How Long to Make a Tradition

[DWFII]

So let me try to be more precise....
[snip]
I'm not lobbying for some watered-down definition of tradition that seeks to please everyone and offend no one. But I do think that some concepts are *personal*, and to try turn tradition into a public fixture does it an injustice. Historical recountings of past tradition can be as precise as our records. But the essence of a tradition - especially those yet to come - should be left to our own imaginations and experiences. Sharing our traditions should be a gift, not an imposition of will.

Sure and I don't disagree with most of what you say.

I agree that "some concepts" are '*personal*." What a person wears, how they wear it and what they think they are conveying to the rest of society are all probably personal (I have some reservations about the last bit).

But I don't think traditions fall into that category. Now that might be just me, but I think if you look closely at practices that are genuine traditions...being passed down from generation to generation...and not just long-standing personal habits or foibles; and if you consider the meaning of the word especially as it is understood by the majority of society--and as a vehicle for communicating or conveying a concept-- it quickly becomes apparent that while traditions themselves may vary from culture to culture the concept of a "tradition" does have a fairly precise meaning.

In the context of kilts and this forum, I am going to go out on a limb...because as much as I enjoy the mental exercise, I think the real issue is being avoided...

I only speak definitively for myself. But I sense from others who share my views that they basically agree that no one has the right to tell another person what to wear or how to wear it.

This is a discussion forum...about kilts and kilt wearing and various aspects thereof...and no one is in danger of being taken to court or made to stand in a corner if they choose to disagree or just to go their own way, iconoclastic as that may be. For that very reason, I am sometimes made uneasy by what I perceive to be a level of defensiveness that is all out of proportion to the comments being made.

At the same time, I believe...and I know for a fact, that I am not alone in believing this...that Traditional Highland Dress is a fairly specific thing. A melange of historical and cultural conventions, preferences and styles, that has been passed down from generation to generation and which has cultural and social significance to no few individuals.

To point this out...when appropriate...does not make me nor anyone of my colleagues "kilt police" nor does it suggest the level of censoriousness that is sometimes attributed to folks whose sensibilities and natural predilections are more conservative/traditional than the prevailing consensus.

[Abax]

the concept of a "tradition" does have a fairly precise meaning.

. . . Traditional Highland Dress is a fairly specific thing. A melange of historical and cultural conventions, preferences and styles, that has been passed down from generation to generation and which has cultural and social significance to no few individuals.

. . .

To point this out...when appropriate...does not make me nor anyone of my colleagues "kilt police" nor does it suggest the level of censoriousness that is sometimes attributed to folks whose sensibilities and natural predilections are more conservative/traditional than the prevailing consensus.

"No few individuals" sounds like you're characterizing traditionalists with majority status, then you characterize your own traditionalism as outside the prevailing consensus. If you resist the prevailing consensus, I think that would make you an anachronism. Those who follow the prevailing consensus would be the keepers of tradition in its most current form.

Some people who use the word "tradition" mean "the old way that has wrongly fallen out of use." The impression I get from these traditionalists is that they lament change and believe if they don't champion ways which have been superseded, their minority will become even smaller. You don't have to be a martyr to like traditional things - live as you will and don't worry if you're not in the majority.

Apart from obtaining accurate records, historical tradition ought to be very easy to define. A group of people in a place and time did "X"." So if you want to seize on a time and say "this was tradition," I have no problem with that. But that's not what the original poster nor I have suggested. I believe that magic time period of how long it takes something recent to become a *new* tradition is elusive and subjective. You think it must follow the formula of being "passed down from generation to generation," so you think it's entirely objective. I believe . . . and I know for a fact, that I am not alone in believing this . . . that it's more subjective than that. So now we've both posited arguments who's sole weight is that we're not alone in believing something. That's not really helpful to the question, is it?

As far as I can tell, the question of how long it takes something to become a tradition remains unanswered. I'm suggesting that the answer lies in respecting subjective viewpoints and tolerance. I want to hear about people's traditions and their perceptions of them. Maybe they'll cause me to reflect on my life or my traditions. Censorius kilt police? It's not so much what you say that matters, but how you say it and your corresponding tolerance for differing viewpoints. Intolerance is an act of desperation.

Abax

[GDub]

My wife and I hosted Thanksgiving dinner at my house for 5 years straight. Same group. On the 6th year we broke "tradition" and had it at someone else's house. At first somewhat reticent, the new hosts expressed concern about breaking "tradition"--but they really wanted to give it a go at their place.... So having turkey at my house had become a "tradition." It's not that complicated, and it wasn't carried on from a bygone time.

My point is that in 2009 wearing a UK embodies "tradition"--for some.

[DWFII]

On page two of this discussion, Steve from Freedom Kilts provided a definition of "Tradition" as it applies to anthropology and history courses...the key words of which were "as a belief or custom passed from one generation to the next..."

MacMillan of Rathdown provided a similar definition.

I also provided one...one that seems to be unacceptable. OK...

So...from the Oxford English Dictionary (several definitions and several contexts):

"The action of transmitting or ‘handing down’, or fact of being handed down, from one to another, or from generation to generation; transmission of statements, beliefs, rules, customs, or the like, esp. by word of mouth or by practice without writing. "

"That which is thus handed down; a statement, belief, or practice transmitted (esp. orally) from generation to generation."

"More vaguely: A long established and generally accepted custom or method of procedure, having almost the force of a law; an immemorial usage; the body (or any one) of the experiences and usages of any branch or school of art or literature, handed down by predecessors and generally followed. "

"Among the Jews, Any one, or the whole, of an unwritten code of regulations, etc. held to have been received from Moses, and handed down orally from generation to generation and embodied in the Mishnah.".

"In the Christian Church, Any one, or the whole, of a body of teachings transmitted orally from generation to generation since early times;"

They all seem to be in agreement with my take on the subject. To me, that seems to be a pretty convincing argument that I am neither "outside the prevailing consensus" nor an "anachronism"--characterizations which strike me as beside the point, in any case. Nevertheless, in point of fact, there is a lot about me that is anachronistic, not the least is my Trade, which is a relic of the 19th century, and a lot about me that is outside the prevailing convention....just not the way you mean it. And proud of it, too.

But finding myself having to define words (according to the oldest and most respected dictionary in the English language), speaks to the heart of what frustrates me about this issue--people assigning, or making up, definitions for words that seem tailored to a set of pre-determined conclusions, or simply for their own purposes.

The problem is that pre-determined conclusions and made-up definitions for words, neither facilitate communication nor understanding but instead raise questions, in my mind at least, about the seriousness of those who resort to such conventions.

Intolerance is a two-way street and the most vicious forms of intolerance often come from those who most vociferously preach "tolerance."

[Bugbear]

I see nothing in that definition that says small or non-main stream groups can not have nor are incapable of having traditions, so I have no problem with the definition.

[DWFII]

I see nothing in that definition that says small or non-main stream groups can not have nor are incapable of having traditions, so I have no problem with the definition.

You know my post #61 was meant as a summary and I was intent on bowing out of this discussion...which gets more attenuated as time goes by (even I recognize that)...but I'm like the trout that I used to fish for--I'll rise to a fat drake every time.

Out of respect for you (and not wishing to have you misunderstand me) I feel compelled to point out that I have never asserted that "small or non-main stream groups can not have...traditions." Quite the contrary, as I mentioned my family traditions in one post and alluded to social groupings as small as families in another.

Just sayin'....

[Bugbear]

You know my post #61 was meant as a summary and I was intent on bowing out of this discussion...which gets more attenuated as time goes by (even I recognize that)...but I'm like the trout that I used to fish for--I'll rise to a fat drake every time.

Out of respect for you (and not wishing to have you misunderstand me) I feel compelled to point out that I have never asserted that "small or non-main stream groups can not have...traditions." Quite the contrary, as I mentioned my family traditions in one post and alluded to social groupings as small as families in another.

Just sayin'....

Exactly.

You did bring up MacMillan of Rathdown's definition which may imply or possibly say that non-main stream groups are incapable of forming traditions, and that is the thorn in my side for this thread.

We are not dissagreeing, so I will leave it be.

* Apologies if it sounded like I was saying you were saying those things, but like I said I don't have a problem with your definition. *

[Bugbear]

I do, however, have a huge problem with someone telling me that the traditions of my people, or kind, are not traditions because we might not be in the main stream, or differ greatly from the norm. But, DWFII, it sounds like you are saying the same thing. That you are not exactly in the main stream, yet you have traditions.

Sometimes you are saying that you almost feel like an outsider here. I feel those same feelings often, it's just from a different direction.

I was not trying to trap you or trick you.

I will go ahead and back off.

[Expat2011]

That's where the definition of "Tradition" breaks down...how can social changes, occurring in the here and now, affect people and ideas long gone?

Tradition is, for those who understand and hold them in some regard, immune to the shifting values of the moment. That's very nearly a definition of "tradition."

To even consider that traditions can be so ephemeral and so amorphous is to misunderstand the whole concept of traditions...which brings us back around to my original thesis--namely that many folks are "are confusing "tradition" with fashion or fad or just conventions (or any ol' thing) that has been around longer than they have..."

Would that my labor union forum discuss and debate with such civility as this one rather than breaking out into an expletive-ridden brawl. Then again, perhaps they are simply following tradition.

Tradition, like history, is not bound by definition or decree that one may read in a book. While I am aware that a definition(s) exist for the word itself, no dictionary can convey the wide range of human experiences that shape it, experiences that lift the sterile description from the page and invest it with meaning and purpose.

To be quite honest I think many confuse "tradition" and "historical tradition."

In the US we celebrate Thanksgiving. In the historical tradition families would gather together in semi-formal dress and feast on turkey, stuffing, corn, sweet potatoes, and other traditional autumn fare. The meal was invariably prepared by women and, in antiquity, by slaves. After the blessing, the "man of the house" would carve the turkey. When the meal was over cleaning the kitchen fell to the women while the men would retire to another part of the home with pipes and cigars.

Today we observe that the holiday doesn't seem to have quite the religious significance as before. In many households it has become a sporting event centered around televised American Football. In other homes we find men and women sharing in the preparation and cleanup. Semi-formal dress for the day has all but been abandoned. Even the menu is changing.

I find the differences between Thanksgiving today and the holiday celebrated by my forefathers to be largely superficial. Those most important aspects of the day - giving thanks and fellowship with friends and family - are alive and well. The tradition continues. Only the trappings have changed.

Rigid traditionalists may condemn modern Thanksgiving as an abomination - just another example heralding the collapse of order - but if these same traditionalists were to enact laws governing its practice they would be the only ones celebrating it.

And while my UKs are certainly not historically traditional Highland attire they are undoubtedly similar in form and fashion. They are descendants of the Highlands, and while not connecting me to a particular clan they do to my wider Scottish heritage. Thus they remain part of the tradition.

Bill

[DWFII]

Well...I admit it I'm weak...I sat on this as long as I could hoping the urge would go away [sigh]

I am not going to get too deeply into a rebuttal just wanted to make an easily understood and easily recognizable comparison.

Accents...regional accents, whether they be a Southron drawl, a Vermont twang or a cockney growl share much in common with traditions. We all know that they serve no useful purpose (if they ever did) and the reasons why they began in the first place are lost in the mists of time. Yet they linger on.

They not only linger on but they are passed (some would say almost mindlessly) from generation to generation.

But they are the icons of unique cultures.

Now anyone is free to make up his own accent. Or even distort, change, or lose the one he is born to. And given enough time and several generations, they might even come into wide spread acceptance. But in the short term, and in the absence of a "Ministry of Silly Talks," people are just gonna think you're weird.

So too with traditions...it is no coincidence that the great constant among all the definitions, from the various sources that I presented, is the concept of "passing on from generation to generation," or of great age and long-time establishment of a practice for it to become a tradition.

This is part of what confuses people and what makes them uneasy, I suspect. Uneasy enough to invent their own definitions to justify or bolster preconceived notions or conclusions.

People just naturally want to think that the little ritual they contrived last year which made them feel so good, is the start of a tradition...and it very well may be. But unless it is passed down to the next generation and the next...the way I am fully confidant my 16 ounce tank will be, I think it fails the test.

On the other hand, people often want to separate "tradition" and "historical tradition"...again, I think , to give significance to things that are all too likely to be transient. But it is, in my opinion, a false impulse and a false dichotomy. All traditions share in some aspect of "historicity." Hence the emphasis on "passed on from generation to generation." If something that is important in a person's life can't have significance without having the inappropriate garnish of "tradition" perhaps it isn't really all that important in the first place.

To use terminology such as "historical traditions" is to fall victim to one of those redundant phrases such as "utmost extremity" or "infinite eternity."

Traditions are, by definition, a form of history.