A garment or a symbol?
Re: A garment or a symbol?
I think that most Scots in Scotland would never dream of wearing a kilt. And when, the closest many of them may come to a kilt is when they once or twice in their lifetime are hiring one. They might wonder why but hardly have anything against non-Scots wearing a kilt. To them it is just a (strange) garment.
There are about three thousand registered tartans, based upon four or five colors. How many, do you think, of these non- or seldom kilt wearers would even notice if a man was wearing “their” tartan should they one day see a man in a kilt? How likely would it be that even a traditionalist, knowing his tartan inside out, would get a change to see another man wearing “his”? How likely is it that he would have the opportunity to find out if his rights were actually offended by a person untitled to wear it?
In the real world we can still talk about monopoly, even if more and more seldom. You can lose a monopoly in different ways, one of them being by no longer utilizing it yourself. Another way is that sales is going to a competitor who has developed a product fulfilling about the same needs but in a better and/or cheaper way. The old monopolized product may still (at least for some time) remain on the market, because of some core consumers (who will die out, however), and eventually it will disappear from the market. Main reason: insufficient product development due to feeling “secure”, because of the monopoly.
I am afraid to say that I do fear for the future of the kilt. Due to rigid rules no product development, too expensive to manufacture, compared to other clothing, and then, by some traditionalists claimed to be a for Scotsmen only product = a symbol, a monopoly of theirs.
The kilt still have chances to become a garment. And as a garment it could become successful, whereas as a mere symbol it should die out – to my fear and best judgment.
There are about three thousand registered tartans, based upon four or five colors. How many, do you think, of these non- or seldom kilt wearers would even notice if a man was wearing “their” tartan should they one day see a man in a kilt? How likely would it be that even a traditionalist, knowing his tartan inside out, would get a change to see another man wearing “his”? How likely is it that he would have the opportunity to find out if his rights were actually offended by a person untitled to wear it?
In the real world we can still talk about monopoly, even if more and more seldom. You can lose a monopoly in different ways, one of them being by no longer utilizing it yourself. Another way is that sales is going to a competitor who has developed a product fulfilling about the same needs but in a better and/or cheaper way. The old monopolized product may still (at least for some time) remain on the market, because of some core consumers (who will die out, however), and eventually it will disappear from the market. Main reason: insufficient product development due to feeling “secure”, because of the monopoly.
I am afraid to say that I do fear for the future of the kilt. Due to rigid rules no product development, too expensive to manufacture, compared to other clothing, and then, by some traditionalists claimed to be a for Scotsmen only product = a symbol, a monopoly of theirs.
The kilt still have chances to become a garment. And as a garment it could become successful, whereas as a mere symbol it should die out – to my fear and best judgment.
GerdG
There ARE viable alternatives to trousers.
There ARE viable alternatives to trousers.
- couyalair
- Member Extraordinaire
- Posts: 957
- Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:55 pm
- Location: Malaga or Grenoble
Re: A garment or a symbol?
Unfortunately, I think you may be right, Greg. Kilts need to be detached from Scotland to survive.
On the other hand, thanks to young football fans and fashionable weddings, there are more kilts being worn now than when I was a child. And thanks to Scottish dance clubs and Highland game organizers, kilts are being worn around the world by Scots and non-Scots alike, in an unprecedented way, and some of these men having tried the kilt for Scottish events, then decide it's not so bad as an everyday garment.
Although the fanatics for authenticity and tradition would not agree, the biggest thanks should go to Pakistani manufacturers who have put kilts on the market at affordable prices.
Yes, there is still some hope.
Martin
On the other hand, thanks to young football fans and fashionable weddings, there are more kilts being worn now than when I was a child. And thanks to Scottish dance clubs and Highland game organizers, kilts are being worn around the world by Scots and non-Scots alike, in an unprecedented way, and some of these men having tried the kilt for Scottish events, then decide it's not so bad as an everyday garment.
Although the fanatics for authenticity and tradition would not agree, the biggest thanks should go to Pakistani manufacturers who have put kilts on the market at affordable prices.
Yes, there is still some hope.
Martin
Re: A garment or a symbol?
I so much agree, Martin.couyalair wrote:Unfortunately, I think you may be right, Greg. Kilts need to be detached from Scotland to survive.
Although the fanatics for authenticity and tradition would not agree, the biggest thanks should go to Pakistani manufacturers who have put kilts on the market at affordable prices.
Yes, there is still some hope.
Martin
GerdG
There ARE viable alternatives to trousers.
There ARE viable alternatives to trousers.