Tradition vs. Orthodoxy

[Mark Stephenson]

Great question. What came to my mind was the role of women in the military.
I'd be interested in what comes to others' mind.

[macwilkin]

Indeed, the military has many traditions. Yet the ceremonies and "traditions experienced my my GG Grandfather would not have been the same as those experienced my my Grandfathers during WWI, by my Father during WWII, or by me during Vietnam and the 1st Gulf War. I suspect the traditions I experienced have also evolved. I am a great fan of tradition, but am thankful its elements are alive and evolve.

Not necessarily. Some regiments have retained unique customs and traditions for a number of years; for example, the 7th US Infantry ("The Cottonbalers") adopted the song "The Girl I Left Behind Me" reportedly after capturing a British Officer during the War of 1812 that was whistling the time. Other regiments, bear particular nicknames relating to past campaigns. Regimental history is also depicted on distinctive unit insignia in the form of heraldry.

The 9th US Infantry, the "Manchus", so named for their participation in the Boxer Rebellion in 1900, still maintains two bells captured from the Philippine village of Balangiga, where in 1901, C Company of the 9th was ambushed at breakfast. The bells are currently deployed with the regiment in Korea, and members of the regiment are taught its historical significance. I used to reenact the 9th in the Spanish-American War period, and this comes to me from the regimental museum's curator.

T.

[DWFII]

Great question. What came to my mind was the role of women in the military.
I'd be interested in what comes to others' mind.

I suspect that some of that is being imposed. As such it is law, not tradition. It may never be tradition, for that very reason.

[Bugbear]

That is precisely what I've tried to get across on several of my posts here.

Many people confuse the concept of "traditional" with the concept of "historical" but the two are utterly different.

"Traditional" merely means handed down through the generations (usually through oral transmission) and still ongoing as a living thing. One something stops living and changing it is no longer "traditional" but "historical". Likewise one can go back in time and select one segment out of the traditional continuum (say, "Highland Dress 1900-1925") and that segment is not traditional, but historical: a matter of looking at evidence and attempting to understand, describe, and perhaps recreate a thing no longer living.

The "tradition" is not any of the segments but the whole: the unbroken continuously evolving continuum stretching from the living tradition of today back to its unknowable origins "in the mists of time".

It doesn NOT mean fixed: indeed improvisation itself can be a traditional aspect, such as in traditional New Orleans jazz, or North Indian classical music.

Highland Dress is like those musics in a way, in that tremendous variety and a degree of personal expression have always been part of the tradition.

I really don't want to get entangled in the discussion, but a couple of things in the post have a "wrong feel" to them, for me.

"(usually through oral transmission)"
I think this goes a little too far. There are written and visual transmissions, perhaps even unconscious transmission of traditions.

"The 'tradition' is not any of the segments but the whole: the unbroken continuously evolving continuum stretching from the living tradition of today back to its unknowable origins 'in the mists of time'."

Again, I think this goes a little too far. The origins of many, many traditions can be traced back to a few hundred years or less, and the kilt happens to be an example of this. Also, it was an overcoat-like garment, and became a lower garment. That is not an unbroken whole; it is in segments.

* Perhaps by "segment," you were referring to segments of time. Pieces of culture passed through writing or pictorially, and at this point voice recording, might be considered traditions... and could skip across time and generations. Just a thought.

[TheBlueCow]

Copied & pasted, unedited, from Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tradition?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic)

tra·di·tion
   [truh-dish-uhn]
–noun

1. 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.

Excuse me if I have overlooked it, but I don't see the definition of the word specifying whether a tradition is changing or un-changing in nature.

However, the very nature of it being handed down generation by generation means that it probably will change, slightly or not so slightly, over time, as the widely held views of each generation is different from each other (Generation Y clearly has different views than the Baby Boomers in the USA). The generation that holds the dominant majority has control over a tradition, and the tradition may be modified slightly so as to remain pretty much the same, but so that it appeals slightly more to that generation's tastes. In America, we will still have fireworks to celebrate Independence Day for many years to come. Where Smiley Face and Star-Shaped fireworks were once un-traditional, they would now be missed by many. Just as new shapes or effects will be created and incorporated into the tradition.

In every generation, we have tried to muck with tradition. Something needs to change, we want to make it more our own. Now we are seeing how this generation is "mucking" with tradition--making kilts out of cotton and PV instead of wool. Solid colors or camouflage patterns instead of tartan. Pockets, etc. Some of these "adulterations" (as some may view them, while others may call them "developments") to currently established tradition will fall out of use, while some will be incorporated into the established (yet modified) tradition. Such is the nature of something that changes in ownership, as customizing to our tastes is human nature.

So you are left with what was once traditional, but now not; i.e. historical.

Then we have the currently established part of the tradition.

And then we have what is experimental/developmental and may be incorporated into tradition in time, whatever you'd like to call that, but as it is called now, modern. This part is naturally highly controversial, as everyone is arguing their views to try and embed them into the tradition (again, this is human nature and nothing wrong with it. The majority's views will overtake the minorities' views and become part of the established tradition).

[DWFII]

I suspect that people who assert that behaviour or customs that are temporal, transient, changing, are tradition, don't understand the nature of the English language.

There is a word for such things...it is "fashion." Or "caprice." Or "whimsey."

Traditions evolve...slowly...over generations. It is a set of circumstances and events quite different from fashion. That's why there is a separate word for it--tradition.

If people don't want to speak the English language then they need to provide a different set of definitions and words to describe these two entirely disparate conditions. Because they are real and observable and even document-able.

And then, we'll just substitute out each of these invented words for the (ahem) "traditional" words and start the whole debate all over again. Because the phenomenon they represent are are real and observable and document-able...even in pidgin.

We use words to communicate certain ideas. You may not like the ideas, you may not agree with them, but each is a specific arrangement of letters representing specific concepts or we would use another word.

Traditional means passed down from generation to generation. Period. In English.

What is happening today among people who wear modern kilts is "fashion." It may well become a tradition but it is not yet. And until it does we are living in a fantasy world to project our uncertainties (or certainties) into an unknowable future.

PS: the opposite of Traditionalist...in the English language...is iconoclast.

[Lyle1]

Traditional means passed down from generation to generation. Period. In English.

Actually, in English, "traditional" is an adjective used to describe something (a practice, idea, belief, etc) as being like, or part of, or in the manner of something familiar, such as an established "tradition."

So, one can do something in a traditional manner without being orthodox in practice, by continuing the spirit of the tradition but, not, necessarily, observing or perpetuating every detail of earlier observances. One need only look in any ethnic community in the industrial cities of the U.S. to see that immigrants brought their traditions from their homelands, and adapted them to the American environment and/or experience. The spirit of the tradition continues, but the observance is tailored to what is practical in the U.S., and the observance of the tradition changed rather quickly and continues still, today.

I've noticed that in several recent discussions about "tradition" in the various sub-forums, many posters confused the definitions of "tradition" and "traditional" when they attempted to prove a point. There is a difference, in English, and using the word authoritatively, though incorrectly, to argue a position is rather pointless.

[DWFII]

Is this a made up definition? Or speculation informed by preconception and wanting to believe? Or a preference for heterodoxy as opposed to orthodoxy? (Neither of which are at issue)

Concise Oxford English Dictionary © 2008 Oxford University Press:
traditional[/I]/trəˈdɪʃənl/
▶adjective

1 relating to or following tradition.

2 (of jazz) in the style of the early 20th century.

Concise Oxford English Dictionary © 2008 Oxford University Press:
tradition/trəˈdɪʃn/
▶noun

1 the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way.

■ a long-established custom or belief passed on from one generation to another.

2 an artistic or literary method or style established by an artist, writer, or movement, and subsequently followed by others.

Is the OED authoritative enough? English enough?

[English Bloke]

Post withdrawn

[TheBlueCow]

I suspect that people who assert that behaviour or customs that are temporal, transient, changing, are tradition, don't understand the nature of the English language.

There is a word for such things...it is "fashion." Or "caprice." Or "whimsey."

Traditions evolve...slowly...over generations. It is a set of circumstances and events quite different from fashion. That's why there is a separate word for it--tradition.

If people don't want to speak the English language then they need to provide a different set of definitions and words to describe these two entirely disparate conditions. Because they are real and observable and even document-able.

And then, we'll just substitute out each of these invented words for the (ahem) "traditional" words and start the whole debate all over again. Because the phenomenon they represent are are real and observable and document-able...even in pidgin.

We use words to communicate certain ideas. You may not like the ideas, you may not agree with them, but each is a specific arrangement of letters representing specific concepts or we would use another word.

Traditional means passed down from generation to generation. Period. In English.

What is happening today among people who wear modern kilts is "fashion." It may well become a tradition but it is not yet. And until it does we are living in a fantasy world to project our uncertainties (or certainties) into an unknowable future.

PS: the opposite of Traditionalist...in the English language...is iconoclast.

I agree that current fashion is not tradition, but that it may become part of tradition, slowly, standing the test of time. Of course a kilt with cargo pockets, made out of cotton, in a camouflage pattern, with a narrow apron is not traditional. I think everyone would agree there. I think that every generation has their own fashion, of course, but some aspects of those fashions may live much past the lifetime of that generation, as tradition. If, in 200 years, people are still wearing kilt-like garments that have pleats in the back, may be tartan or solid color or even camouflage, may or may not have pockets, etc., and are still calling them kilts, then I would say that current fashion would have indeed become part of the established tradition around kilts in that scenario. I think that maybe the point being made by the OP is that current fashion of kilts, while indeed fashion and not tradition, is still contributing to the preservation of the tradition. A tradition must evolve in order to continue to exist, else it come to an end and become historical. So if tradition calls for sporrans and wool tartan, and no pockets, or solid colors, or narrow aprons, or jeans-waist, etc. and if that were to become impractical or unappealing for following generations, then the tradition of the kilt would die as new generations would not wear it. Fashion spurring up new ideas to keep the appeal of the kilt to current and following generations is seemingly the key to preserving the tradition, even if it means that it changes the tradition (over time) after several generations have incorporated the changes into the tradition.