Theoretical Foundations to Understand India: Great Tradition, Little Tradition, Universalisation, Parochialisation, Dominant Caste, Sacred Complex

The Theoretical Foundations of Indian Sociology: A Comprehensive Analysis of Cultural Traditions, Power Dynamics, and Sacred Structures

The study of Indian civilization underwent a seismic shift in the mid-twentieth century as scholars moved away from the purely textual interpretations of Indology—the "book view"—toward the empirical, ethnographic "field view".¹ This transition was largely catalyzed by the Comparative Civilizations project at the University of Chicago, which sought to understand how large, literate civilizations maintain continuity while accommodating local diversity. Central to this intellectual movement were the concepts of Great and Little Traditions, the reciprocal processes of Universalisation and Parochialisation, the structural analysis of the Dominant Caste, and the integrative framework of the Sacred Complex. These theoretical pillars do not merely categorize cultural data; they reveal the dynamic, two-way dialogue between the pan-Indian elite culture and the grassroots folk practices that constitute the Indian social fabric.

The Great Tradition: Scriptural Hegemony and Civilizational Standardization

The concept of the Great Tradition was first articulated by Robert Redfield as a means of describing the formal, literate, and reflective cultural stream of a civilization. In the Indian context, the Great Tradition represents the orthogenetic evolution of Sanskritic culture, characterized by codification, scholastic interpretation, and pan-regional circulation. It is the culture of the "reflective few"—the learned elites, priests, and scholars who maintain and develop the dominant systems of thought and value.

The Great Tradition is anchored in the "textual charter" of civilization, primarily the Sanskrit Vedic literature, the Puranas, and the great epics like the Ramayana and Mahabharata. These texts provide a standardized set of symbols, rituals, and moral codes that foster a shared cultural consciousness across the Indian subcontinent. The transmission of the Great Tradition occurs through formal institutions such as temples, monasteries, and traditional schools (gurukulas), where the specialized literati—typically Brahmins—act as the primary carriers. In his seminal work When a Great Tradition Modernizes (1972) Milton Singer ⁴, expanded this understanding by examining how the Great Tradition operates within urban centers like Madras (now Chennai). Singer argued that the Great Tradition is not a static relic of the past but an adaptive system that modernizes through "cultural performances"—plays, concerts, ritual readings, and festivals. These performances encapsulate the essence of Indian culture into discrete, observable units that can be exhibited to both participants and visitors, allowing the tradition to negotiate the pressures of industrialization and urbanization without losing its core identity.

The Great Tradition serves as a "primary civilization" that possesses its own internal mechanisms for change, often initiated by the literate elite in response to new historical realities.⁶ It provides the overarching framework within which local variations are interpreted and validated, ensuring that despite the vast diversity of Indian life, there remains a recognizable civilizational ethos.

Dimension	Great Tradition (Sanskritic/Elite)
Origin	Scriptural, Textual, and Philosophical
Social Carriers	Brahmins, Pundits, Literate Elites, Urban Literati
Transmission	Formal (Temples, Schools, Classical Arts, Media)
Scope	Pan-Indian, Universal, Standardized
Character	Reflective, Systematic, Codified
Key Examples	Vedas, Upanishads, Bharatanatyam, Vedic Yajnas

The Little Tradition: The Oral Reservoir and Local Ethos

Parallel to the Great Tradition is the Little Tradition, which Redfield described as the informal, oral, and unreflected culture of the "unlettered many". In India, the Little Tradition encompasses the myriad local customs, village lore, folk deities, and seasonal rites that define the daily lives of peasants and tribal communities. Unlike the formalized Great Tradition, the Little Tradition is spontaneous, immediate, and deeply integrated into the ecological and social needs of a specific locality.

The Little Tradition is transmitted orally through folklore ⁹, myths, proverbs, and legends. It thrives at the grassroots level, maintained by household ritualists, village bards, mediums, and craft specialists who do not require formal education to preserve their cultural heritage. While the Great Tradition seeks universality and standardization, the Little Tradition is characterized by its parochial nature—it is narrow in scope, highly localized, and tailored to the unique history and environment of a particular village or caste.

Robert Redfield’s interest in the Little Tradition stemmed from his earlier studies in Mexico, where he developed the concept of the "folk-urban continuum" (Find it here). He argued that peasant societies are relatively self-contained, possessing their own indigenous structure and values, yet they are never entirely isolated from the cities and the Great Traditions they harbor. The Little Tradition provides the vital "substance" of civilization, offering a reservoir of cultural innovation and local identity that the Great Tradition constantly draws upon.

In the Indian village, the Little Tradition is visible in the worship of local "grama devatas" (village deities), the performance of rites of passage that vary by caste and region, and the observation of agricultural festivals that follow local lunar calendars. These traditions are adaptive and pragmatic, often focusing on immediate concerns such as healing, fertility, and protection from local spirits. Singer and McKim Marriott ¹⁰ observed that Little Traditions can persist and change without relying on universalization.⁷

Dimension	Little Tradition (Folk/Peasant)
Origin	Oral tradition, local experience, folklore
Social Carriers	Peasants, villagers, tribal communities, folk artists
Transmission	Informal (Oral tales, family rituals, community lore)
Scope	Local, Parochial, Diverse
Character	Unreflective, Spontaneous, Pragmatic
Key Examples	Local deities (e.g., Naurtha), folk songs, village fairs

Universalisation: The Upward Cultural Trajectory

The interaction between the Great and Little Traditions is defined by two reciprocal processes identified by McKim Marriott ¹: Universalisation and Parochialisation. Universalisation refers to the upward movement or generalization of cultural traits from the Little Tradition into the broader, universal context of the Great Tradition.¹² Marriott formulated this concept during his intensive fieldwork in the North Indian village of Kishan Garhi ¹³ between 1950 and 1952.

Universalisation is "the process of carrying further the great tradition by encompassing elements of the little tradition".⁷ It occurs when a local deity, ritual, or custom gains wider recognition and is systematically incorporated into the pan-Indian Sanskritic framework. This process provides legitimacy to local practices by aligning them with the prestigious Great Tradition, while simultaneously enriching the Great Tradition with new cultural material from the grassroots.

A classic example of universalisation provided by Marriott is the transformation of the local goddess Saurti in Kishan Garhi. During the festival of Diwali, villagers propitiate Saurti as a goddess of prosperity and wealth. Marriott observed that Saurti’s attributes were remarkably similar to those of Lakshmi, the Great Tradition goddess of wealth.¹⁵ Over time, local goddesses like Saurti are identified with or "universalized" into Lakshmi, thereby becoming part of the national Hindu pantheon while maintaining their local roots.

Another significant instance is the Jagannath cult of Odisha.¹⁶ Lord Jagannath, now revered globally as a form of Vishnu (a Great Tradition deity), is widely believed to have originated as a tribal deity worshipped by local forest-dwelling communities.¹⁵ Through centuries of royal patronage and priestly systematization, this tribal god was assimilated into the Great Tradition as the "Lord of the Universe," illustrating how the "little" can become "great" through a sustained process of cultural communication and institutionalization.⁶

The mechanism of universalisation often involves the "reflective few"—the scholars and priests who seek to standardize local practices.¹² This process is functionally similar to M.N. Srinivas’s concept of Sanskritization, where lower castes adopt upper-caste norms to elevate their status.

Parochialisation: The Creative Localisation of Universal Forms

The inverse of universalisation is Parochialisation (or parochialism), a term derived from the Latin parochia (parish), signifying the narrowing of scope or localization. Parochialisation describes the downward spread of elements from the Great Tradition into the parochial context of the village. This process involves the transformation and adaptation of pan-Indian, scripture-based traditions to suit the local environment and the "intelligibility" of the little community.

In Marriott’s view, parochialisation is a "creative work" performed by little communities within an indigenous civilization. When a universal element—be it a deity, a myth, or a complex ritual—reaches the village level, it often undergoes a "deprivation of literary form" and a "reduction to less systematic and less reflective dimensions". The original textual meaning may be altered or simplified, and the practice is infused with local symbols and meanings.

Marriott documented the festival of Navaratri in Kishan Garhi ¹⁷ as a prime example of parochialisation. While the Great Tradition celebrates Navaratri (Nine Nights) as a period of devotion to the Goddess Durga with elaborate Sanskritic rituals, the villagers of Kishan Garhi worship a local clay deity named "Naurtha". The name "Naurtha" itself is a parochialized corruption of the Sanskritic "Navaratra". The grand, philosophical conception of Durga is localized into a mud idol, and the complex theology is replaced by simpler, community-led rituals that reflect the villagers' own spiritual and social realities.

Parochialisation ensures that the Great Tradition remains relevant and accessible to the masses. The stories of the Ramayana and Mahabharata, which are pillars of the Great Tradition, are retold in countless regional dialects, with local heroes and geography often being inserted into the narrative. This localization does not necessarily represent a "corruption" of the tradition but rather its vitality—the ability of a civilization to "speak" to its members in their own idiom.

Process	Direction of Flow	Primary Outcome	Representative Example
Universalisation	Upward (Little to Great)	Generalization and Standardization	Saurti becoming Lakshmi
Parochialisation	Downward (Great to Little)	Localization and Simplification	Navaratri becoming Naurtha

The Dominant Caste: Structural Power in Rural India

While the Great and Little Traditions provide a cultural map of Indian civilization, the concept of the Dominant Caste offers a structural analysis of its social and political organization. Introduced by ⁸ M.N. Srinivas in his 1959 paper "The Dominant Caste in Rampura," the concept challenged the purely ritualistic view of caste hierarchy by emphasizing the role of secular power. Srinivas argued that in the micro-context of the Indian village, dominance is not just about being a Brahmin; it is about the concentration of resources and influence.

According to Srinivas, a caste is dominant when it "preponderates numerically over other castes and when it also wields preponderant economic and political power". While a high ritual status supports dominance, it is the combination of secular attributes that allows a caste to exercise authority over the entire village community.

The Criteria of Dominance

Srinivas identified several core attributes that contribute to the dominance of a specific jati within a local context. When a caste possesses all these attributes, it enjoys "decisive dominance".²⁰

1. Numerical Strength: In a democratic society with adult suffrage, numerical preponderance is a critical asset. A large caste group acts as a "vote bank," giving its leaders significant leverage in local elections.

2. Economic Power (Land Ownership): Land is the primary source of wealth and status in rural India. Dominant castes typically own a sizeable amount of the arable land in the village. This allows them to control the rural economy and employ landless laborers.

3. Political Power: The dominant caste typically holds the majority of positions in the Village Panchayat.

4. Ritual Status: Dominance is more easily achieved if the caste's position in the ritual hierarchy is not "too low".²³ However, ritually lower castes like the Vokkaligas in Rampura were dominant despite being ranked below Brahmins.

5. Modern Attributes: Western education, government jobs, and urban connections have become increasingly important.

Attribute	Secular/Traditional	Impact on Power Structure
Numerical Strength	Secular (Democracy)	Provides mass mobilization and voting blocks
Land Ownership	Secular (Economic)	Creates patron-client relationships (Jajmani)
Political Clout	Secular (Governance)	Ensures access to state resources and law
Ritual Purity	Traditional (Religious)	Provides social legitimacy and precedence
Education/Jobs	Secular (Modernity)	Bridges the village-state gap

Critiques and Functions

Leaders of the dominant caste often arbitrate disputes and determine economic privileges.²⁰ The dominant caste also serves as a "reference model" for lower castes through Sanskritization.²⁰

• S.C. Dube: Argued power is concentrated in "dominant men" (individuals) rather than whole castes.

• Andre Beteille:  Observed that land reforms shifted the focus from land ownership to political "numerical support".²⁶

• Louis Dumont: In Homo Hierarchicus, argued dominance is a "purely secular phenomenon" distinct from ritual hierarchy.²⁰

Critic	Core Argument
S.C. Dube	Dominance is held by "Dominant Men" (individuals), not whole castes.
Andre Beteille	Caste is being replaced by Class; power is now tied to political parties.
Louis Dumont	Hierarchy is purely ritual; Dominance is purely secular and separate.

The Sacred Complex: The Spatial and Ritual Nexus of Civilization

To understand the broader integration of Indian civilization, L.P. Vidyarthi ²⁹ proposed the concept of the Sacred Complex in 1961.³⁰ Vidyarthi conducted an intensive study of the pilgrimage city of Gaya in Bihar to identify how religious centers function as mechanisms of national integration.³²

Vidyarthi defined the Sacred Complex as a "happy synthesis of sacred geography, sacred performances, and sacred specialists".

The Components of the Sacred Complex

1. Sacred Geography: Refers to the physical holy landscape of rivers, hills, and temples.¹⁷ In Gaya, this includes the Phalgu River and clusters like the Vishnupad temple.

2. Sacred Performances: Rituals and festivals that bring the geography to life.³⁶ The most significant performance in Gaya is the pinda daan—an offering to ancestors.³⁸

3. Sacred Specialists: Religious practitioners like the Gayawals (hereditary pandas) who serve as custodians of sacred knowledge. Vidyarthi noted that this community has faced a decline due to modernization.³⁸

Civilizational Integration through Pilgrimage

The Sacred Complex serves as a vital integrative mechanism, bypassing geographical barriers to create a "common cultural consciousness". Anthropologist Makhan Jha expanded this framework to study Janakpur in Nepal, revealing that the boundary of a nation is not the boundary of a civilization.

Component	Function	Gaya Illustration
Sacred Geography	The "Kshetra" or physical holy space	Phalgu River, Vishnupad temple
Sacred Performance	Rituals that generate spiritual merit	Shradhha, Pinda Daan ceremonies
Sacred Specialist	Mediators of knowledge and ritual	The Gayawal community (Pandas)

---

References

• Béteille, A. (1965). Caste, class, and power: Changing patterns of stratification in a Tanjore village. University of California Press.

• Béteille, A. (1986). The idea of natural inequality and other essays. Oxford University Press.

• Dube, S. C. (1955). Indian village. Routledge & Kegan Paul.

• Dumont, L. (1970). Homo hierarchicus: The caste system and its implications. University of Chicago Press.

• Jha, M. (1977). The sacred complex of Janakpur. United Publishers.

• Jha, M. (1991). Complex societies and other anthropological essays. Navrang.

• Marriott, M. (Ed.). (1955). Village India: Studies in the Little Community. University of Chicago Press. ¹³

• Redfield, R. (1956). Peasant society and culture: An anthropological approach to civilization. University of Chicago Press.

• Singer, M. B. (1972). When a great tradition modernizes: An anthropological approach to Indian civilization. Vikas Publishing House / Praeger.

• Srinivas, M. N. (1959). The dominant caste in Rampura. American Anthropologist, 61(1), 1-16.

• Srinivas, M. N. (1987). The dominant caste and other essays. Oxford University Press. ⁴⁰

• Vidyarthi, L. P. (1961). The sacred complex in Hindu Gaya. Asia Publishing House.

• Vidyarthi, L. P. (1970). Cultural personality of the Gayawal. Journal of Social Research. ⁴³