Tradition and Change

[Domehead]

Say you're at some function at which all the men are in business suits save for one guy dressed as a punker, with a fuchsia Mohawk and loads of piercings and chains etc. One might think that the punker is "expressing his individuality" but in reality he's not doing such any more so than a guy who shows up at a punk rock club dressed in a business suit. Both styles of dress are the precise opposite of expressing individuality: both are expressing, rather, membership in groups having strict dress codes.

The above quote is on point with Edward Sapir, with an elusion to Derrida. The next deconstructive step is to derive any sense of "meaning" (subsequently, any value from said "meaning") by recognizing individual self-expression as only relevant if recognized as derived from a group. Otherwise, you dressed in the dark with your toes. The "individual" aspect or component is relative - Derrida's context / outsidetext, i.e. perspective: I'm a punker because I'm not a suit. I'm a suit because I'm not a punker.

As I understand Nathan's sentiments, Highland Dress, as an expression of cultural relevance, is important because it is not South Asian Sarung, Alpine Lederhosen, Japanese Ceremonial Kimono, etc. There is no inherent value in tartan as we know it (polychromatic twill weave) because the fabric pre-dates the four kingdoms of what became Scotland. However, Derrida would say that the term "tartan" may be understood as distinctly Scottish simply because it is not associated geographically or culturally with anywhere else in a "meaningful" way (although He and the Yale School debated what was "meaning").

I believe that Nathan is saying that "meaningfulness" is almost a virtue worth preserving, if not perpetuating, in-and-of-itself. And one's presentation is a communicative commencement that if slipshod seems irreparable.

Ryan M. Liddell