Tradition vs. Orthodoxy

[DWFII]

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.

I don't think we know what makes a tradition durable or what will affect it over time. I don't think that we can say....with the best of intentions, with the most optimistic anticipation....if, or what, fashions will be folded into the mix that is a tradition. I suspect, that at best, it is projecting. Projecting our own hopes and desires. At worst, it's just living in a fantasy world.

Looking back at human history...at what I know of cultures and society and human nature...I don't believe, or see any evidence, that a tradition has to evolve to be a tradition. All it has to do is be respected and valued enough to be carried on by the next generation.

There's a striking parallel here that the folks over inthe Historical Kilt sub-forum recognize very well: many folks are not happy with history the way it is...the way it actually played out...as opposed to the way they wish it had played out. They want so badly to believe that William Wallace wore a kilt that they refuse to accept the evidence that kilts were not worn or known until hundreds of years after he was born and died. Their mental image is so firmly anchored in fantasy that no amount of scholarly research, no lack of even fragmentary evidence, will deter them.

I don't understand it, myself.

I don't know what glamour or cachet that "Tradition"--the word itself--brings such that people will deliberately misconstrue the English language to bestow some form of legitimacy on their choices.

So what if wearing a MUG is not Traditional? So what if by some lights a MUG isn't even a real kilt? So what? It is what it is.

If a person derives pleasure or a feeling of comfort...even metaphysical comfort...from wearing a denim kilt or a leather kilt or even white hose (a metaphor not an example), who is to gainsay them?

But it's not Tradition/Traditional.

And to try to make it so...to pilfer respect from an association that doesn't really exist...is to weaken the whole notion that MUGs have a legitimacy of their own apart from some form of iconoclasm/heterodoxy.


--

[CMcG]

<snip>
"Orthodoxy consists in fossilizing tradition into a lifeless, unchanging structure. Tradition, as distinguished from orthodoxy, is a living process of creation and preservation of significations. When a tradition is alive, it continues to grow, to create, and to respond to new situations and challenges. When it is no longer alive, it requires an orthodoxy to preserve its purity against possible distortions and desanctifications. A living tradition is ambiguous in the sense that it allows for growth and development in many different ways. It is false to oppose tradition to freedom from rational criticism, for rational criticism, takes place, not within a vacuum but from within a tradition."

A little 'light' reading indeed

In contrasting these two words, the author has attached a somewhat negative value to orthodoxy. I'd like to compare them a bit for myself before commenting further. Seeing as DWFII likes the OED, let's go with the unabridged version rather than the concise, shall we? Both these words have specific meanings when applied to different religions but I have left those parts of the definition out.

"ORTHODOX, adj. and n.

Pronunciation: Brit. /ˈɔːθədɒks/ , U.S. /ˈɔrθəˌdɑks/
Forms: lME ortodox, lME 16 orthodoxe, 15– orthodox.
Etymology: < post-classical Latin orthodoxus, ortodoxus, adjective and noun (4th cent.; frequently in Jerome) and its etymon Hellenistic or Byzantine Greek ὀρθόδοξος right in opinion (see note), person holding a right opinion < ancient Greek ὀρθο- ortho- comb. form + δόξα opinion, glory (see doxology n.). In English perhaps partly via Middle French, French orthodoxe (1431 as adjective, a1565 as noun). Compare Italian ortodosso (1478 as adjective).

Ancient Greek ὀρθοδοξεῖν ‘to have a right opinion’ appears first in Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics, but remains rare. The cognate noun ὀρθοδοξία appears first in Origen; the adjective ὀρθόδοξος does not appear until the late 3rd, or early 4th cent. With the exception of uses in commentaries on Nicomachean Ethics the group of words is restricted almost entirely to Christian writers.

A. adj.
1. Right, correct, true; in accordance with what is accepted or authoritatively established as the true view or right practice.

a. Of, belonging to, or in accordance with the accepted theological or ecclesiastical doctrines of a particular religion, etc.; (also) designating practices or beliefs conforming with these.

b. In extended use: of or in accordance with views, attitudes, beliefs, or practices prevalent or established in a particular society, field, profession, party, etc.; conventional.Now freq. designating a branch (usually the major branch) of a science or discipline whose principles and methods are regarded as authoritative or founded in established theory.

c. Hence more generally: designating that which is regarded as proper, correct, or usual; ordinary, conventional, normal.



2. Holding opinions or beliefs which are generally or traditionally accepted as correct, or which are in accordance with some recognized standard.

a. Holding, professing, or propounding beliefs consistent with those held by the dominant authorities of a particular religion.

b. In extended use: maintaining opinions or practices in accordance with those prevailing or officially sanctioned in one's profession, discipline, party, etc.; conventional, conservative.



B. n.
1. An orthodox person; one who holds orthodox views or beliefs; spec. (usu. with capital initial) (a) a member of one of the Eastern Orthodox churches; (b) an Orthodox Jew. Also with the: orthodox people as a class.



2. An orthodox opinion, belief, or doctrine; an orthodoxy. Obs.

Oxford English Dictionary. 2004: online version June 2011. Third edition. http://www.oed.com.ezproxy.library.y...01#eid32972519 (Accessed July 5th, 2011).


TRADITION, n.

Pronunciation: /trəˈdɪʃən/
Forms: Also ME–15 -icion.
Etymology: < Old French tradicion, -iccion (1292 in Godefroy), in 15th cent. tradition, = Provençal tradition, Spanish tradicion, Italian tradizione, < Latin trāditio, -ōnem ‘delivery, surrender, handing down, a saying handed down, instruction or doctrine delivered’, as in traditio evangelica, catholica traditio (Tertullian).

1. The action of handing over (something material) to another; delivery, transfer. (Chiefly in Law.)



2.a. A giving up, surrender; betrayal. Obs.

b. spec. in Church Hist. Surrender of sacred books in times of persecution: cf. traditor n. 2.



3.a. Delivery, esp. oral delivery, of information or instruction. Now rare.

b. An ordinance or institution orally delivered.



4.a. 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. Chiefly in phrase by tradition.

b. quasi-personified, usually as a speaker. (Cf. fame n.1 1b, rumour n. 1c.)



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

b. 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. In quot. 1818, an embodiment of an old established custom or institution, a ‘relic’."

Oxford English Dictionary. 2004: online version June 2011. Third edition. http://www.oed.com.ezproxy.library.y...y/Entry/204302 (Accessed July 5th, 2011).

[CMcG]

Having looked at more complete definitions of the two words in question, I'd like to continue ruminating.

Etymologically, 'orthodox' means to have correct opinions and 'tradition' means to deliver, surrender, or hand down. They are both related to human processes of transmission and preservation but they aren't quite synonymous.

When something is considered orthodox, it also means that whatever does not conform is incorrect. There is an implied value judgment involved. It is related in meaning to words like authority, sanctioned, and true. More generally, it can just mean holding beliefs that are widely accepted.

Tradition means the act of passing down from generation to generation, usually orally. The OED also tells us more generally it just means a long-standing practice. In contradistinction to orthodox, it does not imply a value judgment.

<snip>
As I read this it occurred that this is exactly what we are doing with our discussions and criticisms, and may well be the battle we are fighting in a wider sense of things. Many people here wear their kilts in ways that may not be entirely "traditional" but it is this which maintains the kilt as a tradition, rather than an orthodoxy which allows no room for divergence from established norms.

I think Chris is correct but I should qualify my agreement a bit. He mentions wearing a kilt in a not entirely traditional way, as opposed to wearing something obviously non-traditional like a utility kilt. However, I'll take both those instances as examples.

Matt Newsome is a good example of someone who wears the kilt traditionally, does it well, but isn't afraid to mix it up. If the 8 yard, knife pleated, clan tartan, hand sewn, heavy weight worsted wool kilt is the gold standard, he might be seen wearing a 4 yard, box pleated, solid colour, hand sewn, heavy weight tweed kilt. On the "Generation to Generation" thread, a few members talked about how they might have done things slightly different from their forebears: kilt pin placement, slip on loafers instead of brogues, or a shirt without jacket and tie. All these examples show tolerance and flexibility within tradition, as opposed to being bound by orthodoxy.

The utility kilt is another story. It is not at all traditional. An orthodox point of view would be that it isn't even a kilt and that there is something wrong with it. This position can cause conflict on a site like Xmarks that hosts kilt wearers of all varieties. A traditional point of view might recognize that utility kilts aren't traditional, but wouldn't necessarily denounce them as bad.

[DWFII]

TRADITION, n.

1. The action of handing over (something material) to another; delivery, transfer. (Chiefly in Law.)

2.a. A giving up, surrender; betrayal. Obs.

b. spec. in Church Hist. Surrender of sacred books in times of persecution: cf. traditor n. 2.

3.a. Delivery, esp. oral delivery, of information or instruction. Now rare.

b. An ordinance or institution orally delivered.

4.a. 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. Chiefly in phrase by tradition.

b. quasi-personified, usually as a speaker. (Cf. fame n.1 1b, rumour n. 1c.)

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

b. 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. In quot. 1818, an embodiment of an old established custom or institution, a ‘relic’."

Oxford English Dictionary. 2004: online version June 2011. Third edition. http://www.oed.com.ezproxy.library.y...y/Entry/204302 (Accessed July 5th, 2011).

I wish I had access to the Unabridged version even if it is widely considered overly detailed for all but the most dedicated scholars. No matter.

I'll accept Orthodoxy as submitted. I never did think it was germane anyway.

Nor do I have any problem accepting the Unabridged definition for Tradition...Dictionaries represent the consensus understanding across generations and years of research and study and usage. They are the touchstone against which all communication can be measured.

That said...I wonder if this presentation adds anything to my Concise version? Or if it's just more obfuscation...esp. in this context.

For instance...

Tradition

Definition 1...Is it law we're discussing now? Someone should have told me.

Definition 2 and 3...Is it obsolete, obscure or rare usage or church history we're exploring, then?

Definition 4 and 5...probably the reason why the Concise version reads as it does and the first three definitions are omitted from the Concise version... After all that's what concise means. Or shall we argue about that as well?


--

[CMcG]

<snip>
That said...I wonder if this presentation adds anything to my Concise version? Or if it's just more obfuscation...esp. in this context.

I think it definitely adds some things that are absent from the concise version. The more obscure meanings of tradition (1,2,3) are valences that help to give a well rounded definition. Probably not necessary but interesting nonetheless. The longer definitions (4,5) are, to my eye, more complete and therefor more useful to the present discussion.

It is entirely possible that the unabridged version is superfluous for some people. I freely admit to being a scholar and appreciating the depth.

[DWFII]

The utility kilt is another story. It is not at all traditional. An orthodox point of view would be that it isn't even a kilt and that there is something wrong with it. This position can cause conflict on a site like Xmarks that hosts kilt wearers of all varieties. A traditional point of view might recognize that utility kilts aren't traditional, but wouldn't necessarily denounce them as bad.

I don't know what glamour or cachet that "Tradition"--the word itself--brings such that people will deliberately misconstrue the English language to bestow some form of legitimacy on their choices.

So what if wearing a MUG is not Traditional? So what if by some lights a MUG isn't even a real kilt? So what? It is what it is.

If a person derives pleasure or a feeling of comfort...even metaphysical comfort...from wearing a denim kilt or a leather kilt or even white hose (a metaphor not an example), who is to gainsay them?

But it's not Tradition/Traditional.

And to try to make it so...to pilfer respect from an association that doesn't really exist...is to weaken the whole notion that MUGs have a legitimacy of their own apart from some form of iconoclasm/heterodoxy.


--

[DWFII]

I think it definitely adds some things that are absent from the concise version. The more obscure meanings of tradition (1,2,3) are valences that help to give a well rounded definition. Probably not necessary but interesting nonetheless. The longer definitions (4,5) are, to my eye, more complete and therefor more useful to the present discussion.

It is entirely possible that the unabridged version is superfluous for some people. I freely admit to being a scholar and appreciating the depth.

It may be interesting to you and me but we're pedants Although I don't even have the cover of being a scholar...at least not in the formal sense.

But it's just confusing to the majority here. And tends to further obscure the essential issues.

[Bugbear]

All right, I guess, with the unabridged OED definition, I have to withdraw my first complaint against OC Richard's post.

I'm not sure I understand the extreme or exclusive focus of the OED definition on traditions needing to be orally transmitted, 4.a., 5.a., but I'll let it go because this is not the right place to discuss it.

[Bugbear]

And one other hair to split... Though I'm willing to admit I might be wrong.

I think it might be possible to argue that the use and adaptation of cotton/denim/canvas to make lower-half, casual and rugged work clothing is a tradition. Particularly the use of these materiel's in homemade garments, as relating to the X-kilt, extending back to farmers having homemade, denim overalls, etc.

However, I would distinguish this as being a tradition relating to the fabric and it's use, rather than to the wearing of the kilt. Perhaps this is a source of emotional confusion on the topic?

[tripleblessed]

I think I'm agreement with Bugbear enough to say yes on written handing down, and that's not excluded in the OED, just predominantly oral.

On the matter of emotional confusion, Bugbear, I don't know. It frequently seems many of us here are quite well supplied with our own domestic homegrown and have no need for the imported stuff.