Tradition vs. Orthodoxy

[Chirs]

My summer reading this year is Sara L. McClintock's Omniscience and the Rhetoric of Reason (yes, I've been told, nice light summer fare). On page 94 there is a reference to some work by Mohanty (1992: 11) where he describes his take on the relationship between tradition and orthodoxy and, as I read it, I was reminded immediately of some of the discussions we have had on this forum. For your consideration:

"Orthodoxy consists in fossilizing tradition into a lifeless, unchanging structure. Tradition, as distinguished from orthodoxy, is a living process of creation and preservation of significations. When a tradition is alive, it continues to grow, to create, and to respond to new situations and challenges. When it is no longer alive, it requires an orthodoxy to preserve its purity against possible distortions and desanctifications. A living tradition is ambiguous in the sense that it allows for growth and development in many different ways. It is false to oppose tradition to freedom from rational criticism, for rational criticism, takes place, not within a vacuum but from within a tradition."

As I read this it occurred that this is exactly what we are doing with our discussions and criticisms, and may well be the battle we are fighting in a wider sense of things. Many people here wear their kilts in ways that may not be entirely "traditional" but it is this which maintains the kilt as a tradition, rather than an orthodoxy which allows no room for divergence from established norms. The greatness of this idea of tradition is that it leaves room for (actually, I think it demands the presence of) people who would wear their kilts in a traditional manner. As was said: "...rational criticism takes place not within a vacuum but from within a tradition."

[Riverkilt]

Well said.

I despise "dogma" aka orthodoxy....tradition is fine...but exploring the edge of the envelope and beyond is much more fun!

[Cowher]

That's very nicely worded. And I think your correct. Many here feel certain ways about traditional and what it means to how they wear a kilt. But to accept tradition as dead has to make your family traditions dead and all other traditions in your personal world a unchanging, dead, thing. I think that would be horrible. Part of my family is German they came to America making traditional German food and we had traditional family recipes. It has been less than 100 years since that part of my family came to the USA. We still make those dishes. We recently opened a safe from my great grandmothers house who died a few years back and found the family recipe book from Germany. The things we make now are made differently then what the family tradition started out as. We made the original recipe and had a family diner. It wasnt the food my family all think of as the Cowher food. Our family recipes had things added some things taken away but the change was good and it was traditional.

[Lyle1]

And I think your Our family recipes had things added some things taken away but the change was good and it was traditional to us.

And the recipes will continue to change as different people (younger generation, new spouses, etc) take over the preparation. Some of the cooks might even restore ingredients that were in the original recipes.

I think that the important part of the concept of tradition is the emotional attachment to a concept that continues to be part of your life in some way that works for you.

[Chirs]

Cowher,

If we were to accept the definition of "traditional" as laid out above, your caveat becomes unnecessary: "and it was traditional to us." If the food you were making today was the same as the recipe book you found (which, by the way, is SO cool!! What a find!) then it would fall under the definition of orthodox: unchanging. It is because it is different that it is traditional. "Tradition, as distinguished from orthodoxy, is a living process of creation and preservation of significations. When a tradition is alive, it continues to grow, to create, and to respond to new situations and challenges." So, while we keep what is significant we change the ways in which we manifest the tradition in accordance with the circumstances of the time and place.

Good on you! Your traditional is food is traditional. You can write your last sentence as "Our family recipes had things added some things taken away but the change was good and it was traditional." Period

[OC Richard]

Tradition, as distinguished from orthodoxy, is a living process of creation and preservation of significations. When a tradition is alive, it continues to grow, to create, and to respond to new situations and challenges.

That is precisely what I've tried to get across on several of my posts here.

Many people confuse the concept of "traditional" with the concept of "historical" but the two are utterly different.

"Traditional" merely means handed down through the generations (usually through oral transmission) and still ongoing as a living thing. One something stops living and changing it is no longer "traditional" but "historical". Likewise one can go back in time and select one segment out of the traditional continuum (say, "Highland Dress 1900-1925") and that segment is not traditional, but historical: a matter of looking at evidence and attempting to understand, describe, and perhaps recreate a thing no longer living.

The "tradition" is not any of the segments but the whole: the unbroken continuously evolving continuum stretching from the living tradition of today back to its unknowable origins "in the mists of time".

It does NOT mean fixed: indeed improvisation itself can be a traditional aspect, such as in traditional New Orleans jazz, or North Indian classical music.

Highland Dress is like those musics in a way, in that tremendous variety and a degree of personal expression have always been part of the tradition.

[CMcG]

<snip>
It doesn NOT mean fixed: indeed improvisation itself can be a traditional aspect, such as in traditional New Orleans jazz, or North Indian classical music.

Highland Dress is like those musics in a way, in that tremendous variety and a degree of personal expression have always been part of the tradition.

As a musician, I definitely appreciate the Jazz and Hindustani references.

To continue with a musical analogy, one needs to learn the rules before they can play with them. For the student of a tradition, training in a style can appear to be inculcation of orthodoxy. Only once they have acquired a sufficient level of knowledge and ability will they be able to make it up as they go.

The great 20th century composer, Igor Stravinsky, wrote a book called the Poetics of Music. I was quite struck by his insistence that true creativity comes from working within the means of a tradition. His revolutionary score for the ballet The Rite of Spring caused riots at the premiere in Paris. Now that piece is studied in universities and conservatories as an example of pushing boundaries and yet somehow remaining traditional...

[Bugbear]

That is precisely what I've tried to get across on several of my posts here.

Many people confuse the concept of "traditional" with the concept of "historical" but the two are utterly different.

"Traditional" merely means handed down through the generations (usually through oral transmission) and still ongoing as a living thing. One something stops living and changing it is no longer "traditional" but "historical". Likewise one can go back in time and select one segment out of the traditional continuum (say, "Highland Dress 1900-1925") and that segment is not traditional, but historical: a matter of looking at evidence and attempting to understand, describe, and perhaps recreate a thing no longer living.

The "tradition" is not any of the segments but the whole: the unbroken continuously evolving continuum stretching from the living tradition of today back to its unknowable origins "in the mists of time".

It doesn NOT mean fixed: indeed improvisation itself can be a traditional aspect, such as in traditional New Orleans jazz, or North Indian classical music.

Highland Dress is like those musics in a way, in that tremendous variety and a degree of personal expression have always been part of the tradition.

I really don't want to get entangled in the discussion, but a couple of things in the post have a "wrong feel" to them, for me.

"(usually through oral transmission)"
I think this goes a little too far. There are written and visual transmissions, perhaps even unconscious transmission of traditions.

"The 'tradition' is not any of the segments but the whole: the unbroken continuously evolving continuum stretching from the living tradition of today back to its unknowable origins 'in the mists of time'."

Again, I think this goes a little too far. The origins of many, many traditions can be traced back to a few hundred years or less, and the kilt happens to be an example of this. Also, it was an overcoat-like garment, and became a lower garment. That is not an unbroken whole; it is in segments.

* Perhaps by "segment," you were referring to segments of time. Pieces of culture passed through writing or pictorially, and at this point voice recording, might be considered traditions... and could skip across time and generations. Just a thought.

[DWFII]

My summer reading this year is Sara L. McClintock's Omniscience and the Rhetoric of Reason (yes, I've been told, nice light summer fare). On page 94 there is a reference to some work by Mohanty (1992: 11) where he describes his take on the relationship between tradition and orthodoxy and, as I read it, I was reminded immediately of some of the discussions we have had on this forum. For your consideration:

<snip>

The greatness of this idea of tradition is that it leaves room for (actually, I think it demands the presence of) people who would wear their kilts in a traditional manner. As was said: "...rational criticism takes place not within a vacuum but from within a tradition."

I don't see the disparity between what you quoted and what is being said by most people who have a respect for tradition.

What I see is an incomplete understanding of what others are saying. Whether it be simply because the right words have never been said to clarify it or because, for some, the right words can never be said.

Tradition and traditions do change but as OC Richard and the Oxford English Dictionary have pointed out it has to be passed down from generation to generation to be a tradition.

Even in the most singular sense...that of one person or one family....that means that just because you decide to use superfine sugar in a recipe one year and invert sugar (Lyle's Syrup) the next, doesn't make it a tradition or even mean that the Tradition is changing.

The most significant part of the concept of Tradition is the "passing from generation to generation." In the absence of that critical understanding all attempts to describe, define or wax philosophical about it fall short of the mark.

Without that passing on...and the acceptance and respect of the generation it is being passed to...it is just fad, a whimsey, and for all anyone knows as ephemeral as a mayfly.

Traditions cannot be established...or changed...overnight, nor in a year, nor yet by one person deciding or defining a sudden fancy or caprice as Tradition.

Of course, in the present context--kilts--the idea of fad or whimsey becomes especially relevant. We can see many, many examples of men's and women's fashions...such as bustles...that were all the rage, and seemingly immutable, in their time, but which never passed on to the next generation.

Except perhaps as a joke.

PS...I think...correct me if I'm wrong...that you misstated your own thesis (the bolded text) .

[Mark Stephenson]

Indeed, the military has many traditions. Yet the ceremonies and "traditions experienced my my GG Grandfather would not have been the same as those experienced my my Grandfathers during WWI, by my Father during WWII, or by me during Vietnam and the 1st Gulf War. I suspect the traditions I experienced have also evolved. I am a great fan of tradition, but am thankful its elements are alive and evolve.