Tragedy or Triumph

Contemplating Tradition and its Role in Society

J. A. McCreery

TRADITION, A FUNNY WORD; it encapsulates the customs, beliefs and actions which endure throughout generations yet we rarely give it a second thought. Often viewed in a stupor of supposed grandeur, we accept traditions in an incurious and detached way. Nevertheless, they often prove beneficial, lending a sense of identity and safety which knits communities together to sate the intrinsic human need to belong. 

In theology it is defined as “a doctrine believed to have divine authority though not in the scriptures”, more specifically in Christianity, tradition is held as doctrine not explicit in the Bible but held to derive from the oral teaching of Christ and the Apostles. 

There is a continual valorisation of tradition in our community, the media and the government but what happens when traditions are misappropriated, misconstrued or outright harmful? A culture of nepotism, bull fighting, forced marriages, indulgence payments – all examples of destructive, tragic traditions – the far end of the spectrum which highlight the fallibility of tradition and make clear the need for a reevaluation of even the most mundane.  Is it right to justify the immoral under a guise of tradition?

Jiddu Krishnamurti, Indian spiritual leader and philosopher, asserts the duplicitous nature of tradition:

Historically, reevaluations have occurred in abundance and many continue into the modern day, yet two examples prove especially interesting: (1) the disbandment of indulgence payments in Western Medieval and Roman Catholic Church and (2) the ongoing debate surrounding bullfighting.

The infamous indulgence payments were part of an archaic penitential system which supposedly granted remission of sins and release from purgatory after death. Often the peasantry would endure poverty or hunger in order to service payments and fill Church coffers. Such blatant exploitation and deviation from biblical teaching was masked by greed, routine and tradition, allowing indulgence payments of some form or another to endure for hundreds of years. It was only the protest of Martin Luther in his renowned 95 Theses which gave way to change and the Protestant reformation in 1517. Alas, those who challenge normative structures are often met with harsh punishment and as was the case with Martin Luther who was eventually declared heretical and a public outlaw. Clearly, countering tradition creates some kickback. 

Now, bullfighting, a topic of many debates, protests and legislation in recent years, is it a fine art or a blood sport? The spectacle takes place inside an arena wherein one or more bulls are baited before being killed according to formal rules and customs. The home of bullfighting, Spain, traces the tradition to 711 A.D., with the first official bullfight (“corrida de toros”) being held in honor of the coronation of King Alfonso VIII. The performance has been constantly evolving and become a prolific occupation of showmanship and brutality. 

“Bullfighting is the only art in which the artist is in danger of death and in which the degree of brilliance in performance is left to the fighter’s honor.” – Ernest Hemingway

Patrons and supporters of the act often cite its place as an integral part of regional culture, an example of living history or a form of art. Matadors are seen to be following  rules, procedures and traditions that have developed over centuries. But does this justify anything? Does something’s enduring presence justify it? If so, would age then validate opinion? the prevalence of sin proffer it as a virtue?

Ultimately, traditions must be constantly challenged and changed to protect the people they supposedly benefit; little is to gain from mindless conformity in the name of tradition but hardship and corruption. 

Where do you draw the line between traditional and archaic?