Curious about the "rules"

[Jock Scot]

Yes, good points well made Chas..

[kiltedwolfman]

If you want to enter the Royal enclosure at Ascot, you will be expected to wear a morning suit and top hat. You choose not to, you don't get in - they regularly get gentlemen to re-tie their neck-ties because they look sloppy.

This mode of thinking begs the question again. Why are certain types of dress mandated for certain occasions? Do white tie and tails make the enjoyment of the opera any better? does someone not appearing in the same make the rest of the attendees less apt to enjoy the music? Perhaps it is a total phylisophical question when one, more spcifically I, wonder why the outward appearance has become so overly important that judgement can be passed on a person based solely on it, and not on the individual.

I knew a man for many years of my life before he passed away who was by and large one of the wealthier men in my hometown. He often had great dinner parties and the like and always told guest to "come as you are". He made his fortune farming and grew up a working man rarely to be seen out of coveralls. Because of this outward appearance he was so often overlooked by the higher up crowds, or snubbed by the same. His common phrase was simple " appearance does not make the man". Now he was never a kilt enthusiast, but what I learned from him and his outlook was that if I treated people differently based on judgements made just by the eye then I am doing a disservice to them and to myself.

It seems to me sometimes that people get so wrapped up in the rightness or wrongness of kilt wear that the things that should be more important go by the wayside. Again this could be more of a personal phylisophical search at this point then an academic one.

PS. As an aside, I am thoughroughly enjoying the comments thusfar, certainly providing an ample supply of food for the buffet of thought.....hmmmm perhaps I'm getting hungry and thus the food refferences.

[JSFMACLJR]

Chas made a powerful statement. I could not have said it any better.

[Chas]

This mode of thinking begs the question again. Why are certain types of dress mandated for certain occasions? Do white tie and tails make the enjoyment of the opera any better? does someone not appearing in the same make the rest of the attendees less apt to enjoy the music? Perhaps it is a total phylisophical question when one, more spcifically I, wonder why the outward appearance has become so overly important that judgement can be passed on a person based solely on it, and not on the individual.

Does it matter where or why a dress code was instigated? If it exists, then it exists. A person can be inappropriately dressed, but a wise man would not do it intentionally.

As a general rule of thumb, people don't usually get dressed up in their finest to get thoroughly drunk and have a good punch-up. If people are wearing expensive clothing, they are more likely to behave in a way that doesn't ruin them.

It seems to me sometimes that people get so wrapped up in the rightness or wrongness of kilt wear that the things that should be more important go by the wayside. Again this could be more of a personal phylisophical search at this point then an academic one.

I don't wish to be argumentative, but what are these things that are more important that are going by the wayside?

Regards

Chas

[ForresterModern]

I agree with much of what has been said here, particularly that of Chas, Jock, and Jim.

To expand a bit on Chas's comments, there are places where the kilt is specifically NOT suitable wear, either because it may be dangerous (a machinery shop factory floor), socially questionable ( as a public childcare provider), or just plain out not allowed (like Royal Troon Golf Course in Scotland---sorry gents, couldn't pass up that opportunity for a little dig) whether or not is specifically stated up front.

I think you are trying to put your own values about dress relating to a person's worth ( the square peg) into the social context of how people are expected to dress for certain occasions, what is considered generally acceptable (the proverbial round hole), and unfortunately it won't fit. Not everybody in the world thinks like you, nor you like them, so oftentimes expectations are not understood. Hence why some of the conventions have arisen over time---white tie formal, black tie formal, semiformal, dress casual, etc... This is in some ways meant to ease the mind of those who are invited to engage in these events and activities. As stated before you may decide to not abide by the conventions, but may not be able to participate because of it (e.g., me in a kilt at Royal Troon), or change your attire to meet those conventions (me in pants at Royal Troon) so you can participate. Other times it may just be considered rude to step outside the boundaries of the conventions---showing up in cut off jean shorts, flip flops and without a shirt at a funeral for example. See the stickied threads about "10 Different levels of kilted dress" if you have any questions---it is a helpful guideline.

But in general most of us live our days in the grey areas of dress, and kilted dress is no different---lots of grey areas. Which is why most folks here say wear what you are comfortable wearing for the occasion. You may be a little overdressed, or possibly underdressed, but you will likely not be far off. And remember it is always easier to take a dressy outfit down a notch or two than it is to try to make your rugby jersey and sweatshirt fit up to a black-tie situation.

Just the fact that you are asking means you already have a fairly well developed sense of general right and wrong, which I believe will stead you well in your decisions about kilt wear. Kilt up and enjoy!

jeff

[JSFMACLJR]

Do white tie and tails make the enjoyment of the opera any better? does someone not appearing in the same make the rest of the attendees less apt to enjoy the music? Perhaps it is a total phylisophical question when one, more spcifically I, wonder why the outward appearance has become so overly important that judgement can be passed on a person based solely on it, and not on the individual. .

The opera is ALWAYS more enjoyable when people dress. I cannot imagine attending any other way...if that is the tradition of the company. And yes, I would enjoy myself less if people were poorly dressed. If musicians and performers go to the trouble of doing their best, than shouldn't the audience do the same?

Shouldn't the motives of the individual who chooses to break with "tradition", the individual who decides he can wear blue jeans to the opera because he bloody well wants to--be questioned and challenged? Why does this person think the world revolves around him? Why does he think he doesn't have to conform with policies and traditions? Why should he be the "hero" and those who follow the polite customs of society and "decency" be the villains?

[Jock Scot]

Kiltedwolfman.

Sometimes we have to accept things as they are, The Royal Enclosure at Ascot, some operas, a formal ball all require one to conform to partake in the event and that is just the way of life and that choice is available to each and everyone of us. My wife for one, really enjoys these events and the fact the we dress up is part of the event for her and she is hardly in the minority.

No the clothes do not improve the music, racing,etc but they do help make that undefinable thing "the sense of occasion" "ambiance" that some people very much enjoy. What we wear does not make any of us better than anyone else, wealthier perhaps, more cleaver perhaps, luckier perhaps , but most certainly not better. We all have our own choices in life and if one wants to partake in certain events, then that is what we have to do-----conform. If we choose not to, then some options in life are shut to us. Is it right to happen that way? Probably not. But welcome to the real world, because that is the way it is!

[CMcG]

This mode of thinking begs the question again. Why are certain types of dress mandated for certain occasions? Do white tie and tails make the enjoyment of the opera any better? does someone not appearing in the same make the rest of the attendees less apt to enjoy the music? Perhaps it is a total phylisophical question when one, more spcifically I, wonder why the outward appearance has become so overly important that judgement can be passed on a person based solely on it, and not on the individual.
<snip>

Actually, context does play a large role in people's perceptions of an event. Take, for example, an experiment done by the Washington post (article HERE).

A world class violinist played Bach on a million dollar instrument for one hour in a subway station. People hardly noticed.

When the same musician plays the same music in a concert hall for people in formal evening wear, it is quite different. People are in rapture.

At a formal music event, the type of clothing, modes of action, and specialized location function as symbols. People are putting on their best as a sign of respect for the performance and are also showing that they ready to pay attention. In order for a symbol to be understood without explanation, it must conform to standards. Hence, a dress code is in effect; people's outward appearance is a symbol of their belonging to the group and its expectations. The group is unified through appearance without having to ascertain the measure of each individual person.

<snip>
It seems to me sometimes that people get so wrapped up in the rightness or wrongness of kilt wear that the things that should be more important go by the wayside. Again this could be more of a personal phylisophical search at this point then an academic one.

In deconstructing the proclamations and rules announced by some members, it is worthwhile to start by examining their assumptions.

One school of thought is that civilians wearing the kilt are dressing in clothes belonging exclusively to the Highland tradition and that the kilt is only for special events of a Scottish nature or where THCD is explicitly welcome. By that assumption, if one is wearing the kilt at all, they should be doing so according to the "rules". It is a matter of primary importance to respect the fundamental nature of the kilt being a symbol of Scotland.

If one views the kilt in a more inclusive way, then they will see the matter differently. The assumption underlying this position might be that the kilt is just clothing and is appropriate for most any occasion, whether Scottish or not. In this case, one might be the only one wearing a kilt at a dressy event or have chosen to wear their kilt to informal events. Under this assumption, one has greater freedom of choice in how they dress but proportionately larger individual responsibility to still show respect for the event, host, and fellow attendees.

[kiltedwolfman]

Why does he think he doesn't have to conform with policies and traditions? Why should he be the "hero" and those who follow the polite customs of society and "decency" be the villains?

I think this statement helps me boil down what I'm asking the most. At what point did the modes of formal dress become the policy and tradition, and why? There have been many times when I've been at mid point of a double windsor and thought to myself, who came up with this thing? And why did it become so popular? I'm not thinking if the knot, but moreover the whole formal idea. How did certain types of style become the benchmark for formality, and then after time become the most right and acceptable level for it.

I am not attempting to say that formality should be done away with and we should all adopt the most casual and be joyous in it. I am however trying to understand how certain things, like a PC, or Doublet etc came to the forefront as proper attire for certain occasions. The opera has been alluded to and the type of dress required for it. I think it serves as good example in asking at what point did someone, or group of people state that all those attending can only attend if dressed in such and such as that is what is proper for the occasion? Dress codes are fine and I have little qualm with them, I am however trying to discover how the codes came to be? What criteria were used to established proper formal wear as opposed to casual or semi formal. Another example is sporrans, as it has often been said that day or casual sporrans should be brown, and evening ones black. Why? How does the colour of the sporran matter to the level of formality? This is the thing that poses the greatest curiousity to me, how did all the formal things become so formal?

[Jock Scot]

Plain and simple evolution, good marketing by the tailors and a willingness for their cutomers to want to conform.