Handler and Linnekin Critical Review

In attempting to define tradition, Handler and Linnekin offer two meanings that have been used previously, one that embraces the idea of tradition as a tangible bounded structure, and one that offers the idea that tradition is only symbolic. Much of the paper is devoted to debunking the first idea of boundedness and handed-down traits, an old concept of tradition dating back to Burke and the 19th century. While their critique of the old definition is a valid point emphasizing the inseparable aspect of the past and present, the idea of tradition as being either genuine or spurious comes up as a point that needs to be addressed. At this point they take a few pages to bash upon the ingenuity of the Quebecois and Hawaiian traditions, taking care to note that the cultures chose to portray themselves the way they wanted seen by the outside. Upon conclusion, Handler and Linnekin decide that the terms of genuine and spurious are synonymous, in that genuine traditions are spurious and vice versa, if tradition is always defined in the present.

In considering tradition, it is true that much is created as a sort of preservation or homage to the past. Is this considered more of a tradition than what had actually taken place? If these reconstructive traditions take the place of an older continued tradition, are the two weighed similarly in a reseacher’s study? Is one still valued more than another? Though the argument is that traditions should not be looked as relations with the past, in society emphasis and importance has been placed on tradition in accordance with historical longevity (i.e. the stature of Ivy-league institutions or the infallibility of Biblical scriptures).