How Long to Make a Tradition

[Friday]

It was said earlier that the traditional clothing of a gentleman has not changed in the past 100 years (forgive me if this time estimate is off). I agree and I would suggest that most people have no idea why this style was first designed on how it became traditional. It just works.

In another post an example was used that raised a question in my mind of when is it traditional and when is it just old? As the WWW grows more and more information is available and even more misinformation is available. The example describes a picture of a man in highland dress with two pistols in his belt. I would not include two pistols as part of traditional highland dress*. At the time two pistols were very important, if you could afford them) to try to reduce the number of highwaymen before they came into sword range. As the road became safer the need for these pistols reduced. As we talk about traditions we need to be careful about where we get the source material from.

*If my mind serves me correctly there was a requirement for a pistol as part of formal highland dress before court but this has been dropped, but I may be wrong.

[Friday]

As for family values, I vaguely remember in some cultures, especially for royalty, because of the importance of heirs, that the brides ability to produce children was verified before the marriage. Could this be part of the basis for the statement that a bride can do in six months what an old married woman takes 9?

[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."

[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.