Your search

  • The world of vexillology has seen two important debates in recent years. The first debate concerns the proper scope of vexillology, in particular whether it should be defined essentially as the “scientific” or “scholarly” study of flags. The second debate concerns the usefulness or desirability of efforts such as Ted Kaye’s criteria for “good flags” and “bad flags” as the primary guides to proper flag design. This paper considers and connects both questions. It argues that most vexillological work is not “scholarly” in the sense that term has come to be understood, but that this is just fine. Nevertheless, to the extent that vexillology does aspire to be a serious scholarly enterprise, the most promising scholarly model for that enterprise is not history or sociology (though a good deal of important historical and sociological work about flags has been done and remains to be done), but aesthetic criticism—art, architecture, literature, music, and the like. But if that’s true, then we need to welcome a rich set of aesthetic, critical, conversations. And that conversation must go way beyond the limits of a single pamphlet.

Last update from database: 11/12/26, 4:10 AM (UTC)