[Li Mu] Alan Dundis's "Grand Theory" Construction and Practical Rationality of Cross-Cultural Communication of Intangible Cultural Heritage

Abstract: Pursuing grand theories or respecting local knowledge are the "two poles" of folklore research.

Faced with the contemporary decline of folklore, especially American folklore, scholars such as Alan Dundis attribute the main reason for this phenomenon to the fact that folklore scholars focus on the collection and presentation of empirical materials and fail to effectively construct grand theories that transcend daily practice.

As a useful attempt to combine theoretical construction with empirical demonstration, Dundis's folk custom analysis practice has inspired folk scholars to break through the limitations of the empirical world to find the universal significance of independent folk phenomena, and to provide useful insights into contemporary intangible cultural heritage protection practice and intangible cultural heritage.

Shared nature provides an explanatory framework and epistemological paradigm that can be used for reference.

On this basis, the cross-cultural communication of intangible cultural heritage is a new starting point and new direction for the combination of theoretical construction and empirical demonstration of folklore.

Keywords: Alan Dundis; grand theory; folk customs analysis; intangible cultural heritage; cross-cultural communication Author profile: Li Mu, associate professor at the School of Art, Nanjing University (Nanjing 210000, Jiangsu).

In 1812, the publication of Kinder-und Hausmärchen (English translation of Children's and Household Tales)("Grimm's Fairy Tales") compiled by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm marked the establishment of folklore as a modern discipline.

However, for a long time, the disciplinary status of folklore has been questioned, challenged and even denied from outside.

Taking the university system in North America as an example, the departments, subject sites, teachers, and courses of folklore have been compressed, merged, or even eliminated.

In recent years, due to the rise and development of a series of cultural movements related to intangible cultural heritage, folklore has ushered in a new opportunity in various countries, in order to re-find its own disciplinary positioning, re-evaluate its self-value, and reflect on the history of the discipline and its contemporary mission.

Based on the connection between the construction thought of "Grand Theory" advocated by Alan Dundes and intangible cultural heritage research, this paper re-examines and understands the practical significance of this academic thought, and provides a new theoretical thinking and methodological framework for the development of contemporary folklore and intangible cultural heritage research.

As a well-known folklorist familiar to China's academic circles, many of Alan Dundis's treatises or compilations have been translated into Chinese, which has inspired many domestic folklorists.

However, there has been little research on Dundis's folk thoughts in China academic circles.

In addition to the brief comments made by the translator in the translation, scholars such as Wang Juechun, Li Yang, Yang Lihui (et al.), Wang Jiewen and Ding Xiaohui have mainly launched discussions in this regard.

In my opinion, the goal of building the "grand theory" that Alan Dundis has always advocated is the basic program and theoretical tendency for his folk ideological system and analysis of folk practice.

There is little discussion among domestic scholars on this point.

At the same time, Dundis's tendency is of great significance to the study of intangible cultural heritage in China and even the world today, and has not attracted the attention of the academic community.

1.

Debate on the "Grand Theory"

Faced with the disciplinary dilemma that folklore has long encountered, scholars such as Alan Dundis, Harris M.Berger and Elliot Oring attributed the main cause of this phenomenon to the failure of this discipline to provide available theoretical and methodological resources to other disciplines.

That is to say, folklore only stops at self-speaking empirical descriptions, and lacks "grand theories" with universal explanatory power and interdisciplinary nature.

What is a "grand theory"? Alan Dundis defines it as theories that "can help us interpret folk material", such as Max Müller's theory of solar myth, Sir James Frazer's theory of sympathetic witchcraft, Sigmund Freud's psychoanalysis, and Claude Lévi-Strauss's paradigm structuralism.

While Dundis affirmed the explanatory effectiveness of these grand theories, he also realized that most of these theories originated in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and none of them were created by American academic circles.

In Dundis 'view, the theories proposed by contemporary American folklore scholars, such as Parry-Lord oral formula theory, feminism folk thought, and performance theory, can only be regarded as concrete methods or perspectives, and none of them have explanatory power on the connotation and significance of empirical materials.

Due to the lack of grand theories in the study of American folklore, scholars such as Dundis are full of anxiety about the future of folklore, especially American folklore.

Therefore, in his 2004 keynote speech "Folklore in the Twenty-First Century" for the American Folklore Annual Conference, Dundis launched a call to actively build a "grand theory" of folklore and regarded it as a priority to ensure the independent status of folklore and its world academic reputation.

Alan Dundis's call for "grand theory" has aroused heated discussions among folklore circles, especially American folklore scholars, with many criticisms and objections.

At the 2005 American Folklore Annual Conference, Lee Haring organized a special discussion titled "Why is there no" grand theory "in folklore." During the discussion, scholars such as Harling, Charles L.Briggs, and John W.Roberts started from the history of American folklore and believed that the analytical basis of this discipline was ethnography-of-speaking and performance-centered.

Therefore, most of its theoretical contributions were specific practical methods rather than grand theories with universal explanatory power.

In addition, Harlin and others did not agree with Dundis's statement about the relationship between grand theory and the status of the discipline of folklore.

On the contrary, Roberts believes that grand theoretical construction will shake the foundation of folklore.

Their views were agreed by James R.Dow, a German folklore researcher present.

The latter's endorsement stems from his own research on the relationship between German folklore and the National Socialist Movement.

However, other researchers involved in the discussion agreed with Dundis and affirmed the importance of building grand theories.

For example, Gary Alan Fine believes: "Theory is a way of knowledge production that allows us to break through the limitations of practical experience.

Without core concepts-whether they are called grand theories or organized views-folklore scholars will find it difficult to build models to transcend particularities and demonstrate that folklore cognition can help us understand the vast expanse of time and space."

More researchers rely on grand theoretical concepts to engage in dialogue.

Among them, although Richard Bauman believed that it was a misguided enterprise to encourage folklore scholars to devote themselves to grand theoretical construction, he admitted that knowledge production should be separated from mere empirical case analysis.

He called for: On the basis of a set of premises about society and culture, a conceptual frame of reference/an oriented framework for inquiry should be constructed to form a continuous knowledge tradition.

Contrary to Alan Dundis's view of the lack of grand theories in folklore, especially American folklore, Bowman believes that American folklore has and continues to build grand theories.

Bauman further pointed out that this tradition of folklore can compete with new theoretical trends such as structuralism, performance studies, ethnopoetics, intertextuality and hybrid theory.

It is an important foundation for the production of folklore knowledge and the defense of its own disciplinary identity.

At the same time, it is also a guarantee for effective academic dialogue between folklore and other disciplines.

It can be seen that although Dundis and Bauman have differences on some specific academic views, the basis and goal of the two scholars 'arguments are both attempts to coordinate the interrelationship between theory and practice, hoping to find a theoretical and methodological paradigm that folklore is independent of other disciplines.

Driven by this common goal, other scholars present at the meeting, such as Dorothy Noyes and Kathleen Stewart, proposed concepts such as the so-called "humble theory" and the "weak theory" respectively to define and describe a universal folklore interpretation model enhanced through empirical experience.

It can be seen that the debate on grand theories in the American folklore community triggered by Dundis's 2004 keynote speech shows that there are two different voices within the folklore discipline-focusing on building theories or focusing on empirical research, representing two Different academic traditions and tendencies.

This divergence in American folklore circles (which is also a common phenomenon in folklore circles around the world) has its profound historical, social, political and cultural origins.

2.

Folklore Tradition and Grand Theory

Dundis's statement of the grand theory and his concerns about American folklore show that folklore that has entered the modern disciplinary system has two different academic traditions.

The author here labels them as European traditions and American traditions respectively.

As the birthplace of modern folklore, Germany is one of the representatives of European traditions.

Since Germany had not yet been unified at that time and the upper classes of society preferred to use French, the intellectual class represented by Johann Gottfried von Herder and the Grimm brothers, influenced by the stormy movement, romantic trends and nationalist ideas, could only find the roots of German culture among the peasant class who still used German, told German folk stories, and practiced German customs and traditions, establishing a close connection between folklore and political culture and ideology.

This paradigm of building a nation-state relying on folk culture has profoundly influenced the political, cultural concepts and social practices of countries around the world.

For example, in Finland, which was not yet independent at the time, the intellectual class also turned to the peasant class in its society to gain evidence of its national independence.

This led to the discovery of the famous Finnish epic "Kalevala".

Different from the nationalist background of German folklore, another important tradition of European folklore-British tradition, originated from Britain's colonial expansion to the world after the Industrial Revolution.

The large number of documents, experiences and artifacts about foreign cultures introduced into British society accompanied by colonial activities greatly enriched the cultural imagination and social life of the British intellectual class.

Faced with numerous cultural resources, scholars began to consciously observe and recognize the cultural similarities and differences between various ethnic groups and societies, explore the connections and divisions between various civilizations, and build an overall framework for understanding the progress and development of human society.

The Indo-European language and Indo-European culture hypothesis on which Max Mill's school of solar mythology was based, Edward B.Tylor's model of human social evolution, and Fraser's mythology-ritual theory are all representative results of the British tradition of folklore.

Therefore, in the European tradition of folklore, whether German or British, it is intended to produce a universal knowledge system to understand the existence of experience beyond a single country, nation, region or individual.

However, American scholars are pursuing a different path of folklore from European scholars.

At the end of the 19th century, especially after the United States 'GDP ranked first in the world in 1894, the center of the modern academic system, including folklore, began to gradually move to North America.

Although many European scholars still adhere to the cultural and academic traditions of their home countries, the unique diverse social reality and cultural environment in North America have led these scholars with immigrant backgrounds (as well as local scholars) to pay attention to local experience and native culture.

In the 1888 Journal of American Folklore's "Commentary", scholars proposed to study at least four types of rapidly disappearing North American traditions: (1) the remains of ancient British folk customs (such as songs, stories, superstitions, and dialects);(2) black folk customs in the southern United States;(3) the folk customs of North American Indian tribes; and (4) the folk customs of French-speaking Canada and Mexico.

[3]It can be seen that since the establishment of the American Folklore Society, North American scholars have focused their attention on the social and cultural space they are experiencing that is different from European experience.

The study of North American Indian tribes by scholars such as Frans Boas and their practice of introducing anthropological field survey methods into folklore represent the epistemological and methodological tendencies of North American folklore scholars.

In 1959, Richard M.Dorson, a scholar of American Civilization Studies, unequivocally opposed the text analysis method and mechanical folk communication principles advocated by Stith Thompson, which dominated the mainstream of folklore at that time.

In Dorson's view, although American folklore and American folklore research are closely related to Eurasian traditions, the uniqueness of American experience makes it break away from the original cultural stereotypes and have an independent spirit and attitude.

Therefore, he proposed replacing "folklore in America" with "American folklore." Dorson's focus on the uniqueness of the American experience prompted "young Turks" such as Roger D.Abrahams, Dan Ben-Amos, Alan Dundes, Robert Georges, and Kenneth Goldstein to seek to recognize and understand the paths and methods of daily life in the United States.

Dorson summarized the theoretical tendencies of these young talents as "situational" centralism, and believed that this theoretical tendency had opened a new chapter in folklore.

It is against the background of this practical turn that Richard Bauman's performance theory was proposed and deepened.

At the 2005 Annual Conference of American Folklore, many scholars such as Roberts, who were different from Alan Dundis's advocacy of grand theories, believed that the reason why Dorson gave up building grand theories and turned to focus on the unique history and culture of the United States was that his folk thoughts were apolitical.

The author agrees with the views of scholars such as Roberts and believes that Dorson's efforts to distance himself from the relationship between folklore and ideology are closely related to his criticism of the so-called "fake folklore." The concept of "pseudo-folk customs" was proposed by Dorson in 1950 to distinguish between "true folk customs" based on oral tradition and "pseudo-folk customs" created based on literary creation, political needs and the commercial expansion of capitalism.

Among them, Dorson's criticism of Benjamin A.Botkin is the most direct and profound.

Botkin is known as the "father of American public folklore and applied folklore", and his early work was related to the U.S.

government and its affiliated agencies.

For example, Botkin was appointed as national folklore editor of the Federal Writers 'Project, chairman of the Works Progress Administration's Folk Arts Committee, and editor-in-chief of the Writers' Unit of the Library of Congress Project.

In Dorson's view, Botkin's various work, including his subsequent "creation", are misreading and abuse of folk oral traditions under the guidance of ideology.

They are external concepts similar to grand theories that distort and destroy the authenticity of empirical materials.

The power relationship behind it will cause folklore to lose its academic value and existence as an independent discipline and become a cultural vassal of the state apparatus.

Dorson rejects such top-down, ideology-oriented or theory-oriented research methods and presentation methods of folklore, but vigorously promotes a depoliticized knowledge production model based on local knowledge and premised on ethnographic experience.

Fundamentally speaking, Dorson's views reflect the confusion of many American folklorists about whether the theories and methodologies of the "old world"(referring to Europe) can recognize, understand, explain and solve new problems and new realities in the "new world"(referring to North America).

As Dorson's successor, Alan Dundis's practice of folk analysis is seeking the possibility of matching external theory with internal experience.

3.

Alan Dundis's Folk Interpretation Practice

Although Dundis has always called on and encouraged folklore scholars to build grand theories, he has not achieved this goal.

While criticizing other folklore scholars for their lack of theoretical concern, he also realized that he followed non-folklore theories and theories put forward by his European colleagues: "I must admit that I only know how to use other people's theories myself, and I myself am deeply influenced by Russian folklore scholar Vladimir Prop's" The Morphology of Folk Stories "and Austrian Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytical theory." Judging from Alan Dundis's academic career, his early folklore practice mainly used Prop's morphological methods to redefine folklore genres, such as popular beliefs, proverbs and riddles.

In the later period, Dundis mainly understood and explored the cultural connotation and value system of folk matters through psychoanalysis.

At present, many scholars regard Dundis's redefinition of "folk" as a major contribution to folklore.

However, in my opinion, Alan Dundis's main achievement as an outstanding folklore scholar lies in the practice of folklore analysis he strives to promote.

Its ultimate goal is to maintain the independent status and existence value of folklore as a modern discipline.

In Alan Dundis's view, the criterion for determining whether a science is a modern discipline lies in whether it has explanatory power on its research object.

Dundis's practice of folk interpretation responds to the issue of the explanatory power of folklore.

Alan Dundis mentioned in the preface to his Interpreting Folklore: "The large number of folklore works published today are mainly purely descriptive empirical material.

You just need to go to the nearest library and look at the collections marked with folk customs, and you will find that many of the books are just collections of legends, jokes, proverbs or similar genres." Dundis observed that folklore scholars often focus their work on the true recording and accurate presentation of field materials, and satisfy and stop at the identification of folklore matters.

However, according to Dundis, since material collection itself is not a creative activity, the identification of empirical folklore matters does not prove the uniqueness and importance of folklore as a modern discipline.

In this sense, Dundis believes that folklore scholars should transcend the limitations of current experience and seek interpretation of folklore matters.

The key to folk custom analysis lies in the use of an appropriate theoretical framework.

Among the many grand theories confirmed by Alan Dundis, although he first chose Prop's morphological method, Dundis has always regarded himself as a loyal follower of psychoanalysis.

According to Dundis, structuralism (or semiotic analysis), including Prop's morphology and Levi-Strauss's theory of structural anthropology, focuses more on the combination and overall structure of various elements within the text.

Although it helps to recognize what an object is, it does not allow us to know what the object is for or what it means.

Dundis, of course, acknowledges that Levi-Strauss's structuralist analysis already touches on the deep structure of the unconscious, but unlike Freud's so-called unconscious: the former perceives the way the unconscious is structured, while the latter pursues the meaning inherent and constantly releasing in the unconscious; the former is external and non-emotional, while the latter is embedded and personal.

What Dundis is trying to uncover is the unconscious in the Freudian sense-the meaning of folkloristic fantasy in folk matters.

It can be seen that structuralism still leaves many epistemological gaps in the analysis of folk customs, while psychoanalysis is to "make the incomprehensible easy to understand, find rationality in irrationality, and let the subconscious emerge to the level of consciousness." The way.

However, although Alan Dundis relies on psychoanalysis to find the meaning and value behind folk matters, he does not rely entirely on Freud's theory, but uses his perspective to view the objects of experience to build his own theoretical thoughts and interpretation framework.

Michael P.

Carroll believes that Dundis's writing actually contained very few theories about psychoanalysis.

In fact, he relied mostly on Freud's ideas early in his career, which were mainly concentrated in "Interpretation of Dreams." Moreover, many of Dundis's views are contrary to Freud and traditional psychoanalytic theory.

For example, Dundis believes that the "penis envy" pattern that often appears in folk sources reflects not the negative emotions of "everything" towards men caused by Freud's "lack" of girls, but men's male birth-envy towards women's unique reproductive function.

For another example, Dundis once said,"In the psychoanalytic discussion of 'projection', the difference between projection and proactive inversion has never been clear." For the first time in his research, Dundis clearly defined the latter as "a psychological process" in which "one person accuses another of what he has done, which is what he wants to do in his heart." Alan Dundis's redefinition not only clarified the long-standing conceptual ambiguity and confusion in psychoanalysis, but also enabled folklore to gain a theoretical framework for analyzing stories such as Shakespeare's play "King Lear" and the ancient Egyptian "Story of the Two Brothers".

It can be said that Dundis is a critical successor to psychoanalysis rather than a passive blind follower.

As he himself said: "I think psychoanalytic theory can explain folklore well, but I also firmly believe that folklore materials can also expand the horizons and boundaries of psychoanalytic theory." In this sense, the process of analyzing or interpreting folk customs is actually a process of elevating empirical facts into theoretical ideas or even grand theories.

Even Charles Briggs, who stood against Dundis in the 2005 discussion of grand theories, had to admit the importance of theoretical construction in the construction of the discipline of folklore.

In fact, Briggs himself and another folklorist, Amy Shuman, began to promote the theorization of folk thought based on experience in 1993.

In the process of folk interpretation, Dundis, like early armchair folklorists, encountered doubts from many parties about his application of folk materials.

In the opinion of many scholars, Dundis rarely conducts field research, and the empirical materials are mainly indirect materials from all over the world.

However, it can be seen from Dorson's classification of Dundis as a young talent in "situation" theory above and Dundis's work that it does not ignore the importance of field research and context in folk research.

Dundis's use of so-called world-wide materials comes from his idea of folk customs analysis, that is, folklore should advance to the second stage of his research-analysis and interpretation of empirical materials rather than simply on-site research and collection.

At this stage, Alan Dundis actually deliberately avoided the constraints of context on empirical materials, but hoped to find the universal human values and universal meaning that are connected between cultures from similar texts.

In order to carry out paradigm knowledge production and cultural innovation, that is, grand theoretical construction.

It should be pointed out that unlike the grand theories of folklore in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Dundis is not seeking mutual confirmation of empirical facts between different cultures, but is based on the similarity of materials and extracts the theoretical and methodological paradigm behind the differences.

In response, one of Dundis's followers, Wolfgang Mieder.

He once commented,"Throughout his fruitful life, Alan Dundis has constantly emphasized that folklore is the key to a better understanding of daily human life, and that folklore scholars should have a comparative awareness and an international perspective in their research."

It can be seen that unlike Dorson, Alan Dundis is not afraid of the "infringement" of grand theories on local knowledge, but actively responds and combines theoretical construction with empirical experience.

Within the framework of folk customs analysis, Dundis interprets world-wide folk materials, while exploring the inherent cultural meaning and value system of folk matters, and attempts to build a folk custom that has explanatory power to folk practice and emotional expression in human daily life.

theory.

In today's context of globalization, Dundis is actually reconstructing the connection between universal discourse and local experience, that is, how local knowledge is shared by different subjects in the context of globalization.

At the same time, he is also asking how the trend of globalization affects communities to think about self-identity and cultural values.

In this sense, Dundis's discussion on grand theory and the study of intangible cultural heritage create the possibility of semantic interaction.

4.

Sharing and grand theory of intangible cultural heritage

In the Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage promulgated by UNESCO and signed by States parties including China, the so-called "intangible cultural heritage" refers to "various social practices, conceptual expressions, forms of expression, knowledge, skills, and related tools, objects, handicrafts and cultural sites that are regarded by communities, groups, and sometimes individuals as part of their cultural heritage." It can be seen from this definition that intangible cultural heritage is cultural resources closely related to communities, groups and individuals belonging to the local category and the carriers that carry these cultural resources.

In the context of today's globalization, whether it encounters damage or faces protection, local knowledge has irreversibly undergone an inseparable interaction and dialogue with the outside world.

Specifically, the compilation of lists of intangible cultural heritage and representative lists of human intangible cultural heritage by each State party, as well as the mutual assistance and institutionalization of international cooperation and assistance mechanisms, have made the specific knowledge and value systems that originally belong to a specific community, group or individual have become shared human heritage and public cultural resources that transcend regions and ethnic groups.

As Gao Bingzhong pointed out in "Outline of Future Folklore in Daily Life","Intangible cultural heritage protection allows our society to accept the new relationship between local culture and human culture." At the same time, Gao Bingzhong further pointed out that to a large extent, intangible cultural heritage "is daily life in the past", but due to its own living inheritance and external interventional protection, intangible cultural heritage has been transformed into public culture, with future-oriented characteristics.

In this sense, intangible cultural heritage actually has the universal value and universal significance that Alan Dundis calls transcending the separation of time and space.

For example, the myth of the "diving mud-scorer" widely existing around the world (the myth of China's breathing soil, the Bible's "Noah's Ark" story, the North American flood myth, etc.) has become potential (or in fact has become) common materials, that is, the empirical basis for building grand theories and grand narratives.

According to Alan Dundis, universal material could lead to a theoretical and analytical framework to explain this universal validity.

However, in the specific intangible cultural heritage protection work of countries around the world today, a large number of practical activities have not exceeded the boundaries of specific communities, groups or individuals, and their characteristics shared by all mankind have not yet been demonstrated.

The emergence of such situations is related to the practical process in which the protection of intangible cultural heritage is first regarded as an interaction between political, economic, cultural and other social resources.

As far as the current situation of intangible cultural heritage protection in China is concerned, due to the extensive involvement of administrative power, commercial activities and local protectionism, power relations and interest disputes have prompted most intangible cultural heritage practices to stop at forming operational and practical effectiveness.

The direction of the policy and strategy is still the practice itself.

In fact, the practical characteristics and non-theoretical nature of intangible cultural heritage protection are also related to the long-standing disciplinary positioning and attributes of folklore that dominates this practice.

As Hu Xiaohui said, before the "Intangible Cultural Heritage Era", folklore was essentially a practical discipline, but now the progress of intangible cultural heritage protection has promoted the return of folklore practice.In North America, Dorson's early influence on the empirical nature of folklore still exists.

North American folklore scholars, especially public folklore scholars on the front line of cultural work, are still concerned about the unique existence of intangible cultural heritage as local knowledge.

In addition to providing ethnographic experience and guided services, there is little abstract knowledge production of practical experience.

Of course, in the practice of public folklore, concepts such as authenticity, decontextualization, re-contextualization, and folklorismus/folklorism have been re-examined and reflected by folklore scholars.

Regrettably, since the beginning of the "Intangible Cultural Heritage Movement", no matter folklore or other related disciplines, have failed to produce corresponding theories and methodologies to coordinate the tension between the sharing of intangible cultural heritage and the exclusiveness of local interests.

However, many problems faced by today's intangible cultural heritage protection work, such as ignoring the development laws of intangible cultural heritage itself, aphasia of intangible cultural heritage inheritors, and excessive commercialization of intangible cultural heritage knowledge, all point to the same crux, that is, the shared nature of the object itself at the theoretical level.

The epistemological rupture and methodological lack present between the sexual characteristics and the practical strategies at the practical experience level.

That is to say, the understanding of intangible cultural heritage as the dual nature of local knowledge and shared resources has not received theoretical consideration.

In my opinion, one of the possible entry points for theoretical interpretation and improvement of the practice of intangible cultural heritage protection, especially the dual nature of intangible cultural heritage, is the cross-cultural communication research of intangible cultural heritage.

This is because only by transcending the time and space limitations of the source cultural community (or individuals) can the sharing nature of intangible cultural heritage emerge.

The essence of cross-cultural communication is to provide a field and possibility that transcends culture and is based on cultural subjects.

Due to the (unequal) power relationship between cultural subjects, the specific methods of cross-cultural communication may take the form of cultural adaptation, cultural integration or cultural conflict.

On the way or end of cross-cultural communication, foreign cultures inevitably form a dialogue with local cultures.

In the process of cultural exchanges and information exchange, all parties form common cultural experiences and emotional experiences due to cultural contact (even if they conflict with each other, they are still shared cultural processes).

What needs to be clear is that the common cultural experience and emotional experience constructed based on cross-cultural contact do not belong to any party in foreign or local cultures, but is a new cultural form that combines esoteric-exoteric knowledge.

The author's own research on the folk life of Chinese immigrants in North America shows that both communicators and recipients are highly creative agents.

Under different social and cultural contexts, they have carried out cultural reshaping that conforms to their own needs.

Different from pure political publicity and commercial operations, which pay too much attention to communication effects and commercial value, immigrants 'spontaneous cross-cultural communication based on their own daily life experience and identity needs (such as cultural performances such as Chinese food, lion dances and traditional dances and New Year celebrations and other festivals) makes the dual experience of intangible cultural heritage itself more prominent.

Cultural sharing is not just an existing attribute, but also a process and unfinished one.

At present, in the international folklore community, most discussions on the cross-cultural communication of intangible cultural heritage are related to immigrant culture, mainly focusing on the inheritance and transformation of the traditions brought by immigrant groups from their home countries in the new cultural context.

Although such discussions involve the cross-border spread of traditional culture, they only focus on the changes of the immigrant group itself, and rarely regard cultural interaction between groups as the main perspective of research.

In China's folklore circles and related disciplines, except for Sun Xupei's "On Chinese Communication", Zhong Fulan's "Folk Communication" and Hao Huaining's "Theoretical Description of National Cultural Communication", academic circles have less theoretical research on the cross-border dissemination of China's intangible cultural heritage, and most of them limit their research scope to the Chinese cultural circle, lacking discussion on issues such as context reset and daily life shift in cross-cultural communication.

In addition, due to the deep national memories and ethnic representations embodied in the communication content, the cross-cultural communication of intangible cultural heritage is different from other popular cultural matters, especially the promotion of goods for profit, more targeted and explanatory theoretical and methodological resources should be sought.

This paper takes dragon boat racing in Newfoundland, Canada as a case to briefly elaborate on the cross-cultural dissemination of China's intangible cultural heritage in North America.

On September 14, 2008, a dragon boat finishing and launching ceremony was held at Octagon Lake in the Town of Paradise in eastern Newfoundland, not far from its provincial capital, St.

John's.

The sponsors of this dragon boat were Mr.

Rennies So and Ms.

Hum Mei Tam, owners of Magic Wok Eatery, a Chinese restaurant most popular among Chinese and foreign diners in Newfoundland at that time.

Mr.

Su and Ms.

Tan are from China Hong Kong and settled in Newfoundland in the 1980s and started a business here.

They highly respect Chinese culture.

Among them, Mr.

Su himself is also an outstanding lion dance performer and was one of the most important members of the lion dance team of the Chinese Association of Newfoundland and Labrador (founded in 1976).

The dragon boats are used by some local breast cancer survivors (all local white women).

At a local charity fundraiser, the Newfoundland Breast Cancer Survivors Association asked Mr.

So and Ms.

Tan for financial support.

Mr.

Su therefore suggested: "In St.

John's, there is a Regatta Day every year, which is very similar to our traditional Dragon Boat Festival dragon boat racing in Tang Dynasty.

Since you want to show your passion and vitality after recovery, why don't we organize a dragon boat team?" Mr.

Su's suggestion was approved by breast cancer survivors, so with the coordination and help of all parties, The Avalon Dragons was quickly established and actively participated in various boat racing events and fundraising activities in Newfoundland.

For example, the Avalon Dragon Boat Team participates in the boat race in St.

John's every year.

For another example, on October 2, 2011, the team also participated in a boat race organized by the Imperial Commercial Bank of Canada, raising $6,000 Canadian dollars for the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation.

Different from the boats used by other competitive teams, the Avalon Dragon Boat Team uses traditional China dragon boats, which are simple and simple in style and colorful.

However, Mr.

Su Jintang is not satisfied with simply introducing the external form of traditional dragon boats.

What he intends to convey and present is the cultural meaning and spiritual essence contained in dragon boats.

This is the origin of the dragon boat's finishing ceremony on September 14.

At the ceremony, Mr.

Su personally made the finishing touches on the dragon boat and explained the historical basis and belief connotation of the ceremony.

At the same time, other elements of China culture were added to the ceremony process, such as lion dances and Tai Chi performances, which also have the themes of eliminating diseases and disasters and strengthening the body.

This made the ceremony process a concentrated performance of the external dissemination of Chinese culture.

Figure 1: Dragon boats of Newfoundland's Avalon Dragon Boat Team (all pictures in this article are from Alick Xu Alick Tsui)

Figure 2: Avalon Dragon Boat in Progress

Mr.

Su Jintang's concept of China culture represented by dragon boats is not nativist, but global.

Within and outside economic activities, he has been working to promote the exchange and integration of traditional Chinese culture and local Newfoundland culture (such as the integration of Chinese and Western traditions into many dishes and restaurant interiors).

In Mr.

Su's view, the Dragon Boat Festival culture in China symbolizes the courage and vitality that people burst out after losing (Qu Yuan's grief for the collapse of the country and the memory of Qu Yuan's death at the time and later generations).

This respect for life and hard work are consistent with the positive spirit of breast cancer survivors who fought the disease and ultimately won.

Here, the cross-cultural inter-subjectivity connection is not only the similarity of external forms, but more importantly the connection of internal temperament.

In this sense, Chinese Dragon Boat Festival culture transcends the limitation of social and historical context of traditional national culture, dialogues with universal human experience and emotion, and creates and realizes the sharing and integration of human intangible cultural heritage across languages and cultures.

It can be said that although Newfoundland's dragon boat racing is externally characterized by the creolization of the integration of China traditional culture with local culture and context, this cultural reshaping process provides cultural sense The possibility of building and imagining a community with a shared future for mankind.

There is no doubt that, as many folklorists, including Alan Dundis, have said, only folklore can solve empirical problems in people's daily life practice and emotional expression, and only professional folklore scholars can build and develop explanatory epistemological and methodological frameworks.

The author believes that the theory of cross-cultural communication of intangible cultural heritage should be based on the empirical study of cross-border ethnography.

By taking into account various elements in the process of intangible cultural heritage dissemination, such as intangible cultural heritage masterpieces themselves, communication subjects and Social networks, local public cultural policies and resources, we should build a theoretical model and practical framework for cross-cultural communication of intangible cultural heritage, and realize the knowledge production and theoretical construction of folklore itself to further establish its role in the intangible cultural heritage movement.

Leading position.

In the construction of this theoretical framework, key concepts such as "transnationality","everyday life","authenticity","context" and "globalization" will be frequently involved.

The ultimate direction of this theory will be to explore how local traditions, as special products, participate in the macro or micro interactions between different cultural subjects in the cultural exchange space of modern and contemporary society, become common heritage in fact or symbolically, and gradually Build new cultural forms and knowledge paradigms that match the experience of globalization, and understand the process of generation, inheritance and change of meaning from the perspective of communication.

5.

Conclusion

Eleven papers from the 2005 American Folklore Society Annual Conference "Why There Are No Grand Theory in Folklore" branch venue were published in the Journal of Folklore Research in 2008 under the special title "Grand Theory".

In 2016, after partial revision, these articles were published in a collection by Indiana University Press under the title "Grand Theory in Folkloristics." Alan Dundis's article "Folklore in the 21st Century" has been added to this collection and placed it first, demonstrating the unquestionable importance of this article and the author's thoughts in academic history.

Michael Dylan Foster and Ray Cashman wrote in the preface to the book: "We felt it was time to republish these articles because the issues raised ten years ago are still important to us today...

Our previous topics continue and will continue.

We look forward to new ideas and theoretical creations that are not ordinary." Dan Ben-Amos, one of the reviewers of this book, pointed out in his review article: "Generally speaking, there are different opinions on the yearning for a 'grand theory' expressed in Dundis's" 21st Century Folklore "lecture, but everyone agrees with his call and efforts to build a theoretical foundation for folklore."

Judging from the history of folklore, the debate over theoretical construction and attention to local experience has continued.

The starting point for the debate is the independent status and existence value of folklore as a modern discipline.

During the years of decline of folklore, although Richard Dorson and Alan Dundis had different views, they both tried to propose strategies and measures to save and revitalize the discipline.

The concept of "grand theory" put forward by Alan Dundis has always inspired and led contemporary folklorists to think about theory and practice.

In today's so-called "intangible cultural heritage era", with the rise and development of intangible cultural heritage protection and research practice, folklore has also actively reshaped the independent consciousness and dominant position of the discipline.

Faced with the noisy intangible cultural heritage field, folklore scholars should actively participate in the production of knowledge related to the research objects, engage in effective dialogue with other disciplines, combine folklore research, public folklore practice and intangible cultural heritage process, and reconstruct epistemology.

Foundation and interpretation framework to accelerate the accumulation and innovation of knowledge in this discipline.

The cross-cultural communication of intangible cultural heritage is closely related to its inherent sharing and local dual characteristics.

Whether it is theoretical improvement or empirical demonstration of folklore, it should be regarded as a feasible and useful ice-breaking place and source of development.

(This article was originally published in "Folklore Research", No.

2, 2019.

The annotations are omitted and refer to the original issue for details.)