussion on folklorism. The objectives of this conceptually and methodologically reframed ethnology differ from previous iterations: they have more to communicate about everyday culture and its socially determined issues. New perspectives and new topics are also expressed in different ways of structuring scholarly texts: their content avoids the broad generalizations about origins of cultural phenomena that characterized cultural-historical orientations and methodology. Today’s studies have increasingly shifted from colorful “case studies” to a focus on cultural manifestations of everyday life and are therefore situated in concrete social, professional, and local/regional settings. A typological concept of folk culture that conceals cultural differentiations based on social status or class, profession, generation, and gender in favor of ethnic or national cultural homogenization is unsatisfactory to modern ethnologists. Until the last decades of the twentieth century, there was considerable divergence between scholarly production and the public image of ethnology and folklore studies. On the one hand, academic production in conceptually and methodologically modernized ethnological 138 Journal of Folklore Research Vol. 47, No. 1-2 writings focused on selected cultural phenomena as “windows” of meaning (Gerholm 1993:14–15) from which to perceive cultural worlds and everyday life. “Traditional” typological studies were considered important also for their cultural viewpoint and history. On the other hand, stereotypical cultural images of the picturesque past persisted in the minds of the general public. These images were at least partly fed by folkloristic performances that scholars viewed with ambivalence. Some saw them as a distortion and misrepresentation, or even abuse, of folklore, whereas others regarded them as an opportunity for the preservation and survival of past cultural wealth (cf. Stanonik 1990; Poljak Isteni÷ 2008). In the mid-twentieth century, applied folklore was a more contested ield than it is today, in part because many scholars advocated for folklore as a “scientiic subject,” something not subject to “profanation.” Niko Kuret has been one of a few scholars to seek balance between scholarly vocation and knowledge popularization. In one of his draft agendas for the Commission for Slovenian Ethnography (1947, now the Institute of Slovenian Ethnology), he envisioned three departments: a core research department, and the so-called departments of reenactment and safeguarding. The former would enable professional reproduction of folklore by four folklore groups (choral, dance, music, and theatre) and the latter would promote collaboration with institutions (for conservation and education) as well as youth groups, which he viewed as important agents in protecting and reviving cultural traditions (Archive ISE SRC SASA 1948). Kuret preserved his original commitment to the signiicance of folk culture for historical memory, national consciousness, and quality of life. Both before the war and after, he sought to present and popularize folk culture through diverse genres: from research articles published in books and journals; to radio broadcasts, newspaper articles, and staged folk events intended to promote education and tourism; to the new medium of ilm, for which Kuret prepared scripts that reconstructed holiday rituals. While his activities could be subsumed into the sector of “public folklore,” public folklore has never functioned as a distinctive ield in Slovenia. Beginning in the 1970s, researchers began to consider more systematically the popularization of their knowledge—that is, knowledge of past cultural processes and critical assessments of contemporary cultural phenomena. This challenge was partially connected to the “science policy” of the time, which called for “socially useful” and Ingrid Slavec Gradišnik Slovenian Folk Culture 139 applied scholarship (cf. Bogataj and Guštin 1978), and it was also related to the increasing number of professional ethnologists and researchers.14 Continued research yielded adequate critical knowledge of “canonical” or “traditional” disciplinary topics that some dexterous authors were able to promote through scholarly formats that incorporated non-hermeneutical language and attractive illustrations and avoided extensive footnoted commentaries. In the 1970s and 1980s a number of such publications were well received among scholars and a wider readership; the most prominent studies included works on Slovenian festive calendars (Kuret 1965–71, 1989, 1997), folk costumes (Makarovi÷ 1971), folk heritage (Baš 1978), dance heritage (Ramovš 1980), folk art (Makarovi÷ 1981), and home crafts (Bogataj 1989, 1992, 1993). It’s worth noting that these studies were printed by leading commercial publishing houses. The publications were at least partly motivated by their potential relevance for folklore groups, local groups, and school teachers—those interested in staging folklore, enacting festive practices, or reviving crafts. They provided a model for how to perform folklore the “right” way. Following Slovenia’s independence from Yugoslavia in 1991, oficial cultural policy changed perceptibly from that current during socialism: cultural heritage became an important part of the renaissance of Slovenian identity, both in terms of research and popularization. Of course, this change did not mean more inancial support for academic research.15 Instead, the general circumstances and atmosphere had changed people’s awareness about how to make use of folklore in the capitalist market, which in turn created opportunities and strategies for reviving, preserving, and presenting cultural heritage. As a special segment of national heritage, folk culture provided an identifying and representational model, and it undoubtedly became not only a market commodity but also an economic category. In scholarship, the renewed interest in cultural heritage has invigorated a productive research niche for more traditionally oriented researchers and for critical observers of contemporary cultural bricolage. It has also stimulated some to rethink or deconstruct what they mean by terms such as historical, collective memory, tradition, and cultural heritage (cf. Hudales and Viso÷nik 2005a). The popularity of cultural heritage discourse is evidenced by the favorable reception of intermediate genres that fall somewhere between scholarly and popular. The wealth of cultural heritage in Slovenia is 140 Journal of Folklore Research Vol. 47, No. 1-2 published primarily in the form of attractive books (often translated into other languages). However, it cannot be overlooked that they are infused with a “glocal” stance that takes multiculturalism into account: the inferred “Slovenian”16 character is giving way to the presentation and acknowledgment of regional and local cultural characteristics. These books also suggest strategies for relating cultural heritage to everyday life, leisure, and even state protocol (e.g., Bogataj 1994). From a critical standpoint, these speciic applications (e.g., of the cultural landscape, traditional activities, crafts, festivities, and “typical” food)17 may still reproduce cultural stereotypes. On the other hand, they indirectly encourage people to develop speciic activities (e.g., crafts, gastronomy, viticulture, tourism, commerce, artistic design) that may provide livelihood, improve social cohesion, and contribute to environmental protection. The popularity of ethnological and folkloristic knowledge is exempliied also by the fact that a large nonacademic publishing house supported the publication of the Slovenski etnološki leksikon (Encyclopedia of Slovenian ethnology, Baš 2004). This highly referential edition of a scholarly format has authorized a speciic genre or knowledge format (i.e., encyclopedic/lexicographical entries structured according to a normative scheme). At the same time, it has been successful in considering its target audience (scholars and the general public). Heteroglossic Cultural Brokerage The term “heteroglossia” characterizes a multilayered discourse on cultural heritage that emphasizes multiple and competing narratives;18 it is used here from the perspective of the genre or knowledge format (content, forms, purposes, authors, addressees, contexts, etc.). Along with scholarly texts and other academic activities, it is necessary to refer to an entire series of publications issued by amateur professionals. These publications show positive inclinations toward folk “riches,” exhibit various degrees of mastering the material, and either address the public in general or have a more regional or local focus. Now and then they are also criticized by scholars who believe these authors propagate knowledge that cannot withstand professional criticism and are therefore “detrimental.” On the other hand, critical research indicates that cultural processes and human creativity must be acknowledged as “voices” of their time—as records of attitudes that reinforce Ingrid Slavec Gradišnik Slovenian Folk Culture 141 differing (and overlapping) values, from romantic to commercial. Additionally, attitudes towards cultural heritage can be expressed by means other than writing. Two examples are museological presentations (no longer merely the domain of oficial national, regional, or city museums) and the preservation of residential environments19 (no longer the exclusive activity of institutes for the protection of cultural heritage). Provisions for safeguarding, presentation, and promotion are partially in the hands of state institutions (e.g., ministries of culture, agriculture, spatial planning, and economics) that regulate safekeeping through legislation. To some extent, these projects are also carried out by the tourist industry and local associations, associations of farm women, rural youth, and individuals (craftsmen and collectors). Material elements of cultural heritage are displayed in specialized shops that market replicas, in shopping centers, and in bars and restaurants where items of folk heritage decorate interiors and add commercial value. Amateur museology is evident in many private family and local collections, in addition to special programs and workshops organized by museums. Heritage is presented in countless events at local festivals and on calendar holidays and is represented by various local groups in specialized newsletters and on websites. The “intangible” characteristics of the local population (e.g., joviality or stinginess) are emphasized in public events at the local level. Typically, traditional crafts and craftsmanship, clothing, food, local trades, customs, rituals, folk dances and folk music, and the use of dialect and archaisms are also represented at these events (Smerdel 2006–07:107–12).20 These cultural elements are clearly transcultural and transnational; they are part of the “international cultural grammar of nationhood” and at the same time constitute a “speciic national lexicon” (Löfgren 1989:21–22). From this perspective, cultural elements function at various identiication levels—from the local via the national to the international. In rethinking the relationship between scholarship and contemporary life among academic tribes, the larger community, and locations of cultural heritage display, it is important to acknowledge the variegated reception of cultural heritage. It is irrelevant to consider whether or not the creative potential rooted within traditional forms corresponds to the academic interpretation of the cultural past. Culture simply deies standardization. The task of professionals is to critically examine the ways and means of appropriation and transmission in a variety of representational forms: material objects (replicas of objects, such as museum 142 Journal of Folklore Research Vol. 47, No. 1-2 and tourism souvenirs, decorative and applied craft and art objects, food items, and symbolic markers used in visual communication), live activities (demonstrations and the revival of various economic activities, fairs, and so on; rural and farming festivals as a “theater of history,” and folklorism), and revitalized intangible heritage (dance and music— from historical reconstruction and folk-pop music to ethno-jazz and world music, the publication and presentation of literary heritage in dialect, nature trails with fairytale themes, and the use of dialect at local events and in the media [Smerdel 2006–07:107]). In the eyes of the general public, ethnologists and folklorists have two prominent roles: irst, they maintain their reputation as “traditional” experts in folklore and heritage matters and are expected to give instant and stereotyped answers concerning these topics. Secondly, they are supposed to be gatekeepers of local knowledge against the threats of globalization. Public appearances are a popular genre for communicating expert knowledge. For example, in newspaper, radio, or television interviews, which often allot only a few minutes of airtime, it is necessary to briely explain a tradition’s origins, its current functions, and whether it is unique to Slovenians or instead simply a “plagiarized” form created by consuming the international low of cultural goods. Considering the impact of television, TV broadcasts are an effective means for popularizing a deconstructed concept of national (i.e., Slovenian) cultural heritage. In the postmodern spirit of recent decades, cultural complexity and luidity, and the segmented, partial, or hybridized construction of cultural afiliations are at the forefront of ethnological and folkloristic interest. The researcher’s relexive position has to take into account that the production of knowledge is a multilayered and multivoiced process. The researcher’s text is no longer an authoritative scholarly discourse, but an interweaving of at least three reciprocally linked discourses: professional, amateur, and media. Ethnological knowledge is produced through interaction and synergy among different agents: 1) actors or performers (e.g., participants in rituals, collectors, “folk” singers and dancers, storytellers, and so on, who in past ethnographic practice were either ignored or treated as collective bearers of tradition); 2) researchers (whose presence, research, publications, and other public presentations afirm the relevance of the events under study); and, in many cases, 3) the media, which directly enable living Ingrid Slavec Gradišnik Slovenian Folk Culture 143 traditions to shift rapidly from the local environment to the regional, national, and often international levels. Pleading for such a perspective, we are faced with the exceptional dynamics of “knowledge production,” whereby the implications and effects of the “democratic” model of knowledge production cannot be overlooked. In scholarship, the dialogic or heteroglossic character of knowledge production requires not only iner methods in order to unveil and interpret the multilayered character of cultural reality, but also greater ethical responsibilities in acknowledging the authorship of knowledge. As “spaces of knowledge,” these formats and genres provide us with new perspectives for studying the production and reproduction of cultural representations. Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts Ljubljana, Slovenia Notes 1. The articles on its contentiousness are comparable to German discussions of Volkskultur (e.g., Bausinger 1961; Geiger, Jeggle, and Korff 1970). The term folk culture has been used exclusively in scholarship but never in everyday speech: people most frequently say “tradition,” “old culture,” “as in past/old times,” and sometimes “national culture.” 2. In Slovenia, ethnography (Sln. etnograija, narodopisje) was a disciplinary denomination until the 1960s; it carried connotations similar to German Volkskunde. 3. These terms are German disciplinary denominations, used already in the nineteenth century: Volkskunde refers to the study of the European researcher’s own ethnic or national culture, Völkerkunde refers to general ethnology and study of non-European cultures. 4. The Matica Slovenska (Slovenian Society) was the central cultural and scholarly institution in the second half of the nineteenth century, which also published scholarly texts in Slovenian. 5. The scholarly standard of that time was grounded on positivism as a secular worldview and on evolutionism as the pervasive theoretical and interpretative model of life growth. From a methodological point of view, positivism rejected non-scholarly or subjective judgments. In the late nineteenth century, positivism was not a common term in Slovenia; expressions such as critical, real, and scholarly or scientiic were used instead. 6. The earlier philological approach evaluates the authenticity of preserved texts, documents their original form, reconstructs a proto-text, and traces changes in the textual tradition; more recent philology uses the collected material for critical editions (classiication, compiling indexes, registers of variants, commentaries, and so on). 144 Journal of Folklore Research Vol. 47, No. 1-2 7. When Murko studied Serbo-Croatian epics in the Balkans, he reported on his studies and published them in Vienna (1913a, 1913b, 1915a, 1915b). His ieldwork is described in great detail in the monograph on Serbo-Croatian folk epics (1951). 8. Niko Župani÷, at that time director of the Ethnographic museum and chief editor of Etnolog, used the term ethnology (etnologija) and ethnologist (etnolog) to reinforce a discipline, one more comprehensive in its aims than the “provincial ethnography” (Kotnik 1944:42). 9. It should be mentioned that the Folklore Institute in Ljubljana was founded in 1934 due to the efforts of one man, France Marolt. 10. “I Feel Slovenia” is an oficial poster for promoting Slovenian tourism (http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=UduZE4lBfEQ). 11. Researchers after Murko established a kind of regional typology of culture, dividing Slovenian territory into Alpine, Pannonian, Mediterranean, and central Slovenian cultural areas (cf. Novak 1958; Baš 1978). However, a more detailed division into cultural and geographical regions and even smaller supra-local units has been emphasized in recent decades. 12. Unfortunately, the prewar archives of Ljubljana Radio were destroyed. All that has survived are an inventory and texts in the Slovenian Theater Museum in Ljubljana, which have not yet been studied in detail. 13. As already mentioned, there were few researchers active in the ield of ethnography. However, some experts from other scholarly disciplines followed their personal inclinations to study and interpret folk culture according to their respective methodologies (e.g., literary history dealing with folk literature, or art history dealing with folk art). 14. Their number grew especially from the 1970s onwards, due to the broadening and diversiication of the curriculum and research projects at the university department of ethnology, the consolidation of two research institutes (for ethnology/ folklore studies and ethnomusicology), and employment possibilities for graduates in ethnology at museums and institutions for the preservation of monuments (now institutes for the protection of cultural heritage). 15. Research on cultural heritage is supported by national research project funds (Slovenian Research Agency) and the Ministry of Culture that promotes the preparation of the Registry of Intangible Heritage (linked with UNESCO’s Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage, and to the Intangible Heritage Lists as well). Local, regional, supra- or inter-regional funds are assigned to projects that encourage protection of natural and cultural sites and revive traditional crafts, community rituals, and festive events, locally or regionally characteristic performing arts, food, etc. (cf. Bogataj et al. 2005). 16. The adjective Slovenian has been formerly frequently used in the titles of publications, e.g., Slovenian Folk Culture, Slovenian Folk Costume, Slovenian Folk Art, Slovenian Folk Heritage. 17. See, for example Bogataj 1998, 1999a, 1999b, 2005, 2007, 2008; Bogataj and Berk 1997; Godina Golija 2006, Nemani÷ and Bogataj 2004; Ovsec 1992, 2000, 2003; Ren÷elj, Prajner, and Bogataj 1993; Ren÷elj, Perko, and Bogataj 1995. These books are edited by commercial publishers and are intended for readers in Slovenia and abroad. Compare these with multimedia presentations circulated on the internet Ingrid Slavec Gradišnik Slovenian Folk Culture 145 via YouTube; video titles have included “Slovenia on CNN,” “Slovenia—The Green Piece of Europe,” and “Slovenia—My Country.” 18. Bakhtin does not celebrate heteroglossia (Rus. разноречие, literally “multilanguageness”), but in its various modalities he discovers tension and rivalry between them. “In particular, it alludes to the tension between those forces within a national language which are pulling it towards a standard central version, and those forces which are tugging away from the national standard towards the demotic or the dialectal” (Dentith 2001). We may ind the analogy in rivaling disciplinary discourses and competing discourses on tradition, heritage, culture, and so on. 19. For a thorough study of the history of these efforts in Slovenia and various models of preserving and renewing built heritage, see Hazler 1999. 20. Based on everyday professional observations and documentation, the museum curator Inja Smerdel (2006–07) prepared a provisional overview of the current situation—who the actors are in providing for cultural heritage, and why and through what phenomena cultural heritage or traces of folk culture are most often manifested. Her indings call for additional research because they substantially address authoritarian discourse or power relations: who speaks about what in what manner and on whose behalf (Smerdel 2006–07; cf. Hudales and Viso÷nik 2005a, 2005b). References Cited Anttonen, Pertti J. 2005 Tradition through Modernity: Postmodernism and the Nation-State in Scholarship. Studia Fennica: Folkloristica, vol. 15. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. 2007 “Notes on Lauri Honko’s Discussion on Paradigms in the History of Folklore Studies.” Folklore Fellows Network 33. 2008 “Tradition and Heritage in Ethnological Practice and Theory.” Anthropological Journal of European Cultures 17/2:84–97. Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1981 The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Ed. Michael Holquist. Trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press. 1986 Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Trans. Vern W. McGee. Austin: University of Texas Press. Baron, Robert, and Nick Spitzer, eds. 2007 Public Folklore. Jackson: The University Press of Mississippi. Baš, Angelos, ed. 1978 Slovensko ljudsko izro÷ilo [Slovenian folk heritage]. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba. 2004 Slovenski etnološki leksikon [Encyclopedia of Slovenian ethnology]. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga Založba. Bausinger, Hermann 1961 Volkskultur in der technischen Welt. Stuttgart: Kohlkammer. Ben-Amos, Dan 1998 “The Name Is the Thing.” Journal of American Folklore 111/441:257–80. Bendix, Regina 1995 Amerikanische Folkloristik: Eine Einführung. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer. 146 Journal of Folklore Research Vol. 47, No. 1-2 1997 In Search of Authenticity: The Formation of Folklore Studies. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Bendix, Regina, and Gisela Welz 1999 “‘Cultural Brokerage’ and ‘Public Folklore’ within a German and American Field of Discourse.” Journal of Folklore Research 36/2–3:111–25. Berkenkotter, Carol, and Thomas N. Huckin 1995 Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition/Culture/Power. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Bockhorn, Olaf 1994 “‘Volkskundliche Quellströme’ in Wien: Anthropo- und Philologie, Ethno- und Geographie.” In Völkische Wissenschaft: Gestalten und Tendenzen der deutschen und österreichischen Volkskunde in der Ersten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts, ed. Olaf Bockhorn and Wolfgang Jacobeit, 417–24. Vienna: Böhlau. Bogataj, Janez 1989 Doma÷e obrti na Slovenskem [Home crafts in Slovenia]. Ljubljana: Državna založba Slovenije. 1992 Sto sre÷anj z dediš÷ino na Slovenskem [One hundred encounters with heritage in Slovenia]. Ljubljana: Prešernova družba. 1993 Ljudska umetnost in obrti v Sloveniji [Folk art and crafts in Slovenia]. Ljubljana: Domus. 1994 “Majda, dajte mi tisto iz omare!”: Kultura poslovnih, promocijskih in protokolarnih daril [“Majda, bring me that thing from the cupboard!”: The culture of business, promotional, and protocol gifts]. Ljubljana: Ethno. 1998 Smo kaj šegavi?: Leto šeg in navad na Slovenskem [Are we serious?: Slovenian rituals and customs through the year]. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga. 1999a Handicrafts of Slovenia: Encounters with Contemporary Slovene Craftsmen. Ljubljana: Rokus. 1999b Mleko: Dediš÷ina, hrana, simbol [Milk: Heritage, food, symbol]. Ljubljana: Rokus. 2005 Creative Slovenia: Masterpieces on the Crossroads of the European Alps, the Mediterranean, and Pannonia. Ljubljana: Rokus. 2007 Taste Slovenia. Ljubljana: Rokus. 2008 This Is Slovenia: The Guide to a Unique Country. Ljubljana: Rokus. Bogataj, Janez, and Edi Berk 1997 Gaudeamus igitur. Ljubljana: Državni izpitni center. Bogataj, Janez, and Mitja Guštin, eds. 1978 Etnologija in sodobna slovenska družba [Ethnology and contemporary Slovenian society]. Ljubljana: Slovensko etnološko društvo. Bogataj, Janez, et al. 2005 Nesnovna kulturna dediš÷ina [Intangible cultural heritage]. Ljubljana: Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediš÷ine Slovenije. Breure, Leen 2001 “Development of the Genre Concept.” http://people.cs.uu.nl/leen/ GenreDev/GenreDevelopment.htm. Ingrid Slavec Gradišnik Slovenian Folk Culture 147 Cobley, Paul 2005 “Genre, Genre Theory.” In The Literary Encyclopedia. 31 October 2005. http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?rec=true&UID=464. Dentith, Simon 2001 “Heteroglossia.” In The Literar y Encyclopedia. 18 July 2001. http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?rec=true&UID=510. Dundes, Alan 1969 “Devolutionary Premise in Folklore Theory.” Journal of the Folklore Institute 6:5–19. Fenske, Michaela 2008 “Knowing It Once and for Good? Folkloristic Enyclopaedias as an Authoritative Format of Knowledge.” In SIEF Conference Handbook, 24. Ulster: SIEF, University of Ulster. Fikfak, Jurij 1999 “Ljudstvo mora spoznati sebe”: Podobe narodopisja v 2. polovici 19. stoletja [Images of ethnography: Research on folk and folk culture in the second half of the 19th century]. Ljubljana: Državna založba Slovenije. 2006 “Gregor Krek in za÷etki znanstvenega raziskovanja kulture drugega” [Gregor Krek and the beginnings of scholarly research on the culture of the other]. In Gregor Krek (1840–1905): Filologija in slovanstvo, ed. Jurij Fikfak, 141–54. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC. Fikfak, Jurij, ed. 2006 Gregor Krek (1840–1905): Filologija in slovanstvo [Gregor Krek (1840–1905): Philology and slavism]. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC. Geiger, Klaus, Utz Jeggle, and Gottfried Korff, eds. 1970 Abschied vom Volksleben. Tübingen: Ludwig Uhland Institut der Universität Tübingen. Gerholm, Lena 1993 “The Dynamics of Culture.” Ethnologia Scandinavica 23:13–24. Godina Golija, Maja 2006 Prehranski pojmovnik za mlade [Food glossary for young people]. Maribor: Aristej. Gunn, Joshua 2009 “Genre Theory.” In Encyclopedia of Communication Theory. Sage Publications. 15 October 2009. http://sage-ereference.com/communicationtheory/ Article_n164.html. Hazler, Vito 1999 Podreti ali obnoviti?: Zgodovinski razvoj, analiza in model etnološkega konservatorstva na Slovenskem [To demolish or renovate?: The historical development, analysis, and model of ethnological conservation in Slovenia]. Ljubljana: Rokus. Hudales, Jože 2008 Slovenski muzeji in etnologija: Od kabinetov ÷udes do muzejev 21. stoletja [Slovene museums and ethnology: From cabinets of curiosity to museums for the 21st century]. Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete. 148 Journal of Folklore Research Vol. 47, No. 1-2 Hudales, Jože, and Nataša Viso÷nik, eds. 2005a Dediš÷ina v o÷e znanosti [Heritage in the eyes of science]. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za etnologijo in kulturno antropologijo. 2005b Dediš÷ina v rokah stroke [Heritage in the hands of the profession]. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za etnologijo in kulturno antropologijo. Johler, Reinhard, Herbert Nikitsch, and Bernhard Tschofen, eds. 1999 Ethnische Symbole und ästhetische Praxis in Europa. Vienna: Institut für Volkskunde. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara 1998 “Folklore’s Crisis.” Journal of American Folklore 111/441:281–327. Korytko, Emil 1839–1844 Slovenske pesmi krajnskiga naroda [Slovenian songs of the Carniolan folk]. Ljubljana: J. Blasnik. Köstlin, Konrad 1984 “Die Wiederkehr der Volkskultur: Der neue Umgang mit einem alten Begriff.” Ethnologia Europaea 14/1:25–31. 1999 “Die ästhetisierte Ethnie: Konsumheimat.” In Ethnische Symbole und ästhetische Praxis in Europa, ed. Reinhard Johler, Herbert Nikitsch, and Bernhard Tschofen, 52–75. Vienna: Institut für Volkskunde. Kotnik, France 1944 “Pregled slovenskega narodopisja” [Outline of Slovenian ethnography]. In Narodopisje Slovencev [Ethnography of Slovenians] I., ed. Rajko Ložar, 21–52. Ljubljana: Klas. Kramberger, Igor, and Snežana Štabi, eds. 1987 Podobe prednikov: Zapiski Janeza Trdine iz obdobja 1870–1879, 27 zvezkov rokopisa v 3 knjigah [Ancestral images: The notes of Janez Trdina from 1870 to 1879. 27 manuscript notebooks in 3 volumes]. Ljubljana: Krt. Krek, Gregor 1874 Einleitung in die slavische Literaturgeschichte. Graz: Leuschner and Lubensky. 1887 Einleitung in die slavische Literaturgeschichte. 2nd ed. Graz: Leuschner and Lubensky. Kropej, Monika 1995 “Štrekljeva rokopisa predavanj ‘Slovanske starožitnosti’ in ‘Slovanska etnograija’” [Štrekelj’s manuscripts of his lectures “Slavische Altertümer” and “Slavische Ethnographie”]. In Razvoj slovenske etnologije od Štreklja in Murka do sodobnih etnoloških prizadevanj [The development of Slovenian ethnology from Štrekelj and Murko to modern ethnological efforts], eds. Rajko Murši÷ and Mojca Ramšak, 22–29. Ljubljana: Slovensko etnološko društvo. Kuret, Niko 1942a Veselja dom: Igre in razvedrila v družini [The merry home: Family’s plays and pastime]. Ljubljana: Konzorcij Slovenca. 1942b Pavliha: Knjiga o ro÷nih lutkah [Pavliha: The book of hand puppets]. Ljubljana: Mladinska založba Ingrid Slavec Gradišnik Slovenian Folk Culture 149 1947 Slovenski narodopisni slovar—Slovenski narodopisni arhiv [Slovenian ethnographic glossary—Slovenian ethnographic archive]. Unpublished manuscript. Ljubljana: Archive ISE SRC SASA. 1965 Prazni÷no leto Slovencev [The festive year of the Slovenians]. 4 vols. Celje: –71 Mohorjeva družba. 1989 Prazni÷no leto Slovencev [The festive year of the Slovenians]. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Ljubljana: Družina. 1997 Prazni÷no leto Slovencev [The festive year of the Slovenians]. 3rd ed. 2 vols. Ljubljana: Družina. Löfgren, Orvar 1989 “The Nationalization of Culture.” Ethnologia Europaea 19/1:5–24. Makarovi÷, Gorazd 1981 Slovenska ljudska umetnost [Slovenian folk art]. Ljubljana: Državna založba Slovenije. Makarovi÷, Marija 1971 Slovenska ljudska noša: Slovenska kme÷ka noša v 19. in 20. stoletju [Slovenian folk costume: Slovenian peasant costume in the 19th and 20th centuries]. Ljubljana: CZNG, Slovenski etnografski muzej. Murko, Matija 1892 “Misli s ÷eške razstave” [Thoughts on the Czech exhibition]. Ljubjanski zvon 12/1:12–19, 75–84. 1896 “Narodopisna razstava ÷eškoslovanska v Pragi l. 1895” [The Czechoslovakian ethnographic exhibition in Prague in 1895]. Letopis Matice slovenske 1896:75–137. 1913a “Bericht über eine Bereisung von Nordwestbosnien und der angrenzenden Gebiete von Kroatien und Dalmatien behufs Erforschung der Volksepik der bosnischen Mohammedaner.” Sitzungsberichte der Kais. Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien. Philos.-histor. Klasse, 173/3:1–52. 1913b “Bericht über phonographische Aufnamen epischer, meist mohammedanischer Volkslieder im nordwestlichen Bosnien im Sommer 1912.” Mitteilungen der Phonogrammarchivs-Kommission der Kais. Akademie der Wissenschaften. Anzeiger 1913/8:58–75. 1915a “Bericht über eine Reise zum Studium der Volksepik in Bosnien und Herzegowina im J. 1913.” Sitzungsberichte der Kais. Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien. Phil.-hist. Klasse, 176/2:1–50. 1915b “Bericht über phonographische Aufnamen epischer Volkslieder im mittleren Bosnien und in der Herzegowina im Sommer 1913.” XXXVII. Mitteilungen der Phonogramm-Archivs-Kommission. Sitzungsberichte der Kais. Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Phil.-hist. Klasse, 179/1:1–23. 1951 Tragom srpsko-hrvatske narodne epike: Putovanja u godinama 1930–32 [Tracing Serbo-Croatian folk epic poetry: Travels in 1930–32]. Djela JAZU, vols. 41, 42. Zagreb: JAZU. Murši÷, Rajko, and Mojca Ramšak, eds. 1995 Razvoj slovenske etnologije od Štreklja in Murka do sodobnih etnoloških prizadevanj [The development of Slovenian ethnology from Štrekelj and Murko to modern ethnological efforts]. Ljubljana: Slovensko etnološko društvo. 150 Journal of Folklore Research Vol. 47, No. 1-2 Nemani÷, Jurij, and Janez Bogataj 2004 Wines of Slovenia. Ljubljana: Rokus. Novak, Vilko 1958 “Struktura slovenske ljudske kulture” [The structure of Slovenian folk culture]. In Dissertationes SAZU: Classis II [Dissertations of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Ars: Class II] 4:5–31. Ljubljana: SAZU. 1986 Raziskovalci slovenskega življenja [Researchers of Slovenian life]. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba. Oring, Elliott, ed. 1986 Folk Group and Folklore Genres: An Introduction. Logan: Utah State University Press. Ovsec, Damjan 1992 Velika knjiga o praznikih: Praznovanja na Slovenskem in po svetu [The big book of holidays: Celebrations in Slovenia and throughout the world]. Ljubljana: Domus. 2000 Trije dobri možje: Resni÷na zgodovina svetega Miklavža, Boži÷ka in dedka Mraza [The three good men: The true history of St. Nicholas, Santa Claus, and Father Frost]. Ljubljana: Kme÷ki glas. 2003 Srce moje: Valentinovo, praznik ljubezni, zaljubljencev in dobrih prijateljev [My heart: Valentine’s Day—the holiday of love, lovers, and good friends]. Ljubljana: Kme÷ki glas. Poljak Isteni÷, Saša 2008 “Šege in navade kot folklorizem” [Customs and manners as folklorism]. Traditiones 37/2:61–110. Pommer, Josef 1906 Das Volkslied in Österreich: Anleitung zur Sammlung und Aufzeichnung. Fragebogen. Vienna. Ramovš, Mirko 1980 “Plesat me pelji”: plesno izro÷ilo na Slovenskem [“Let’s dance”: dance heritage in Slovenia]. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba. Ren÷elj, Stanislav, Marija Prajner, and Janez Bogataj 1993 Kruh na Slovenskem [Bread in Slovenia]. Ljubljana: Kme÷ki glas. Ren÷elj, Stanislav, Bogdan Perko, and Janez Bogataj 1995 Siri: nekdaj in zdaj [Cheeses: past and present]. Ljubljana: Kme÷ki glas. Riehl, Wilhelm Heinrich von 1859 Culturstudien aus drei Jahrhunderten. Stuttgart: Cotta. Rogelj Škafar, Bojana 1993 Slovenski etnografski muzej: Sprehod skoz ÷as in le delno tudi prostor [The Slovenian ethnographic museum: A journey through time and only partly through space]. Ljubljana: Slovenski etnografski muzej. Slavec Gradišnik, Ingrid 2000 Etnologija na Slovenskem: Med ÷ermi narodopisja in antropologije [Ethnology in Slovenia: between narodopisje and anthropology]. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU. 2008 “Scraps of the History of Ethnology in Slovenia.” C̆eský lid 95/1:37–62. Ingrid Slavec Gradišnik Slovenian Folk Culture 151 Smerdel, Inja 2006 “An Attempt to Identify and Deine the Variety of ‘the Past and the Future’: –07 The Heritage Phenomenon in Slovenia and the Role of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum in this Process.” Folk Life: Journal of Ethnological Studies 45:103–14. Stagl, Justin 1995 A History of Curiosity: The Theory of Travel, 1550–1800. Harwood Academic Publishers. 2002 Eine Geschichte der Neugier: Die Kunst des Reisens 1550–1800. Vienna: Böhlau. Stanonik, Marija 1990 “O folklorizmu na splošno” [On folklorism in general]. Glasnik Slovenskega etnološkega društva [Bulletin of the Slovene ethnological society] 30/1–4:20–42. 2001 Teoreti÷ni oris slovstvene folklore [Theoretical outline of literary folklore]. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU. 2004 Slovstvena folkloristika med jezikoslovjem in literarno vedo [Literary folkloristics between linguistics and literary science]. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC. Štrekelj, Karel, ed. 1895–1923 Slovenske narodne pesmi [Slovenian folk songs]. 4 vols. Ljubljana: Matica Slovenska. Trdina, Janez 1980 Janez Trdina: Etnolog [Janez Trdina: Ethnologist]. Ljubljana. Vraz, Stanko 1839 Narodne pesni ilirske [Illyrian folk songs]. Zagreb: K. p. ilir. nar. tiskarna. Ingrid Slavec Gradišnik is a senior research fellow at the Scientiic Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts (Institute of Slovenian Ethnology), Ljubljana. She has researched and published mostly on the history of Slovenian ethnology and folklore studies in their European context. She is currently coeditor of the journal Traditiones. (ingrid@zrc-sazu.si)