Breaking down the question
This short-note prompt should be read as a request to write an analytical note on the interaction of the little tradition and the great tradition. The emphasis falls on interaction — the two-way traffic between the two levels of a civilisation — not on merely defining the terms.
The great tradition is the reflective, textual, pan-Indian stream cultivated by priests and scholars; the little tradition is the local, oral, folk stream of the village. The framework comes from Robert Redfield's study of civilisations and was applied to India by McKim Marriott and Milton Singer. A strong answer defines the pair, then concentrates on the mechanisms — universalisation and parochialisation — by which they continuously shape one another.
How to approach it
Begin by introducing the distinction as a tool for the anthropological study of complex civilisations, crediting Redfield. Then explain the interaction through Marriott's twin concepts, illustrated from village religion, and add Milton Singer's account of cultural performances as the vehicle of contact. Close by assessing the value and the limits of the framework for understanding Indian society. As no dedicated note is listed, keep all references in plain text.
Model answer
The concepts of little tradition and great tradition were developed by Robert Redfield to analyse civilisations as wholes made of interacting parts. The great tradition is the reflective, literate stream — sustained in temples, texts and by a learned priesthood — carrying pan-civilisational norms. The little tradition is the unreflective, largely oral culture of the local community, transmitted through custom and folk practice. Neither is self-contained; a civilisation lives in the interaction between them.
McKim Marriott, studying the village of Kishan Garhi, gave this interaction its two governing concepts. In universalisation, elements of the little tradition are carried upward and generalised into the great tradition — a local deity or festival is identified with a pan-Indian god and absorbed into the wider textual pantheon. In parochialisation, elements of the great tradition move downward and are localised — a Sanskritic rite or scriptural figure is reshaped to fit village understanding, acquiring local names, forms and meanings. The two processes run continuously and in both directions, so that village religion is neither purely local nor purely textual but a constant blending of the two.
Milton Singer enriched the framework through his study of Madras. He argued that the interaction is carried by cultural performances — recitations, festivals, bhajans, dramas and rituals — which act as the concrete media through which great and little traditions meet and are transmitted. Singer also showed, through his work on industrial leaders, how traditional cultural forms could be carried into and coexist with modern settings, extending the framework beyond the village.
The value of the approach is that it treats Indian civilisation as an organic, layered whole in dynamic exchange, correcting both the purely textual Indology of the great tradition and the isolated village study of the little. It captures the syncretism of Indian religion and the way high and folk culture continually feed one another.
Its limitations are also noted. Critics argue the binary is too neat for a civilisation with many regional and sectarian streams, that it underplays caste, power and economic inequality in shaping which elements rise or fall, and that the line between the two traditions is often blurred. Even so, universalisation and parochialisation remain among the most fertile tools for grasping the cultural dynamics of Indian society.
Examiner's perspective
Examiners reward candidates who move quickly past definitions to the interaction itself, explained through Marriott's universalisation and parochialisation with a concrete illustration from village religion. Crediting Redfield for the framework, Marriott for its Indian application and Milton Singer for cultural performances signals command of the lineage. The strongest scripts show the traffic running in both directions rather than treating diffusion as one-way, and close with a measured critique — the neglect of caste and power, the over-neat binary — that demonstrates evaluative rather than merely descriptive understanding.