Quote Originally Posted by Nathan View Post
With the greatest of respect Father Bill, I agree with everything you said about post-modernism and the fact that all opinions are not created equal, but I got off the bus at the end when you said, "that comments about "traditional dress" having changed are extremely questionable."

Traditions do change as they make their way down the generations. Each generation interprets the tradition and makes it their own in the context and time in which they live. That's how they avoid looking like they're in costumes from bygone eras. Traditions do change, just slowly.

I would argue that there has been a "tradition" of Highland attire slowly and perhaps reluctantly following an "adapted to the kilt" form of general Western fashion through the centuries. It could be said that Highland attire is on the spine rather than the cutting edge of Western fashion trends, but it comes along eventually nonetheless.

To be sure, Highland attire has hung on to some militaristic embellishments longer that its neighbours as it is a conservative form of dress but the primary reason that the Prince Charlie coatee is the formal jacket of choice among most "special occasion" kilt wearers is arguably because it more closely resembles the tuxedo dinner jackets and the tails coats that the non-kilties are wearing and because no modern kilt wearer is completely free from the influence of non-kilted fashion. That's why it's a living tradition, because it doesn't exist in a vacuum and ultimately that's why it endures.

Even among staunch traditionalists, items that were once traditional and considered nearly essential accessories in some orders of dress such as hair sporrans, plaids and dirks are viewed as over the top or costume-like by many traditionalists because their generation rejected them as too out of sync with their contemporary tastes.

Whist kilted I only wear traditional wool tartan kilts with a sporran. When I do this, I do it in the name of tradition and with a nod to my Highland roots. The accessories I choose depend on what I'm going to be doing and where I'm going. I don't dress exactly like most men I know who are 60 plus most days so it's no surprise that we differ on how much leeway one should take with the kilt.

That said, in a business or black tie context we may dress in a very similar fashion. In jeans on a Saturday night, perhaps not so much.

Which brings me to the generational thing about living traditions. In the 20th Century, it was considered traditional to wear a kilt with a jumper/sweater/pullover. Was this always the case since King George IV's visit or did this comparatively casual look evolve into the conservative tradition and eventually become accepted? Will polo shirts or t-shirts make their way to being viewed within the bounds of the traditional? Have they already? It's worth asking.

I think traditional kilts and how to wear them is the appropriate venue for that question. Leave the Contemporary thread for the canvas cargo kilt crowd. Let the older gents that were steeped in the tradition bear witness to the way it was done in their youth and let the younger gents and the unacquainted learn well from them to ensure authentic continuity. Just understand that evolution will most certainly occur in the process.

Traditions are not static. They do evolve but they do not typically mutate violently and drastically - that's revolution not evolution. It is each successive generation of tradition bearers that will be the final arbiters of how the tradition is passed down. Collectively they will decide which elements of the tradition will survive and be passed along and which will get relegated to history.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here with regard to traditional attire. In general, a tradition is a tradition because it is impervious to changes over times. However, everything succumbs to change, though it is a slow process. If we were to look closely at the traditional formal highland attire of 100 years ago, we might find several changes in what we would ourselves wear today, though we wouldnt say that the tradition has necessarily changed. Everything is subject to micro-evolution of that nature. There is anecdote about the shift of language from Paris to Madrid that exemplifies what I mean. It was once said that the inhabitants of Paris could understand the inhabitants (with respect to language) of a village closeby the city, and that this village could understand the people in the village next to them, and they could understand the village next to them, going all the way to Madrid. Those living in Madrid, however, could not understand those in Paris. Looking at the chain as a whole, the difference in language between each village seems so insignificant, but the overall change from one end to other, is rather large.

So, although Father Bill is correct in saying that traditional dress having changed being questionable is correct, there has been a microevolution of traditional dress over the years. The same general attire remains but changes, because of the conditions you mentioned, have occurred. We dont say that attire has changed all that much in the last 100 years in formal kilt wear but if we were to go back in time, the differences may become very apparent.