Hybridizing Folk Culture

Toward a Theory of New Media and

Vernacular Discourse
TREVOR J. BLANK

ABSTRACT
From the Internet to mobile communication devices, the integration of new media technologies into everyday life is fundamntally changing the ways in which people conceptualize and engage in vernacular expression. As a result, the discursive practices of
face-to-face and technologically mediated interaction have become hybridized, extending
across both corporeal and virtual boundaries. Through the lens of material behavior
studies, this essay chronicles how and why the hybridization offolk culture is occurring,
and demonstrates the ways in new media technologies are influencing how many people
conceptualize corporeality, virtuality, and even reality itself in contemporary vernacular
discourse online and in person. Accordingly, the author argues that folklmists must
account for the pervasive influence of new media in examining all vernacular processes.
KEYWORDS: hybridization, Internet, new media, material behavior, corporeality, virtuality

Writing over a decade ago, new media scholar Lev Manovich observed
that "all culture, past and present, is being filtered through a computer, with its particular human-computer interface," adding, "Humancomputer interface comes to act as a new form through 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 decadesbecoming smaller, faster, and more sophisticated with
greater functionalityits costs have consistendy decreased,^ while user
adoption has continued to steadily rise. The integration of these new
Trevor J. Blank is Assistant Professor of Communication at
the State University of New York at Potsdam
Westmi Folklore 72:2 (Spring 201.'!):105-130. Copyright 2013, Western States Folklore Society

106

TREVOR J. BLANK

media devices into everyday life has been equally profound, particularly
in shaping how individuals communicate and make meaning in contemporary 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 Silva 2006; 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 knowledge of people in the "physical world" has not 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 original, face-to-face derivations,'' This article provides a theoretical framework for the study of new media and folk culture by examining 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 hybridization 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) expressive 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
hillbilly music through repetition and variation; it has also been interpreted in primarily ethnic terms, especially in conjunction with the study

Hybridizing Folk Culture

107

of Creolization (Kapchan and Strong 1999).^ Perhaps most famously,

Russian philosopher and literary critic Mikhail Bakhtin defined hybridization as "a mixture of two social languages within the limits of a 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, virtualized discursive practices. The amalgamation of these discursive practices 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 changing needs and traits of the vernacular as it is distinguished as alternative 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 meaning within a text or verbal utterance can be coUaboratively negotiated
between a speaker, a listener, and/or the other "voices" who contribute
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 collective 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 enactment 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,
nor the face-to-face expressive forms that developed before, during,
and after computer technology arrived on the scene (Jenkins 2008; see

108

TREVOR J. BLANK

also Blank 2012; Bronner 2009; Dundes and Pagter 1978 [1975], 1987,
1991a, 1991b, 1996, 2000; Preston 1974, 1994; Smith 1991). Instead,
analog media and face-to-face communications may collaborate, influence, 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 attributable 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 understand 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 expressive communication with others (in person or online), senders adjust
the ways in which they imbue their intentions in communicating with a
receiver, particularly as they come to understand 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.
SENSATION, PERCEPTION, AND MATERIAL BEHAVIOR
IN HYBRID CONTEXTS

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 similar 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)
have been able to supplement, enhance, or provide greater, more
immediate opportunities to engage in the same kinds of expressive.

Hybridizing Folk Culture

109

interactive, and information-seeking/sharing capabilities as their faceto-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 information 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 interfaces for information retrieval, entertainment, or meaningful engagement (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 attachment to the devices themselves (Jaimes and Sebe 2007; Sutko and de
Souza e Silva 2010). An individual's emotional response to an interaction 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 orient 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 just as "real" as any other sensory phenomenon in the corporeal
world (Blascovich and Bailenson 2011). In short, this facilitates "virtual corporeality"a state in which a user of new media technology
becomes so cognitively immersed in their digitally mediated experiences that they perceive them to be just as tangibly "real" as their sense
of corporeal embodiment.'"
The context of the medium through which symbolic communication takes place is undoubtedly important, but it is the behavioral components of communication that reveal the most salient information
that a folklorist can comment upon. Material culture is a fruitful entry
point for illustrating how corporeal and virtual perceptions of reality

lio

TREVORJ. 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). Whether 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 process by which folk
culture becomes hybridized,
"Material" objects are represented in new media through digital simulations 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, tangible items can thus transcend the boundaries of corporeality and elicit
correlating, or even wholly unique (but equally satisfactory) behavioral
responses for individuals in online contexts. However, this involves process, especially as individuals work to reconcile their emotional response
to new stimuli across corporeal and virtual contexts, Simon Bronner
(2004) employs the term praxis in reference to "activity resulting in
production [and consumption] of an object, , . where the , , , processes
involved and the conditions present, rather than solely the end, is paramount" (19-20); he adds that the "objective in a study of praxis is to seek
things that connect makers and users in an intimate communal setting"
(22). Shouldn't this be the objective of all folklorists who engage in the
study of material culture?
In 1997, Michael Owen Jones published the influential and important article, "How Can We Apply Event Analysis to 'Material Behavior,'
and Why Should We?" in which he urged folklorists to employ a behavioral frame of analysis to the study of artifacts and their makers, Jones
offers the term "material behavior" to describe research that "refers to
activity involved in producing or responding to the physical dimension

Hybridizing Folk Culture

111

of our world," which also includes objects and the processes by which
they are conceptualized and fashioned, as well as the individual's motivation for creating things, their sensory responses to artifacts, as well as
their personal responses to manufactured objects (1997:202-03), As he
notes, material behavior research differs from the methods employed in
material culture studies, which tend to emphasize the ways that objects
exemplify and engender the overarching values, beliefs, customs, and
attitudes of a community rather than investigate the intricacies of an
individual and their relationship to an artifact (Jones 1989, 1997, 2001;
see also Deetz 1996; Glassie 1968; Roberts 1988),
Material behavior studies rely on the analysis of deeper, relevant
contextual information about individuals and the art that they produce
in order to understand their cultural constructs. To be successful in
this behavioral frame, Jones (1997) argues that folklorists must look
beyond the objects and their basic social contexts and instead focus
their inquiries as to why and how (and by what social, cultural, and
folk processes) the materials their informants utilize develop meaning or personal significance for them in their appropriate context.
Accordingly, the study of material behavior requires the researcher to
examine how the subject's personality, psychological health, and social
interactions reflexively shape their relationship with material artifacts.
Additionally, they must consider the ways that the individuals' symbolic
and emotional appropriations for an artifactincluding their decisions
throughout the creative process on their choice of tools or aesthetic
choices that influence their creative outputencode the importance or
function of a folk artifact to the individual (Jones 1995, 1997; Wehmeyer
and Noonan 2009; Wojcik 2009), The primary goal of this behavioral
approach is to understand the reasons behind an individual's artistic
creation through an examination and analysis of the expressive event in
which the material emerges. Without question, a behavioral framework
can have applicability and value in the analysis of hybridized symbolic
behavior in virtualized contexts,
I propose an expansion of the scope of material behavior studies into
the myriad terrain of the Internet and other new media technologies.
On the one hand, it may seem illogical to look to the digital world for
the analysis of material culture, an area of inquiry that relies on the
tangibility of artifacts and physical stimulation for relevancy. However, it
is important to remember that hybridization always occurs in folkloric
transmission. The very nature of folklore is predicated on the amalgamation of traditional knowledge through imitation, variation, and

112

TREVOR J. BLANK

innovation; as folklore disseminates it is repeated, revised, and reinterpreted 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 inherendy
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 correlations may help 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
combining 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 itself aids in creating a sense of belonging and connection
to the outside worid (see Azua 2009; Blank 2013; 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 simulative setting of tremendous 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 construct 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 groupthink (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 subconscious consumption of predominant schemies found online during
casual browsing. This psychological and socialized network of ideas, patterns, and aesthetics constitute a folk web: the unspoken, communally

Hybridizing Folk Culture

113

sanctioned and malleable values placed upon an Internet-based aesthetic 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 consumers, 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), photo galleries of their work and/or family history, 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 constitute forms of virtual folk architecture that reflect vernacular constructions 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 culture (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 during
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 upon the user). Folk knowledge about Web aesthetics 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 informational choices therein and thus reveal their own psychological bias or
preference toward a conforming aesthetic.'^

114

TREVOR J. BLANK

Folklorist William Westerman observes that: "a work of art inherently

has the potential 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 onlineeither through "static"
websites that simply host lists or linked sources of information for curious 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 most blogs, forums, as well as the comments section of news sites
and stories, participatory mediums like YouTube, or social networking
sites. Dynamic expressive venues allow for symbolic textual communication 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 through an avatar (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
computer 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 patterns, 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
can exchange e-mail with other quilters around the globe... you can even

Hybridizing Folli Culture

115

put your quilts on display in cyberspace for everyone to see, (Heim and
Hanson 1998:xx)
Although it was written in an effort to guide techno-sawy quilters toward
utilizing the burgeoning World Wide Web, the volume's core underlying message still holds true today: just because the Internet 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 reinterpretation of quilting traditions,'^ This should not be entirely surprising
considering that quilters have a well-documented tradition of accumulating 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 juxtapose "considerable skill using computers with nave, group-based artistic expression 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 fulfills 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 traditional 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 are journals 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 behaviors serve similarly (yet uniquely) as vehicles for expression in these
journal entry writings; creation occurs in both venues, and both blur

116

TREVOR J. BLANK

notions of public and private content. 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. By invoking this public/private binary,
however, these bloggers ignore the clear correlations that link the traditions of (supposedly private) diaries to those of (supposedly public)
blogs. For example, in earlier American 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 in the
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 to accentuate the complexities of
establishing and/or deconstructing notions of public and private spaces
in a hybridized culture.
Especially in the earlier days of the World Wide Web's existence
(which usually necessitated that users have advanced understandings
of computers in order to access and fully engage with peers), quilters
were forced to acquire technical competencies or establish easy-to-learn
ways of participating online. By virtue of their collective efforts to spread
virtual roots, quilters have resultantly "domesticated the medium of
computer text art, formerly the domain of transgressive hackers, in a
manner that reinforces traditional values of family and friendship, social
acceptance and support" as they established conventions of greeting,
congratulating, or symbolically gesturing through textual messages or
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 the presentation of oneself in the quilters' "blogosphere," such as the individual blogger's personality, recent
events in their lives, personal aesthetic preferences, or the need to connect and engage with other human beings. These and other such factors
can be profitably explored in the future by folklorists.
INTO THE DIGITAL ETHER...

To be sure, the aesthetic landscape of the Internet is constantly

changing, and users who occupy such virtual, symbolic territory act as
proprietors and cultivators of symbolic space. As with any folk architecture that is built in the physical world, amateur website-builders must
also utilize cues from their surroundings and imitate the patterns they
see in order to find a peaceable dwelling for their simulated residency
online. Much like a "real" neighborhood or community, a virtual one

Hybridizing Folk Culture

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 aren't all that
different from someone who hires a construction team to build their
dream house. And much like a "real" neighbor, the owner of a website is
expected to maintain their space or face reprimand or ridicule from the
community as being outdated or ignorant. Either way, the motivations
that dictate many behaviors in corporeal and virtual formats are essentially 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 experience.
Virtual interactions not only hold the potential to facilitate whole
interactions and games that revolve around themes of material culture, 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, and/or receive gifts through the mediumand 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 order for other individuals to decode and categorize digital 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, psychologically? I believe it is the latter. After all, the most important aspect
of studying material culture is not the physical artifact or architecture
itself, but what it means to both its creators and those who derive meaning from the product. The bonds of corporeality should not preclude 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
corporeal world, just as many forms of folklore on the Internet can be
attributed to material or precedents extracted from oral tradition or

118

TREVORJ. BLANK

face-to-face transmissions (chain letters, email hoaxes, and urban legend 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 fanfare. Both mediums are producers of original content; both inform and
influence each other, and collaboratively shape the discursive practices
of vernacular expression. The circulation of information between corporeal 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 othershave blurred the boundaries between where a user actually begins
and a device ends (Chayko 2008; Clark 2003; Sutko and de Silva e Souza
2010).^ Individuals perceive and manage their technologically mediated communications as if they were speaking to someone with their
own mouth, in person; that is, they do not conceptualize their technologically 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 manner
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 cognitive 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 corporeal body into a digital realm. This is not "virtual reality," an intentionally simulative form of digital immersionit is actual reality for engaged
users, despite any lack of real corporeality. Individuals' subjective concep
tualization of reality influences how they communicate with others.
Using technology, individual actions tend to be (unsurprisingly)
"I"-centered/ texted, / posted, / emailedinstead of acknowledging

Hytriding Folk Culture

119

they were technically transmitted by a phone company, a social networking host, or an email server client. Here again, sensation and perception
is important: because / have manipulated this technology to do my bidding, / am the catalyst behind its transmissionan expressive act is not
always perceived as being made possible in virtualized settings through
technology, even if it is fundamentally obvious that a cell phone 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, they are 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 perceptions of reality will adaptively expand to register them as meaningful
extensions of themselves. Neverthelessdespite my rather positive treatment throughout this essayit is important to note that are inherent
downsides to virtual corporeality. Although it may "feel" (to individuals)
as though a tangible connection can be virtually achieved through 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) fundamentally 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 proverb "seeing is believing" can only go so far for some. I do not 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;
discursive practices emerge from heteroglossic communication; and
people collaboratively construct meaning from symbolic interactions

120

TREVORJ. 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 burgeoning new
media technologies on folk culture is undeniable, but identifying and
chronicling the ways in which they have 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 repertoires 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 reconsideration, especially with regard to the methodological and conceptual
assumptions we employ in documenting the transmission of vernacular 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 characteristics 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
the person influences his life. Therein the task of the observer and

Hybridizing Polk Culture

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 ability 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-time.
More than anything, the Internet and other new media technologies
represent a tremendous opportunity for folklorists to engage and document artistic creations, expressive events, or communities as they take
shape and evolve both online and in face-to-face settings, Folklorists'
perspectives 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 familiar corporeal repositories and sources of
folkloric dissemination, new mediaone of the most exciting, spontaneous, and fluid 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 dedication, guidance, and active involvement in helping this article reach its
fullest potential, I am especially grateful for his scrupulous and perceptive
feedback on earlier drafts of this essay, which helped sharpen its overall
focus and presentation. I would also like to express my appreciation to
Simon Bronner, Michael Owen Jones, Tok Thompson, and the anonymous WFpeer reviewers for their thoughtful suggestions and critiques.
NOTES
1,

2,

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 doing so, the size of these chips perpetually shrink as well (Kaku 1997:14-15, 28-30; Schaller 1997; see also Moore
1965),
I should note that the majority of my general claims about the ubiquity of new media technologies in everyday life, unless explicitly noted
otherwise, are informed by usage statistics and the overarching cultural
changes (in how integral technologies are utilized for information-seeking and various forms of communication) in the United States, Thus, my

122

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

TREVOR J. BLANK

observations and analysis of hybridization is also framed by, and geared

toward American folk culture.
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 community. 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 of a virtual
community comprised of individuals who share a passionate hobby of collecting rare Japanese anime art, see Ellis (2012).
For example, take Hewell's Pottery or Meaders' Pottery, the two folk pottery-making families profiled by Henry Glassie in The Potter's Art (1999:3647). 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 relevant to a much wider audience.
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 computer-mediated context.
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" communication and cultures. Of course, this scholarly discourse extends beyond the
scope of my lone article, but I wish to point readers to several non-folkloristic 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).
Bakhtin describes "heteroglossia" as ''another's speech 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
at the same time and expresses simultaneously two different intentions:
the direct intention of the character who is speaking, and the refracted

Hylmdiiing Folk Culture

12.S

intention of the author" (1987:324, emphasis in original). It should be

noted that "language," in xhis 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 conceived as the digitization of traditional or analog media forms; as cultural
objects and paradigms that use digital computer technology for distribution and exhibition; the digital representation (and computer-based delivery) 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
communicate with others.
10. Postmodern literary critic N. Katherine Hayles defines virtuality as "the cultural perception that material objects are interpenetrated by information
patterns" (1999:13-14). In other words, virtuality is a hybridized notion 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 photographs, GPS coordinates, live video/ audio, etc., only further cements the
perceived authenticity of a "real" interaction with another 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 persona 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 not to say that people cannot be instruments of expression offline.
My point here is that the Internet helps to ease the tension of performative
actions; it easier to come out of one's shell in a public manner with the
faade of anonymity to provide a psychological buffer.

124

TREVORJ, BLANK

13, Richard Dawkins (1976) refers to such cultural productions as "mmes,"

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 chef websites often contain the same kinds of information (just as folk artists' sites do), but the kinds of information are fundamentally 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 popular "meeting
spot" for quilters to exchange ideas and/or present their work in a communal 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 must take place in
order for folklore to be transmitted. However, "interaction" shovild not be
confused with "communication," In many cases there are random visitors,
or more often "lurkers," site patrons who regularly visit and observe the
goings-on without actually participating directly themselves. These individuals are all capable of learning the same information as the most talkative 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, I would argue that user interactions with "Farmville" demonstrate symbolic
(perhaps subconscious) attachment to the vernacular landscape through
such play in cyberspace,
19, For excellent 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 humans 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 relation to perceptions of technology and humankind,
21, It is important to note that technology users actually help to shape subsequent 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
(for example, many smartphones provide easy access to email, or popular
social networking services like Facebook and Twitter), So while new media

Hybridizing Folk Culture

22.

125

technologiescreated by manufacturersmost certainly influence and

help shape how people use communication devices, consumersrepresenting the folkdirectly and indirectly collaborate with institutional
forces in the creation of the next big gadget (or refmed, existing gadget).
Although we tend to disagree on the importance of studying the Internet, I
nevertheless recommend Oring (2012) for a compelling discussion on the
why folklorists needn't study technology in order to remain contemporary.

WORKS CITED
Aldred, B. Grantham. 2010. Identity in 10,000 Pixels: Livejournal Userpics and
Fractured Selves in Web 2.0. New Directions in Folklore 8(l/2):6-35. h t t p : / /
Scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/ndif/issue/archive.
Azua, Maria. 2009. The Social Factor: Innovate, Ignite, and Win through Mass
Collaboration and Social Netiuorking. Indianapolis, IN: IBM Press.
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1987 [1981]. The Dialogic Imagination; ed. Michael Holquist,
trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Basch, Linda, Nina Glick Schiller, Cristina Szanton Blanc. 1993. Nations Unbound:
Transnational Projects, Postcolonial Predicaments and Detenitorialized NationStates. 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. Maiden, MA: Polity
Press.
Biocca, Frank. 1997. The Cyborg's Dilemma: Progressive Embodiment in Virtual
Environments, foumal of Computer-Mediated Communication 3(2). h t t p : / /
jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue2/biocca2.html.
Blascovich, Jim, and Jeremy Bailenson. 2011. Infinite Reality: Avatars, Eternal
Life, New Worlds, and the Dawn of the Virtual Revolution. New York: William
Morrow.
Blanchard, Rebecca T., Betty L. Feather, and Laurel Wilson. 1999. Documentation
of Swedish Patchwork Quilts: 1830 to 1929. Cbthing and Textiles Research
Journal \7:134A3.
Blank, Trevor J. 2009. Toward a Conceptual Framework for the Study of Folklore
and the Internet. In Folklore and the Internet: Vernacular Expression in a Digital
World, ed. Trevor J. Blank, 1-20. Logan: Utah 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 Humor, Celebrity Culture, and Mass-Mediated
Disasters in the Distal Age. Folklore in a Multicultural World Series. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.
Bronner, Simon J. 1988. Art, Performance, and Praxis: The Rhetoric of
Contemporary Folklore Studies. Western Folklore 47(2)-.75-101.
. 2004. Grasping Things: Folk Material Culture and Mass Society. Lexington:
University Press of Kentucky.

126

TREVORJ. BLANK

. 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. Hybrid Cultures: 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. Norton & 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. New York: Oxford University Press.
Danet, Brenda. 2001. Cyberpl@y: Communicating Online. Oxford, UK: Berg Publishers.
. 2003. Pixel Patchwork: "Quilting in Time" Online. Textile: The Journal of
Cloth and Culture 1 (2) :118-43.
-. 2005. Ritualized Play, Art, and Communication on Internet Relay Chat.
In Media Anthropology, eds. Eric W. Rothenbuhler and Mihai Coman, 229-46.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Davis, Jenny 2010. Architecture of the Personal Interactive Homepage:
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 and CuZare 6(3) :261-78.
Deetz, James. 1996. In Small Things Forgotten: An Archaeology of Early American Life.
New York: Anchor Books.
Dgh, Linda and Andrew Vzsonyi. 1975. Hypothesis of Muld-Conduit Transmission
in Folklore. In Folklore, Performance and Communication, eds. Dan Ben-Amos
and Kenneth S. Goldstein, 207-55. The Hague.
Dundes, Alan, and Carl R. Pagter. 1978 [1975]. Work Hard and You Shall Be
Rewarded: Urban Folklore from the Paperwork Empire. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
. 1987. When You're Up to Your Ass in Alligators: More Urban Folklore from the
Paperwork Empire. Detroit, MI: 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. Detroit, MI: 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 Sheep Shrink When It Rains? A Further Collection ofPhotocopier
Folklore. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University 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
Emergent Dynamics ofHuman Interaction, ed. TrevorJ. Blank. Logan: Utah State
University Press, forthcoming.

Hybridizing Folk Culture

127

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 Forum 37( 1 ) :27-38. https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/
handle/2022/3251. Accessed 11 July 2010.
Flower, Linda. 1994. The Gonstruction of Negotiated Meaning: A Social Gognitive
Theory of Writing. Carbonale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Frank, Russell. 2004. When the Going Gets Tough, the Tough Go
Photoshopping: September 11 and the Newslore of Vengeance and
Victimization. New Media & Society 6(5):633-58.
. 2011. Newslore: Gontemporary Folklore on the Internet. Jackson: University
Press of Mississippi.
Gahran, Amy. 2011. Hispanics Lead U.S. Embrace of Mobile Technology. CAW.
com (May 20). http://tinyurl.com/3haqzq7. Accessed 9 September 2011.
Georges, Robert A. and Michael Owen Jones. 1995. Folkloristics: An Introduction.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Glassie, Henry. 1968. Pattern in the Material Folk Gulture of the Fastern United
States. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
. 1999. The Potter's Art Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Fssay on the Organization ofFxperience.
New York: Harper Colophon Books.
Grillo, Ralph. 2007. Betwixt and Between: Trajectories and Projects of
Transmigration. Journal of Fthnic and Migration Studies 33(2)-.199-217.
Graham, Elaine L. 2002. Representations of the Post/Human: Monsters, Aliens, and
Others in Popular Gulture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Gray, Chris Hables, ed. 1995. The Gyborg Handbook. New York: Routledge.
Gray, Mary L. 2009. Out in the Gountry: Youth, Media, and Queer Visibility in Rural
America. New York: New York University Press.
Grimson, Alejandro. 2006. Cultures are More Hybrid than Identifications: A
Dialogue on Borders from the Southern Cone. La<rao5M>.s4(l/2):96-l 19.
Haraway, Donna J. 1991. A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and
Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century In Simians, Gyborgs and
Women: The Reinvention of Nature, ed. Donna J. Haraway, 149-81. London:
Free Association Books.
Hayles, N. Katherine. 1999. How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in
Gybemetics, Literature, and Informatics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Heim, Judy and Gloria Hansen. 1998. The Quilter's Gomputer Gompanion: Hundreds
of Fasy Ways to Turn the Gyber Revolution into Your Artistic Revolution. San
Francisco, CA: No Starch Press.
Howard, Robert Glenn. 2005. Toward a Theory of the World Wide Weh: The
Case for Pet Cloning, foumal of Folklore Research 42(3):323-60.
. 2008a. Electronic Hybridity: The Persistent Processes of the Vernacular
h. Journal of American Folklore 121:192-218.

128

TREVOR J. BLANK

, 2008b, The Vernacular Web of Participatory Media, Critical Studies in Media

Communication 25:490-512,
-, 2011, DigitalJesus: The Making of a New Christian Fundamentalist Community
on the Internet. New York: New York University Press,
Ivey, Bill, 2011, Values and Value in Folklore (AFS Presidential Plenary Address,
2007). Journal of American Folklore 124(491 ) :6-18,
Jaimes, Alejandro, and Nicu Sebe, 2007, Multimodal Human-Computer
Interaction: A Survey, Computer Vision and Image Understanding 108:116-34.
Jenkins, Henry, 2008 [2006], Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide.
2nd edition. New York: New York University Press,
Johnson, Alexandra, 2011, A Brief History of Diaries: From Pepys to Blogs. London,
UK: Hesperus Press,
Jones, Michael Owen, 1989, Craftsmen of the Cumberlands: Tradition and Creativity.
Lexington: University Press of Kentucky,
, 1997, How Can We Apply Event Analysis to 'Material Behavior,' and Why
Should We? Western Folklore 56(3/4) :199-214,
, 2001, The Aesthetics of Everyday Life, In Self-Taught: The Culture and
Aesthetics of American Vernacular Art, ed,, Charles Russell, 47-60, Jackson:
University Press of Mississippi,
Kalra, Virinder, Raminder Kaur, and John Hutnyk, 2005, Diasporas and Hybridity.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications,
Kaku, Michio, 1997, Visions: How Science Will Revolutionize the 21st Century. New
York: DoubleDay; 1st Anchor Books,
Kapchan, Deborah A, 1993, Hybridization and the Marketplace: Emerging
Paradigms in Folkloristics, Western Fotklcrre 52{2):S0^-26.
Kapchan, Deborah A , and Pauline Turner Strong, 1999, Theorizing the Hybrid,
Journal of American Folklore 112 (445) :239-55.
Kaplan, Merrill, 2013, Curation and Tradition on Web 2,0, In Tradition in the
Twenty-First Century: Locating the Role of the Past in the Present, eds, Trevor J.
Blank and Robert Glenn Howard, 123-48, Logan: Utah State University Press,
Kibby, Marjorie, 2005, Email Forwardables: Folklore in the Age of the Internet,
New Media &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. Mare Kiva, 97-117, Tartu, Estonia: ELM Scholarly
Press, http://www.foIkIore,ee/rl/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 Media Studies: An Fthnographic Perspective, eds,
Marwan M, Kraidy and Patrick D. Murphy, 299-307, New York: Roudedge
Press,
Lieber, Andrea, 2010, Domesticity and the Home(Page): Blogging and the
Blurring of Public and Private among Orthodox Jewish Women. In Jews at
Home: The Domestication ofIdentity, ed. Simon J, Bronner, 258-82. Oxford, UK:
Littman Library ofJewish Civilization,

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. http://
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:
The MIT Press.
McNeill, Lynne S. 2007. Portable Places: Serial Collaboration and the Creation
of a New 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 and the Internet: Vernacular Expression in a
Digital World, ed, Trevor J. Blank, 80-97. Logan: Utah State University
Press.
. 2012, Real Virtuality: Enhancing 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 Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom. New
York: PublicAffairs Publishing.
Oring, Elliott, 2012, Jokes on the Internet: Listing toward Lists, In Folk Culture
in the Digital Age: The Emergent Dynamics of Human Interaction, ed, TrevorJ,
Blauk, Logan: Utah State University Press, forthcoming,
Papastergiadis, Nikos, 2000. The Turbulence of Migration: Globalization,
Deterritorialization and Hybridity. Maiden, MA: Polity Press,
Pimple, Kenneth, 1996, The Meme-ing of Folklore, Journal of Folkhre Research
33(3):236-40,
Preston, Michael J, 1974. Xerox-lore, Keystone Folklore Quarterly 19:11-26.
. 1994. Traditional Humor from the Fax Machine: "All of a Kind".
Western Folklore 53(2) : 147-69.
Rheingold, Howard. 2000. The Virtual Community: 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
34(6):52-59.
Shirky, Clay, 2009. Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing with
Organizations. New York: Penguin (Non-Classic) Books.

130

TREVOR J. BLANK

Smith, Paul. 1991. The Joke Machine: Communicating Traditional Humour

Using Computers. In Spoken In fest, edited by Gillian Bennett, 257-77.
Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press.
Soffer, Oren. 2010. "Silent Orality": Toward a Conceptualization of the Digital
Oral Features in CMC and SMS Texts. Communication Theory 20(4):387-404.
Stross, Brian. 1999. The Hybrid Metaphor: From Biology to Culture./oMmaZ of
American Folklore 112(445)-.254-67.
Sutko, Daniel M., and Adriana de Souza e Silva. 2010. Location-Aware Mobile
Media and Urban Sociability. New Media and Society 13(5):807-23.
Thompson, Tok. 2011. Beat-boxing, Mashups, and Cyborg Identity: Folk Music
for the 21st Century. Western Folklore 70{2):171-9S.
Turkle, Sherry. 2011. Abne Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less
from Each Other. New York: Basic Books.
Tuszynski, Stephanie. 2006. IRL (In Real Life): Breaking Down the Binary of
Online Versus Offline Social Interaction. Ph.D. Dissertation, 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 Minorities, New 'Digital Divide' Seen. USA Today
(January 10). http://tinyurl.com/4mwvuct. Accessed 9 September 2011.
Wehmeyer, Stephen C. and Kerry Noonan. 2009. Re-envisioning 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 Potential
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
American Folklore 78(309) :267-86.
Wittkower, D. E., ed. 2010. Facebook and Philosophy: What's on Your Mind? Chicago,
IL: Open Court Publishing.
Wojcik, Daniel. 2009. Outsider Art, Vernacular Traditions, Trauma, and
Creativity. Western Folklore 67(2/3):179-98.

Copyright of Western Folklore is the property of Western States Folklore Society and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.