My initial thoughts on the readings

Folklore is... a lot. My initial thought on folklore was that it was similar to mythology or legends. If my understanding is correct Folklore is the not only the category myth and legends fall into but more. According to Living Folklore, "Folklore is informally learned, unofficial knowledge about the world, ourselves, our communities,our beliefs, our cultures and our traditions, that is expressed creatively through words, music, customs, actions, behaviors and materials. It is also the interactive, dynamic process of creating, communicating, and performing as we share knowledge with other people."(p7) At first this definition really threw me off, I just thought to myself "so its anything dealing with groups of people" and quite honestly, I'm not sure if that idea has changed at all after reading everything. I can't help but view folklore as a type of anthropology, but that could just be me. In that sense, people who go into Starbucks everyday for a morning cup of coffee could be considered part of folklore. Anyone who does anything almost habitually could be folklore. Am I wrong?

According to the reading there are many groups that can classify as folklore or folk. Kids playing games in a schoolyard can be considered folk. I guess my question would be can one person doing something be considered folklore? Does it always have to be a group? Does it also always have to be informally learned? I would think a religious person going to church is not learning about their religion informally, so would you consider that a form of folklore or is it just the act of the entire family going to church every Sunday considered the folklore? I would think both going to church and everything you learn about your religion at church could be considered folklore but I can't be sure.

This may be considered a seperate topic from what I was discussing earlier but I think it is safe to say that Elliott Oring in "Folk or Lore? The Stake in Dichotomies" is strongly pushing for the idea of scientific knowledge over ethical conduct. I don't know if I would agree with the idea. I mean, honestly, it sounds extremely coldblooded. Oring states "If our questions lead to inquiry and our inquiry to conclusions- provisional though they may be as all human knowledge is- are we to respect these conclusions when we are thrust up against a situation that pits the intrests of a community against our own laboriously won knowledge" (p7)right before he goes on to complain about the actions of Barre Toelken. Toelken made a desicion, he choose ethics over science when he turned his 60+ hours of tape and research over to Yellowman's wife to be destroyed. Toelken thought it would be best in order for the Navajo to be respected. Granted, while Oring makes a good point in stating that Toelken could have looked for other options, other ways to distribute the information without disrespecting the Navajo, which could have worked, but they also could have failed. Toelken was not willing to take that chance. In all honesty it appears me that Oring is thinking much more of his own well being than in the well being of the informant. This mentality simply makes me question if I were in his position, would I be any different?