{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025721784776902887, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010761154855643044, 'mean_word_length': 5.288778877887789, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Critical heritage work: public folklore in the United States

In 2012, at the first International Conference of the Association of Critical Heritage Studies (ACHS) held at Gothenburg University, I presented a paper on the work with which Clifford Murphy and I were involved at Maryland Traditions, the public folklife programme of the state of Maryland. The paper gave an overview of the public folklore paradigm that is distinctive to the United States and through which Maryland Traditions – the oldest state folklife programme in the nation – grew. In addition, it outlined the programme’s main aims and gave an example of a local-level, collaborative ‘heritage intervention’ that we helped to facilitate, as examined in this issue. After the presentation, several attendees expressed surprise at the fact that the United States cares about intangible cultural heritage (hereafter ICH), as well as noting that it was refreshing to hear from professionals, and not only scholars, on the ‘frontlines’ of ICH-related efforts. From this, I realised that there needs to be a stronger bridge built between public folklore – a longstanding framework of theories and intimately associated field practices – and the international heritage discourse, especially the bourgeoning and increasingly widespread area of ICH. It is safe to say that the ICH discourse and necessary discussions and debates concerning its safeguarding throughout the world are a direct result of the 2003 Convention on the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO); the ‘ICH’ concept has been given its life, as well as shape, through it (UNESCO 2003; Article 2). Thus, due to the fact that the United States has yet to become a States Party to the 2003 Convention, it is understandable to think that this particular discourse is lacking in the United States context. This is true to an extent. On one hand, it ought to be highlighted that in recent decades, US-based scholars and professionals have been deeply involved with the development of global instruments seeking to raise awareness of ‘ICH’ and its precursor concept, ‘traditional culture and folkore’, such as with respect to the initiatives of the Centre for Folklife and Cultural Heritage (CFCH) of the Smithsonian Institution, well before – and during – the drafting of the 2003 Convention (see Seitel 2001). Moreover, US-based scholars, professionals and students continue to participate in ICH conferences and meetings, contributing to discussions and the growing scholarship. On the other hand, however, it is also true that another system – public folklore – has already been in place, gaining significant footing in the late 1960s when awareness of the importance of vernacular cultural practices and expressions was raised at the national level. Most notably, a nationwide infrastructure of state-level folklife programmes was established during the mid-1970s as a result of funding from the newly formed Folk and Traditional Arts Programme of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Specifically, state arts agencies were financially supported to hire folklorists who could help to expand access to grants and other programmes, which often focused on Western/fine arts interests, to historically underrepresented cultural and traditional arts communities (see Feintuch 1988). For instance, the Maryland Folklife Programme, as it was originally called, began in 1974 as a pilot partnership between the Maryland State Arts Council and the NEA with one folklorist responsible for researching and documenting living cultural traditions throughout the state (see Stefano and Murphy, this issue). In addition to state folklife programmes in arts agencies, numerous others operate in other