Critical Review 1: "Tradition, Genuine or Spurious" by Richard Handler and Jocelyn Linnekin

Handler and Linnekin explain that there is an important connection between tradition and culture/group identity. They present various definitions of tradition, such as Kroeber, who states that tradition is the handing down of something or some practice from one generation to the next, while Shils builds off that and states that the “tradition” is only such if it goes through at least three generations and contains certain “essential elements” that remain unchanged through time. The authors present the idea of a nation or group in the form of a metaphor: A group can be seen as one organism in which the group refers to its collective identity, or as a collective of individuals, such as one genus with a variety of species. After providing examples of culture/traditions in Quebec and Hawaii, the authors conclude by noting that tradition is always subject to change, and tradition is not necessarily an objective relation to the past. If something is considered meaningful and traditional to those who practice, then it is tradition even if it does not have the clearest ties to the past.



Question for Discussion:

Handler and Linnekin demonstrate that the definition of tradition has had multiple interpretations. This definition could be crucial in drawing lines among and between peoples, as certain shared traditions may tie people together into what we might then call a “culture.” If the definition of tradition is so malleable, what definition would be necessary to define a culture in such a way that it is clearly separate from other cultures? Aside from tradition, are there any other clear and unconditional factors that could separate one culture from another, or is tradition most important?