How Long to Make a Tradition

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Custom becomes tradition when, as DWFII has rightly pointed out, it is passed on virtually unchanged from one generation to the next. It is the frequency of the observance of a custom, not necessarily its antiquity, that turns it into a tradition.

Generally frequency and antiquity are one in the same-- something between fifty and one hundred years. That said, something first done fifty years ago and not done again until today would hardly constitute a tradition. But something first done ten years ago, and repeated once a week, might be considered "traditional" today, although only the passage of more time could truly imbue it with the characteristics of a tradition.

Lasting traditions occur only within the mainstream of a society, not on the edges of that society. The "fringe", by its very nature, is in a constant state of change and therefore it is not capable of developing or sustaining customs that will evolve into traditions. Although the "fringe" does not develop traditions, it may, in some indirect way, contribute to the developing traditions of the mainstream society.

In Scotland, when Highland attire became broadly popular in the 1840s, the kilt was worn with the ordinary clothes-- shirts, jackets, shoes, etc.-- worn by everyday people. By the 1850s this customary mode of dress had been modified to be more comfortable and more becoming when worn with the kilt. From that point on this "style" of Highland dress was passed on, virtually unchanged from one generation to the next.

There is one thing that can be said about tradition, and that is that it is immune to radical change. There is no difference, other than minor points of style, in the mode of dress worn by a gentleman in 1909 or today in 2009.

Will traditional Highland attire change? Yes, but only in minor points of style. Tradition preserves those things which are good in mainstream society, and sloughs off the pointless fads that every decade produces.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

This is one of those sticky issues where, at the end of the day, I think people just need ot realize that different people use the word "traditional" to mean different things.

For example, many would consider my four yard box pleated kilts more "traditional" than the 8 yard knife pleated kilts, because it is an older style. However, there are those that would consider the modern 8 yard kilt more "traditional" because it's what they have worn all their life, what they remember their father and grandfather wearing, and what most people think of as a "proper kilt" today.

Is either one of these opinions wrong? No, I don't think so. They are just using the word "traditional" in a slightly different way.

[Expat2011]

I don't know how to truly define tradition in standards of time because it seems to me that tradition, like everything else, is subject to natural forces resulting in its inevitable evolution. In the five minutes of thought that I've given this subject, I can't think of any tradition that has not been affected. It would then seem that to label something as 'traditional' is a fairly subjective assertion.

Take the kilt. New tartans are being registered every year. Various styles are being designed and sold. Entrepreneurs have taken this amazing garment out of the Highlands and made it available to the rest of us in so many different forms that in some cases the only remaining similarity between their products and that of the early Scots is that it remains unbifurcated.

I could accept an argument that declared the tradition of kilt wear originated with clan use in the Highlands. However, I would offer that the guy in a USAKilt drinking a Bud Lite at TGIF is taking part of an evolving tradition every bit as much as a gentleman in his eight yard wool kilt and Prince Charlie Jacket at a Burns supper.

I think I once read that "Today's fad is tomorrow's tradition." I sometimes have difficulty distinguishing the difference between the two.

Bill

[Bugbear]

Just like a journey starts with the first step,traditions start with the first idea that "something" is worth preserving.

I agree, and I'm not worried about the fine details; it's the spirit. I do very much believe that traditions, to be properly passed down, should also be explained and understood. In other words, "because the last ten generations said so," as a reason for continuing the tradition weakens the tradition a little, in my opinion. They need to be understood and explained as they are passed along.

[Twa_Corbies]

There are traditions and then there are anachronisms.

[DWFII]

It's the old "Catch 22'--"flies in your eyes."

l would submit that those who reject the notion of traditions or downplay their importance...and especially the "traditional" notion of traditions...seldom have traditions in their lives. They simply do not value traditions enough to respect them or even take much note of them.

Is that good or bad? Maybe neither one or the other. It is a matter of perspective...but as with brown stones I can name a whole range of things that have lost their "functionality" or currency in modern society, but without which we would all be much poorer. It is really only "tradition" that keeps those conventions alive among us.

I think it was Alvin Toffler who proposed that modern western man is almost always, to some degree, alienated form his culture, his family and his neighbors, if only because the future is coming at us so rapidly we have no time to adjust. What is interesting is that some people readily chose this state of affairs of their own free will.

Traditions ground us and give us that "birds-eye" perspective of seeing ourselves in a continuum of humanity and of time rather than as a unique and isolated entity for whom the world ends when they end.

[gilmore]

...
So...if a generation is 7 years (I read that somewhere...correct me if I'm wrong) ...

Generations in genealogy are calculated at 27 years for men, a bit less for women, but most people doing it in their head use 25 years, or 4 per century. It varies with culture and society. I have seem 32 years attributed to some.

[gilmore]

Hoariness of tradition deepens on where you are. In Scotland it appears to be close to 200 years. In the American South, maybe 100 years. In California, 15 minutes, or anything done twice, whichever comes first.

[DWFII]

Generations in genealogy are calculated at 27 years for men, a bit less for women, but most people doing it in their head use 25 years, or 4 per century. It varies with culture and society. I have seem 32 years attributed to some.

Thank you...that makes much more sense.

[The Wizard of BC]

The subject of Tradition takes up a sizable part of any Anthropology or History course taught today.

Taken from the Latin, Tradition comes from Traditio which is usually interpreted to mean the handing over or passing on.

Most courses define it as a belief or custom passed from one generation to the next as "This is the way it is done", or "This is the way we do it", or "This is the way we have done it in the past".

As this passing on or handing down is usually done orally it is subject to the slight changes oral communication is and has always been prone to.

There is no time frame accepted to define a Tradition. Christmas Traditions are usually used to illustrate this. The artist who originally drew the Santa Claus for the Coca Cola Company was still alive when his concept of what Santa Claus looked like was accepted almost universally.
Christmas Traditions are and come under the broad heading of "Invented Traditions". In truth, we made them up. It was nice to pass on to our children the things we liked to do and made us feel good. So many Christmas Traditions had little or nothing to do with "Truth".

Another example of "Invented Tradition" is the Neo-Druid. From Historical fact we know almost nothing of the Druid. Just a few Latin sentences from Roman letters and military reports.

Another is speaking of Celts as if they were a Country such as the Countries of France or England. In fact the Celts were the people who spoke one of the Celtic languages. So it is not correct to lump all who currently speak a Celtic language, or had ancestors who did so, as Celts just as it would be incorrect to refer to all people who speak the French Language as French because not all French speakers live in the Country of France.

So, if I'm in France and someone calls out "Hey, English dude" I'll probably know who they are talking about even though I am not English. I am Canadian.

So, when someone refers to themselves as Celtic it is common to mistake their meaning. Are they saying "I speak one of the Celtic Languages"? Or are they saying "I can trace my ancestors to someone who spoke one of the Celtic Languages"? Or are they saying "I'm am a citizen of one of the Celtic Nations"? If the latter, they would probably be mis-speaking.

When we speak of Tradition here on this forum is gets even more confusing.

As the word Tradition means some custom or belief that has been passed on or handed down it also must imply that that custom or belief may have changed.
There is an entire section of this forum where you can look at pictures of how people wore the Kilt in days past. is the manner of wearing the Kilt exactly the same and unchanged today as there was then. No. So some things have changed.

Would it be proper to call some one who dresses in the manner of the 1830's, in the Kilt with no set pleating to his Kilt, wearing three or four different Tartans at the same time, with a Basket Hilt sword over his back, a Dirk on his belt, and a brace of Pistols loaded and cocked, Castellated Hose, and a three foot long hair Sporran with 17 Tassels "Traditional"? Yes. Would it be wrong to also call him anachronistic or wearing a costume? No.
But it would also be correct to call someone who dresses like a Pipe Major with Tall feather hat, Cross Belts, 26' long Pipers Sash and Spats "Traditional". But would you go to the Pub with your friends dressed like that just because "It's Traditional"? I think not.
How about the recently posted picture of Prince Charles wearing a Tweed Jacket and Brown Sporran with Black Shoes? Is he less "Traditional"? I dare you to say so.

So, what I'm saying is that we should exercise some caution with the word "Tradition". Saying "I dress in the Tradition of 1830 Court Dress" and saying "I dress in the Tradition of 1951", are two totally different Traditions of the wearing of the Kilt and both are correct.