(basically research notes; with no citation)

Tradition

Tradition means handing down of beliefs, customs and information by word of mouth from one generation to another. Traditions are the transmitted values and behaviour of any community that has been continuous for a long time. Traditions are handed over generation over generation and they evolve over time. They are not static. The structure of tradition is also known as civilisation.

Robert Redfield

Robert Redfield was an American anthropologist and ethnolinguist who studied evolution and transmission of civilisation in Latin America. According to him, civilization has two main dimensions – folk and urban. He studied them both and made an effort to understand the patterns and processes of interaction between them. He developed the concepts of folk society, urban society and folk-urban continuum.

Redfield suggested that folk societies have the following characteristics: 1) Isolated: The folk society is isolated but has its own territory and it is physically immobile. 2) Small in Size: It is a small society in accordance to the number of members and its members are in direct contact with each other. 3) Feeling of ‘We’ and ‘They’: The folk society contains group sentiments. They know the members of their own society whom they include in ‘we’ and also who is from outside the group to be kept in ‘they’. 4) Personal Relation: People here know each other not only by name but by face also. 5) Common Interests: They have common interest of leading a good life and food produced commonly in the group is shared by the members of the group. 6) Simple Division of Labor: Here division of labour is not on the basis of specialization but on the basis of sex and gender. 7) Homogeneity: People of the folk society show similarity in terms of dress, customs, culture and way of life. In their life tradition plays a big role. 8) Independent: They produce for subsistence and they are independent in that. 9) Kinship System: The family relationships are established since birth and both types of Kinship system are found i.e., Patriarchal and Matriarchal. Range of kinship system is large. 10) Magic: Magic has a very important place in this society. People tend to increase the emotions of the group by certain specific experiences. 11) Sacred prevails over Secular: here people consider certain objects as sacred and they offer worship to their implements, food items, hearths or any other object which satisfies their needs. 12) Economy is for Status: The entire society is status oriented rather than market-oriented. They production and consumption is according to their needs. There is no concept of market and saving. Barter system is present in them but it is also consumption oriented

The distinction he made between the urban and folk societies was based on the dominant traits. Moral order is a typical characteristic of the folk society. It signifies binding together of men through implicit conviction as to what is right, and through implicit ideals, which means, in turn, that members of folk society followed their own ideals of the “good life”. The bonds that holds together the urban society are based on mutual usefulness, deliberate coercion and from necessity and expectancy.

Redfield postulated that the entire economy of peasant society is based on their land. The peasants produce surplus, and they keep the amount necessary for them with them and sell the rest into the cities. Peasant societies are relatively self-contained, posses their own indigenous culture, structure and values. According to him the peasant society is different from the folk society only because it has developed market system; also they are in contact with the traders of the urban centre. All other characteristics are comparable to that of the folk-society. Peasant society has three main attributes namely: A Reverent Attitude towards Land, The Idea that Agriculture is good and business is bad and belief that hard work is the value of life. Peasant society is between the folk and the urban society.

While studying peasant society Redfield identified two types of traditions which different from one another but were inter-related, inter dependent and interactive. One was formal, in written form, of the literate and reflective few while, the other was informal, in oral form with no written format, of the illiterate and reflective many. The former was called as Great Tradition and the latter was called as Little Tradition by Redfield. Great Tradition was being cultivated in the schools and temples located at different places. Priests and teachers were the mediating link between the two traditions. The Great Traditions are being cultivated in the schools and temples with the help of teachers and priests while the Little Tradition works itself out and keeps itself living and going into the illiterate village communities. Robert Redfield has used the term Cultural Specialists for the people who mediate between the Great and Little Traditions.

Redfield propounded his concept of civilization, after formulating the concepts of Great Traditions, Little Traditions and Cultural Specialists, he defined concept of civilization as complex structure of Great Tradition and Little Tradition. According to him civilization has many components such as great tradition, little tradition as well as tribal rural and urban culture. Civilization or structure of tradition grows in two stages- Orthogenetic and Heterogenetic. In the Indian context, we went from orthogenetic to heterogenetic. Orthogenetics is indigenous evolution. It is the primary level of cultural organization.

Influenced by the model of Robert Redfield, Milton Singer and McKim Marriott conducted studies on social change in In­dia utilising this conceptual framework. The whole of Indian culture can be studied with the help of these two concepts ‘Little tradition’ and “Great tradition”. These two concepts are based on the idea that the civilization and social organisation have a tradition.

The basic ideas in this approach are ‘civilisation’, and ‘social organisation of tradition’. It is based on the evolutionary view that civilisation or the structure of tradition {which consists of both cultural and social structures) grows in two stages: first, through orthogenetic or indigenous evolution, and second, through heterogenetic encounters or contacts with other cultures or civilisations. Internal or indigenous factors are responsible Orthogenetic changes. Changes which occur due to external contact or interference of outside civilization are hetereogenetic.

Little And Great Traditions

Little traditions and Great traditions is a conceptual approach that helps in the study of social change in India. The concepts of little and great tradition were developed by Robert Redfield, the famous anthropologist of Chicago school, while conducting his study on Mexican communities. Later he used this concept in the Indian condition. He characterised the Indian society as a peasant society having a complex civilisation. The peasant society is not a whole society. But it is a half society, interacting at two levels of cultures – one at the society level in the study and at another level, where it is a part of a civilisation. To understand the society of a civilisation and changes in it, in his own words, “it is necessary to study the villages through anthropological study”. In order to grasp the compound nature of peasant culture, Redfield devised his idea of two interacting levels- a local or little tradition at the level of folk (rural) society and an encompassing or great tradition at the level of elite society. The basic distinction between these two traditions-little and greater is higher or lower orders of cultural practices followed by village or peasant and elite society. While the former consists of local customs, rites, rituals, dialects and is more spontaneous, fragmented, and primitive in nature; on the other hand, the later one contains the legitimate form of all these things and is more reflective, more systematic and textually elaborated in nature.

Moreover, as per him, these are the cultural parts of the society; these societal dimensions are called as little community and great community correspondingly. So, the local or little tradition comprise of the local figures of various socio-religious tradition followed in narrower regions. On the other hand, the great tradition is the culture of great community comprising of priest and literary men who may not even have seen the local level. In the Indian context, two epics, Ramayana and Mahabharat are literature, where Lord Ram and Krishna are religious figures, and may be called as part of greater tradition. On the other hand there are several folktales and folk stories known by the villagers of a specific region like for literature figures and several god-goddesses related to a local village and local level like Shitala Mata, in terms of religious tradition. In terms of territorial or geographical level, greater tradition has wider expansion as compared to little tradition. But the two are not truly autonomous entities. They are interdependent– “two currents of thought and action, distinguishable, yet ever flowing into and out of each other”. The communication between these two currents of tradition was developed by disciples of Redfield, Marriott and Singer. They have used this model in some of their studies in the culture of Indian society. Little and great traditions help to analyse social change in rural India. The nature of this change is basically cultural. There is a constant interaction between great tradition and little tradition. First, there is a change in village culture due to the internal growth of village. Second, the little tradition also undergoes change due to its contact with great tradition and other parts of the wider civilisation. “The direction of this change presumably is from folk or peasant to urban cultural structure and social organisation.” The great tradition, i.e., the epic tradition also witnesses universalised pattern of culture resulting from its interaction with the village or little tradition. Marriot had conducted his study in the Indian village, while Singer had studied a South Indian city, Madras (now Chennai). They both assess that there is a constant interaction between these two traditions. As per Marriot “An indigenous great tradition remains in constant communication with its own little traditions through a sacred literature, a sacred geography, and the rites and ceremonies associated with each of these”. Marriott’s work Little Communities in an Indigenous Civilisation (1955) provides a significant basis to understand the unity and interdependence of various parts of a civilisational entity.  Singer and Marriott elaborated the original model of Redfield in the light of data generated from India villages. Yogendra Singh has commented upon the construction of little and great traditions in Indian villages by these two anthropologists.

The Indian social structure, in a broader way, is stratified into two divisions: (1) the folks or the unlettered peasantry, and (2) the elites. The folks and peasantry follow the little tradition, i.e., the village tra­dition. The second division of elites follow the great tradition. The great tradition consists of the traditions contained in epics, Puranas, Brahmanas and other classical Sanskritic works.

Little Traditions

Little Tradition refers to the local, regional, and primarily oral traditions of the masses, typically in rural settings. This encompasses the day-to-day practices, folklore, myths, and rituals. The tradition of the little community is known as ‘little tradition’ may be defined as the tradition of the unlettered (i.e.. non-literate and illiterate), many people inhabiting a particular area, who are unreflective, i.e. they do not critically examine or comment upon it, and accept it as it is. The ‘Little Tradition’ or really the ‘Little Traditions’ in the plural are seen as local, mostly oral, and carried by the illiterate. Little tradition belongs to the peasants or folk society. The social structure of Little Tradition consists of folk artists, storytellers, poets, dancers etc. Little tradition comprises belief pattern, the institutions, knowledge including folk tales, legends, myths and the folklore of the folk and peasant who inculcate cultural ideas from the great tradition. Cultural performances are institutionalized around the structure of both the great and little traditions. Paradigm of little tradition comprises folk/peasants and local orientations of textual knowledge and cultural performances. In a village, the school teacher plays a vital role in progress of the little tradition. He plays several cultural performances and organises several mythological plays, dramas, recitation of sacred language which besides providing entertainment, help in enhancing and remembering beliefs and knowledge of little tradition.

Key features involve: Oral and primarily non-textual, Diverse and heterogeneous, mostly found in rural, less literate societies, encompasses folk culture, local rituals, customs, and superstitions

Great Traditions

The Great Tradition pertains to the formal, official, or classical culture predominantly associated with the educated and elite classes of society. It is typically expressed in formal institutions such as the legal, educational, religious, and political systems. Great traditions are of the elite or thinking class. In India, ‘Great tradition’ is said to be carried by Sanskrit, is seen as pan-Indian, prestigious, ancient, and authorized by texts. Great tradition is associated with elites, literature and reflective few who are capable of analysing, interpreting and reflecting cultural knowledge. Cultural performances are institutionalized around the structure of both the great and little traditions. The area of great tradition includes the textual or the Shastriya nuances. The great tradition is the culture of the great community of priests, theologians, and literary men who may not even have seen the village. Great traditions are formed with the traditions when it becomes very wide and extended. These traditions are more formalized and standardized, and they have a wider reach across different communities and regions in India. Change take place n little tradition and gradually this change proceeds to great tradition and then the whole cultural pattern changes. The social structure of great tradition has ritual leaders, corporate groups, teachers, reciters and so on.

Key characteristics include: Primarily textual and written, tends to be standardized and homogenous, usually associated with urban and literate societies, emphasizes formal institutions, religion, philosophy, and the arts.

Interaction

Marriott highlights cultural synthesis and interaction between ‘Great Tradition’ and ‘Little Tradition’ while focusing on festivals celebrated in a small north Indian village, Kishangarhi in Uttar Pradesh. His work proposes the twin concepts of Universalisation and Parochialisation for explaining the cultural exchange between great tradition and little tradition in India. Universalisation is the process of carrying further the great tradition by encompassing the elements of little tradition. The process of upward movement of cultural traits, from little to greater tradition, is called as ‘universalisation’. In this process, aspects of the little tradition are generalised to greater context. In other words, it relates to the systematisation and standardisation of local rites, values and cultural ideals by universal Sanskritic belief system. Parochialisation stands for the downward spread of rites, beliefs and cultural ideals of universal appeal to suit the local environments. It reflects the creativity of little communities within India’s indigenous civilisation. Here there is integration of greater tradition traits with the little traditional elements. Great Tradition is also called as elite tradition, while Little Tradition is called as folk tradition. There is a constant collaboration, cooperation, and unequal interaction between great and little tradition. Both the traditions have long effect on each other. Milton Singer used the terms like ‘hierarchic and low culture’, while McKim Marriott (1955) contrasted Indian village religion with the Sanskritic textual tradition of Hinduism. Marriott observed that fifteen out of nineteen village festivals celebrated in the village were sanctioned by at least one Sanskrit text. Little traditions and great traditions interact constantly, as a result of which continuity is established between them. Cultural traits from the little tradition are carried forward to the great tradition where they are systematized. As great traditions have universal applicability, the cultural elements they systematize also become universal. Accordingly, the process whereby cultural features of the little traditions become parts of the great traditions is known as universalization, a term proposed by Redfield. The reverse process of the mobility of cultural traits from the great tradition to become parts of the little tradition is also possible. A little tradition has a narrow coverage and is confined to a local area. When it accepts elements from the great tradition, it might modify them so that they are compatible with the characteristics of the society in general.

Importance

These concepts help us appreciate the cultural complexity within societies, explaining how different groups interpret and practice shared cultural elements. They highlight the dynamic and reciprocal relationship between different socio-economic classes within societies. They provide insight into cultural change and continuity over time, and how societies absorb, adapt, and reshape both internal and external influences. The Great Tradition and Little Tradition constructs provide a lens through which anthropologists can unravel the complex dynamics of human societies. This duality continues to play a vital role in understanding culture, society, and the ceaseless flow of human history.