MODERNIZATION

MEANING
The term modernisation “does not denote any philosophy or movement, but it only symbolises a process of change. In fact, “Modernisation” is understood as a process which indicates the adoption of the modern ways of life and values”. The term was being used previously to refer only "to change in economy and its related effect on social values and practices". It was also described as a process that changed the society, from primarily agricultural to primarily industrial economy. As a result of the change in the economy, the society itself underwent changes in values, beliefs and norms. But, today the term is given a broader meaning.
Today, the term, ‘Modernisation’ is understood as an attempt, on the part of the people, particularly those who are custom-bound, to adopt themselves to the present time, conditions, styles, and ways in general. It indicates a change in people's food habits, dress habits, speaking styles, tastes, choices, preferences, ideas, values, recreational facilities and so on. It is also described as “social change involving the elements of science and technology”. The scientific and technological inventions have brought about remarkable changes in the whole system of social relationship and installed new ideologies in the place of traditional ones.
M.N. Srinivas, however, criticises the concept of Modernisation, according to him, it is a value-loaded term. He says that “Modernisation is normally used in the sense that it is good. He, therefore, prefer to use the term ‘Westernisation’ which characterises the changes brought about in Indian society and culture as a result of over 150 years of British rule”. Yogendra Singh, on the other hand, defends the concept of modernisation. According to him, it is broader than the two processes of Sanskritisation and Westernisation. It is, indeed a 'cultural universal' and not necessarily confined to any single society. Like science, modernity is not an exclusive possession of any one ethnic or cultural group. It belongs to the humanity as a whole. This does not mean that everywhere it should reveal the same pattern. It need not always take place on the model of England, Germany, France or America. It can take place on the model of Russia, India, Japan, Australia, or any other country for that matter. What is essential to modernisation is this - a commitment to “scientific world view” and a belief in the humanistic and philosophical viewpoint of science on contemporary problems.
DEFINITION
1. Daniel Lerner.
Daniel Learner who introduced the term "Modernisation" for the first time in his study of the middle-Eastern societies—uses it to refer to the changes brought about in a non-Western country by contract, direct or indirect with a Western country. To quote his own words : “Modernisation is the current term for an old process of social change whereby less developed societies acquire the characteristics common to more developed societies”.

2. Smelser.
Modernisation refers to “a complex set of changes that take place almost in every part of society as it attempts to be industrialised. Modernisation involves ongoing change in a society's economy, politics, education, traditions, and religion”.
3. Alatas.
“Modernisation is a process by which modern scientific knowledge is introduced in the society with the ultimate purpose of achieving a better and a more satisfactory life in the broadest sense of the term as accepted by the society concerned”.
4. Rutow and Ward (1964)
The basic process in Modernisation is the application of modern science to human affairs.
5. Eisenstadt
Modernisation refers to both (a) structural aspects of social organisation, and (b) socio-demographic aspects of societies.

CHARACTERISTIC OF MODERNISATION

As it has already been mentioned, the process of modernisation has different dimensions. The spirit of modernisation is expressed in different areas such as - social organisation, culture, political field, economy, education, etc., in different ways. Broadly speaking, the process of modernization reveals the following important characteristics:
Modernisation includes – “a temple of science, reason and rationalism, secularism, high aspiration and achievement orientation, overall transformation of attitudes norms and values, creation of new functional institutions, investment In human resources, a growth oriented economy, a national interest rather than kin, caste, religion, region or language oriented interests, an open society, and a mobile person” - (Ram Ahuja  “Indian Social System”).
According to B. Kuppuswamy, “the main feature of Modernisation is the building up of an ‘open society’ in which individuals of talent, enterprise and training can find places in the society appropriate to their achievement... The process of Modernisation involves an increase in social unrest till the social system is responsive to the new aspirations built up by the Modernisation process”. It should, however, be noted that the same process of modernisation institutes appropriate change in the social system to meet the rising expectations of the people.

CAUSES OF MODERNISATION
What factors condition modernisation? What conditions lead to modernisation? What conditions hinder it? In exploring suitable answers to these questions sociologists look within the society to discover the various factors, groups, people and agencies and instruments that contribute to modernisation. Modernisation is not caused by any single factor. It is the net result of a number of factors.
Myron Weiner speaks of five main instruments which make modernisation possible :
Education, mass communication, ideology based on nationalism, charismatic leadership and
coercive governmental authority.

1. Education
Education, that too higher education, pertaining to the fields of science and technology, provides the basis of modernisation. Education involves a sense of national loyality and creates skills and attitudes essential for technological innovation. Edward Shils has also emphasised the role of education in the process of modernisation. Still people like ArnoldAnderson feel that formal education is not sufficient for teaching skills. University education may increase the number of students with degrees without an increase in the number of people with modern skills and attitudes. By this we cannot underscore the importance of education in national development which is believed to be associated with modernisation. "National development depends upon a change in knowledge - what people know, skills - what people can do, and attitudes - what people can aspire and hope to get”. This is the reason why in the recent decades education including mass communication is given utmost importance.
2. Mass Communication
The process of modernisation hinges on the phenomenon of mass communication. The development of mass communication (including newspapers, periodicals and magazines, T.V., radio, telephone, movies, etc.) is an important means of spreading modern ideas at a faster rate. The function of mass media is to open up to the large masses in society, new information, new thought, new attitude and new aspirations which lead them to new achievement. "The mass media is the device that can spread the requisite knolwedge and attitudes quickly and widely". The only danger with the mass media is that if these are controlled by the government, they will spread only one-sided view that suits their political ideology. But in democracies, however, the press is often given sufficient independence to express its views.
3. Ideology Based on Nationalism
Nationalism and democracy are very much linked with modernisation. Nationalism is connected with national awareness and political consensus. As far as the West is concerned, the democratic system came to be strengthened along with the development of nationalism. The nationalistic ideologies serve as unifying influence in bridging social cleavages within plural societies. They also help the political elite in changing the behaviour of masses of people. Mass media plays a vital role in democratic societies to spread modern views, ideas, values, etc., by persuading the masses. But it is argued out that even though the political elite have modern ideology. Their mere possession of it does not guarantee development from the modern perspective.
4. Charismatic Leadership
A Charismatic leader is in a better position to impress upon the people to adopt modern beliefs, values, practices and behaviour patterns. But the danger involved here is that this popular leader may take the undue advantage of his position and use modern values, ideas etc., for his personal glorification rather than for the national development.
5. Coercive Governmental Authority
A strong and stable government may adopt coercive measures to compel people to accept the modern values and ways of life. It may also bring pressures on other governments and people to follow the same. The Government of America under the presidentship of George Bush (The previous President of U.S. A.) made use of various tactics and strategies to bring pressure on the underdeveloped and developing countries to follow the modern ways and practices.
6. Other Factors
To the list of factors explained above, we may add two other factors :
(a) urbanisation and industrialisation; and (b) universal legal system.
(a) Urbanisation and Industrialisation
Urbanisation and industrialisation are the two interrelated processes that are assumed to be invariably linked up with modernisation. These two processes can also be understood as two factors that accelerate the tempo of modernisation. 'Urbanisation' refers to the process of growth and expansion of cities. Most of the modernised countries are either dominated by the cities or under the grip of the process of urbanisation. “Industrialisation” refers to the unprecedented growth and expansion of industries. It has become virtually the sine quo non of economic and technological development.
(b) Universal Legal System
In a traditional society bound by traditional values and customs the rate of change is relatively slow. But a society that functions on the basis of the universally accepted legal system is bound to be more ‘open’. The “rule of law” is indeed, one of the prerequisites of Modernisation. The present legal system places premium on the individual protecting his rights and assuring his freedom. This role of the legal system supports the cause of “Individualism”. The modern legal system has contributed a great deal to the scientific management of the industries.

WESTERNIZATION

The role of ‘Westernisation’ has been very significant in understanding the socio-cultural changes of modern India. British rule produced radical and lasting changes in the Indian society and culture. The British brought with them, (unlike the previous invaders) new technology, institutions, knowledge, beliefs, and values. These have become the main source of social mobility/or individuals as well as groups. It is in this context, M.N. Srinivas, a renowned sociologist of India, ‘introduced the term’ ‘Westernisation’ mainly to explain the changes that have taken place in the Indian society and culture due to the Western contact through the British rule.

Definition of the Term “Westernization”

According to M.N. Srinivas, ‘Westernisation’ refers to ‘the changes brought about in Indian society and culture as a result of over 150 years of British rule and the term subsumes changes occurring at different levels - technology, institutions, ideology, values (Ref.: “Social Change in Modern India” By M.N. Srinivas)

M.N. Srinivas criticises Lerner’s concept of ‘modernisation’ on the ground that it is a value loaded term. According to him, “Modernisation” is normally used in the sense that it is good. He, therefore, prefers to use the term ‘Westernisation’. He describes the technological changes, establishment of educational institutions, rise of nationalism and new political culture, etc. as almost the bye-products of Westernisation or the British rule of two hundred years in India. Thus, by Westernisation, Srinivas primarily meant the British impact.

“During the 19th century the British slowly laid the foundations of a modern state by surveying land, settling the revenue, creating a modern bureaucracy, army and police, instituting law courts, codifying the law, developing communications - railways, post and telegraph, roads and canals establishing schools and colleges, and so on...” (Srinivas). The British brought with them the printing press which led to many-sided changes. Books and journals made possible the transmission of modem as well as traditional knolwedge to large number of Indians. Newspapers helped the people living in the remote corners of the country to realize their common bonds and to understand the events happening in the world outside.

More than any other thing the Western education had an impact on the style of living of the people. They gave up their inhibition towards meat-eating and consumption of alcohol. They also adopted Western style of dressing and dining. As Gandhiji wrote in his “Autobiography”, educated Indians undertook the task of' 'becoming English gentlemen in their dress, manners, habits, choices, preferences, etc.” It included even learning to appreciate Western music and participating in ball dancing. Western education resulted in a big change in the outlook of those educated.

M.N. Srinivas says that it is necessary “to distinguish conceptually between Westernisation and two other processes usually concomitant with it. - Industrialization and Urbanisation.” He gives two reasons for this: “'(i) Urbanization is not a simple function of' 'industrialisation'” and there were cities in Pre-industrial world” also. “'(ii) There are cases of rural people who are more urbanised than urban people”.

MAIN FEATURES OF WESTERNISATION

1. In comparison with Sanskritisation, Westernisation is a simpler concept. As it is already made clear, it explains the impact of Western contact (particularly of British rule) on the Indian society and culture. M.N. Srinivas defends the uses of the term when he says that there is “need for such a term when analysing the changes that a non-Western country undergoes as a result of prolonged contact with a Western one”.

2. Westernisation Implies, according to Srinivas, “certain value preferences”. The most important value, which in turn subsumes several other values, is “humanitarianism”. It implies “an active concern for the welfare of all human beings irrespective of caste, economic position, religion, age and sex”. He further observes that equalitarianism and secularisation are both included in humanitarianism. Humanitarianism underlay many of the reforms introduced by the British in the first half of the 19th century. As British rule progressed "rationality and humanitarianism became broader, deeper and more powerful...” The humanitarian outlook among the Westernised elite led first to social reform movement and later on to the independence movement. They were actually aware of existing social evils like child marriage, taboos against widow remarriage, seclusion of education, taboos against intercaste marriages, intercaste dining, untouchability etc. Social reform

movements started with the efforts of Raja Ram Mohan Roy who founded the “Brahma Samaj”, Arya Samaj, Prarthana Samaj, Sri Ramakrishna Mission and such other movements that followed later, too had imbibed in them the humanitarian values.

3. Westernisation not only includes the introduction of new institutions (for example, newspapers, elections, Christian missionaries) but also fundamental changes in old institutions. For example, India had schools long before the arrival of the British. But they were different from the British-introduced schools in that they had been restricted to upper caste children and transmitted mostly traditional knowledge. Other institutions such as the army, civil service and law courts were also similarly affected.

4. The form and pace of Westernisation of India varied from region to region and from one section of population to another. For example, one group of people became Westernised in their dress, diet, manners, speech, sports and in the gadgets they used. While another absorbed Western science, knowledge and literature, remaining relatively free from certain other aspects Westernisation. For example, Brahmins accepted the Western dress habits and educational systems and also used gadgets such as radio, television, car, telephone etc. But they did not accept the British diet, dancing, hunting and such other habits. This distinction is, however, only relative and not absolute.

5. According to Srinivas, Westernisation pervades political and cultural fields also. He writes “In the political and cultural fields, Westernistion has given birth not only to nationalism but also to revivalism communalism, ‘casteism’, heightened linguistic consciousness, and regionalism. To make matters even more bewildering, revivalist movements have used Western type schools and colleges, and books, pamphlets and journals to propagate their ideas”

6. As M.N. Srinivas claims, “The term Westernisation unlike ‘Modernisation’ is ethically neutral. Its use does not carry the implication that it is good or bad, whereas modernisation is normally used in the sense that it is good.”

7. According to Srinivas, “the increase in Westernisation does not retard the process of Sanskritisation. Both go on simultaneously, and to some extent, increase in Westernisation accelerates the process of Sanskritisation. For example, the postal facilities, railways, buses and newspaper media, which are the fruits of Western impact on India render more organised religious pilgrimages, meetings, caste solidarities, etc., possible now than in the past”

8. The term Westernisation is preferable to ‘Modernisation’, M.N. Srinivas asserts. “He contends that modernisation presupposes' rationality of goals' which in the ultimate analysis could not be taken for granted since human ends are based on value preferences and "rationality could only be predicted of the means not of the ends of social action". He considers the term "Modernisation" as subjective and the term 'Westernisation' as more objective. (Whereas writers such as Daniel Lerner, Harold gould, Milton Singer and Yogendra singh consider the term 'Modernisation as more preferable in place of Westernisation).

SANSKRITIZATION AND BRAHMINIZATION

Sanskritisation is a much broader concept than Brahminisation. M.N. Srinivas preferred it to Brahminisation for some reasons:

(i) Sanskritisation is a broader term and it can subsume in itself the narrower process of Brahminisation. For instance, today, though by and large, Brahmins are vegetarians and teetotalers, some of them such as Kashmiris, Bengalis and saraswath Brahmins eat non-vegetarian food. Had the term ‘Brahminisation’ been used, it would have become necessary to specify which particular Brahmin group was meant.
(ii) Further, the reference groups of Sanskritisation are not always Brahmins. The process of imitation need not necessarily take place on the model of Brahmins. Srinivas himself has given the example of the low castes of Mysore who adopted the way of life of Lingayats, who are not Brahmin but who claim equality with Brahmins. Similarly, the smiths (one of the lower castes) of Mysore call themselves Vishwakarma Brahmins and wear sacred threads and have sanskritised some of their rituals. (Still, some of them eat meat and drink liquor. For the very same reason, many castes, including some untouchable castes do not accept food or water from their hands). The lower castes imitated not only Brahmins but also Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Jats, Shudras, etc. in different parts of the country. Hence the term Brahminisation does not completely explain this process. M.N. Srinivas himself acknowledged this fact and wrote: “I now realise that, I emphasized unduly the Brahminical model of Saskritisation and ignored the other models Kshatriya, Vaishyas and Shudra...” (“Social Change in Modern India - 1971).

SANSKRITIZATION

Sanskritization is a process by which a “low” Hindu caste, or tribal or other group, changes its customs, ritual, ideology, and way of life in the direction of a high, and frequently, a “twice” born caste. It is followed by a claim to a higher position in the caste hierarchy than traditionally concealed to the claimant caste by the local community. Such claims are made over a period of time, sometime a generation or two before they are conceded

(Srinivas, 1966).

The concept of Sanskritization is given by M. N. Srinivas. According to him, Sanskritization had been occurring throughout the Indian history. It may be viewed as the model of social mobility in India. To understand this concept it is important to distinguish between two related concepts of Varna and caste. Varna is an all-India framework and in this framework human society is divided into four hierarchical groups (Varnas). They are Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaisya and Shudra. Untouchables are outside the Varna system. On the other hand caste refers to hereditary, endogamous groups which form a hierarchy, each having a traditional association with one or two occupations. Castes groups maintained relations in terms of purity and pollution. There were many castes which were only regional in character. Regarding hierarchy, in each region there are certain castes which are considered to be at the top and certain other castes are considered to be at the bottom. An interesting aspect of the caste system has been that the claims to position are contested and there is no general agreement regarding hierarchy, at least at the middle level.

Further, through Sanskritization, i.e., by changing customs, rituals, ideology and way of life towards upper castes people belonging to a particular caste claim a superior status on the caste hierarchy. This may or may not be granted by others and sometimes the matter reached the king who gave the final verdict. At times castes would fight violently till a status claimed by them is granted to them. Srinivas maintained that Sanskritization, however, led only to positional change but not structural change. This means that the perceived positions of different castes may change but it would not affect the Hindu belief in caste hierarchy. To be Hindu is to belong to a caste with a relative place in the hierarchical division.

Srinivas agrees that Sanskritization was only one source of mobility in Hindu society. Initially, he observed that Sanskritization means emulating the life styles of Brahmins. In his later works, however, he maintained that Indian culture being highly varied and the beliefs about status of a Varna being dependent on local culture, there were several models of Sanskritization:

Brahmin model, Kshatriya model, Vaisya model; and Shudra model. 

Thus Brahmin model was only one of them. The concept of dominant caste supplemented the concept of Sanskritization in some way. At some places if the tribal groups were dominant, the other groups followed the tribal customs and thus one can also speak of a tribal model of Sanskritization.

The following example shows the process.
Imagine that an outsider or an untouchable group decides to enter the caste society. By accumulating power they can enter the caste hierarchy at the level of Kshatriyas. Then the people belonging to caste of genealogists and bards create genealogical links and myths about them. Subsequently the outside or untouchable groups acquire the high Kshatriya status. Secular power influences ritual ranking. For a long time Sanskritization may have worked.

The major factors in Sanskritization were:

· Fluidity of political system with bardic caste having the special privilege of legitimization of the origin of different castes and Varnas
· Position of the dominant caste
· Pilgrimage
· Migration of values and beliefs from great tradition to little tradition
· Secular factors in determining the position of caste (in addition to pollution and purity)
· Migration to new areas
· Bhakti movement that established the idea of equality before God and thus the idea of
equality among different groups and castes
After independence of the country, the issue of social mobility became more complex and cases of Sanskritization, de-Sanskritization as well as re-Sanskritization (Singh, 1974) were observed. Due to the policy of positive discrimination adopted by Indian government now an increasing number of groups laid claim to backward status rather than high status. Some of them claim a backward status in state matters and a forward status in society.

Source: Open sources

Media as emerging Social Institution

“A social institution is an organization that is critical to the socialization process; it provides a support system for individuals as they struggle to become members of a larger social network”

(Art Silverblatt, American Behavioral Scientist, 2004)

Traditional social institutions such as church, government, school and family once served the role of providing individuals with the knowledge and communicative tools needed to successfully integrate into society. It was here we learned what was right or wrong in the world, and how to communicate to others through language, appearance or actions, if we were to become upstanding members of society. In church we learned through religious doctrine and beliefs. In school we were educated in the ways of the professional world, and how to be part of a collective of academics. Through government we learn of law and order, justice and criminality, the repercussions of violating societies written rules. As a member of a family we learn of love and care for others, close knit bonds, and the vital knowledge and ways of the world, passed down from a father or mother to a son or daughter during childhood and adolescence, becoming the scriptures guiding you for the rest of your life, and passed on again to your own sons and daughters. For most of modern history, these institutions have played these roles and educated us as a society, of how things should be and the reasons behind them, guiding our morality and sense of justice. With the emergence of mass media towards the end of the 20th century through televised programming, movies and radio, and accelerated further with the booming growth of the Internet in recent decades; mass media is now becoming the dominant social institution, catering for the needs of society and educating its citizens. In a fast-moving and mobile modern society, mass media provides a medium easily accessed through technology, making the traditional social institutions of family, church, government or school redundant in their former roles. Individuals are increasingly looking to the media for direction in rules of behavior and societal values, while being provided with a sense of membership through the programmes we watch or media trends we follow. Order and stability is provided by the media through scheduled programming, affecting how people arrange their daily routines and ultimately affecting cultural lifestyle through what we wear, listen to, say and do day to day. The Internet, a vast source of instantaneous information, now fulfills an educational role in society, catering an individuals personal preferences and ideals. 

Source: Open sources

Universalization and parochialisation (Little and great traditions)

Little and Great Tradition

Milton Singer and Robert Redfield developed the twin concept of Little Tradition and Great Tradition while studying the orthogenesis of Indian Civilization in Madras city, now known as Chennai. Tradition means handing down of information, beliefs and customs by word of mouth in way of examples from one generation to another. In other words, tradition is the inherited practices or opinion and conventions associated with a social group for a particular period. This also includes attitudes of the people, durable interactional patterns and socio-cultural institutions. Great tradition is associated with the elites, literate and reflective few who are capable of analysing, interpreting and reflecting cultural knowledge. Great tradition is a body of knowledge which functions as the beacon light of knowledge. In contradiction to this little tradition comprises the belief pattern, the institutions, knowledge including proverbs, riddles, anecdotes, folk tales, legends, myths and the whole body of folk-lore of the folk and /or the unlettered peasants who imbibe cultural knowledge from the great tradition. The unity of Indian civilization is reflected in the perpetuation of the unity of worldview of both the folk /peasant and the elites or the literati through cultural performance and their cultural products. Cultural performance are institutionalized around the structure of both great tradition and little traditions.

There are several centres of great tradition in India and there is a network of socio-cultural relationship. This relationship is based on cultural knowledge and ideology. There is a difference in cultural performances of great tradition and little traditions. The domain of great tradition represents the textual or the Shastriya nuances, whereas the universes of little traditions are folk/peasant and local versions of textual knowledge and cultural performance. Great tradition stands for persisting important arrangements of various roles and statuses appearing in such corporate bodies, like caste, sects, teachers, reciters, ritual leaders, priests, cultural performers, religions preachers etc. all of whom are engaged in inculcation and regular dissemination of cultural knowledge. The body of knowledge which they includes is from various religious texts, such as mythologies and epics.

The versions of the Ramayana and Mahabharat are two important religious texts which formed the basis of cultural performances. These two great epics have their local versions which have been written in simpler languages with local examples for the easy comprehension of folk/peasant people. As the main hinterland of cultural performance are countless villages and the spectators are the peasants, the epics and other mythologies have been written in local languages with simplers style.

The little tradition consists of its own role incumbents : folk artists, folk musicians, story-tellers, tellers of riddles, street singers, mendicant performers, interpreters of proverbs and puzzles, street dancers, astrologers, fortune-tellers and medicinemen. In a village, the primary school teacher is a key person as regards little tradition knowledge. He himself performs multiple cultural roles and with the help of village leaders organises various folk performances, mythological plays, dramas, recitation of sacred language, saying of prayers accompanied by folk music which serve two purposes : (1) singing of devotional songs and (2) providing entertainment. The former activity is a sacred duty and the latter act is secular one, meant for relieving stress and strain to which the peasants are sometimes subjected to.

The practice of great tradition and little traditions foster collaboration, cooperation and unequal interaction between the two. Custom is what people follow and do or practise collectively and transmit the same from one generation to another. Through the regularity of interaction between the two the Indian civilisation marches forward. Changes in the great tradition are initiated by the literate or reflected few keeping in view the necessities of time and space. As great traditions in India are bound up with certain cultural ties any innovation or change, which takes place at an important centre influences similar changes at other centres gradually and once the centre of great tradition assimilates change, it also influences some sort of changes in the little tradition of its hinterland. Thus, the process of change is top-down or from the apex to the ground in Indian civilisation.

This dichotomy of little and great tradition in a way stands for 'high-culture' and 'low-culture' or 'folk and classical culture' or 'popular and learnt traditions'. Milton Singer uses 'hierarchic and low -culture'. In a civilization, there is a great tradition of the reflective few, and there is a little tradition of largely unreflective many. The great tradition is cultivated in schools or temples. The little tradition works itself out and keeps itself going in the lives of the unlettered in their village communities. The tradition of the philosopher, theologia and literati man is a tradition consciously cultivated and handed down; that of the little people is for the most part taken for granted and not submitted to such scrutiny and considered refinement and improvement.

If we enter a village within a civilisation we see at once that the culture there has been flowing into it from teachers and exemplars who never saw that village, who did their work in intellectual circles for way from the village in space and time.

The two traditions are interdependent. Great tradition and little tradition have long affected each other and continued to do so. Great epics have arisen out of elements of traditional tale-telling by many people, and epics have returned again to the peasantry for modification and incorporation into local culture. Great and little tradition can be thought of as two currents of thought and action, distinguishable, yet ever flowing into and out of each other. A picture of their relationships would be something like those 'histo-maps' we sometimes see, those diagrams of the rise and change through the time of religions and civilisations. Teachings are invented and they are continually understood by peasants in ways not intended by the teachers. Therefore, great and little tradition can be thought of as two currents.

The two traditions are not distinguishable in very isolated tribes. Among the Andaman Islanders we find nothing at all about any esoteric aspect of religion or thought. An older person may be likely to know what there is to known as any other. There are differences between laymen and specialists in the understanding of the religion. In a primitive tribe this sort of dichotomy is similar to the difference between the great tradition and little tradition in respect of civilisation and peasant society, respectively. The folk or tribal society constitutes a proto-dimension of peasant society. As it has been discussed earlier, some tribal societies or sections thereof are under the influence of the process of Hinduisation.

Origin of Little and Great Traditions!

It was Redfield who talked about little community. For him little community was a village that had smaller size, self-sufficient and relatively isolated.

Redfield did not mention anything about traditions or great traditions. Singer and Marriott who were influenced by studies made by Redfield conducted their intensive study in Indian villages. They 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.

According to him:

Influenced by this model (of Robert Redfield), Milton Singer and Mckim Marriott had conducted some studies on social change in In­dia utilising this conceptual framework. 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.

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 follows the great tradition. The great tradition consists of the traditions contained in epics, Puranas, Brahmanas and other classical sanskritic works. The roles and statuses of Sita and Draupadi constitute the parts of great tradition. The little tradition, on the other hand, is local tradition of great tradition tai­lored according to the regional and village conditions.

The great tradition is found clearly in twice-born castes, specially, priests, and ritual leaders of one kind or other. Some of these corporate groups follow the traits of civilisation and the great tradition. The car­riers of little tradition include folk artists, medicine men, tellers of riddles, proverbs and stories, poets and dancers, etc.

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. The interac­tion between the two traditions brings about change in rural society.

Yogendra Singh explains this interaction as below:

Changes in the cultural system follow through the interaction be­tween the two traditions in the orthogenetic or heterogenetic process of individual growth. The pattern of change, however, is generally from orthogenetic to heterogenetic forms of differentiation or change in the cultural structure of traditions.

Both Singer and Marriott argue on the strength of data generated from the villages of their study that the cultural content of social structure at the level of little tradition in a village witnesses changes. First, there is change in village culture due to the internal growth of village.

In other words, the little tradition witnesses changes due to its own internal growth. 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.

Singer has made certain statements about cultural change in rural India. His observations are as under:

1. The Indian civilisation has evolved out of pre-existing folk and re­gional cultures. This aspect of civilisation constructed the great tradition—Ramayana, Mahabharata and other religious scriptures. This great tradition maintained its continuity in India’s diverse re­gions, villages, castes and tribes.

2. The cultural continuity of great tradition is based on the idea that people share common cultural consciousness throughout the country.

3. The common cultural consciousness is formed through the con­sensus held in common about sacred books and sacred objects.

4. In India cultural continuity with the past is so great that even the acceptance of modernising and progress ideologies does not result in linear form of social and cultural change but may result in the traditionalising of apparently modern innovations.

To conclude it could be safely said that there is one cultural ap­proach out of several to explain rural social change in India. In simple words, one could say that a villager borrows norms and values from the great traditions of country’s civilisation.

In this borrowing he makes changes according to his village’s local conditions and history. The villages vary from region to region and, therefore, the little tradi­tion also continues to remain diverse. On the other hand, the great tradition, i.e., the sacred books, also receives a uniform pattern. The concepts, therefore, explain the cultural change both at regional and national levels.

Parochialisation and Universalisation!

Parochialisation and universalisation are supplementary to the con­cepts of little and great traditions. These are processes of cultural change. When the great tradition, i.e., the tradition of epics and sacred books undergoes change at the local or village level, it is parochialisa­tion or localisation of great tradition or civilisation. Parochialisation, therefore, is the cultural change made at the village level.

Universalisation, on the other hand, is a cultural change from lit­tle tradition to great tradition. Both these processes are related to the interaction between little tradition and great tradition. Interpreting the process of universalisation, Yogendra Singh observes that when the little tradition moves upward to the great tradition, it is the proc­ess of universalisation. And, when the great tradition moves downward to the local or village level, it is parochialisation.

His inter­pretation runs as below:

Elements of the little tradition, indigenous customs, duties and rites circulate upward to the level of the great tradition and are identified with its legitimate forms. This process Marriott calls ‘universalisa­tion’. Likewise, some elements of the great tradition also circulate downward to become organic past of the little tradition, and lose much of their original form in the process. He (McKim Marriott) used the term ‘parochialisation’ to denote this kind of transaction be­tween the two traditions.

In the process of parochialisation, obviously, there is some loss of the elements of great tradition. Whatever is laid down as elements of great tradition is reduced at village level or interpreted differently by local leaders of priestly castes. In this process there is de-sanskritisation.

INDIAN RURAL SOCIETY

Important characteristics of Indian Rural Society

Reddy (1985) has stated the following as the characteristic of Indian Rural Society.

1. The village is the unit of the rural society. Its people carry on the business of living

together within a distinctive framework of caste and social custom. Caste is a

dominant social institution permeating social and economic relations. Traditional

caste occupation mostly prevails. Co-operative labour of different castes is required

not only for agro-economic activities but also for socio-religious life. The large

villages have within its population all the occupational castes, have a comparatively

more integrated and self sufficient economic as well as socio-religious life than

smaller villages.

2. The village as a social and cultural unit possesses a basically uniform organisation

and structure of values all over India. Many problems are common to the entire Indian

country side.

3. The ethnic, linguistic, religious and caste composition of a village largely determine

its character and structure. Some villages of hamlets are inhabited almost exclusively

by certain castes as in the case of Agraharams for Brahmins. Even in a village with

mixed population the different castes usually live in different sections of the same

village. Inter caste rivalries are present.

4. Women do not have full equality with men in several aspects of life.

5. Indian rural society is predominantly based on agriculture. Possession of land carries

with it social and prestige value, besides being considered as an economic asset. In

many villages, the land is mostly distributed between two or more castes, or among a

few families, or between one big land owner and the rest of the community. Landless

labourers and tenants constitute a considerable part of the population depending on

agriculture.

6. Every village has its own organisational set up, authority and sanctions. It has its

growing body, the panchayat, based on local tradition since long, but now constituted

on a regular basis according to provisions of Panchayat Raj.

7. Social distance or isolation has a bearing on the nature of the organisation of a village

and of its view on the world. Availability of or nearness to modern means of transport

or communications also modifies the setting and fabric of a village.

8. Village settlements are generally governed by certain regional and local traditions.

The layout of the village, construction of the house, the dress, the speech, and

manners follow the set pattern of the cultural area. Each village possesses an

individual of its own. Some have a reputation for generosity, hospitality and fair play,

while others are notorious for their meanness and corruption. Some villages are kown

for their co-operatives, while some are noted for their litigations and factions.

The important characteristics of the Indian villager was summarised by Reddy (1985)

as hospitality, feminist traditionalism, fatalism, religiousness often combined with

superstitious beliefs, leisure attitude to life, and low standard of living. Nevertheless most

villagers are capable to change and will respond to the teachers whom they trust even though

their past sad experiences make them conservation and hopelessness about the future. They

are eager to learn how to help themselves and they represent paternalism.

Source: open sources