Cheap formal wear?

[DWFII]

There must be some sort of middle ground in here somewhere. Personally, I don't think the distinction between manners and etiquette is all that significant. The definition of "manners" given above is a fair one and the example provided is very compelling but beyond that it gets more murky and, for me, misses the point altogether.

I think a better definition is that manners come from within and etiquette is an external codification of widely admired manners, formulated to make as many people feel comfortable as possible. To help people who might be a little "at sea" to feel more at ease--if you know some basic principles of etiquette, they will, in most cases, keep you from drinking from the fingerbowl.

On the other hand, no one should have to drink out of the fingerbowl even to make a guest seem less awkward. That the host does so indicates a generous spirit but it doesn't invalidate the gaff to begin with. Most conventions...etiquette included...are social "grease," if you will.

When it comes to kilts and highland dress, there are two points I think are important...first, it's all costume. That's why most of the books written about various styles of clothing have titles such as "Men's Costume in the 19th Century."

The second point is that whatever costume you wear, it makes things easier...socially...if you respect the costume and the traditions that inform it, and not try to put your own spin on it.

"The eye is not fooled"...this is a common saying in my line of work. Most people will know when the lintel is not square or a painting not hung straight. Even if they cannot put their finger on it, or articulate why, they will, on a subconscious level, feel a bit uneasy about something. This is a part of human nature that has its roots in our deepest instincts. From a time when a "wrongness" in the shadows might be a predator.

A person wearing a kilt well generates a whole lot less speculation and unease...because it fits our mental image of what looks right...than someone who is making it up as they go along. It doesn't have anything to do with "inclusion" or "exclusion" or "dirt under the fingernails." It has a lot to do with respect, and traditions, and putting others at ease. It can be just as unmannerly to flaunt the customs of your host as it is mannerly to put a guest at ease.

One last point...and I hope this is the most controversial point I make..I regret the impulse in our society to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator. Whether it is elitism or not, there is such a thing as "good, better, best." It may be relative (for some) but it is real. And recognizing that fact is the only way to guarantee personal growth. No craftsman can move from apprentice to master without acknowledging that there is a standard of work that transcends his own. And that's true at every level...even the master's level.

If you think about it, the same thing applies to the most mundane aspects of everyday life...even kilts.

[Abax]

Whether it is elitism or not, there is such a thing as "good, better, best." It may be relative (for some) but it is real. And recognizing that fact is the only way to guarantee personal growth. No craftsman can move from apprentice to master without acknowledging that there is a standard of work that transcends his own. And that's true at every level...even the master's level.

Quite so. But I suspect successive generations - touched with a bit of cynicism - always believe standards are falling. I see it in my profession (whether it's real or not).

Offering encouragement to a child means the parent may not tell them right off that their finger painting is unremarkable. As you point out, you'll eventually have to be honest and communicate a standard if the artist is to advance. The standard, of course, is what we'll be discussing for a long time to come . . .

Abax

[DWFII]

Quite so. But I suspect successive generations - touched with a bit of cynicism - always believe standards are falling. I see it in my profession (whether it's real or not).

Offering encouragement to a child means the parent may not tell them right off that their finger painting is unremarkable. As you point out, you'll eventually have to be honest and communicate a standard if the artist is to advance. The standard, of course, is what we'll be discussing for a long time to come . . .

Abax

Not to get too far afield but I believe standards are falling. Techniques get lost, forgotten, or, in an excess of expediency, abandoned. And as they are lost the standards become ever more homogenized and marginalized.

I'm old fashioned, I admit it, but for me I would much rather aspire to do better than self-righteously defend what I know to be sub-par.

I was thinking about this whole business of waiters jackets and so forth after my last post and musing about why we wear kilts...

Someone on this forum (maybe several someones) posted a spirited defense of wearing kilts when many of us are neither Scots nor recently descended from Scots. The gist of it was that it is a way to honour our heritage, and by implication, although we may do it badly, it is a sign of respect.

I wonder whether one would feel comfortable wearing a cut-down waiters jacket to a audience with a clan chieftain? Or the fellow...Lord something or other...that approves tartans and all things Scottish?

More, I wonder if that Chieftain would feel that his customs and traditions...and maybe even person...were being respected if he knew the provenance of the jacket?

If there is a sizable number of native Scots who feel nothing but disdain for tourists gone all ga-ga over Scottish kitsch, they may well have a good reason when confronted by folks who feel it doesn't matter. Because even if, in the cosmic scheme of things, it really doesn't matter, it seems to me (personal opinion), nevertheless, a little disrespectful. And I'm not a native Scots.