Can we define THCD?

[OC Richard]

I don't think it's possible to define.

Or the definitions become circular, like "Art is what Artists make" (and what is an Artist? A person who makes Art?)

Using that approach the definition of Traditional Highland Dress would be "that dress which people in The Highlands regard as Traditional."

In other words it would be the sum of the attitudes or tastes of a specific population, and not knowable or definable to a person outwith that population.

Outsiders can only look at the manifestations. These manifestations can be both the physical reality of what Highlanders themselves wear, and verbal manifestations such as written or spoken commentary. Outsiders can create guidelines and rules generated from study of these manifestations but can never have the insider's views/opinions/attitudes/tastes.

This is called the emic/etic dichotomy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emic_and_etic

[Carlo]

In short I would say it's:
Clothes that suit the occasion you attend, wearing a tartan(with exceptions) kilt at knee hight.

[CMcG]

This could be interesting

Ideally a definition of THCD would be theoretically specific enough to clarify it, but general enough to recognize the inherent variation of practice. Perhaps we might need both a short, dictionary-style version and a longer encyclopedia-type entry

[Father Bill]

. . . other than preventing arguments (which will never happen ) why would we want to define THCD? Although it's an interesting and generous idea, I suspect it would actually create more arguments.

Bill+

[davidlpope]

. . . other than preventing arguments (which will never happen ) why would we want to define THCD? Although it's an interesting and generous idea, I suspect it would actually create more arguments.

Bill+

As to why, I think that it might help to answer concerns that Steve and others have that we've never defined what THCD is. That point seems to come up again and again when the concept is discussed. Based on other recent threads, it appears that some folks here want to have this discussion in great detail, while others are very put off by it.

My opinion is that it's better for that discussion, if people desire to have it, to not bog down the rest of the forum. Those folks who do not post in this subforum can insulate themselves from the discussion and not be troubled by this exchange of ideas. I'm also confident that those members who choose to post in this Traditional subforum are fully capable of having a vigorous and thoughtful discussion without anyone getting bent out of shape- we've been doing it for years.

[Steve Ashton]

Thank you, thank you.

Yes please. Come up with some sort of definition.

If you cannot figure out how to say what it is, a good trick is to try saying what it is not. This would define the outside borders and may help you to narrow down a definition.

[Jock Scot]

As a suggestion, how about putting up a picture and disecting it, so to speak? For eample we have had Steve's "three musketeers" picture currrently on another thread. Steve thinks one way, others think another ---- a prime example then, of a divergance of inturpretation. It is absolutely not a question of right or wrong, it is though, an illustration that people do look at a picture and see very different things . OK this could turn into a pantomine and end in disaster of "oh yes it is" and "oh no its not", but worth a try? I think so, as we do have willing and wise heads at work here. Easy to resolve? Almost certainly not!

[davidlpope]

Here's an image from:http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/23...d529b9dde8.jpg

Dissect!

As a suggestion, how about putting up a picture and disecting it, so to speak? For eample we have had Steve's "three musketeers" picture currrently on another thread. Steve thinks one way, others think another ---- a prime example then, of a divergance of inturpretation. It is absolutely not a question of right or wrong, it is though, an illustration that people do look at a picture and see very different things . OK this could turn into a pantomine and end in disaster of "oh yes it is" and "oh no its not", but worth a try? I think so, as we do have willing and wise heads at work here. Easy to resolve? Almost certainly not!

[Benning Boy]

There are two ways to define a thing, conceptually and operationally. Conceptual definitions just give you some vague general idea of what a thing is. They leave things open for debate. Operational definitions tell you exactly how to know a thing when you see it. They leave no room for argument. A thing either satisfies the definition or it doesn't. Nothing offered here so far is anything more than a conceptual definition. So, how are you actually going to know traditonal highland dress when you see it?

[Steve Ashton]

BB,

You have just spent the last two days being shown examples of the difference between a kilt that is made in the Traditional way, AKA "ToAK" and kilts made in the modern way, AKA Freedom Kilts, USA Kilts, AmericaKilt, Alt.Kilt, kilts made as MUG's AKA Utilikilts, and Kilts made in the Pub/Tourist style, AKA Gold Bro's, Stillwater Kilts.

I fee confident that at least you can understand when I say that there truly is a difference between these types of kilts that is concrete and definable . You can see and feel the difference. The difference is not open to personal interpretation or individual feelings. You can hold them in your hand and tell right away that they are different.

You have also seen that how you accessorize your kilt is does not change the basic and fundamental difference between the how these kilts are made.

And because this difference is so much a part of the garment itself, and so concrete and definable, that this is the only criteria that we can realistically use. Especially in the light of this and previous threads where those who use the acronym TCHD can't even define it among themselves or agree among themselves what it means.

I honestly believe that we need to take a serious look at how terms are used. If you can't define a word or acronym, then why would we continue to use it and defend it beyond all reason?

This is really beginning to remind me about the old phrase "Family Friendly" that used to be used so freely on this forum. People were being held to a standard, even while those who used it, could not define it.

I never said, or even implied, that anyone who dressed in a Tweed with Argyle cuffs looked like a 1930's catalog. I did say that the same people who seem to enjoy carrying a cromach always seemed to post the same 1930's catalog photos to prove how traditional they were dressing.
I really don't care how another person dresses. Just don't put words in my mouth that I did not say.

What I did say is that I do not use the acronym TCHD. I don't like to use words or phrases or acronyms that have no definition or meaning. It was made up out of nothing here on this forum, and is used only by a small handful. It is held up as some ideal or something to aspire to. And yet in 5 pages on this thread, and how many pages on other threads, that small handful of individuals can't explain to the rest of us what the heck it means.