Introduction
Robert Redfield (1897-1958) is the first anthropologist to propose an anthropological approach to the study of a civilization like that of India. He used this approach in his study of Mexican communities (1955: Little community) 1956: peasant society and culture). McKim Marriot and Milton singer applied this approach to Indian civilization in order to understand they dynamics of social cultural change in Indian society.
What is Civilization?
In the words of Redfield, a civilization is “a complex structure of great and little traditions” (1955). It may also be defined as “a social organisation of tradition” (1956). Redfield says that in a civilization is found “an organisation of specialists, kinds of role occupiers in characteristic relations to one another and to lay people concerned with the transmission of tradition” (1955). Further he says that every civilization “has its characteristic world view, ethos, temperament, value system and culture personality” (1955).
Redfield’s two definitions of civilization emphasize that civilization is:
(a) A combination of two traditions namely great and little traditions
(b) An organisation of tradition or systematic act of handing down and what is handed down from generation to generation.
Civilization is a tradition. Tradition refers to the act of handing down or process and what is handed down or content. Tradition is of two kinds; the great tradition and the little tradition. Both great and little traditions combine to form a civilization. To put it in another way civilization is an organisation of tradition.
Robert Redfield (1955) says that a civilization includes an organisation of specialists who transmit the traditions namely the great and little traditions. In doing so, they maintain relations amongst themselves and with the common people. Thus, a civilization of tradition is actually the composite of great and little traditions. There are specialists who transmit the traditions across generations. The specialists maintain a network of relations amongst themselves. At the same time, they maintain relations with lay people, (as distinct from the clergy).
Finally, Redfield tells that in the process of enculturation members of a civilization are taught to internalise, follow, revere and respect the traditions. In the process, members of a civilization acquire ethos, values, worldview and personality.
Approach to the study of Civilization
Redfield (1956) calls the strategy to study civilization as a microscopic social-cultural approach. He treats great and little traditions as the microcosm of civilization. Therefore, a civilisation can be studied in terms of the structure and organisation of great and little traditions. Firstly, according to Redfield, by studying the origins of great tradition, one can study the origins of a civilization. Secondly, by examining the very arrangement and interaction of great and little traditions, one can study the structure and organisation of a civilisation. Finally, by examining the dynamics of traditions one can understand the growth of civilisation. In this way, an analysis of great and little traditions will enable us to understand the various aspects of civilization.
What are the great and little traditions?
The great tradition is “of the reflective few”. It refers to the formal, literary tradition of a civilisation. It is the tradition of “elite” and “thinking class”. It emanates from urban centers and their temples, educational institutions and so on. Great traditions are related to urban classes. They are usually mentioned in original religious epics. Their range in very wide, usually national in nature. Moreover, they are organised and norms and rituals are largely clear cut, unambiguous. They are transmitted from one generation to the other through texts. Great tradition is also known as “classic” “high”, “learned” and hierarchic” traditions.
Little tradition is the largely “unreflective many” It refers to an informal, oral tradition of a civilization. It is the tradition of “laymen” and “commune class”. It works itself out and keeps itself going in the lives of the unlettered in their village communities. Little traditions are mostly localised and related with rural unlettered, folk, tribal or peasantry. These are believed to be usually unorganised, haphazard and ambiguous, transmitted orally, through oral literature. Little tradition is also known as “folk”, “low”, “popular” and “lay” traditions.
The differences between the two traditions are as follows.
| Great tradition | Little tradition. |
| 1. Elite | 1. Laity |
| 2. National | 2.Local |
| 3.Textual | 3.Oral |
| 4.Unambigous | 4. Ambiguous |
| 5.Cultivated in schools and temples. | 5. It works itself out and keeps itself going in the lives of the unlettered in their village communities. |
| 6.Conscious refined and handed down | 6. For most part taken for granted and not submitted to much scrutiny or considered for refinement and improvement |
| 7. Specialists belong to urban class | 7. Specialists belong to folk class. |
| 8. Media include texts, dramas, concerts dances and strong narrations. | 8. Media include oral recitations, street corner plays, folk music, folk dances and folk narrations |
Even though great and little traditions differ is several aspects, they show similarities in many aspects.
- Both are parts of a civilisation and are autonomous.
- Both are two halves of a civilisation: one is urban half and the other is peasant half.
- Both the traditions are two aspect of a civilization and are complementary to each other.
- The existence one is the prerequisite of the existence of the other.
- It is very difficult to cut them into two clean-cut halves but basically, they stand apart from each other.
- Both are two currents of thought and action.
- There is no clash of fundamental interests between them.
Thus, a civilisation like that of India is an organisation of great and little traditions. By examining the combination of both the traditions one can understand the structure and organisation of civilisation and by studying the origins of great tradition one can understand how the civilisation emerged.
Origins of civilisation
Originally everywhere including India there were only tribal societies. That means there were only little communities with little traditions. In course of time, they developed into peasant communities’ little traditions. As generations pass, the inspiration for the great traditions was found partially in the existing little traditions from which the elite had sprung. The little traditions transformed into urban, elite, literate, formal traditions within Indian society two traditions came to stay: the little traditions and the great traditions. This was the emergence of civilisation. In other words, the emergence of great tradition signalled the emergence of civilisation. Thus study of the origins of great tradition helps an understanding of the origins of civilisation.
According to Redfield all civilisations emerge in terms of indigenous evolution or evolution from little to great traditions. All civilisations, which came into being because of transformation of little into great traditions, are called primary civilisations. They are a product of orthogenetic levels of cultural organisation.
In course of time the primary civilisations get diversified not only through internal growth, but also through contact with others civilisations. This is a heterogenetic process. The civilisations resulting from heterogenetic process are called secondary civilisations.
13.3 Structure and organisation of civilisation
According to Redfield, the structure of civilisation is an arrangement of great and little traditions. The great and little traditions are inter-linked with each other. The result is a network of inter-linkages, which comprises the structure of civilisation.
The organisation of civilisation refers to planned action of the great and little traditions. The great and little traditions exist independently to a certain extent. At the same time, they interact with each other and maintain a certain level of relationship in the Indian context the pantheon, festivals, rituals, literature, dance, music etc. whose sources are religious epics like Mahabharata, Ramayana, Gita and Upanishads are based on great traditions. On the other hand, the folklore, magic-religious practices are not found in religious epics and which are transmitted orally constitute little traditions.
Elements of great tradition interact with elements of little tradition and vice versa and fulfil the needs of the people. In this context, kinship networks, economic relations, trade contacts, religious percolations.
For example, Ramayana was originally composed by Valmiki in Sanskrit. Tulasidas recomposed it in Hindi. It spread in India through wardress, singers and mendicants them Ramayana was translated into various other languages and dialects. Yet, even in its regional variations, especially in the enactment of Ramlia, one comes across pieces of poetry and prose interspersed by original poetry in Avadhi dialect as used by Tulasidas the flow of great traditions towards little traditions and vice versa has been a familiar process in Indian civilisation. Yet, it is also true that the extent or degree of this flow, from great to little tradition has always been much greater than the vice-versa.
There is unevenness of exchange of elements. Further there is periodic revival of interest in little tradition even among the urban elite. This facilitates flow of little traditional elements into great tradition. For example, rural dress patterns, popular folk songs, magico-religious practices like hanging the painted earthen pots on the exterior of the newly constructed houses to avoid evil eye etc reveal flow of little traditions towards great traditions. It is through constant interaction between traditions, a continuity of civilisation, a common conscious ness of civilisation, and a adoption of civilisation both needs of its carries exist across generations.
Criticism
Several scholars like S.C. Dube (1965), Bidyanath Saraswathi (1975), Mandelbaum (1956) Yogendra Singh (1973), Sachidananda (1976) and so on levelled different types if criticism:
(i) S.C. Dube (1965) criticised that Indian Civilisation is not a “bipolar model” but “a multi polar model”. In his view Indian civilisation is not a mere complex of great and little traditions but a very complex of six traditions namely:
- (a) The classical traditions rooted in mythology, religious lore, and historical past.
- (b)The regional traditions common to all the people living specific regions.
- (c) The local traditions which confined to small local groups mostly tribal groups
- (d)The western traditions, which are the result of the impact of westernisation on Indian society.
- (e) The emergent national traditions, which are related to strong national consciousness generated by nativitic, revivalistic, reinterpretational and vitalistic trends.
- (f) The sub-cultural traditions of special groups like the ruling families, the bureaucracy and the landed aristocracy.
(ii) Yogendra Singh (1973) commented that both Redfield and Dube adopted arbitrary principles for classifying the traditions into different types of traditions. Therefore, their classifications of traditions have limitations.
(iii) David G. Mandelbaum (1956) says that the great tradition is essentially a convenient abstraction. Neither the rural folk non the urban folk follow the pure literary from of great tradition. People select elements of tradition from literature and follow it. that means the structure of tradition depends upon the peoples will and selection of elements from the texts. In other words what is great tradition at one point of time for one people varies from what is great tradition to another people at a different point of time. Thus great tradition has no standard from as claimed by Redfield.
(iv) Singh and Unithan (1970) and several scholars pointed out that the great tradition itself varies from one scared text to another. For example, the Ramayana in India attributes the exile of Sita into forests to a change levelled against her by a washerman. But in the Ramayana in South East Asia, it is said that Rama’s sister Santa asks Sita to tell how Ravana looks like. Sita draws a caricature of Ravana and shows it Santa. Santa carries that caricature to Rama and complaints that Sita has not forgotten Ravana. So, Rama banishes Sita to the forests. This speaks how two texts depict a single tradition in two different forms.
(v) Bidyanath Saraswathi (1975) argues that it is better to call great traditions as Sastriya traditions because such an expression differentiates the textual tradition from non-textual tradition and the great traditions of Muslims and Christians from those of Hindus.
(vi) It is not always true that all great traditions occur only in urban communities. Sometimes great traditions occur in villages also. For example, caste system belongs to great traditions. Caste system in its pure form occurs in villages but not in towns and cities in India.
Critical Assessment
Redfield’s approach is popularly known as the ‘cultural approach’, because he looks at the interaction of the lifestyles of the two communities, the village and the city. This interaction is an outcome of the relative dependence (economic and political) of one on the other. 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. As the incoming cultural traits are changed and coloured to suit local conditions, knowledge and thoughts, the process is termed localization or parochialization. These terms were used for the first time in McKim Marriott’s famous article on the village of Kishangarhi in Aligarh.
Many scholars think that Redfield’s analysis is extremely simple for understanding the complexities of Indian civilization. Some propose the idea of multiple traditions in India, rather than just two traditions. But, the concepts of little and great traditions help us greatly in understanding the cultural continuity between villages and cities in India. In this context, certain observations of Milton Singer, which are given below, are highly relevant:
- The Indian civilization has evolved out of the folk and regional cultures. The local stories and folklore have evolved into great epics such as Ramayana, Mahabharata, and other religious scriptures after being refined and systematized over a long period of time.
- Cultural continuity is a major feature of the great traditions. It is based on the idea that people throughout the country share common cultural consciousness.
- Consensus exists in India about sacred books and sacred objects. It is one of the major bases of a common cultural consciousness that people in India share.
- Cultural continuity with the past is a major feature of the Indian society. As a result most of the modernizing thoughts and ideologies of progress do not lead to a linear form of social and cultural change. Rather, the modern institutions are ‘traditionalized’ in India. They adapt to the social organization of communities instead of constraining them to adapt to modernity.