How old is a tradition?

[Alan H]

If I were to show up at work in US Revolutionary War garb; say stuff from around 1775-1780...breeches, leggings, a three-cornered hat and so on, people would want to know why I was wearing an OLD costume. Push that up to 1800 and styles changed, but still and all, people would notice that I was wearing "old" clothing.

I mean, if you wear clothes from the 1860's , say a US Civil War type of costume, well...that's "Old". Heck, if you wear clothes that were popular just 80 years ago, say during the 1920's people would want to know why you're wearing that costume...those old, old clothes in that traditional style.

So........ Since the associations of clans and tartans came to pass say, between 1790 and 1820, isn't that "old enough" to be considered "old" and therefore "traditional?" Is roughly 200 years long enough to create a "tradition", or does it have to be 400 or 600 years? How many years does it take to "validate" a tradition?

I guess I'm trying to say that while I bristle as much as anyone else at someone who says "you can't do/wear/think/drink/eat that because that's my TRADITION and tradition decrees that it must be so-and-so" it seems to me that 200 years, which is about nine to twelve generations, is plenty of time to establish a "tradition". I hesitate to tell someone who claims that tartan/clan is a tradition, that it isn't, because it's only 200 years old. That doesn't make sense to me.

Now, using "tradition" as a hammer to enforce your own views....I don't hold with that so kindly at'tall, but to deny that the tradition exists or to belittle it because it's "only" 200 years old...nope. Alan H no can do that.

BTW, this post is aimed at nobody in particular, eh? It's just a general thought and observation.

[MACKAY]

Webster's says a 'tradition' starts once it is passed from one generation to another. Webster further defines a 'generation' as the average time between the birth of parents and the birth of their offspring.

So all in all, I would say you could be safe in saying that to be traditional it must have been in existence for approximately 20 years on average, and passed on from parent to child. Works for me ;-)

Brian Mackay

[KMacT]

I think traditions can develop very quickly - I don't see a reason to have a specific numbers of years. We have "traditions" in my household and we've only been together for about a dozen years, although I do like the idea that a tradition is somehow validated by being passed on the a younger generation (and by this I mean it has passed the test of a new generation).

So sure, the style of the popular knife-pleated kilt seen today is a traditional style. I have no problem with that. But so is the older four-yard box-pleated style that Matt Newsome is championing. And so is the "wear whatever tartan happens to suit your fancy" style.

I accept that these latter two traditions have fallen out of general observance, but is something less traditional because it is less observed? I don't think so, and especially not for those few that do continue to observe it.

The problem develops, I believe, when one starts to say that any particular tradition is *the* tradition. As I have said, traditions only develop when they replace previous traditions, so no traditions are pure. Let's not forget that at some point in the now forgotten past someone gathered up some cloth and wore it kilt-like, and everyone else probably looked at him and said "what he's doing?" and condemned him as some sort of rebel.

Kevin

[Nick]

One problem, I suspect, is that some try to portray a tradition as "that's how it is and that's how it always has been." Which, in every case, it hasn't *always* been. But yes, 200 years is certainly enough to create a tradition, but besides not being the Original Way it Was Done(tm), traditions also aren't as ironclad as some people wish they were. They had to come from somewhere.

Or, as someone on another board I frequent put it: "These great old traditions have to start somewhere. Why not here?"

[hpdpipemajor]

I found a very "clinical" sounding definition from The American Heritage Dictionary that reads (not necessarily reflecting my own views):

a. A mode of thought or behaviour followed by a people continuously from generation to generation; a cultural custom or usage. b. A set of such customs and usages viewed as a coherent body of precedents influencing the present.

So, according to this definition, three necessary conditions must be satisfied: a. that this mode of thought or behaviour, i.e., this cultural custom or usage (cultural practice), is passed generation to generation (I am assuming that this could be both intrafamilial as well as extrafamilial), b. that it is done so continuously, and c. and that it be "authoritative" in the sense that it is perceived as a relevant precedent or set of precedents guiding the thoughts or behaviours of subsequent generations.

Again, not necessarily my own views, that appears to be The American Heritage Dictionary's definition of tradition. Largely, I see the concept of "tradition" to be little more than a social construct, a useful device for the psychosocial understanding of the various cultural customs that arise among ethnic groups, for whatever reasons. I believe there is very little real or legitimate "authority" in any tradition per se, only what weight those who adhere to the tradition in question give to it in determining their thoughts and behaviours. I did NOT come from a long line of pipers, though it would be pretty romantic in a Bravehearty way if I did, but I DO however carry on the various traditions of my teachers in instructing my pupils and in leading my band. For that reason, I believe adherence to tradition, even for myself, to be largely subjective and a matter of personal choice. BUT, this is only one kiltwearer's opinion. ;)

Thanks for the grey matter exercise!!! Cheers mates! -- Ryan

[M. A. C. Newsome]

Traditionally, we take the family over to my parents' house for Sunday lunch together after Mass. It's our family tradition.

Traditionally, the people of the Scottish Highlands spoke Gaelic, but now the great majority of them speak English.

Tradition has is that Christopher Columbus was the first European to discover the North American continant, but modern historians now know that to be false.

See how many ways you can use the word "tradition" and have them all be correct?

Yes, the notion that certain tartans belong to certain clans and only members of that clan may wear that tartan is "traditional" in that it has been around for about 200 years. But part of the tradition of "clan tartans" is the myth that these tartans have been around from early antiquity, and history simply proves that to be false.

So we have to make sure we honor traditions while respecting the facts. I tell people the truth about how the notion of "clan tartans" developed, and the different styles that the kilt has undergone in the past 400 years. Then I remind them that today tartans are symbolic and, though there are no rules, most people choose to wear a tartan with personal meaning to them.

The kilt is part of a living tradition. That means that it's not an historical artifact frozen at some point in time. It's a garment that has a history but at the same time is contemporary. The tradition is still evolving. And that is just as important to remember.

Aye,
Matt

[James]

I agree with the above, in that highland dress is a dynamic thing, and so questions regarding tradition can soon start going round in circles: compounded by such once very strong traditions such as the kilt never being worn south of the highland line by anyone with any pretense to being a gentleman*-apart from the military. Now it is seen as a common form of Scottish as opposed to highland dress.

* That would mean that I'm no gentleman!

However there is another problem, and that is of conventions-these are not of necessity written down-and might be restricted to a certain clan/region/organisation-gatherings even. Possibly this is a very British thing, where certain nuances of behaviour which are 'known' as opposed to being set out in any book-pronouncement etc, do influence ones standing and behaviour.

This can lead to immense differences of opinion: for when attending certain events kilted-I will often be observing unwritten rules that I know it is necessary to follow-rather than adhering to dressing in what might appear to be the accepted fashion according to the book-wider atitudes.

Thus if attending say a gathering I'd certainly wear a tweed jacket and tie together with appropriate headwear-there are other nuances-but enough is enough. For I'd be observing an unwritten convention as to how to dress for the occasion. Yet such a way of dressing would be entirely distanced from my casual day to day attire.

So today we do have an interesting situation: where one the one side there is the dynamic evolution of the kilt and matters pertaining to it. Then there are the recorded traditions and the various books saying how the kilt etc should be worn, coupled with the various edicts of pundits and authorities. Lastly come the trouble makers like myself, who have been brought up adhering to certain conventions as to how highland dress should be worn on this or that occasion-who from time to time find ourselves at odds with the other two approaches.

This leads to the suggestion that the real problems are not of tradition-convention-dynamism even: but how we can accomodate our various approaches in an amicable way so as to further the evolution and wearing of such a sensible garment.

James

[ChromeScholar]

It's not meant at all to mean that you can show up at the next Tartan Ball and Gala in your kilt with Teva sandals and a tie-dyed t-shirt!

Hey! I resemble that remark!

[Edward Teach]

Ow! My eyes! My eyes! It burns!

But hey, if you're comfortable...

[Archangel]

I would only critique the shirt for being tucked in. I would much prefer to see a white t-shirt underneath it and the Hawaiian shirt unbuttoned.

There is also the British common law that anything twice done becomes a tradition.

My own philosophy is pretty close to Lawson's, "Great Scotch, no rules". Take a deep breath and realize that every kilt "rule", let alone every fashion "rule", is fraud. Not one can be substantiated. So, as you dress, think of who you might offend. If you don't want to offend them, dress accordingly. If it doesn't matter, dress as you like.

So, on our anniversary this past summer, I wore my kilt with sandals and a t-shirt to walk on the beach and lunch at a cliff side pub. Later, I changed into socks and shoes, and dress shirt for a more formal fancy supper. Still later, I was about to change to another black tshirt and boots to hang out with my daughter downtown. I decided to call it a night and didn't go. The point is that I kept the same kilt and sporran on all day and changed other items to what seemed appropriate at the time. I probably broke tons of fashion rules. Do I care? No, my fashion conscience is clean.

I appeal to an earlier tradition.

(Before anybody takes exception to my statement about substantiating, understand that even if you could find a legitimate originator of a fashion tradition, my statement means what does it matter, really?)

Fortunately, my clan/heritage has a strong tradition: Despite Them!