The Theory of Database in Folk Narrative Studies

Abstract

Database' is today a much-cherished keyword in conversations, including talks about folklore 1 . 'Digitalization' is a similar vogue-word at our meetings. (Quite a few years ago, the words 'computer' and 'morphology' have shared the same 'fate of popularity'). Folklorists want to use the 'most up-to-date' method and everybody is eager to get a 'database' to her/his institution, especially if they want more money for their projects (usually in order to meet the costs of an already working institution, also with a 'traditional' research activity).I am old enough to remember the similar overall use of the terms 'structure/ structuralism' and 'morphology' in the folklore research of yesterday (or even the day before yesterday). However, there is a difference in using the words 'database' versus 'structuralism' or 'morphology' in folklore studies. The second and the third ones are t e r m s , referring to a methodology, providing at least some acquaintance with theoretical assumptions, etc. 'Database' is but a label of a product, a t r a d e m a r k without any deeper theoretical background or profound mental activity. We all know, how some great folklorists (Propp, Dundes, Mihai Pop, etc.) have used the term 'morphology', connected with theorems and theoretical speculations. 'Structure' and 'structuralism' appeared not only as trademark words, but as a key concept in the major works of Claude Lévi-Strauss, Elli-Kaija Köngäs, Pierre Maranda, E.M. Meletinsky, Claude Bremond, Heda Jason and others, by which they wanted to explore the very nature of folklore (or of other important manifestations of society). Well-known anthropologists and folklorists have used such terms with a general methodological background, and entire books were written about the theoretical and even philosophical context of the topics 2 .Much criticism, blind adherence and foolish rejection appeared soon around the 'structuralist' publications in folklore circles, too. The manuscripts by Dundes and the Marandas were not easily accepted as PhD dissertations. It was difficult to publish books with a structuralist vocabulary. (Dundes' morphology of Ameri-