ABSTRACT
Many folklorists retain the concept of “group,” since it gives the basis of shared tradition. Dan Ben-Amos used it in his oft-cited definition of folklore in context: “artistic communication in small groups.” The centrality of communication in these definitions means that the environment would appear to be simultaneous and immediate. Many folklorists therefore tie studies of groups to context. With context, several kinds of simultaneous surroundings may affect the interactions among members of a group: a particular place, a particular time (of day, month, year), an esoteric language, a particular shared tradition, or a particular activity. With context, community and group are situated in an event and place, and the communication of traditions can be shown to have purpose and adaptation to its surroundings and participants. But the risk in this descriptive strategy is that community and group may appear so fleeting as to need constant recommunication. If each situation is unique, then the question also arises about the ability to draw generalizations for comparable events. If this approach underscores the change and creativity in tradition, a lingering issue is the strategies by which communities and groups are rooted, and “community spirit” or a sense of “groupness” is entrenched.
