Traditonal vs. Historical

[Domehead]

ADempsey10,
Very interesting. From an English Literature standpoint, I approach your distinctions lexicologically. If I understand your Bonnie Prince example, something may be historic relative to a larger Highland Fashion cannon, yet its tradition rests with the Highland Culture which perpetuates its use. Therefore, neither term (be it denotative or connotative) are diametrically opposed.

This teeters on the edge of a subordinate terminological relationship. Does one have to establish something's historicalness before it can become traditional? This begs the question: From whence does something become "historic"?

Disclaimer: In the following example I am in no way passing judgment on any Clan tartan:
I am closely acquainted with staunch Barclay's. The Barclay tartan 1st appeared in the Vestiarium Scoticum. However, through "wont and use" - a phenomenon most (if not all) tartanry scholars observe and respect - this tartan and its dress compatriot (1906) are now the Clan Barclay tartans. Given what we know of their dubious origins, are these tartans historic and traditional? Or, are they just traditional through "wont & use"?

This question could be laid upon many examples

[Nathan]

Anthropologically speaking, traditional does not imply that it is still being done. The traditional formal attire for ancient Romans was the toga. That does not mean modern Romans still do this. 'Traditional' is more of a cultural theme. It implies that this theme is duplicated and maintained over time. 'Historical' and 'traditional' are not necessarily opposing, nor does something become historical when it falls out of tradition or everyday use. The Prince Charlie look, which is considered traditional and still in use would also be considered historical, in the sense that it was also the prevailing kilted attire 100 years ago. It is both modern and historical because the attire has remained relatively unchanged due to tradition. From a purely anthropological standpoint. It seems there are different classifications being presented here that are more related to fashionable trends. As in, something becomes historical when it falls out of popular use. It is modern if it is still in use. etc.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it is applying technical anthropological jargon to the conversation that creates rather than reduces ambiguity. I think we are in the ongoing process of defining these terms for our use here at xmarks, not for the broader field of anthropological enquiries. We have three sub-forums here, Traditional, Contemporary and Historical. If we consult a common dictionary we see that tradition is:

"The passing down of elements of a culture from generation to generation, especially by oral communication."

Once that chain is broken for a generation or two, there is a strong argument that it ceases to be "traditional" in the here and now since the tradition is no longer upheld by the culture.

Hence, the traditional formal attire of the Romans was a Toga however the traditional formal attire of Romans today is a tuxedo.

Therefore, while I find the academic definitions interesting, I find Matt's definitions of the three terms to be far more useful to shedding light on the OP's question and for the purposes of this forum in general.

[Sir Didymous]

Though Matt's definitions are more useful for the sake of general discussion, the anthropological and lexicological definitions were where I was becoming more confused. As a living historian I have come across many styles of kilt wear that are similar to what is being worn today. I have for example received compliments on my favorite brown wool waist coat that is seen in most of the pictures of me on here. That waist coat was replicated as part of an old 1803 American kit that I wore in the 2003 Ohio bicentennial celebrations. My day sporran is actually a belt pouch that I use when at long medieval and renaissance reenactments, and my current dress shoes are a pair of 1790's buckled shoes (given modern buckles) for an appropriate kit that I abandoned as the push to go military as opposed to civilian was getting on my nerves. However, each of these pieces have been melded in with little to no modification.

[adempsey10]

ADempsey10,
Very interesting. From an English Literature standpoint, I approach your distinctions lexicologically. If I understand your Bonnie Prince example, something may be historic relative to a larger Highland Fashion cannon, yet its tradition rests with the Highland Culture which perpetuates its use. Therefore, neither term (be it denotative or connotative) are diametrically opposed.

This teeters on the edge of a subordinate terminological relationship. Does one have to establish something's historicalness before it can become traditional? This begs the question: From whence does something become "historic"?

Disclaimer: In the following example I am in no way passing judgment on any Clan tartan:
I am closely acquainted with staunch Barclay's. The Barclay tartan 1st appeared in the Vestiarium Scoticum. However, through "wont and use" - a phenomenon most (if not all) tartanry scholars observe and respect - this tartan and its dress compatriot (1906) are now the Clan Barclay tartans. Given what we know of their dubious origins, are these tartans historic and traditional? Or, are they just traditional through "wont & use"?

This question could be laid upon many examples

Well I think in your example shows how viewing it from an anthropological or lexicographical view can help the OP. One might say the tartan of clan barclay is not the historical tartan of that clan. It has rather become the traditional tartan of the clan. In some cases, some things can be both historical and traditional. In a similar way, we can say that historically, North America was known as the "New World". North America could be considered the traditional name, since it has been perpetuated and woven into the commonplace nomenclature of North American culture. The term "North America/an" has become culturally significant, therefore a part of the tradition of North America.

So, in the grand scheme of history, the great kilt, or whatever you want to call the original kilt that highlanders wore, is historical but not traditional, since it is does not persist into tradition but has rather mutated into the formal Prince Charlie outfit. This outfit has then become the traditional formal attire of the highland culture because of its perpetuity and cultural recognizability.

However, as many have pointed out, people in Scotland rarely wear kilts on a regular basis, therefore in the spectrum of day-to-day wear, the kilt could be considered historical, not traditional. As Nathan has pointed out, when something ceases to be perpuated, it has fallen out of the tradition. Not clearly defining what tradition you are referring to is part of the problem. But it is also an issue to define what constitutes the tradition too specifically. It's not a simple as saying, "traditoinal attire consists of a wool kilt, worn at a certain length etc". Does this mean a rayon kilt is not traditional? It is still a kilt, is it not? And the kilt in itself, when worn as part of a certain overall attire (or perhaps on its own, depending how you look at it), is considered a traditional garment, is it not?

[Phil]

Could I just add to this erudite discussion the fact that "what goes around, comes around". Fashion, whether it is mini skirts or highland dress is cyclical and the hot pants of my younger days are once again in fashion. Practicality has a lot to do with it and great kilts are not perhaps the most suitable attire nowadays. Someone earlier mentioned jabot and these too are something seen less nowadays since the days of Kenneth McKellar et al. But perhaps we should not forget that highland dress is a bit of an opportunity for men to dress up which is normally the prerogative of the ladies and an excuse to add some extra finery. After all what is the point in donning an ubiquitous grey suit like the rest of the crowd?

[Domehead]

Good points, all.
This is where the practicality of Matt's connotative definitions show their serviceability.

Particularly here on XMTS, we share schema. When one types"contemporary kilt" into the viewer, 90% of the rabble's schema serviceably fits the definition Matt sets forth. The same holds for "traditional" & "historic". As well, he includes recognizable variables which individualize schema without re-classifying it - eluded to by Sir Didymous and ADempsey10. I.E. When I read "contemporary kilt" I immediately envision canvas, solid color, pockets, perhaps steam-punk. Someone else may think leather, two-tone, hidden pockets, tastefully adorned. Although our individual schema persists, the classification remains: something other than..., just as Matt stated.

However, Matt's definitions are not negatives. The definition of a term (connotatively or denotatively) is rarely serviceable if it is defined by what it is not. The Supreme Court attempted that with pornography. Matt's definitions have clearly defined boundaries, re-enforcing schema.

The fact that Matt's definitions are connotative and NOT denotative allows them progression within the very culture they serve, a culture embracing its history or perpetuating its traditions. Hence, the Dictionary also progressive.

I think this is what Nathan was commenting on.

[adempsey10]

Good points, all.
This is where the practicality of Matt's connotative definitions show their serviceability.

Particularly here on XMTS, we share schema. When one types"contemporary kilt" into the viewer, 90% of the rabble's schema serviceably fits the definition Matt sets forth. The same holds for "traditional" & "historic". As well, he includes recognizable variables which individualize schema without re-classifying it - eluded to by Sir Didymous and ADempsey10. I.E. When I read "contemporary kilt" I immediately envision canvas, solid color, pockets, perhaps steam-punk. Someone else may think leather, two-tone, hidden pockets, tastefully adorned. Although our individual schema persists, the classification remains: something other than..., just as Matt stated.

However, Matt's definitions are not negatives. The definition of a term (connotatively or denotatively) is rarely serviceable if it is defined by what it is not. The Supreme Court attempted that with pornography. Matt's definitions have clearly defined boundaries, re-enforcing schema.

The fact that Matt's definitions are connotative and NOT denotative allows them progression within the very culture they serve, a culture embracing its history or perpetuating its traditions. Hence, the Dictionary also progressive.

I think this is what Nathan was commenting on.

Well said. I think it's tricky to classify the kilt because as, mentioned above by Phil, the kilt also falls under the class of garment that is governed by fashion. 'Tradition' is not typically vulnerable to trends and fashions. We run into trouble when we try to pull the two together. I, for example, wear the kilt as a piece of functional clothing, as part of my fashion or style, whereas others wear it as part of the tradition in the traditional way. And some, further still, wear it as both. My 'wearing' of the kilt cannot be defined by schema (nice word btw) of tradition nor can the traditional kilt approach be defined by the schema of fashion or trend.

[BBNC]

I generally agree with Matt's definitions, and I'm glad I live in a society where one can go out in public while wearing a regular short-sleeved shirt, polo shirt, or even a tee shirt, rather than feeling a need to don a coat and tie as day wear. I'm old enough to remember when tee shirts were a no-no away from the house. The Roman reference of Toga to tux, leads me to add: tux to what??? I do believe "tradition" is loosening up, although I follow along when the occasion demands.

[OC Richard]

traditional does not imply that it is still being done. The traditional formal attire for ancient Romans was the toga. That does not mean modern Romans still do this.

This example does not fly in the face of what I was saying but rather makes my point. For the ancient Roman of your example the toga was the current fashion and thus his traditional dress. For your modern Roman the toga is not traditional dress, because European clothing has continued to evolve, and for a modern Roman to wear a toga would be for him to wear a historical costume.

[AJBryant]

Could I just add to this erudite discussion the fact that "what goes around, comes around". Fashion, whether it is mini skirts or highland dress is cyclical and the hot pants of my younger days are once again in fashion.

While this may be true, I am hoping -- praying, really -- that the leisure suit remains dead.

Can we all agree on that one? ;)