"Admittedly", writes MacDonald, "almost anyone can go into a tradition-rich area and pick up something useful, systematic fieldwork begins at the desk, in the library and the archive" (1972 : 407). Once a student has known what is folklore and folklife, he faces a situation of collecting folklore data on one or various aspects of folklore and folklife studies; and some kind of fieldwork becomes necessary. Without going into the details of history of fieldwork1 in folklore, I will discuss here, in an introductory manner, some of the general aspects of fieldwork, that have relevance to our Indian conditions.

THE FUNCTION OF FIELDWORK
Fieldwork in folklore and folklife studies, as most of us are aware, cannot remain static across genres. In fact each item of folklore might require a special kind of fieldwork for its collection. For example, the kind of field methodology needed to collect folktales, as is well known, is practically of no use when one records a dance performance. Similarly, data on material culture may not be collected in the same manner as one collects songs or oral narratives. Therefore, the constraints put on methods of collection in the actual field situation by generic qualities of the data prompts one to discuss these and other aspects of field methods according to the four major sectors of folklore -- oral literature, material culture, social folk customs and performing folk arts -- we discussed in the previous chapter.

Fieldwork as an essential aspect of anthropological and ethnological sciences including folklore was, as were these sciences, shaped by Western scholars, and their theoretical conceptions upon which these sciences were based. These conceptions subsumed that the technologically less developed societies of the ancient world -- Asia and Africa for instance -- were less civilized and hence "primitive". Therefore, according to this notion; based on widely practised evolutionary theory; all human societies have finally to become civilized and to become like the technologically advanced societies of Europe or North America. These so-called primitive societies are therefore to be studied from the viewpoint of these and other conceptions which originated in the technologically advanced West. The manner in which this task was carried on did not differ from the one in which a superior person studied his inferior subjects --- a practice which is very well known in many social sciences including anthropology, sociology and psychology. Moreover, it was also felt that by doing so, it would be useful for understanding the past, present and perhaps the future of mankind and it will thus accelerate the speed of transformation of these societies and usher them into the world of the civilized. TOP

THE WESTERN VIEWPOINT
The role of the fieldwork and the fieldworker in cultural studies, due to the reasons of history and the evolution of different human societies, has now gained a complex philosophical dimension. This philosophical dimension certainly encompasses questions of ideology, politics and global military and economic domination. In the first place anthropological fieldwork, and anthropology as a serious branch of inquiry in its present form, has been, and still remains, a whiteman's science2. Those who have doubts about this definition of the science will appreciate that the science of anthropology was born in the minds of Victorian scholars, who believed that "the main tendency of culture from primeval up to modern times has been from savagery towards civilization" (Tylor, 1958 : 21). Victorian England was considered representing civilization and aboriginal Australia or Andaman Islanders as the mankind's "savage survivals". Needless to say that this basic premise, however biased it might have been, become the sharpening stone on which were sharpened the tools -- both theoretical and methodological - of the anthropological sciences. Fieldwork has the distinction of being first such tool. In fact it represented (and still does) the historically formulated misconception, as I said above, of the discipline that "savage" societies of Asia, Australia, Africa or Latin America have to be studied by the white scholar who hails from the civilized North. Therefore fieldwork and the methodology it strongly advocates was cut and designed according to these wrong notions conceived historically. Consider the following remarks of Dundes:

"Anthropologists, generally speaking have been primarily concerned with studying other cultures and not their own. In contrast folklorists have typically been engaged in studying their own cultures or selected segments of their own societies, for instance the rural, uneducated "peasants" or "folk" groups. Thus, American anthropologists would by definition be interested in Mohave or Yoruba texts but would not necessarily be concerned with texts from American society. Fortunately a recent change in attitude in anthropological circles has encouraged students of anthropology to study their own societies. Part of this shift may be attributed to the fact that anthropologists are no longer so welcome or, should we say, tolerated among some peoples of the world. The death knell of colonialism has sounded for academic colonialism as well. Third-world peoples in particular are tired of being studied by uninvited visiting anthropologists. Declarations in various countries to the effect that anthropologists are personae nongratae have virtually forced anthropologists to consider seriously areas of study closer to home" (1975 : xiv).

Anthropological fieldwork, as is obvious from the above remarks, traditionally discourages studying group or groups of people in one's own surroundings; in one's own cultural area or country. Therefore, its methodologies also are naturally projected towards this aim. Preparation for fieldwork, entering the community, establishing rapport, carrying packloads of canned food, medicine, living tents, sleeping bags, mosquito nets, repellents and even sedatives are recommended as a part of training for such field workers. When one looks into the details and elaborateness of such preparations one is tempted to compare the situation with the poor astronaut rocketed into the empty space to explore the lifeless vastness of lunar phenomenon. One can justify such elaborate preparations of an astronaut who explores lifeless skies. But anthropologists, we are told, wherever they go are supposed to study man -- the example par excellence of life. Since anthropology has always meant studying the savage South by the civilized North, it has never accepted or visualized a situation in which a savage, say an Indian, an African or an Andamanese would like to study a group or groups of people in the so-called civilized Northern countries. For instance, what kind of filed training one would require if an educated savage decided to study the problems of sexual behaviour among the whites of New York city or marriage as an institution among the Amish of Northern Indiana. Obviously there are no text books yet written for such anthropological fieldwork. One wonders if the theoretical tools of anthropology in general and of fieldwork in particular are designed on universal experiences, and have universal applicability as has been claimed repeatedly by specialists. Why these tools, then, seem again and again being used both by the white anthropologist and the native scholar trained in anthropology on the Southern countries or in studying the cultures of the "less advanced people" of Asia, Africa or Latin America? Why, for instance, are not these tools used by scholars of less advanced countries to study the societies of so-called advanced countries. Should one treat this as the inability of the native scholar (due to his wrong training and lack of facilities) to study the so-called technologically advanced cultures, or the basic weakness of tools themselves that however are simply not designed to study such cultures. That anthropological field methods and the theoretical bias that sustain or surround them need drastic changes in view of the changes that have occurred to mankind during the present century, is an issue that no serious and honest scholar can afford to have two opinions upon.TOP

THE ABUSES OF FIELDWORK
In recent years some honest anthropologists have been concerned about the ultimate aim of anthropology and anthropological fieldwork. If, what I said in the above section, is granted and if it carries some meaning, then I presume this concern, which however stems from the present century's new episteme responsible for rethinking and questioning the traditionally established and sometimes wrong concepts of mankind about its own members, is very much related to the wrong direction in which anthropological studies marched from the very beginning of its birth. Put in very simple terms, if a science whose foundations are based on the theoretical assumption of studying "savages" or "primitive" societies by "civilized" scholars created by the commercial-industrial societies (that is precisely the definition of the civilized world of the North), then this commercial-industrial bias cannot escape the conscious or unconscious feeling of exploitation. So it is not surprising to find anthropology, during its history of growth and development, helping, directly or indirectly the exploiters. In recent times, besides economic and political exploitation, military exploitation seems to have got embedded firmly to this network of exploitation. Consider the following remarks of Lévi-Strauss:

"Anthropology is not a dispassionate science like astronomy, which springs form the contemplation of things at a distance. It is the outcome of a historical process which has made the larger part of mankind subservient to the other and during which millions of human beings have had their resources plundered and their institutions and beliefs destroyed whilst they themselves were ruthlessly killed, thrown into bondage and contaminated by diseases they were unable to resist. Anthropology is daughter to this era of violence: its capacity to access more objectively the facts pertaining to the human condition reflects, on the epistemological level, a state of affairs in which one part of mankind treated the other as on object" (1966 : 124-27) [emphasis added].

Not only Lévi-Strauss, but even the most influential French philosopher Foucault (who fathered the notion of episteme - "the intellectual framework of its view of the world") also emphasizes the relationship of knowledge and power. According to him, "power and knowledge directly imply on each other", so if each historic age developed new forms of defining life, then each age was really exercising new forms of power: Foucault's these and other ideas are not particularly directed towards anthropology or the history of anthropological sciences, nevertheless these deal with the "history of systems of thought" and anthropology, as we are aware, is somehow a part of such history and such systems of thought. In that sense, then, both Foucault's and Lévi-Strauss' thoughts are not mutually exclusive; these in fact emphasize the same historical tragedy3.

Folklore studies, as is evident from the above discussion, did not strictly follow the anthropological style of filed work. For the thing, folklorists generally studied their own cultures and therefore could not be guided by the methodology meant primarily for studying cultures other than one's own. This, however, does not mean that folkloristics remained aloof from the germs of filed methods of anthropological sciences. Many techniques of anthropologists were owned by folklorists and many more were modified to suit their requirements. In the following sections, we shall discuss in general terms, the major guidelines a student of folklore needs to keep in mind while collecting data in the major four sectors of folklore mentioned above. TOP

COLLECTING ORAL LITERATURE
Most of the students of Indian folklore should be aware of the fact that techniques of collecting materials of oral literature: myths, tales, songs, legends, epics, proverbs, riddles, etc., have become much more refined now than the early folklore scholarship of the Grimmian days. For example, text, and only the text, was the main concern of early folklore scholarship. Contextual information, if any, did not go beyond the name of the informant and his place. No attention whatsoever was paid to the surrounding in which an item of oral literature was delivered. Such information is now considered essential for a fuller understanding of any kind of folklore text. Naturally emphasis on fieldwork has increased with the gradual recognition of the important of contextual features of folklore items. By studying the contextual aspects of folklore items, scholars tend to go deeper into the meaning of such items and the functional situations by which that meaning is communicated and perpetuated. Consider the following situation vividly described by MacEdward Leach from a field trip to Jamaica:

"It is, however, an unforgettable experienced to hear an Anansi tale told by a good native teller of tales to an appreciative audience. Typical is the tale of 'Anansi and Tiger' which I heard in the mountains of Jamaica a few years ago. Men, women and children were crowed into a small room and overflowed on to the narrow porch. Some squatted on the floor; some stood around the walls; children, black eyes wide, sat at their parent's feet; the bed in the corner was loaded with women and babies. All were silent, intent on the story-teller, Arthur Wyles. Mr. Wayles was sixty-one, his hair white and kinky like sheep's wool. His eyes were unforgettable -- very large, very blacky and remote, expressionless. He stood throughout the story, constantly moving about. First he would be at one side of the room talking the part of Anansi; then he would jump quickly to the other and face back as he took the role of Tiger. His voice was whining and ingratiating as Anansi; his face took on a smirk; his words were given a wheedling twist. But when he became tiger, he drew himself upstern and dignified and majestic; his voice was deep and powerful and his walk stately. This story ends with a fight between Tiger and Death. Mr. Wyles, voice full of excitement, arms flailing, staged the fight, blow by blow, taking the parts alternately of Tiger and of Death. When the climax was reached and Tiger delivered the knock-out blow conquering Death, the narrator over-reached himself and his clenched fist hit the door jamb a cruel blow that blooded his knuckles. He seemed to feel nothing but went into the very realistic death throes of Brother Death. Though the audience had heard this story many times, they sat enthralled, eyes shining, audibly satisfied with the ending. Here, then in the telling is the characterization and the drama, absent in the story when merely read, now abundantly supplied" (1962 : 336).

There is no dearth of such functional situations in India. However, rapid urbanization and technological advancement do pose a little threat to such situations. Recording such situations is therefore a great challenge an Indian folklorist faces today. It might need a little more concentration and electronic equipment to record all the contextual information that goes with a particular item of folklore. For instance, Sean O' Sullivan, a well known Irish folklorist has a good example a trainee in folkloristics can profitably follow on function, style and ambience:

"If you can, take a photograph of each storyteller and of his home. Write down an account of his (her) life from each storyteller. Give the storyteller's geneaology, if possible. Give an account of the setting in which the story was told. Where were stories usually told? At the fireside? At wakes? At the forge? At work in the fields? At the turfbog? In fishing boats? How were storytellers usually induced to tell a tale? What conditions were necessary on the part of the storyteller and the audience? Describe the scene. Were certain stories favourites with both narrator and audience? Give details. Did storytellers tell only tales of their own choice or did they comply with requests for particular tales? Did they use gestures? Describe. Were interruptions or interjections during the telling of a story resented or welcomed by the storyteller and the audience? What was the usual type of comment or interjection by a member of the audience during the course of a tale? What was said at the conclusion (in praise of the story-teller, as a comment on the tale or its characters, etc.)? Did members of the audience learn tales so told and tell them afterwards? Were certain houses properly recognised as storytelling centres? Give an account of local ones.

What type of persons usually told tales? Men or women? Age of the storytellers? Profession or occupation? Did men or women act as professional storytellers? What is usual for traveling men or women (beggars, hucksters, etc.) to tell tales in houses where they spent a night? Did neighbours usually assemble to hear these storytellers? Did "poor scholars" act as story tellers? Did good storytellers resent the telling of tales by amateurs? Were storytelling competitions held locally" (1942 : 556-57).

A student of Indian folklore, whether in a monolingual or bilingual situation, has to depend on an informant or informants. Contact men4 can help to reach the best informants in a community. However, a folklorist has to be a little cautious with the selection o this informants. A god collector of folklore materials, for example, cannot depend on an informant which linguists use for the collection of linguistic data. There are some basic differences. For a linguist, an informant should be able to speak well; at least he must be an ideal speaker of the language in terms of pronunciation, intonation, etc. However, for a folklorist, the informant should not only be able to speak well (i.e., tell a tale well or sing a song well); but he must also posses the knowledge of the contextual information that goes with any items of folklore and which the investigator seeks. He must be able to provide folklore materials (both texts and contexts), which obviously he cannot if he lacks the knowledge of any of such materials. This makes another difference very clear between a language-informant and a folklore-informant. While language is essentially spoken by every member of a community, folklore at the same time might or might not be known or remembered by all, although, speaking theoretically, it should be shared by all. This automatically puts a folklore informant in a special category. Moreover, an informant for folklore does not satisfy the investigator by simply providing him the texts which is comparable to the spoken language texts a language - informant provides. On the contrary he must provide information on processes which take place in the transmission of folklore, must possess knowledge about folklore ideas, such as attitudes, feelings, themes, folk taxonomy and folk aesthetics which always form the background of textual folklore materials. For example, how strange it would be to collect a proverb from an informant but not the situation of its use or a song without the occasion when it is sung.

Another speciality of an informant of folklore data is that unlike a language-informant, who essentially knows or can understand and interpret all possible structures of his spoken language, he hardly has complete control over all the genres of folklore. Even a single genre and its forms may not be absolutely within the capacity of a single informant's memory. For example, an informant may have an excellent repertoire of proverbs and idioms and may not be able to tell a single tale. Similarly, an informant who is excellent in oral poetry may not be a performer of dances or folk drama. Yet there may be one who provides all information one might need on material culture and be unable to tell a myth, a story or sing a song. This tells us very clearly that data on folklore cannot normally be collected from a single informant. In fact multiple informants may be needed even for a particular form or a single genre. TOP

MATERIAL CULTURE
Folklorists have always been warning that folklore items are disappearing without leaving a trace behind. This warning, if anything, is more applicable today than ever before especially to material culture. "More and more traditional artifacts and techniques", writes Warren E. Roberts, "are out moded by accelerating technological changes. Those displaced are soon cast away and forgotten. In the United States, the spread of cities and highways continually engulf farms and farm buildings, and the bulldozer buries valuable material and data. Elsewhere, when large reservoirs and artificial dams are constructed, responsible governmental agencies work with archaeologists to uncover and register aboriginal material and yet the traditional material culture of contemporary inhabitants is usually destroyed without a backward glance" (1972 : 431). The above scene may be from the United States, but it has relevance for all technology-hungry developing countries and more so for India. During the past few decades the Indian society is undergoing rapid transformation in all its aspects. With growth in the process of development, these transformations are going to be more rapid in the near future. Any material culture expert can notice these changes without any special effort. The structure of Indian joint family is breaking down; the kinship structure and the attitudes towards kinship relations -- concepts closely associated with the traditional structure of the joint family -- are changing. Folk media is being replaced by modern mass media such as the radio, newspaper and the newly introduced T.V. The traditional methods of agriculture are changing. Plough, manure and the traditional well (its simple and fascinating technology) are replaced by the buzzing tractor, chemical fertilizers, and the electric-powered tube-well. Folk architecture of the villages is disappearing fast, and the new cement-steel structures are changing the skyline even in rural India. Utencils of stainless steel, brass and plastic-ware are replacing the traditional earthen, ceramic and bronzeware in the rural homes. The traditional folk decorative designing, which once adorned the domestic surroundings have disappeared.
Traditional folk basketry; an important item of Indian material culture, is on its way out. Plastic basketry has not only replaced it but has also killed the art of making such basketry. Folk jewellery, which India has traditionally been proud of, and through which Indian folk mind has, for centuries, been expressing the artistic genious of Indian mind in the form of most popular motifs of Indian art, is fast disappearing and unfortunately a good part of it has found its way into the unscrupulous foreign museums. So are our traditional modes of transportation, foods, cookery, fishing and embroidery, etc., vanishing or undergoing changes and therefore becoming naturally the concern of a folklorist for various reasons. First, if we do not collect and preserve whatever is left of these vanishing artifacts of our national culture, we shall be losing a big part of our important cultural heritage. Second, without collecting and studying these artifacts we cannot obviously know much about the richness of our material culture. This becomes more important due to the fact that unlike other countries of the world, India has fascinating regional folk cultures which make the area of material culture more important and challenging. Finally, the global concern about the future of mankind in view of the technological growth and its recognized dangerous results, compels one to keep in view the traditional cultural, information and technologies for deciding the course of our futuristic planning. TOP

SOCIAL FOLK CUSTOM
Social folk custom is an important area of Indian folklore and folklife studies, yet no literature is available on the methods of its collection. Folklorists who worked on Indian folk customs, seem to believe that methods that are used to collect a tale or the text of a song can very well work when one collects information on a particular social custom. For instance, for the collection of a tale-text or the text of a particular song, one usually sits in sessions with an informant and extracts whatever text and the information associated with the text is possible. One wonders what kind of materials one can collect in this manner when one is working on social folk custom, particularly the ones that need to be seen and observed rather than heard. This makes field methods for the collection of social folk custom different from those one employs in collecting folk literature. Let us take up an example to explain the point more clearly. Let us suppose one is collecting information on Durga Puja, an important ritual and religious festival of the North-Eastern folk cultural zone of the country. Now one can very well imagine that this important festival is a combination of text (of songs or of stories), of music -- both ritualistic and non-ritualistic -- of ritual; which involves complex symbolic action (an essentially needs to be observed rather than collected from informants), and of visuals, i.e., the colourful decorative setting of gods and goddesses, etc. If all these aspects of this social custom were to be collected on the basis of information given by an informant only, then one can very well imagine and dangers involved. What one needs, besides collecting basic information from the informant, is to watch and observe keenly at various levels everything that concerns this social event in its full celebration in order to collect or record every aspect of this festival. In other words what I am suggesting here is that a mere interview method, so commonly employed in folkloristics and other related subjects, may not be of any use in recording the required information in the case of social folk custom. What is needed is to observe and to participate to elicit the kind of information required.

Social folk custom is a vast phenomenon and includes besides texts, music, colour, action; and complex interactions between all these aspects for the totality of communication. Such aspects remain more complex in traditional societies, and therefore demand more caution. Another important thing which a field investigator has to keep in mind is that the metaphors of communicating meaning in social folk custom are not always verbal in nature. A particular colour, an action or an object may be more important than the verbal utterance in the process of communication. Therefore, besides listening, seeing and observing become necessary. This naturally entails use of photo equipment, besides the tape recorder, for capturing all kind of symbolism that goes with a given social folk custom. So, it is precisely because of these constrains that folklorists working in the area of social folk custom use highly sophisticated video equipment to record information. The traditional tape recorder certainly is not enough. TOP

PERFORMING FOLK ARTS
Many scholarly works5 which guide a field investigator in closely related subjects such as folklore or anthropology have very little to offer on the subject of performing folk arts. Some works6, rated high among such introductory guide books on general folkloristics, have excellent chapters on collecting techniques in the areas of oral narrative, social folk custom; material culture and even music, but lack similar literature on performing folk arts such as folk dances, dramas, etc. Besides others, one reason for this lack could be that such guide books primarily rose on Western, particularly Euro-American folklore data, and were intended for field workers working in these cultural regions. And in both the cases the West does not offer that variety and richness in the area of performing folk arts as does India or Asia. Naturally Indian or Asian folklore was never a guiding factor in the making of such literature. Had it not been so, performing folk arts would have found adequate place in the theoretical literature that has appeared on field techniques in folklore studies.

Performing folk arts such as dance, drama, music, etc., have been and still remain one of the most important aspects of Indian and Asian folklore. In fact, in terms of generic strength, its importance in Indian folklore can be equated, if equations are necessary, with the märchen or the fairy tale phenomenon of the Western world. No wonder then, that this important form did not attract the keen eye of the Western folklorist.

Another equally important aspect that has relevance to fieldwork in the area of performing arts is that it does not generally yield to generic classifications of folklore Western scholars have made. For instance, many folk narratives in India are sung and carry a little of music and drama with them. Similarly, may dance performances go along with narratives such as Yaks?agana or Kathakali. This being so, fieldwork in the area of performing folk arts becomes more complex than in other sectors of folklore. One has to operate on many levels simultaneously in order to collect data with certain degree of accuracy. Performing folk arts, then, in a sense becomes such a sector that contains a little more of all other sectors already discussed; and it is this aspect which makes work in this area of a little harder. This sector, as is clear, is full of dance, drama, music and at the same time also has a little of myth, folktale, song, riddle or a proverb. One can, as I said, notice such generic mixture in other sectors as well, but in the area of performing folk arts it surfaces more clearly. Once this is granted, then the field methods for this sector have naturally to be more refined and detail-oriented.

Besides the general techniques of collecting data in other sectors suggested above, I would like to concentrate here on some of the special characteristics which need to be considered while observing or recording data on performing folk arts of India.

Many students of folklore while collecting information on performing folk arts such as dance, drama, music, etc., tend to improvise a situation, as was done traditionally, for satisfying their research needs. They fail to collect or simply do not collect data on the actual performance. This method, perhaps justifiable theoretically, doe not in practice provide the actual information the investigator seeks and usually deprives the recorded event of almost all valuable contextual information. In India, and Asia as well, performing folk arts, as I said earlier, are embedded firmly in rituals and folk festivals; and both these in turn are tied up with the folk calendars and seasonal changes. Under these circumstances after-harvest-time period is traditionally set aside for all kinds of rituals and performances. If one does not plan ones' field trip accordingly, one is bound to depend on improvised contexts of such performances resulting in the tragic loss of valuable contextual information so essential for the analysis of such events. More often than not, it has been noticed that performers not only hesitate but fail to create the event in artificial contexts. At times, because of the ritualistic constrains, the artificial creation of an event becomes impossible. Therefore all performing folk art events must be collected and recorded in their real setting.

Another important aspect which students of folklore usually ignore is that the folk art performers, particularly in India, maintain a tradition -- a tradition of specialization -- which makes the performers unique in their groups or communities. In fact, sometimes, such performing traditions may be bound by caste or a class as well, as we find in the case of Vannan?s of North Kerala, Bhagats of Central India and Dhombs of North India. These traditional carriers of folk arts follow their own set of norms as regards the composing, performing, themes and meaning. For them, "singing, performing, composing are facets of the same act" (Lord : 13). Therefore, for a better understanding of the art, its composer or performer, a field investigator must understand the tradition and the complexities that go with it.

Similarly, a field investigator, particularly in India, should be very careful about the performer -- audience interaction. This specific aspect of folk arts is so central to the entire phenomenon that it is almost impossible to analyze the event without a clear understanding of it. This argument is supported by the fact that in many dance-drama performances of India, it is hard to draw a clear-cut line between the performers and their audiences. The very structure of the performance makes this clear. For instance, any folk dance performance in its actual situation suggests that there is a frequent role-exchange between the performers (artists) and the audience. In Harikathas and Bhajans and other religious and ritualistic performances the performer - audience relationship remains more closer than non-religious and non-ritualistic performances. Only a keen eye of a field investigator would capture these complex relationships of a given performance and its overall context. TOP