Hello all,

First, good for you for trying to start discussion about the issues that drive you. I have found your comments interesting, partly because I am only dimly aware of the distress you are registering, and appreciate the chance to hear folks' views.

So with less than no time for this, two quick comments, from an alternative perspective. Working in a not-for-profit folklife agency for 10 years, I have needed to figure out ways to distinguish what projects we truly invest in, and take on, and those we don't (or merely help). Our measuring sticks are significance, relevance and impact-- we push ourselves to articulate if, why and how projects/topics/issues have these three criteria.

I mention this because debates about what counts as legitimate (or as margin/center, new/old, etc.) for "the field" have always seemed to be debates about authority in the field, and not about the implications of the folklife/art/topic under consideration. Does this really matter? It strikes me that if we are to find any signficance, relevance and impact in our field, we always need to push ourselves individually to articulate it in relation to the work we choose. And it ain't easy.

Related to this- arguments with faculty in graduate school are not only about who has the power to allow certain kinds of work, or about different teaching styles (whether supportive or challenging, etc.), but also about the responsibility of educators to make the next generation of scholars knowledgeable about the foundations of the field. I'm not sure that total choice of topics is the best way to do this (and, sticking my neck out further, in the spirit of your manifestos), it somewhat reminds me of my ten year old, who would be thrilled to follow a balanced died of her favorite major food groups: hard candy, soda, and sugary breakfast cereal. Greens might be old-fashioned, but you can get alot out of them. . . . But then, I have always personally been draw to spots where radical perspectives fuse with roots traditions.

Debora Kodish