Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us

Facets of Transnationalism in the Late Nineteenth Century: New Perspectives on the History of Folklore Studies

‘The many indications that the study and collection of Folk-lore is now engaging the attention of most countries in Europe make it necessary that this Society, being the first to introduce a systematic study of Folk-lore, should as far as possible work in unison and confederation with similar organizations abroad, and should draw within its membership foreign scholars and students.’1

This quote is from the annual report, published on 2 June 1886, of the Folklore Society—one of the earliest professional associations in the discipline of folklore studies (known in German-speaking regions today as Empirische Kulturwissenschaft, Europäische Ethnologie, or Kulturanthropologie). At the time, ‘folklore studies’ mainly meant the study of ‘the people’s’ customs, fairy tales, legends, oral traditions, and so on—although its disciplinary boundaries were not yet strict, but were still shifting. The quote refers to an aspect of the history of the discipline that has thus far received little attention: the transnational activities of actors and institutions. Although the institutionalization of the discipline, was often in close step with national and even National Socialist aspirations, the question arises as to how this development was related to the global and imperial interests that equally characterized this period. Was there also activity across national borders in the early phases of the discipline? And if so, what were the impacts of its successes and failures?

Main Features of the Research Project

My dissertation project, ‘Actors—Narratives—Strategies: Constellations of Transnational Folklore Research, 1875–1905’, builds on a lively tradition of historical research in the discipline of folklore studies. Reflection on the subject and its history has become a central component in this field, not least due to the intensive examination of the overlap between the interests of folklore scholars and National Socialist interests, particularly in Germany. This has led to the development of an extensive research landscape around folklore studies and its history, which is still expanding and responding to new ideas.

It is noticeable, however, that historical research into folklore studies mostly follows national and regional narratives. This applies in particular to the initial phase in the professionalization and institutionalization of the discipline in the late nineteenth century. So far, comparatively little attention has been paid to the fact that transnationality does not only take the form of the simultaneous development of scholarly interest in folklore across Europe and beyond.2 There were also repeated efforts to promote actual transnational networking, and ample references to developments in the discipline abroad.

The aim of my research is to trace precisely these transnational links and to analyse their significance for the early phase of the discipline. The focus is therefore on the nature of transnational entanglements in folklore research during the period of its incipient institutionalization in the final decades of the nineteenth century. As implied by the project title, I am specifically interested in the actors whose relationships and knowledge practices transcended nation-state borders, the narratives that shaped transnational cooperation and/or were produced and reproduced within it, as well as the strategic positioning, motives, and aims that underpinned transnational connections. My understanding of transnationality draws on the work on histoire croisée and, in particular, the concept of shared history (geteilte Geschichte) advocated by Sebastian Conrad and Shalini Randeria, in that I do not view transnational entanglements primarily as symmetrical, multilateral, and constructive, but also focus on moments of difference, demarcation, particularity, and rupture.3

The Folklore Society in London and the International Folklore Congress of 1891

One transnational actor relevant to my work is the Folklore Society, based in London, which was founded in 1878 and has published its own journal ever since. It was (and still is) the central institution for folklore research in the United Kingdom. The words quoted at the beginning of this article indicate that it also saw itself as a disciplinary pioneer, and that developments abroad were not beyond its horizon. But was its goal, declared in 1886, of establishing stronger transnational networks ultimately achieved? How transnational were the activities of the Folklore Society and its members in reality?

These were the questions I investigated during my research trip to London as a scholarship holder of the German Historical Institute London (GHIL). In the Folklore Society Archive, part of the Special Collections at UCL, I sifted through material that pointed to transnational entanglements: the society’s membership and subscription lists, minute books, and annual reports, which provide information about its (transnational) programme, correspondence across national borders, and so on. In particular, the International Folklore Congress held in London in 1891 (one of four international folklore congresses in the nineteenth century) was at the centre of my archival research. At the same time, correspondence between the organizers—mostly leading male members of the society, but also a few women—provides insight into the preparations and internal arrangements. The congress was also reported on by journalists. Finally, a conference volume and reviews in specialist journals (also from abroad) document the outcomes of the event and its reception. I would like to cite the congress here as an example of the multifaceted nature of transnational practice and its significance for the history of the discipline.

As a response to, and continuation of, the first International Folklore Congress in Paris in 1889, the organizers’ specific aim was to raise the profile of the discipline, which was only just starting to become institutionalized. They were concerned with strengthening folklore studies in general, and with establishing their society in particular, both locally and from a transnational perspective: they sought to underpin the society’s self-declared pioneering role and to set an example with their event.4 The congress was announced in various specialist journals at home and abroad, and representatives of the discipline were personally invited to London. The difficulty sometimes posed by the need to negotiate between regional needs and transnational endeavours was barely visible to the outside world. Instead, the congress was presented as a success story, manifest ultimately in a high-profile accompanying programme of events (including a conversazione [see Fig. 1] and an excursion to the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford), lively newspaper coverage [see Fig. 2, featured image],5 and finally the publication of a congress volume.6

Fig. 1: Title page of the programme for the Conversazione of the International Folklore Congress of 1891. Courtesy of The Folklore Society, and UCL Special Collections. Folklore Society Archives: Box 118.

Although the newly founded International Folklore Council, which was proclaimed in the course of the congress, had a low transnational profile, and although the question of how transnational the programme [see Fig. 3] and the participants actually were (that is, whether there was a partial gap between claim and reality) remains open, the society considered the event a success. In addition, for certain groups, such as female members of the Folklore Society, who were significantly involved in planning and running the accompanying events programme, the congress represented an opportunity to become more visibly active.

Fig 3: Overview of the lectures given at the 1891 International Folklore Congress, in Joseph Jacobs and Alfred Nutt (eds.), The International Folk-Lore Congress: Papers and Transactions 1891 (London, 1892), p. xxi. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, H.g.hum. 34 d-1891, urn:nbn:de:bvb:12-bsb11614624-0.  

Facets of Transnational Scholarly Practice in a National Discipline

The 1891 London Congress (like many other transnational interconnections in early folklore research) has thus far amounted to little more than a footnote in works on the history of the discipline. In hindsight, the fact that no more transnational events took place in London may explain this, at least to some extent. Nevertheless, it is worth taking a closer look, especially in order to critically reflect on the logics of research on the history of folklore studies, which has so far paid little attention to these transnational entanglements.

One aim of my project is to draw attention to the fact that transnationality (including in scholarly contexts) was not constructive and idealistic per se, but highly multifaceted. In particular—as in the example of the Folklore Society and its congress—transnationality could have a dominant, even hegemonic or imperial, streak and was sometimes conceived not in terms of long-term goals, but rather as a strategic move of self-assertion. After all, it is very clear that national and regional interests were repeatedly pursued under the banner of transnationality.

In addition to their actual scope, their transnational reception, and ultimately their success, I therefore analyse transnational entanglements in particular in terms of their quality. As regards the history of the discipline, it is more interesting to explore the interests and claims attached to transnational practices and formats, and to ask what transnationality actually meant in different contexts, and which regions it included and excluded. In comparison with other transnational entanglements, my dissertation aims to paint a more multifaceted picture of early folklore research that shows transnationality did not primarily stand in opposition to Romantic nationalist influences, but was instead a (productive) co-contributor.


Featured Image/Fig 2: The opening of the International Folk-Lore Congress at Burlington House yesterday: Mr. Andrew Lang delivering his presidential address. The Daily Graphic, 2 Oct. 1891, p. 5. From the British Library Collection: MFM.MLD22.

Translated by Marielle Sutherland and Jozef van der Voort at the GHIL

  1. ‘The Folk-Lore Society: Eighth Annual Report of the Council. 2nd June, 1886’, Folk-Lore Journal, 4/4 (1886), 369–74, at 369. []
  2. There are some exceptions to this tendency. See, for example, David Hopkin, ‘Folklore Beyond Nationalism: Identity Politics and Scientific Cultures in a New Discipline’, in Timothy Baycroft and David Hopkin (eds.), Folklore and Nationalism in Europe During the Long Nineteenth Century (Leiden, 2012), 371–401; Bernd Jürgen Warneken, ‘“Völkisch nicht beschränkte Volkskunde”: Eine Erinnerung an die Gründungsphase des Fachs vor 100 Jahren’, Zeitschrift für Volkskunde, 95/2 (1999), 169–96; the DFG project ‘“Traveling Theories”: Die Geschichte der Anthropologie in der Türkei (1850‒1950)’, led by Hande Birkalan-Gedik; publications on Jewish ethnography as a transnational discussion context, e.g. Dani Schrire, ‘Raphael Patai, Jewish Folklore, Comparative Folkloristics, and American Anthropology’, Journal of Folklore Research, 47/1–2 (2010), Special Double Issue: Ethnological Knowledges, edited by Michaela Fenske and Antonia Davidovic-Walther (January/August 2010), 7–43; and works on the significance of cross-border Austrian ethnography during the Habsburg Monarchy, e.g. Reinhard Johler, ‘Die Karten der Ethnographen: Volkskunden, ethnographische Karten, volkskundliche Atlanten (1850‒1980)’, in Reinhard Johler und Josef Wolf (eds.), Beschreiben und Vermessen: Raumwissen in der östlichen Habsburgermonarchie im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert (Berlin, 2020), 583‒625. []
  3. See Sebastian Conrad and Shalini Randeria, ‘Einleitung: Geteilte Geschichten—Europa in einer postkolonialen Welt’, in Sebastian Conrad, Shalini Randeria, and Regina Römhild (eds.), Jenseits des Eurozentrismus: Postkoloniale Perspektiven in den Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften, 2nd expanded edn. (Frankfurt am Main, 2013), 32–70; Michael Werner and Bénédicte Zimmermann, ‘Vergleich, Transfer, Verflechtung: Der Ansatz der Histoire croisée und die Herausforderung des Transnationalen’, Geschichte und Gesellschaft, 28/4 (2002), 607–36. []
  4. It should be noted that the London congress was unique in that, unlike the other international congresses (Paris 1889, Chicago 1893, Paris 1900), it did not take place in parallel with a world’s fair. []
  5. The congress was not only reported on in trade journals, but also in The Academy, The Daily Graphic, The Daily News, The Daily Telegraph, The Speaker, and The Times, for example. []
  6. Joseph Jacobs and Alfred Nutt (eds.), The International Folk-Lore Congress 1891: Papers and Transactions (London, 1892). []

OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Frauke Ahrens (February 19, 2025). Facets of Transnationalism in the Late Nineteenth Century: New Perspectives on the History of Folklore Studies. German Historical Institute London Blog. Retrieved March 25, 2025 from https://doi.org/10.58079/13caw


Published by

Frauke Ahrens

Frauke Ahrens is a research associate and doctoral candidate at the Institute for European Ethnology and Cultural Analysis at LMU Munich. She has been working there since 2020 on the European Research Council project ‘Dissecting Society: Nineteenth-Century Sociographic Journalism and the Formation of Ethnographic and Sociological Knowledge’, and since 2022 on the German Research Foundation project ‘Actors—Narratives—Strategies: Constellations of Transnational Folklore Research, 1875–1905’.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.