A garment or a symbol?

[couyalair]

I used to be an occasional kilt-wearer, then a full-time kilt-wearer, and now a dress-as-you-fancy unbifurcated man. The recent reaction of a neighbour set me thinking. When it was mentioned that I was French, she had a physical reaction, a glance at my clothing, and a look of horror as she exclaimed "What? Is he not Scottish?"
I realized that she could accept my skirts provided I was Scottish, but otherwise ...?

I like Scottish kilts for their quality, colour, comfort, warmth, but one thing I do not like is being put into the same category as, for example, women that wear an islamic headscarf. For them, as for all kinds of people around the world, the article of clothing is an identity marker, a proclamation of origins or belonging. For me, it's just an article of clothing with no message. I don't want it thought that only Scots can wear kilts.

If I'd had no connexion with Scotland, it would have taken me longer to start wearing a kilt undoubtedly, but it is not because I like Scotland (never lived there), Scottish music and dance, Scottish manners, that I go unbifurcated. My ancestors might have from the south pole, that has no importance (I look somewhat mediterranean, and my dermatologist asked if I had Indian blood ...). I am embarrassed that observers think I must be a Scottish nationalist, or am proclaiming my difference just as some other nationalities and religions do through their clothing. No, I am a European and believe in European unity, not in the breaking up of the union into bits and pieces (Scotland, England, Catalonia, Euskadi etc). Nor do I believe that any good can come out of what, in France, we call ostentatiously worn religious symbols. Our similarities are surely more important than our superficial differences.

In many ways, I now feel it is more in keeping with my political inclinations to wear a plain and simple skirt than to brandish the tartan, and enjoy being less conspicuous too, but as I have a whole collection of beautiful kilts that fit me, whereas my skirts are mainly second-best, second-hand, I'll be wearing both styles, as I feel appropriate.

Anyone else have any thoughts like this? From the things I have read on kilt forums, especially on the American one, I may be unique in rejecting the "proud-of-my-heritage" reasons for wearing a kilt.

Martin

[crfriend]

From the things I have read on kilt forums, especially on the American one, I may be unique in rejecting the "proud-of-my-heritage" reasons for wearing a kilt.

That was nicely written, Martin, and prompts me to make a couple of observations.

1) From what I believe, notwithstanding some of the things one reads on the 'Net, the Scots do not lay claim to sole ownership of the kilt, nor do they militantly resent non-Scots who wear kilts. The real Scots we have here are free to correct that assertion if it is incorrect.
2) Wearing a kilt and the wearing of assorted religious paraphernalia are very different things altogether; the latter makes a very strong statement about one's inner "workings" whereas the former does not. Non-Scots are free to wear kilts, just as non-Greeks can wear the fustanella, and non-Pacific-Islanders are free to wear sarongs.
3) The Kilt (capital-K) has much baggage associated with it and all sorts of rules and regulations which most everyone disagrees on. This is why I focus on skirts -- there are no "rules" about them (yet).

I would no more wear a crucifix or a yarmulke than I would a military uniform to which I am not entitled; this is a matter of respect. I'm a bit more lax about tartans, however, and do not necessarily believe that one is being disrespectful my wearing another clan's tartan; if the notion bothers some folk, there are plenty of non-specific "free-to-use" tartans available.

It's also worth recalling that the "little kilt" is a fairly modern style and is only a shade over a hundred years old, so one must take much of the "history" with a grain of salt.

The neighbour's reaction is puzzling, and I hope it did not damage your standing with her. It does point up an oddity of perception, though. Given the imagery I've seen, you have a Mediterranean complexion, certainly not a Scottish one -- you're used to being out in the sun! How your neighbour managed to overlook that I don't know.

[skirtyscot]

From what I believe, notwithstanding some of the things one reads on the 'Net, the Scots do not lay claim to sole ownership of the kilt, nor do they militantly resent non-Scots who wear kilts. The real Scots we have here are free to correct that assertion if it is incorrect.

I very much doubt any Scots here would do either. But I bet plenty other Scots would say the kilt is a purely Scottish thing, thogh few would actually object to foreigners wearing the kilt. In particular it seems accepted that members of the Scottish diaspora wear them to show their Scottish connections. I think the average Scot would approve of other foreigners wearing kilts, as it helps to keep an image of Scotland visible.

I'm a bit more lax about tartans, however, and do not necessarily believe that one is being disrespectful my wearing another clan's tartan; if the notion bothers some folk, there are plenty of non-specific "free-to-use" tartans available.

It's also worth recalling that the "little kilt" is a fairly modern style and is only a shade over a hundred years old, so one must take much of the "history" with a grain of salt.

The whole system of clan tartans is a Victorian invention. Kilts were outlawed after the 1745 Highland Uprising, and it was only when they were allowed again in the 19th century that particular patterns were ascribed to particular clans. Your average Highlander before 1745 would have had to wear whatever he could get. What would have been the advantage of clan tartans when almost everybody spent most of their time with folk from their own clan, and knew who everyone else in the area was anyway?

[Sarongman]

Let's not forget that the Highland "rebels" sought French help, so there is a connection, however tenuous

[Stu]

I have recently had to resolve a disagreement between two of my masters' students as to whether a garment which relates to a member of one sex only is or is not a "sign" (in the sense of the linguistic discipline of semiotics). It seems it may have relevance to this thread - you can decide for yourselves and so if anyone is interested in the response I gave, I have pasted it below - although you will have to understand Saussurian concepts of signs and Peirce's triadic in order to fully understand my argument.

(Student A) mentioned a skirt. Firstly, it is not an index and it is not an icon - so we can discount those from the start. To be a sign, it has to "signify" something - and that has to be its purpose. In one repect, it can be argued that the wearing of a skirt in our culture denotes femaleness. I went to a school for a period when I was a child and the uniform of that school was a blazer and skirt for girls. The people who ran the school also ran an all-boys school less than 1km away and, obviously, that rule did not apply there. A similar phenomenon occurred later when, at age 14, I was sent to a mixed comprehensive school and I had to wear a tie because boys wore ties and, for some reason, girls didn't have to, so it was a case of tie = boy, no tie = girl, which we all thought was unfair.

However, we must ask ourselves what is the purpose of a skirt/tie - is it made and worn in order to signify that the wearer is male/female? Or is it simply a garment people wear because they have to wear clothing and, while one sex can freely wear an item, it has become a social taboo for the other sex to wear it. I would have to say I think it is more likely to be the latter in most cases. Now, if you run a mixed school and you insist that girls wear skirts and boys wear trousers for the express purpose of enabling staff and others to determine at a glance which sex they are, then it could be argued that the skirt has some functionality as a sign - and it does bear some of the other features of a sign (Saussure) or symbol (Peirce). These include the fact that the skirt = girls and trousers = boys is arbitrary - there is no logical reason why boys it has to be this way round, and also we have the differential in the fact that x is not a boy because x is not wearing trousers, y is not a girl because y is not wearing a skirt, and the skirt/trousers - boy/girl relationship is a very simple signification system. Exactly the same could be said for the tie vs no tie distinction.

While I would say that, as a general rule, sex differences in dress do not constitute signs, there may be instances where a particular item of dress does serve expressly to signify something and then it could be argued that it is a sign.

I know my answer isn't a simple yes or know, but I am really pleased you have explored this and it has made you think - which was my intention.

Stu

[skirtyscot]

Scottish football and rugby fans wear kilts as a sign that they are Scottish. There are plenty of other examples of clothing being worn to identify the wearer as a member of a particular group. Given that Swedish schoolteachers, along with everybody else, can tell a man from a woman, a skirt is not a sign of femaleness. (And of course women generally don't wear skirts these days anyway.) So what is it, Stu, in your academic parlance?

[Stu]

skirtyscot

What my students are looking at is semiotics, which is a structuralist approach to language. Put simply:

+ everything in existence is made up of simple components. You are made of just four amino acids. Your computer works on ones and zeros in binary code. Atoms are made of protons and electrons etc. Language is made up of phonemes (sounds) and letters.

+ things are not only what they are - they are defined by what they are not, too. So a cat is not a hat because the 'c' at the beginning differentiates it from hat.

+ consequently, a key aspect of being male is not being female (and vice-versa). Being male and not being female are of equal importance to your manhood.

The question was whether a skirt is a "sign" that someone is female - wearing it means you are while not wearing a skirt means you are not female. However, to be a sign in semiotics, we have to ask what kind of sign it is. Because the skirt=female rule is arbitrary, that rules it out as certain kinds of signs, but leaves open the possibility that it is a "symbol", which is "arbitrary".

My argument is that it is not a sign UNLESS it is part of a strict system (like, perhaps, a school) where the skirt exists for the purpose of denoting that the wearer is female - otherwise it is simply a garment which is available to females, and maybe a few males brave enough to break sartorial conventions - that argument is for my students. The philosophical argument for Skirtcafe patrons is whether a skirt should ever be a sign at all. The skirt is a comfortable, smart and utilitarian garment first and foremost and we wear skirts not to denote our se, but because it is comfortable, smart and utilitarian.

A corresponding argument can be made for the kilt in relation to its Scottishness. If we say this garment is a comfortable, smart and utilitarian garment first and foremost and not simply a sign (badge of Scottish identity) then we have won the argument that they should be available as an option to all.

Here endeth the lesson.

Stu

[crfriend]

My argument is that it is not a sign UNLESS it is part of a strict system (like, perhaps, a school) where the skirt exists for the purpose of denoting that the wearer is female - otherwise it is simply a garment which is available to females, and maybe a few males brave enough to break sartorial conventions - that argument is for my students.

That's a good argument, Stu, and thanks for it. However, in this strict case you are referring to uniform, and components of a uniform are only applicable within the strict confines of the system which they're tied to, and may "mean" entirely different things in other systems -- although in practise, at least in Western civilisation, skirts tend to denote femininity.

The philosophical argument for Skirtcafe patrons is whether a skirt should ever be a sign at all. The skirt is a comfortable, smart and utilitarian garment first and foremost and we wear skirts not to denote our se, but because it is comfortable, smart and utilitarian.

Indeed, and from a logical point of view, this also removes much of the symbolism from the garment which means that is neither sign nor symbol in the sense of your argument. I just wish it was as easy to convince the opinionated "disbeliever" on the street that "It's just clothing". In that regard, it's rather like the way I disarmed a potential situation when confronted in a bar with a question of, "What's that!", to which my response was, "What's what?". A sneer of, "the skirt" came back to which I retorted, "Nothing's with it; these are my clothes."

A corresponding argument can be made for the kilt in relation to its Scottishness. If we say this garment is a comfortable, smart and utilitarian garment first and foremost and not simply a sign (badge of Scottish identity) then we have won the argument that they should be available as an option to all.

Indeed, and it all comes down to the way we use the language, and that's something I've been carping on about for ages.

Here endeth the lesson.

Thank you for it.

[the_scott_meister]

In the US, as I suspect in most of Europe, the skirt is a sign of either a) femininity (i.e. you are a female), or b) expressing femininity where it doesn't naturally exist (i.e. you're a male trying to be a female, or gay). If someone sees us in a skirt those are normally the only assumptions that are made. That's the hurdle that we have to overcome as men-in-skirts because most of us aren't trying to be female or trying to express our "feminine" side or gay. We like skirts and want to wear them because of pick-your-favorite-reason-here.

It's the same with the kilt: If you're from Scotland then you're entititled to wear it outdoors here with no one questioning it. "Why's that dude wearing a kilt? Oh, he must be from Scotland. I bet he sounds really cool when he talks." If you're not Scot(t)ish -- is it one "t" or two? -- then you can only wear it if you've got significant Scotish ancestry (I have some, not as much as I thought I did, as I recently discovered). Otherwise people question it just like Martin's neighbor did. Why would you possibly want to wear a kilt if you're not Scotish? Why would you possibly want to wear a skirt if you're not a girl? The answer is the same in both cases. "Because I want to, damn-it!". Most girls wouldn't understand because they don't wear them, they say the're uncomfortable.

However, as Martin brought up, if you aren't a Muslim woman is it appropriate to wear a head-skarf? I think not because it has significantly more meaning. I am a Mormon and as such wear the mormon underwear (some of you might know what I'm talking about). In my opinion, why would a non-Mormon possibly want to wear our stuff? Can they? Sure, there's nothing preventing it (although it might find it to be very difficult to procure). Do I want them wearing it? NO, I DO NOT!!! I consider it to have very deep meaning for me, and would be very offended if someone outside my faith wore it. The reason is because we have specific ways of treating it, with respect and reverance etc., and someone who doesn't know that wouldn't treat it as it should be. It wouldn't have any meaning for them. A non-Muslim woman who wore a traditional Muslim outfit such as a hijab wouldn't have the same respect for it or the tradition because it wouldn't mean anything to them, and a real Muslim would be offended by that, I expect.

But you can say the same thing about the kilt. Even though it's not a religeous symbol, it does have very specific, very deep-rooted cultural significance, probably more than just about any other garment you can think of. Someone outside of that culture wouldn't have the same reverence for it as those from that culture. Can someone who is not a Stewart wear a Stewart tartan? Legally they can. But should they? It wouldn't have any real meaning for them other than it's a really nice looking pattern. For a real Stewart, it has very deep family meaning, and some (but not all) Stewarts would be offended by an outsider wearing it.

Also, there are "rules" for wearing a kilt and unless you know those rules and apply them properly you will probably do it all wrong. Some traditionalists, I would call them "Kilt-Nazis" (prevelant on US kilt web-sites), would be upset if your kilt wasn't just the right length, just the right height on your waist, just the right tartan style for the time of day, and whatever other rules they want to apply. Geeze, just picking out the right sporan for the right occasion can be a daunting task. I mean, who wrote all those rules anyway? Most of them haven't been around for very long but they are set in stone like they've been around since since William Wallace. It's irritating. Anyway, enough of the rant about that.

As I mentioned above, I recently discovered that I'm not as Scottish as I thought. Well, we Mormons love to do genealogy, as you may well know, and while doing it I found last year that my grandfather wasn't his father's son. He was adopted. His real father was from Sweden. I always wondered why I loved ABBA so much. Now I know.

Man, this is a long post. You don't have to read the whole thing if you don't want to. You can stop here.

[couyalair]

Thank you, Scott-meister, for reading my original message.

I am sorry to say that I have to disagree with your perception of respect for clothing.
I find it very hard to imagine that Afghan women have any respect for the burka that imprisons them, or other Middle eastern women women shrouded in black under a burning sun. If they were allowed to throw them off, I'm sure they'd be glad to do so (lots of them do if they are allowed to travel abroad).
Nor have Scottish football fans any respect for their kilts -- fans or any other revelers for that matter. Just ask kilt-hire firms what filth they find inside and out of their kilts. More careful men "respect" their kilt because they paid a fortune for it. Ne need to read lofty ideals into our behaviour!

I have much more respect for my kilts than for my shirts -- or my underwear -- as they have been beautifully made, one by one, and look great when they are taken care of. Because they are fine garments, not because they are associated with Scotland.

I have a number of nice kilt pins. I take care how I attach them, because if I lost any of them, I'd be annoyed. But all are replaceable -- except one, that I take extra care of as it was a gift from very special friends 50 years ago. A kilt pin would not be worn by anyone except on a Scottish kilt and can be regarded as a sure sign or symbol of Scottishness, but I respect mine for purely personal reasons, not because it is a sign of belonging to some "Scottish community"

Your (justified) rant about kilt rules would seem to contradict your previous words, and agree that clothes are just clothes.

As far you last paragraph; big disagreement. Your real father is the man that brought you up, took care of you, educated you. I assume with your reference to a love for ABBA, your tongue was in your cheek.
Although the word "gene" appears in "genealogy", we are humans because we also have and transmit culture, whereas the other animals have only genes to transmit, genes that carry instincts but not culture.

Martin

[rivegauche]

As a Scot, I think most Scots take a fairly relaxed attitude to kilts in terms of who wears them, tartans, and how they are worn. You can find extremists in all aspects of life, and the kilt nazis should be given the same credence as real nazis. Skirtyscot is right - the current form of the kilt and tartans are total, fairly recent inventions. Modern kilts are actually different for men and women - the overlap runs the other way for women, but most women's kilts are also in lighter fabrics, in different lengths, and may be lined. Thus they can be more comfortable and are almost invariably cheaper. And women do not wear sporrans (nothing stopping them, though). You now frequently see men - usually young men - wearing kilts with T-shirts and trainers, without sporrans, though I don't know where they keep their money and keys! If it comes to clan tartans and surnames, the so-called 'one true line' of descent should be through the mother rather than the alleged father. As with skirts for men, kilts for men should be addressed in a spirit of openness and tolerance. Personally I prefer skirts and wear them much more than kilts. To use the tartan nazis' argument - I can wear a skirt on the grounds that my mother is a woman. I actually wear it for comfort and enjoyment - there is a pleasant aspect to wearing a nice skirt you simply can't get from trousers.

[pleated]

Also, there are "rules" for wearing a kilt and unless you know those rules and apply them properly you will probably do it all wrong. Some traditionalists, I would call them "Kilt-Nazis" (prevelant on US kilt web-sites), would be upset if your kilt wasn't just the right length, just the right height on your waist, just the right tartan style for the time of day, and whatever other rules they want to apply. Geeze, just picking out the right sporan for the right occasion can be a daunting task. I mean, who wrote all those rules anyway? Most of them haven't been around for very long but they are set in stone like they've been around since since William Wallace. It's irritating. Anyway, enough of the rant about that.

Those "rules" were formed a long time after William Wallace. The rules about kilt length, and even hose (stocking) length including how long the turn-over at the top should be, seem to have originally been devised by the British Army for their Scottish regiments.

[skirtyscot]

If it comes to clan tartans and surnames, the so-called 'one true line' of descent should be through the mother rather than the alleged father.

Eh? We're all Billies and Tims, not Jews!

[rivegauche]

The clan fascists make a huge deal about the line of descent. Just making the point that the supposed father often isn't the biological one, whereas there is not much doubt about who is the mother. They each contribute exactly the same number of genes. Not that it matters anyway.

[the_scott_meister]

That was really my point in the "rant". When I mentioned William Wallace I should have worded it as "set in stone, AS IF it goes back to William Wallace." I know that most of the rules are more or less 20th century inventions. For a long time kilts and anything else Scottish was forbidden, for like 150 years or so, then when it was relaxed I suppose that they had to go and invent a whole new set. Making up for lost time? In "The New World" (US) there is a perception that anything from the Old World goes back to ancient times, or countless generations. Really, many of the traditions aren't that old.

But honestly, are newer traditions any less valid than older ones? Not to those who hold them, I don't think. Especially if you don't have a couple thousand years of history surrounding you to remind you about it. My family has traditions, some go back to my childhood, some further, some only to last summer. The important ones will stick and the unimportant ones will die out. It's true of a family of 4, and it's true of a nation of 300M (just takes longer).