How Long to Make a Tradition

[DWFII]

I think that's a little backwards. Not that understanding the reasons a tradition started isn't good, but rather that, almost by implication if not definition, a tradition is observed simply because it is a tradition. If a practice is only valid or only observed because we understand its rationale, it really falls more into the realm of a precept or a code. The example you present illustrates the concept--it has become a tradition despite the lack of rationale.

It might also be said that trying to connect a tradition to its rationale, divorces it from the very context that makes it a tradition--the society which holds it in some regard...whether that be a whole people or just a family.

Maybe most importantly, there are any number of conventions that may have once been traditions in society and for which the rationale is both good and still eminently valid, but which have fallen into disuse. Sadly.

[Expat2011]

Maybe most importantly, there are any number of conventions that may have once been traditions in society and for which the rationale is both good and still eminently valid, but which have fallen into disuse. Sadly.

Can you cite some examples? Maybe I haven't given this interesting subject enough thought but it seems to me that all traditions fall into disuse eventually.

Society evolves. Except for perhaps mass extinction, who or what can stop social change?

Bill

[DWFII]

Can you cite some examples? Maybe I haven't given this interesting subject enough thought but it seems to me that all traditions fall into disuse eventually.Bill

In a bit of a hurry...

How about "objective journalism?" This was putatively a tradition in this country almost from its inception. Or if not, at least in the last century.

Or how about "oral contracts?" It used to be that a "man's word" was his "bond."

Or in a more sociological vein...how about the traditional role of parents raising their own children? Or even getting married before they have children, for that matter? Good sound reasons for both practices, but in disfavour at this time. On the same note how about the idea that parents had the right to pass on their own values and culture to their children?

Or to take the opposite tack, how about the "inch" or the "foot" or the "mile?" All kinds of reasons to move to a more scientific set of weights and measurements yet some countries almost universally resist...for what? I would submit solely for the sake of "Tradition." Hooray for them!! (BTW, the English set of weights and measurements were based on a rational system...by the standards of the day).

[Bugbear]

I think that's a little backwards. Not that understanding the reasons a tradition started isn't good, but rather that, almost by implication if not definition, a tradition is observed simply because it is a tradition. If a practice is only valid or only observed because we understand its rationale, it really falls more into the realm of a precept or a code. The example you present illustrates the concept--it has become a tradition despite the lack of rationale.

It might also be said that trying to connect a tradition to its rationale, divorces it from the very context that makes it a tradition--the society which holds it in some regard...whether that be a whole people or just a family.

Maybe most importantly, there are any number of conventions that may have once been traditions in society and for which the rationale is both good and still eminently valid, but which have fallen into disuse. Sadly.

I am only saying that explaining the where and why, or the history of a tradition as it is passed on makes the tradition stronger and longer lasting; that includes admitting that some of it may have been from myths or that we really don't know why the tradition was started. At this point in my life, I am not afraid to look closely at the traditions I was taught, and to decide whether they should or should not be a part of my life; same with the beliefs and customs I was tought to believe.

[Expat2011]

Objective journalism is largely a myth, traditional marriage is a personal choice, and parents raising their children have every opportunity to pass their values and culture to the next generation. That many choose not to do so is another example that "tradition" is both fleeting and subject to external forces that result in its inevitable evolution.

Tradition could even be cyclic. My family's Scottish heritage was not exactly embraced by my Father or my Grandfather. Yet here I am on this forum.

As for "oral contracts," well, if the parties were illiterate I suppose there was no other option. To think that this was a time when men "kept their word" more than they do now may be putting a romantic spin on the past.

I have nothing against tradition per se, but I cannot follow one so rigidly that it seemingly takes on a religious significance - suddenly being above scrutiny, science (as in English weights and measurements), common sense, or perhaps even more importantly, my own personal sovereignty.

Bottom line: Individuals change. Society changes. How then can tradition be exempt from the very changes affecting those who created the tradition in the first place?

Yet I'd like to think that when I sit at the pub in my UK and hiking boots, sipping an Islay single malt, and arguing the designated hitter rule with some friends, I'm still participating in a tradition. Several of them in fact - all of which make sense for this time and place.

Bill

[DWFII]

Bottom line: Individuals change. Society changes. How then can tradition be exempt from the very changes affecting those who created the tradition in the first place?

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."

Traditions are the very foundations of culture and civilizations..even if they aren't obvious. But they are not anchored in the here and now. They are indeed exempt from the shifting, and often inchoate, values, mores, conventions of modern society and the cognitive dissonance and short attention spans of the TV generations.

When we discard enough of them we will really and truly have anarchy--which will come, if past is prologue (as it often is), to the great dismay, of self-proclaimed anarchists..

[DWFII]

Objective journalism is largely a myth, traditional marriage is a personal choice, and parents raising their children have every opportunity to pass their values and culture to the next generation. That many choose not to do so is another example that "tradition" is both fleeting and subject to external forces that result in its inevitable evolution.

Those are your opinions...and whether valid or not they have no bearing on the traditions that are/were associated with them

BTW, traditions never "work" perfectly...they are never adhered to by everyone or in every circumstance. The reason is simple--traditions are not rules and they never were rules. They are more like shared values, recognized and established over a long period of time. And as such the implied "connections" that are generated between people...even people separated by time and space...is very real. Maybe one of the "realest" things we share as human beings. As much because recognition and regard for traditions are...and always have been...entirely voluntary.

Do societies and cultures change? Are traditions discarded or, in some cases, even actively disparaged in the process? Of course. Human society is always in the process of recreating itself. But beyond the old truism about those who "forget the past being condemned to repeat it...," the unspoken question is...what will tomorrow look like? Star Trek or Mad Max?

[JelicoCat]

A young man newly wedded was sitting in the kitchen watching his wife make a roast. She cut both ends off the roast. She placed the roast in the oven and preceded to cook the end pieces seperately. He asked "why do you do that, honey?" " I don't know" she said "my mother always did and that is how I was taught to do it." The next time he was at his in-law's house he asked his mother inlaw the same. She replied that her mother had done it that way and so did she. A little while later he had a chance to to speak with his wife's grand mother and she also gave the same reply. After this he could not stand it and that very weekend he and his wife went to see great-grandma. "great-grandma" he asked " why do you cut the ends off a roast before you cook it?" "Well," she said "go in the cabinet and on the bottom shelf grab to black roasting pan." He did as told. "You see sonny, The roast is to big for the pan and you have to cut a little off both ends to make it fit."

[DWFII]

A young man newly wedded...[snip]..."You see sonny, The roast is to big for the pan and you have to cut a little off both ends to make it fit."

Dave Dove already used that example.

My response to you is the same as my response to him:

"If a practice is only valid or only observed because we understand its rationale, it really falls more into the realm of a precept or a code. The example you present illustrates the concept--it has become a tradition despite the lack of rationale.

It might also be said that trying to connect a tradition to its rationale, divorces it from the very context that makes it a tradition--the society which holds it in some regard...whether that be a whole people or just a family."

[JelicoCat]

I don't follow (I confuse easily.)

So if there is a rational reason for doing something that has been passed down from one generation to the next and one knows the reason, then by definition it is excluded from being a tradition.

Is this correct or did I miss it again?