Introduction
Robert Redfield conceptualized the 'Great Tradition' (literate, elite, and reflective) and 'Little Tradition' (oral, folk, and unreflective) to analyze civilizational continuity. Applying this to the Indian context, McKim Marriott demonstrated through his study of Kishangarhi that Indian civilization embodies an active, two-way dialectical interaction between these traditions, explaining cultural integration and diversity without structural homogenization.
Mechanisms of Interaction
McKim Marriott identified two complementary processes governing the reciprocal exchange between the Great and Little Traditions:
- Universalization: The upward evolution where indigenous elements of the Little Tradition undergo textualization and Sanskritic filtering to achieve pan-Indian civilizational acceptance. For instance, the local village deity Saurti was universalized into the Sanskritic Goddess Lakshmi.
- Parochialization: The downward devolution where universal, literary elements of the Great Tradition filter down into local folk culture via de-literarization and contextual adaptation. For example, the classical textual celebration of Navratri transformed into the localized village ritual of Naurtha.
Conduits and Institutional Media
Milton Singer, through his studies of traditional culture within urban Madras, underscored the specific social and cultural channels enabling this cultural circulation:
- Cultural Media: Popular expressive forms such as kathas, bhajans, harikathas, and vernacular performance arts act as bridges translating abstract Sanskritic texts into local idioms.
- Sacred Centers and Specialists: Temples, pilgrimage routes, ritual specialists, and wandering mendicants act as geographic and social nodes facilitating continuous civilizational transmission.
Critical Perspectives
- Multi-Tradition Matrix: S.C. Dube criticized the binary framework of Redfield and Marriott as overly simplistic for India's plural reality, proposing a 6-fold typology encompassing Classical, Regional, Local, Western, Sub-cultural, and National traditions.
- Power Asymmetry and Subaltern Critiques: Subaltern and Dalit scholars argue that conceptualizing this process as harmonious 'interaction' overlooks cultural hegemony, masking the coercive assimilation and subordination of folk, tribal, and Dalit traditions into the Brahmanical mainstream.
Conclusion
Despite critiques of structural oversimplification, the interactive framework remains foundational for analyzing India's cultural dynamics. By positing a bidirectional and fluid relationship between textual and folk elements, it provides a broader, more inclusive analytical perspective than unidirectional concepts like Sanskritization.