I would like to submit a proposal to the membership

[CMcG]

I like having three categories. I'd suggest this tweak:

Traditional Kilt Wear: This section is for discussing approaches to wearing the kilt which emulate the way the kilt has been traditionally worn in the Highlands of Scotland. Everything from casual to formal in a kilt, if worn in a traditional way, goes here.

I propose a counter-tweak by borrowing some of your syntactic improvements, but avoiding repetition of the word(s) tradition/traditional. I've also retained the word contemporary in order to differentiate this category from the Historical one. For convenience I'm re-posting with the other (unedited) section headings from my post #107.

Historical Kilt Wear: This section is for discussing approaches to wearing the kilt from a bygone era—whether accurate, theatrical, or anachronistic. Everything from great kilts to uniforms goes here.

Traditional Kilt Wear: This section is for discussing approaches to wearing the kilt as Highland attire that have been passed down from generation to generation and remain in contemporary use. Everything from casual to formal in a kilt, if worn in time-honoured ways, goes here.

Modern Kilt Wear: This section is for discussing approaches to wearing kilts as everyday clothing, street wear, or fashion that privilege personal interpretation. Everything from utility kilts to tartan kilts worn in new ways goes here.

[Steve Ashton]

I would like to thank Steve Mitchell for this well worded post.

It says very nicely what I have been trying to get across.

I can see some of where people might have difficulties.

I've found the traditionalist on this forum to be courteous and polite and decent. While I don't consider myself a traditionalist, I enjoy reading and learning the details of THCD and I think it looks very sharp.

But, I can see where non-traditionalist kilt wearers might perceive a bit of elitism where none is intended.

"Traditional" is a weighty word, regardless of the nuts and bolts definition.

Traditional carries with it history and culture and implications of what is right and what is wrong. To follow tradition requires making value judgements. Without intending too, the traditional members can come across as gate keepers.

If I understand Steve correctly, he's looking for a way to allow traditionalists to discuss traditional Highland attire while divorcing the discussion from cultural identity and the implications (unintended as they may be) of rightness vs. wrongness.

Having said that, I also appreciate it's mostly an emotional argument of semantics.

The non-traditionalists are on the same continuum as the traditionalists. The line is just moved.

If a new member were to post a photo of himself with the pleats in front and ask, "How do I look?" there's not many members who would encourage him to continue wearing it so.

If he persisted with "I know, but I like to wear it this way," there's not many members who wouldn't feel or say, "Okay. Do what you want but understand people will think you're doing it wrong."

I honestly cannot stand behind a definition that is circular. ie What is Art - as "Art is what artists produce" - What is an artist? - "One who produces Art."
I also cannot stand behind a definition that cannot be described any better than, "as Highland attire that have been passed down from generation to generation and remain in contemporary use. Everything from casual to formal in a kilt, if worn in time-honoured ways".

We don't seem to have a problem defining what Historical means. We can describe Modern pretty well. We can give written examples of each of these and almost every time someone suggests a re-wording of our current 3 sections they do this.

No one has yet presented a definition of traditional that uses the same criteria for all three sections.

I would welcome any definition that uses the same criteria for all three sections.
Until then this issue will remain unresolved.

[davidlpope]

Traditional Kilt Wear: This section is for discussing approaches to wearing the kilt as the folk dress of the Highlands of Scotland. Tartan and tweed kilts worn in Highland style go here.

[Steve Ashton]

But can you delineate or give written examples of "folk dress of the Highlands of Scotland" or "in Highland style"?

We have had many threads that give pretty good evidence that the kilt is worn very rarely or seldom in the Highlands.
We have historical evidence that much of what is taken as kilt wear did not originate and/or was not worn in the Highlands of Scotland.
The rest is, as has been pointed out often, a romantic idea of the Victorian and Edwardian periods.
Or examples from catalogs for the wealty to wear at fancy balls.

Hardly 'folk dress".

And here is where some of our members could arrive at the conclusion that what has been presented as traditional Kilt wear is something for an elite class.

Describing something in escoteric terms has also often led to misunderstanding. Something akin to a group with inside knowledge that they don't wish to share or feel others are not capable of understanding. This can sometimes be taken as excluding others from this special group.

I would hate for a Class system for the wealthy and privileged to be perceived by mistake.

[CMcG]

I'm feeling pretty good about my three proposed categories and descriptions for sub-forums (most recent edit is post #121). They follow a consistent format, they're concise, and they're serviceable. They are not, however, full definitions.

In a continuation of an earlier thread (Can we define THCD), Nathan and I have done our best to come up with a more comprehensive definition of THCD. And it ain't short. Please find the link below:

Traditional Highland Civilian Dress: A Definition and Guide with Visual Examples

[MacGumerait]

I propose a counter-tweak by borrowing some of your syntactic improvements, but avoiding repetition of the word(s) tradition/traditional. I've also retained the word contemporary in order to differentiate this category from the Historical one. For convenience I'm re-posting with the other (unedited) section headings from my post #107.

Historical Kilt Wear: This section is for discussing approaches to wearing the kilt from a bygone era—whether accurate, theatrical, or anachronistic. Everything from great kilts to uniforms goes here.

Traditional Kilt Wear: This section is for discussing approaches to wearing the kilt as Highland attire that have been passed down from generation to generation and remain in contemporary use. Everything from casual to formal in a kilt, if worn in time-honoured ways, goes here.

Modern Kilt Wear: This section is for discussing approaches to wearing kilts as everyday clothing, street wear, or fashion that privilege personal interpretation. Everything from utility kilts to tartan kilts worn in new ways goes here.

Kudos , I like this approach . It keeps the general categories simple and only three options with a good explanation of each option .

I think simplicity on the front end helps folks decide where to go ... after that ... they can discuss particulars .

I do understand that trying to offer many categories is intended to help reduce the misunderstandings and squabbles between traditionalists and modernists .... however ... I'm not sure that will do the trick .

I could be wrong , but I think many folks log onto Xmarks and click on " what's new " and respond to the " headline " of a thread without noticing what forum or sub-forum to which it was posted .

Thus , a large number of categories in a particular forum may somewhat help the person posting the thread , although , it may have minimal effect on those responding ( as they may not realize the sub-forum to which they are responding ) .

Perhaps this would be an option ... simplicity on the front end and civility on the back end . ( i.e. those responding )

[HarveyH]

Dear All

I've just worked my way through the entire thread - and a fascinating read it is.

I am an academic working in humanities and the thread has presented an extraordinary example of different methodological approaches to categorization. Creating definition and trying to delineate between sub-species has been a pre-occupation of some strands of scientific and quantitative study. But the problem with too narrow a subject definition is that you miss cross-fertilization, of both facts and ideas.

The rather broad categories that these posts have slowly been heading towards, may not suit that scientific approach, but may actually help the sort of general discourse a forum like this should be encouraging. Let us not sit in our particular narrow holes but let us learn from each other and grow in the process.

My own academic studies are in an area where understanding the development of tradition is a key concept (the study of worship). The specifics of my subject are outside the scope of the forum, but I think that there is something I could usefully share on the meaning of tradition. Tradition is not static - it is not a set of historic customs which do not change. Part of the difficulty is that there are voices who wish to argue for a particular point in history as the 'correct' tradition, so you get modern stuff diluting tradition, and you get older stuff looking fusty or historic and no longer being seen as traditional.

Tradition, in its best sense, is alive and changing. It is not some static standard against which change can be judged. Before the second world war the kilt in Scotland would, if seen much at all, have been worn as day wear with a tweed jacket, in what is now rather disparagingly described on X-Marks as a Saxon style. The short tweed kilt jacket is indeed a very modern thing. But now it would be considered very traditional.


Tradition is created culturally as well, so in Scotland the approach to the kilt is very different from those outside Scotland (as Jock keeps trying to explain). I have not found any particular sociological study of the scottish diaspora in North America, but, I suspect that, away from Scotland, the tartan kilt is being claimed as a sign of a distinct heritage, be that Scottish or Celtic generally. If that is the case there is likely to be a specific claiming of identity and, perhaps, a greater degree of seeking a 'right' or 'proper' way of doing things.


In Scotland, it is part of a native evolving tradition, and it is as much tradition to wear a cheap kilt with trainers and a rugby shirt when attending a Scotland match, as it is to wear the 'full fig' at a wedding (or to go barefoot fishing). The difference would be immediately understood as part of a broad culture. But in a modern society, which wants to be seen as a modern industrial and financial society, whilst accepting the Tartan and Kilt as heritage, it becomes very important that it is a modern thing also, hence Howie and 21st century. This is still traditional - it is just that the tradition is evolving.


The point I am making here is that you can't tie down the definitions too tightly because the definitions themselves are not static - if you seek to tie them down and prescribe them - you actually stultify them, and tradition quickly becomes historicism.


I think the thread has been fascinating, you can tell that I will support broader categories rather than narrower ones, but I hope that this little contribution helps some of the ongoing discussion.

[Nathan]

Tradition as a concept is at least as easy to define as modern or contemporary. Any dictionary will do an adequate job of getting across this idea.

Every definition I've seen of tradition involves transmitting practices from generation to generation with the understanding that it will also evolve with each generation.

Let's look at some quick online definitions to see if there is a tie that binds.

Wikipedia

A tradition is a belief or behavior passed down within a group or society with symbolic meaning or special significance with origins in the past.[1][2] Common examples include holidays or impractical but socially meaningful clothes (like lawyer wigs or military officer spurs), but the idea has also been applied to social norms such as greetings. Traditions can persist and evolve for thousands of years—the word "tradition" itself derives from the Latin tradere or traderer literally meaning to transmit, to hand over, to give for safekeeping.

Dictionary.com

the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation, especially by word of mouth or by practice:a story that has come down to us by popular tradition.
2.something that is handed down:
the traditions of the Eskimos.
3.a long-established or inherited way of thinking or acting:
The rebellious students wanted to break with tradition.
4. a continuing pattern of culture beliefs or practices.
5. a customary or characteristic method or manner:
The winner took a victory lap in the usual track tradition.

Mirriam-Webster.com

tra·di·tion noun \trə-ˈdi-shən\
: a way of thinking, behaving, or doing something that has been used by the people in a particular group, family, society, etc., for a long time: the stories, beliefs, etc., that have been part of the culture of a group of people for a long time

1a : an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom)
b : a belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable
2: the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction
3: cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions

So we see that tradition can be easily defined. Traditional is simply the adjective that means adhering to a tradition.

I don't think I need to go into the detailed definitions of the words "kilt" and "attire".

It seems to me, therefore, that Traditional Kilt Attire or Traditional Kilt Wear are indeed definable.

Xmarksthescot.com is a forum for kilt wearers to discuss the kilt. It is not a place to legislate the reasons people wear the kilt and approaches that people take to wearing the kilt, but a place to discuss those things and more.

Why do people wear kilts?

Some wear it because they are pipers - many pipers take up the pipes because they are Scottish or of Scottish ethinic origin.

Some wear the kilt because they compete in heavy events at Highland Games - many choose to participate in Highland athletics because they are Scottish or of Scottish ethnic origin.

Must one be Scottish to play pipes or toss cabers? Certainly not. It's just that they usually are because these are Scottish traditions.

Some people wear the kilt because they want to represent their heritage. A huge number of people who do this are expressing their Scottish or Highland heritage whether they live in Scotland or abroad. Some people use the kilt as a means of expressing other Celtic heritage.

Some people wear the kilt because they saw Scottish people doing so and realized how good they look.

Some people wear the kilt because they like the look of it and choose to.

Some people wear it to make a statement or for a variety of other reasons.

The vast majority of kilt wearers do so because of some perceived connection to Scotland or Scottish culture.

Do you have to be Scottish to wear the kilt? Absolutely not. But, if you are wearing a Scottish outfit, you are wearing a Scottish outfit.

With these facts in mind, it seems to be to be very wrong headed to attempt to completely divorce the garment from the culture to which it belongs. To claim that it does not belong to the culture is to commit the crime of cultural appropriation.

Is someone who wears a utility kilt, knee high boots, a hemp shirt and dreadlocks wearing a Scottish outfit? I don't think so. Is the fact that their outfit is not Scottish a bad thing? I don't think so. Should they dress like that if they wish? I think so.

Is traditional normative? Is it wrong to dress in ways that don't conform to the customs that have been transmitted from generation to generation?

That depends on your perspective. Traditions all claim that they are normative and that there is a right way to do things. Within every tradition in each generation there are conservative and progressive elements. The winner of their argument is decided by the generation that follows by what they choose to keep and what they choose to discard. To try to force traditionalists to abandon stewardship over their tradition is wrong.

That said, there is also nothing wrong on a forum like this with choosing not to dress in accordance with the received tradition. As was pointed out above, nobody on this forum is going to say that wearing the pleats in the front is just as good as wearing them to the back, so we are talking about degrees. I have read voices in this thread that say that they don't want to be called non-traditional but why should we twist everything around to accommodate wishful thinking? If something would be regarded as a nontraditional choice in the Highlands, it is what it is. If someone lives in New Mexico and isn't all that concerned with the hypothetical opinion of Highlanders in the Highlands, it is what it is. Make your call and do your thing with confidence. Your unconventional choice will still be nontraditional regardless of what xmarksthescot.com has to say about it.

So it is clear that the words tradition and traditional are as easy to define as the words modern and contemporary and that they are useful concepts when discussing the kilt which is itself a traditional garment.

What is and is not Traditional Highland Civilian Dress doesn't need to be defined in the sub-forum heading. It needs to be discussed in the sub-forum itself.

[Peter Crowe]

Dear All

I've just worked my way through the entire thread - and a fascinating read it is.

I am an academic working in humanities and the thread has presented an extraordinary example of different methodological approaches to categorization. Creating definition and trying to delineate between sub-species has been a pre-occupation of some strands of scientific and quantitative study. But the problem with too narrow a subject definition is that you miss cross-fertilization, of both facts and ideas.

The rather broad categories that these posts have slowly been heading towards, may not suit that scientific approach, but may actually help the sort of general discourse a forum like this should be encouraging. Let us not sit in our particular narrow holes but let us learn from each other and grow in the process.

My own academic studies are in an area where understanding the development of tradition is a key concept (the study of worship). The specifics of my subject are outside the scope of the forum, but I think that there is something I could usefully share on the meaning of tradition. Tradition is not static - it is not a set of historic customs which do not change. Part of the difficulty is that there are voices who wish to argue for a particular point in history as the 'correct' tradition, so you get modern stuff diluting tradition, and you get older stuff looking fusty or historic and no longer being seen as traditional.

Tradition, in its best sense, is alive and changing. It is not some static standard against which change can be judged. Before the second world war the kilt in Scotland would, if seen much at all, have been worn as day wear with a tweed jacket, in what is now rather disparagingly described on X-Marks as a Saxon style. The short tweed kilt jacket is indeed a very modern thing. But now it would be considered very traditional.


Tradition is created culturally as well, so in Scotland the approach to the kilt is very different from those outside Scotland (as Jock keeps trying to explain). I have not found any particular sociological study of the scottish diaspora in North America, but, I suspect that, away from Scotland, the tartan kilt is being claimed as a sign of a distinct heritage, be that Scottish or Celtic generally. If that is the case there is likely to be a specific claiming of identity and, perhaps, a greater degree of seeking a 'right' or 'proper' way of doing things.


In Scotland, it is part of a native evolving tradition, and it is as much tradition to wear a cheap kilt with trainers and a rugby shirt when attending a Scotland match, as it is to wear the 'full fig' at a wedding (or to go barefoot fishing). The difference would be immediately understood as part of a broad culture. But in a modern society, which wants to be seen as a modern industrial and financial society, whilst accepting the Tartan and Kilt as heritage, it becomes very important that it is a modern thing also, hence Howie and 21st century. This is still traditional - it is just that the tradition is evolving.


The point I am making here is that you can't tie down the definitions too tightly because the definitions themselves are not static - if you seek to tie them down and prescribe them - you actually stultify them, and tradition quickly becomes historicism.


I think the thread has been fascinating, you can tell that I will support broader categories rather than narrower ones, but I hope that this little contribution helps some of the ongoing discussion.

Thanks Harvey, I absolutely agree and appreciate your post which better explains my own beliefs around tradition. Obviously within a particular tradition there is discussion and even disagreement about where that dynamic is going in the present. Even in the academic study of history (related to but distinct from tradition), the past is contested.

In general each succeeding generation adapts the tradition handed down to it to suit contemporary life, hence a kilt being worn with a Barbour Jacket and Hunter wellies is traditional but would have been unknown in the 1930's. I also like what you state about cross-pollination and as a Scots expatriate in the United States I have become very aware that this happens in both directions (across the Atlantic) in a constant dialectical process in all aspects of culture and has done for a very long time. Not everything translates to the other exactly, and often has to be modified to fit in with the existing cultural norms of any given place in a process called acculturation. I see this in my own personal life and experience and more generally. It is nothing to be fearful of, and in fact very enriching.

You are right of course that tradition cannot be set in aspic because then it becomes anachronism which is a different animal entirely, and not something I for one have any interest in.

I have no problem with innovation in Highland dress as in any other facet of life, but still wish to express my identity vis-a-vis the Kilt within the broad parameters of traditional Highland civilian dress. Consequently that is the area of XMTS that I am most likely to discuss and contribute to, however, I am open to new ideas and experiences and learning from a wide variety of opinions and sources.

[Nathan]

Dear All

I've just worked my way through the entire thread - and a fascinating read it is.

I am an academic working in humanities and the thread has presented an extraordinary example of different methodological approaches to categorization. Creating definition and trying to delineate between sub-species has been a pre-occupation of some strands of scientific and quantitative study. But the problem with too narrow a subject definition is that you miss cross-fertilization, of both facts and ideas.

The rather broad categories that these posts have slowly been heading towards, may not suit that scientific approach, but may actually help the sort of general discourse a forum like this should be encouraging. Let us not sit in our particular narrow holes but let us learn from each other and grow in the process.

My own academic studies are in an area where understanding the development of tradition is a key concept (the study of worship). The specifics of my subject are outside the scope of the forum, but I think that there is something I could usefully share on the meaning of tradition. Tradition is not static - it is not a set of historic customs which do not change. Part of the difficulty is that there are voices who wish to argue for a particular point in history as the 'correct' tradition, so you get modern stuff diluting tradition, and you get older stuff looking fusty or historic and no longer being seen as traditional.

Tradition, in its best sense, is alive and changing. It is not some static standard against which change can be judged. Before the second world war the kilt in Scotland would, if seen much at all, have been worn as day wear with a tweed jacket, in what is now rather disparagingly described on X-Marks as a Saxon style. The short tweed kilt jacket is indeed a very modern thing. But now it would be considered very traditional.


Tradition is created culturally as well, so in Scotland the approach to the kilt is very different from those outside Scotland (as Jock keeps trying to explain). I have not found any particular sociological study of the scottish diaspora in North America, but, I suspect that, away from Scotland, the tartan kilt is being claimed as a sign of a distinct heritage, be that Scottish or Celtic generally. If that is the case there is likely to be a specific claiming of identity and, perhaps, a greater degree of seeking a 'right' or 'proper' way of doing things.


In Scotland, it is part of a native evolving tradition, and it is as much tradition to wear a cheap kilt with trainers and a rugby shirt when attending a Scotland match, as it is to wear the 'full fig' at a wedding (or to go barefoot fishing). The difference would be immediately understood as part of a broad culture. But in a modern society, which wants to be seen as a modern industrial and financial society, whilst accepting the Tartan and Kilt as heritage, it becomes very important that it is a modern thing also, hence Howie and 21st century. This is still traditional - it is just that the tradition is evolving.


The point I am making here is that you can't tie down the definitions too tightly because the definitions themselves are not static - if you seek to tie them down and prescribe them - you actually stultify them, and tradition quickly becomes historicism.


I think the thread has been fascinating, you can tell that I will support broader categories rather than narrower ones, but I hope that this little contribution helps some of the ongoing discussion.

I like what you have to say about tradition Harvey. Well said. As a point of clarification though, cutaway kilt jackets are much older than WWII. That fact doesn't detract from your broader point at all since there are other recent additions like Barbour's and Wellies as Peter mentioned that are considered traditional and are of a more recent vintage.